Well that’s because you don’t have the training or expertise to comment. There’s nothing like a united front that you’re describing. Wookie has made a serious case about a flaw in that study. Linking other people talking positively about that study does not address that criticism whatsoever.
If you want to be acting in good faith, you can address the actual things wookie brought up, or stfu about it if it’s beyond you.
The pointlessness is repeating the journal name and the authors’ affiliations as if those weren’t the first things I looked at when I opened the article.
Again, spotting errors in published articles is the regular responsibility of first year grad students. They occur all the damn time, especially in the likes of Science, Nature, and Cell in their coverage of hot topics. Your default assumption should be that they are flawed, or at least are overstating their claims of what the data and their controls actually show.
Or i’ll just reply with the credentials of the people who describe this study as “comprehensive and important study. You should read the study in full”.
Again Wookie, this is a science published paper by leading experts already well discussed all over the world. If you want to show how it’s so flawed it deserves multiple laughing jpegs, you should at least find some other experts on your side.
With all do respect to your first year grad training, of course.
100%. I review about 10-20 papers per month, or at least I used to before baby came. Papers are flawed because it is extremely hard to do science, and it’s especially hard to do clinical medicine as a science. Recognizing errors and/or bias is a massive part of my job.
I’m an MD and professor who teaches doctors and medical students, troll.
I replied to wookie about first year grad students. You are starting to look a bit unhinged there sir (or its just lack of sleep. As someone with an 8 mo old baby i can relate)
This study suggests that your immune system’s response to the B.1.1.529 variant is to get worse at fighting the B.1.1.529. It’s extremely unexpected and potentially catastrophic if true, however it’s based on a small sample size, worded strangely, and possibly could be the result of p-hacking errors (which are quite common).
OTOH, the article did pass the peer review process of a high prestige journal, so there is an argument from authority to be made that it really is correct. FWIW I usually never even glance at the author affiliations when I’m looking at journal articles.
Fwiw my “bickering” is the dismissal by wookie as a study with such an absurd methodology flaw that it shouldn’t even be considered.
It takes too much trust to imagine this isn’t related to the person who linked the paper. I’m just not a trusting person.
https://twitter.com/gadboit/status/1537008982975447041
https://twitter.com/profamirattaran/status/1537112628723580929
A couple. It’s not that easy to find measured criticisms, because the paper’s being weaponized by anti-vaxxers (vaccines weaken your immunity!) and anti-anti-vaxxers (no herd immunity! Omicron won’t protect you from further infection but the vaccines can!) in ways that aren’t supported in the paper, and there are a lot of people misreading it in the same way Trolly did.
I have a Ph. D., and you were definitely trolling.
We all know you have a phd. It has nothing to do with the slight jab i wrote about your first year grad student training comment. You guys cant shit on everyone and have that thin skin, ffs.
lol, projection ain’t just a river in Egypt.
Which is why i dont say every snarky remark is a troll we must stop and debate. Jesus christ.
Maybe this is a language thing here, but Wookie put together a rather lengthy post on why he thought the finding was wrong. That’s hardly a dismissal without consideration. Certainly he could be wrong, but he’s mounted a defensible claim. At least I’d like to see a counter argument beyond a lame argument from authority.
If you want to see a much better study, here’s one:
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2203965?query=featured_home
They enroll thousands of people in carefully matched cohorts and compare clinical outcomes, not just in vitro immune responses.
They find:
No discernable differences in protection against symptomatic BA.1 and BA.2 infection were seen with previous infection, vaccination, and hybrid immunity. Vaccination enhanced protection among persons who had had a previous infection. Hybrid immunity resulting from previous infection and recent booster vaccination conferred the strongest protection. (Funded by Weill Cornell Medicine–Qatar and others.)
I don’t think they make any distinction about what wave the previous infection was in the people they regard as having had a prior infection, which makes you wonder if they’re missing some strain, temporal, or ordering (getting infected before or after vaccination, e.g.) effects.
I was hoping all the traffic was info about the vaccine for little kids. I was wrong… Anyways once fully approved I’m trying to figure the differences and which would be better, Moderna or Pfizer? If you get Moderna are they just going to get a booster a couple months later? That’s what it seems like Pfizer is basically doing.
I’m leaning Moderna, and if you fear the virus more than vaccine side effects, that’s how I’d tell you to lean, too. Moderna’s effectiveness data were not super strong, but at least they had something resembling a decent sample size. Pfizer’s was lol, but they were more concerned with proving the safety of the vaccine for young kids than showing the effectiveness of the vaccine.
That sure seems like a personal attack. How do I collect my $1M?
Just got home from picking up daughter and seems like my request went unheeded. Need to review the last hour of posting, but bans probably incoming and will probable move the bickering to its own derail thread.
We looked at some in the early days of omicron, but I’m not finding it right now.