3 ms·

Looks like a straight forward article. Instead of a conclusion you are left with a discussion, which sadly is quite weak, but this seems to be the point. (As I

Looks like a straight forward article. Instead of a conclusion you are left with a discussion, which sadly is quite weak, but this seems to be the point. (As I understand it after skimming through it) Basically you have a data set and some statistical evaluation. The gabs are filled with some medical and statistical "Mumbo Jambo" I didn't read. Seems professional, the graphs are pretty clear cut, which is nice. The discussion basically states that the data is flawed for the purpose of making clear connections and urges the necessity to provide better data in the future. They aren't even able to make their derived call data public, due to privacy laws in this case. They are absolute right and have a valid point here. No reason not to publish this and it conveys some important messages. We should gather better data and find a way to share it, without touching on the privacy of individuals. A very difficult topic I personally wouldn't touch with a stick.

logifail 4y ago
> A very difficult topic I personally wouldn't touch with a stick Agree completely. This topic has got so ideological that if (when) it comes up in conversation I tend to demur and politely change the subject. Perhaps at some point there will be a genuine attempt to gather more data on just who genuinely benefits from vaccination (obese/elderly/other comorbidities?), and who doesn't (young/healthy). One thing we can be sure of is that no such study will ever be funded by Big Pharma.
SturgeonsLaw 4y ago
Of all the parts of the paper to gloss over, the medical and statistical "Mumbo Jambo" is the most important one to evaluate!
- scantis 4y ago
  Would you like to discuss why they use Spearman instead of Kendall and if this negative binomial distrubition asumption is valid in this case? It won't have any effect on the final result, which basically states that the data set is insufficient.

logifail 4y ago

> A very difficult topic I personally wouldn't touch with a stick Agree completely. This topic has got so ideological that if (when) it comes up in conversation I tend to demur and politely change the subject. Perhaps at some point there will be a genuine attempt to gather more data on just who genuinely benefits from vaccination (obese/elderly/other comorbidities?), and who doesn't (young/healthy). One thing we can be sure of is that no such study will ever be funded by Big Pharma.

SturgeonsLaw 4y ago

Of all the parts of the paper to gloss over, the medical and statistical "Mumbo Jambo" is the most important one to evaluate!

scantis 4y ago
Would you like to discuss why they use Spearman instead of Kendall and if this negative binomial distrubition asumption is valid in this case? It won't have any effect on the final result, which basically states that the data set is insufficient.