Just FYI the math in the el gato post you linked is incorrect, and the conclusion is wrong. In the data presented, no "worry window" effect is evident - the rates for the "early pre-booster" are actually *less* than those for double-vax. (Maybe the effect exists in the 7 days of data they *didn't* include). He then makes a serious error …
Just FYI the math in the el gato post you linked is incorrect, and the conclusion is wrong. In the data presented, no "worry window" effect is evident - the rates for the "early pre-booster" are actually *less* than those for double-vax. (Maybe the effect exists in the 7 days of data they *didn't* include). He then makes a serious error in combining the rates (adding ratios with different denominators).
This is not to say that the "worry window" effect is false - in fact, it is quite evident in the UK weekly data. But the impact of the "worry window" is not very significant for an individual taking the vaccine: the added risk in those two weeks is not large when amortized over the subsequent period of effectiveness.
The more important effect has to do with the *epidemic* impact of many people accepting the vaccine and experiencing the "worry window" together. This effectively increases R0 in the short term, and leads to the dramatic rises in case rates coinciding with vaccine rollouts that have been observed around the world.
And of course, this says nothing about long term consequences, possible damage to the immune system, side effect, etc, which are all somewhere between possible and confirmed.
Anyway, gato is usually pretty on target, and I follow him, but I would caution that this specific post is in error.
For reliable science and constructive criticism I typically follow the likes of Paul Alexander, Unglossed with Brian Mowery, Eqyppius and Things Hidden in Complexity aka World Ledge with John Paul. I appreciate what Malone has to say. Berenson and Bad Cat often use bad math.
I think Berenson has made more math errors overall, whereas previously I had only seen Bad Cat make some dubious conclusions on eyeballing charts. This error was so egregious I was a bit taken aback, and I hate to see this bogus result repeated far and wide.
I follow most of those you mentioned but will check out John Paul, thanks for the tip!
Unglossed is truly a diamond in the rough, consistently failing to fall into cognitive traps :)
Agreed. Thanks for the reply. Rintrah is an entertaining and insightful read as well. Mark L a commenter on Ecosophia blog was ahead of the curve on deciphering the "science" and making sense of OAS, ADE and Mareks Disease. Unglossed, technical and pricless for debunking and refining the arguments. Harvard 2 the Bighouse.. crass and eye opening on gof, variants and medical hit jobs. Peace from the NE US. Enjoy your day!
Just FYI the math in the el gato post you linked is incorrect, and the conclusion is wrong. In the data presented, no "worry window" effect is evident - the rates for the "early pre-booster" are actually *less* than those for double-vax. (Maybe the effect exists in the 7 days of data they *didn't* include). He then makes a serious error in combining the rates (adding ratios with different denominators).
This is not to say that the "worry window" effect is false - in fact, it is quite evident in the UK weekly data. But the impact of the "worry window" is not very significant for an individual taking the vaccine: the added risk in those two weeks is not large when amortized over the subsequent period of effectiveness.
The more important effect has to do with the *epidemic* impact of many people accepting the vaccine and experiencing the "worry window" together. This effectively increases R0 in the short term, and leads to the dramatic rises in case rates coinciding with vaccine rollouts that have been observed around the world.
And of course, this says nothing about long term consequences, possible damage to the immune system, side effect, etc, which are all somewhere between possible and confirmed.
Anyway, gato is usually pretty on target, and I follow him, but I would caution that this specific post is in error.
For reliable science and constructive criticism I typically follow the likes of Paul Alexander, Unglossed with Brian Mowery, Eqyppius and Things Hidden in Complexity aka World Ledge with John Paul. I appreciate what Malone has to say. Berenson and Bad Cat often use bad math.
I think Berenson has made more math errors overall, whereas previously I had only seen Bad Cat make some dubious conclusions on eyeballing charts. This error was so egregious I was a bit taken aback, and I hate to see this bogus result repeated far and wide.
I follow most of those you mentioned but will check out John Paul, thanks for the tip!
Unglossed is truly a diamond in the rough, consistently failing to fall into cognitive traps :)
Agreed. Thanks for the reply. Rintrah is an entertaining and insightful read as well. Mark L a commenter on Ecosophia blog was ahead of the curve on deciphering the "science" and making sense of OAS, ADE and Mareks Disease. Unglossed, technical and pricless for debunking and refining the arguments. Harvard 2 the Bighouse.. crass and eye opening on gof, variants and medical hit jobs. Peace from the NE US. Enjoy your day!
Some recommendations for you if you haven't seen them:
https://doyourownresearch.substack.com
https://metatron.substack.com
https://igorchudov.substack.com