4 ms·

I have confirmation bias here because this is a result I would have expected BUT.. Preprint, non-peer reviewed.

• vmception 5y ago
  well pack it up boys, lets not make this go viral on social media and just hope the "peers" organically pick this study to review over the next 6 months instead of some other study that appears to be more in the public interest and has more popular people behind it a while back I looked to see how long it actually took for the peer reviewed studies to come out for previous diseases and outbreaks, such as SARS 1. It was too long and we have to weigh inputs right now and react now.
  • trimbo 5y ago
    This study backs up the claim that people who had it don't need to get vaccinated. If it gets widely reported, that probably means fewer people will get vaccinated. So let me ask you this, what's the worst case scenario if they're right but had waited 6 months to get it reviewed? Then consider, what's the worst case scenario if they're wrong?
    • vmception 5y ago
      Good way to weigh things I say this about every study My main point is that it likely wont get peer reviewed, ever, unless it goes viral and people ask questions
    • Izkata 5y ago
      > If it gets widely reported, that probably means fewer people will get vaccinated. So.. no change? At least in the US, we're already at the point where we have more vaccines than people who want them.
• neilwilson 5y ago
  That confirmation bias extends to the capability of peer review to throw out issues. We need replication. If anything has shown up the weakness in science over the last few years it is this veneration of peer review. It ain't working that well any more.