3 ms·

There's some good discussion about this at https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/x5kynn/preexposure_to_mrnalnp_inhibits_adaptive_immune/ https://www.reddit.

There's some good discussion about this at https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/x5kynn/preexposure_to_mrnalnp_inhibits_adaptive_immune/ https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/x5kynn/preexposure...

fluidcruft 4y ago
... good discussion on ... Reddit ...
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- Entinel 4y ago
  There is a very common elitist sentiment here that HN good; reddit bad. Certain subreddits like /r/Science have VERY strict moderation that lead to a high quality discussion and community. /r/Science is a much better place to have this discussion than somewhere else where "I saw the vaccine is bad on Substack" comments get voted to the top.
  - nonethewiser 4y ago
    I don't think it's an elitest HN sentiment. Redditors commonly lambast the quality of discussion on Reddit.
    - Entinel 4y ago
      A good number of every communities members thinks their community sucks.
  - fluidcruft 4y ago
    I'm actually a long time redditor and used to agree with you. However it has actually become entirely impossible to have conversations on reddit at this point even in the non-standard niche subreddits and the random banning by admin has become insane. Reddit : Digg :: <waiting> : Reddit Reddit used to be a place where you could discuss things candidly. It feels like a form of high tea nowadays. It's boring and bland and full of increasingly bizarre litmus tests leading to bans. I don't really care whether HN is better or not. What I'm saying is that Reddit is not even anywhere in my list of places to have discussions. I wouldn't even bother add "reddit" to a google search anymore.
smokeanon 4y ago
Half the comments are removed lol
- pxeger1 4y ago
  /r/science is notorious for their stringent moderation. I went on unddit.com to see what was removed and it was mostly comments with only anecdotal evidence, which is not allowed on /r/science.
- NoGravitas 4y ago
  That's how you get a good discussion on Reddit.
- driverdan 4y ago
  /r/science tightly controls comments to eliminate anything that doesn't add to the discussion.
  - Sohcahtoa82 4y ago
    Yeah. Their rules are even tighter than HN's rules. Which, on a sub like that, it makes sense. They really don't want anecdotal evidence in a sub for discussing rigorous research and testing.
grmnygrmny2 4y ago
Yeah, I appreciated this post: > Oh joy, another paper for the antivaxxers to misinterpret. Some red flags though. > The tone of this paper, particularly the last sentence ("potentially harmful effects") seems suspect...almost as if they were intentionally riling up the anti-vax crowd. > They appear to have misinterpreted the outcome of this study, claiming "higher risk of infection than unvaccinated individuals 9 months post-vaccination". The study makes no such claim that I can find. The tables in the supplement show the only subcohorts with a slightly higher incidence rate for vaccinated individuals at 9 months is age >80 (1.3 per 100,000 person days in vaxxed vs. 1.1 unvaxxed, supplemental table 5) and those requiring in-home care (1.6 vs. 1.5). Also notable is that the only vaccine that shows less effectiveness against infection is the non-MRNA vaccine (supplemental table 6) and that vaccinated individuals in all subcohorts were still substantially protected against hospitalization or death compared to unvaxxed. > The primary source for the claim that mRNA-LNP is inflammatory is a paper authored by three of the four authors of this paper. > Also notable is that at least one of the primary authors - the one credited with writing and editing - is a GBD-adjacent, anti-MRNA, HCQ truther (Don’t Look Up” Your Science—Herd Immunity or Herd Mentality? - "The virus fatality rate did not support lockdowns, blanket restrictive measures, and non-selective mass vaccinations. There was no solid scientific rationale to adopt the untested mRNA-LNP platform over other well-established vaccine formulations to fight COVID."). > None of this means the science in the paper is wrong, but I'd be hesitant to take anything at face value.

fluidcruft 4y ago

... good discussion on ... Reddit ...

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
Entinel 4y ago
There is a very common elitist sentiment here that HN good; reddit bad. Certain subreddits like /r/Science have VERY strict moderation that lead to a high quality discussion and community. /r/Science is a much better place to have this discussion than somewhere else where "I saw the vaccine is bad on Substack" comments get voted to the top.
- nonethewiser 4y ago
  I don't think it's an elitest HN sentiment. Redditors commonly lambast the quality of discussion on Reddit.
  - Entinel 4y ago
    A good number of every communities members thinks their community sucks.
- fluidcruft 4y ago
  I'm actually a long time redditor and used to agree with you. However it has actually become entirely impossible to have conversations on reddit at this point even in the non-standard niche subreddits and the random banning by admin has become insane. Reddit : Digg :: <waiting> : Reddit Reddit used to be a place where you could discuss things candidly. It feels like a form of high tea nowadays. It's boring and bland and full of increasingly bizarre litmus tests leading to bans. I don't really care whether HN is better or not. What I'm saying is that Reddit is not even anywhere in my list of places to have discussions. I wouldn't even bother add "reddit" to a google search anymore.

smokeanon 4y ago

Half the comments are removed lol

pxeger1 4y ago
/r/science is notorious for their stringent moderation. I went on unddit.com to see what was removed and it was mostly comments with only anecdotal evidence, which is not allowed on /r/science.
NoGravitas 4y ago
That's how you get a good discussion on Reddit.
driverdan 4y ago
/r/science tightly controls comments to eliminate anything that doesn't add to the discussion.
- Sohcahtoa82 4y ago
  Yeah. Their rules are even tighter than HN's rules. Which, on a sub like that, it makes sense. They really don't want anecdotal evidence in a sub for discussing rigorous research and testing.

grmnygrmny2 4y ago

Yeah, I appreciated this post: > Oh joy, another paper for the antivaxxers to misinterpret. Some red flags though. > The tone of this paper, particularly the last sentence ("potentially harmful effects") seems suspect...almost as if they were intentionally riling up the anti-vax crowd. > They appear to have misinterpreted the outcome of this study, claiming "higher risk of infection than unvaccinated individuals 9 months post-vaccination". The study makes no such claim that I can find. The tables in the supplement show the only subcohorts with a slightly higher incidence rate for vaccinated individuals at 9 months is age >80 (1.3 per 100,000 person days in vaxxed vs. 1.1 unvaxxed, supplemental table 5) and those requiring in-home care (1.6 vs. 1.5). Also notable is that the only vaccine that shows less effectiveness against infection is the non-MRNA vaccine (supplemental table 6) and that vaccinated individuals in all subcohorts were still substantially protected against hospitalization or death compared to unvaxxed. > The primary source for the claim that mRNA-LNP is inflammatory is a paper authored by three of the four authors of this paper. > Also notable is that at least one of the primary authors - the one credited with writing and editing - is a GBD-adjacent, anti-MRNA, HCQ truther (Don’t Look Up” Your Science—Herd Immunity or Herd Mentality? - "The virus fatality rate did not support lockdowns, blanket restrictive measures, and non-selective mass vaccinations. There was no solid scientific rationale to adopt the untested mRNA-LNP platform over other well-established vaccine formulations to fight COVID."). > None of this means the science in the paper is wrong, but I'd be hesitant to take anything at face value.