But guys, a Faceboook survey said people who said they were super smart don’t want the vaccine! No issues relying on this survey. Oh but make sure to look into the methodology on that mask study, they clearly should have just asked a Facebook survey instead.
3 Likes
Yeah, if they were asking people to self-report their education then it’s easy to imagine some anti-vaxxers claiming to be PhDs.
1 Like
Almost like you can’t trust people on the internet to be honest about their age, gender, education or anything else about their background.
Glad that Marcie could remind us all of that (again).
1 Like
Yep, I found this after I posted. I mean, survey data in general is questionable, but calling “survey in partnership with Facebook” questionable is an insult to questions. I should have vetted this better. I apologize to the board.
4 Likes
Has the national review issued a retraction? I know they are right wing, but i thought they were at least moderately reputable. Now I’m dubious.
1 Like
CNN should cover that 24/7 this week.
1 Like
Have they wrapped up their coverage of all the gunshot victims lined up outside Oklahoma emergency rooms in winter coats being denied care in favor of horse paste overdoses?
1 Like
Why would they issue a retraction? That article was simply a report of the findings of a paper by researchers from Carnegie Mellon University and the University of Pittsburgh.
I believe this was an opinion column, not a news article.
Columns tend to get a lot more latitude. My guess is there is no retraction. The study has flaws, but the article mostly just points you to it. So my feeling is that a retraction is probably not needed.
I do think national reviews news articles tend to be fine. They use slightly more partisan language (like slate on the left, which i also read) but acknowledge there is a central truth about things, and try their best to put that truth first. They are not like almost every fox news article i read, for example, that just quotes opposing sides.
1 Like
@ao_fan J&J now reporting that a second dose of their vaccine boosts efficacy to 94%.
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/09/21/world/covid-delta-variant-vaccine#johnson-and-johnson-shot
so, at pfizer and moderna levels?
Roughly yes, I think. I haven’t had time to read the article in detail.
just read the article. it’s not that long. they also say that J&J doesn’t really lose effectiveness over time like the other two, so it kinda implies that 2 doses of J&J is better than the other two.
yay J&J posse!
There’s a hypothesis out there that the Pfizer shots weren’t spaced out enough at 3 weeks apart to be a true ‘booster’ but the 4 weeks apart for Moderna worked as a ‘booster’ for more people, triggering longer-term immunity. 
The 2 J&J trials mentioned in the article spaced out their shots 8 weeks or 6 months apart.
3 Likes
Both Canada and the UK have a lot of people who got Pfizer with a longer wait between the two doses, so in a few months we may have some good data on that, from observational studies.
I cynically think that was Pfizer’s intention. They’ve been smacking their lips about boosters on investor calls for months. Three weeks is an unusually short time for a booster shot. Also, the Moderna vaccine is very very similar to Pfizer’s, except they used 100μg of the active ingredient instead of Pfizer’s 30μg. I was just reviewing some Moderna data yesterday (from the MIT course i audited last year) and they looked at doses of 25μg, 100μg, and 250μg in humans. The data from the lowest dose looked similar to the 100μg out of the gate, but the effect faded a bit by the later checks. (The highest dose looked exactly like the 100μg dose in performance.)
3 Likes
Good thing I got my 2nd Pfizer 4 weeks after the 1st.
2 Likes
Ok, no wonder my reaction to a second Moderna shot was so much stronger than the first Pfizer shot.