Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Twitter)   Hours after studies warn that Omicron evades their vaccine, Pfizer drops their own study showing 3 doses of its Covid vaccine provide as much protection vs extra crispy Omicron as 2 shots provided vs original recipe Covid. And now you want fried chicken for lunch   (twitter.com) divider line
    More: Followup, shot  
•       •       •

1895 clicks; posted to Main » and STEM » on 08 Dec 2021 at 8:46 AM (5 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



123 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2021-12-08 7:33:06 AM  
Original Tweet:

 
2021-12-08 8:48:12 AM  
Jesus - can we get a redo on this headline?
 
2021-12-08 8:48:32 AM  
No, subby.  That was an overly complicated headline.
 
2021-12-08 8:48:52 AM  

Iworkformsn: Jesus - can we get a redo on this headline?


Yeah...woof.
 
2021-12-08 8:49:53 AM  

Iworkformsn: Jesus - can we get a redo on this headline?


Why? Don't you like the plug for KFC?
 
2021-12-08 8:52:30 AM  
Fully Vaxxed here - 2 doses, probably had Delta back in September, and then did a booster in October.

I am not super concerned about this variant and I hope that the rumblings are right about it being a less severe strain. If Covid ends up being a yearly cold mild virus then I think we will finally be past all of this.
 
2021-12-08 8:53:06 AM  
Need to see what the independent verification is on this, but I give this a lot more credence than the un-reviewed study of 12 people linked a few threads down. If only because Pfizer has more data available and this claim is easily falsifiable which would be a ridiculous incorrect or false statement to make.

Anyway, tentatively good news
 
2021-12-08 8:53:07 AM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-12-08 8:54:09 AM  
Nah, I'm feeling like Thai food for lunch.
 
2021-12-08 8:54:10 AM  
Viruses don't "evade" anything. And certainly not vaccines which are no longer in your system.
 
2021-12-08 8:55:06 AM  
"studies warn".   Yeah, they asked twelve FB users if they knew of anyone who was harmed by the vaccine and six of them said they knew a guy who knew a guy ...
 
2021-12-08 8:55:56 AM  

BafflerMeal: Viruses don't "evade" anything. And certainly not vaccines which are no longer in your system.


Thank you, Mr Pedant.
 
2021-12-08 8:56:07 AM  
What "studies", subby? The one from IBT that had a sample size of 12?
 
2021-12-08 8:56:36 AM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-12-08 8:57:51 AM  

Stud Gerbil: "studies warn".   Yeah, they asked twelve FB users if they knew of anyone who was harmed by the vaccine and six of them said they knew a guy who knew a guy ...


I think you should probably do your own research.
 
2021-12-08 8:58:43 AM  
Why do scientific journals publish papers with such small sample sizes? Seems like that would be a recipe to create incorrect impressions.
 
2021-12-08 9:01:34 AM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-12-08 9:02:43 AM  

iheartscotch: Why do scientific journals publish papers with such small sample sizes? Seems like that would be a recipe to create incorrect impressions.


Because scientific journals are written for experts in their field who are expected to have the ability to assess the methodology and claims made.

Giving Joe Public a scientific journal article is like giving a 12yo a Hustler. They'll get excited about what they see, but they won't really understand most of it and likely get into trouble if they try to use any of that information.
 
2021-12-08 9:04:13 AM  
The results of the study was pretty much just raw data and wasn't peer reviewed in anyway. It should have been taken with a grain of salt.
 
2021-12-08 9:05:55 AM  

thealgorerhythm: iheartscotch: Why do scientific journals publish papers with such small sample sizes? Seems like that would be a recipe to create incorrect impressions.

Because scientific journals are written for experts in their field who are expected to have the ability to assess the methodology and claims made.

Giving Joe Public a scientific journal article is like giving a 12yo a Hustler. They'll get excited about what they see, but they won't really understand most of it and likely get into trouble if they try to use any of that information.


Also, there's probably less reason to believe an antibody reduction varies greatly among a cohort.  What probably varies more are outcomes from that reduction.

Survival is a mix of the passive immune system and
 
2021-12-08 9:06:30 AM  
Fark user imageView Full Size

*me trying to suss out the headline*
 
2021-12-08 9:06:40 AM  

Stud Gerbil: "studies warn".   Yeah, they asked twelve FB users if they knew of anyone who was harmed by the vaccine and six of them said they knew a guy who knew a guy ...


And I guarantee that two of them were my cousin's husband and his gullible wife.  They read about it on the internet so they know.  This gets filterpawned but he keeps sending me biatchute links that I refuse to open.  How he made it to 70 I'll never know.
 
2021-12-08 9:08:00 AM  

Glorious Golden Ass: thealgorerhythm: iheartscotch: Why do scientific journals publish papers with such small sample sizes? Seems like that would be a recipe to create incorrect impressions.

Because scientific journals are written for experts in their field who are expected to have the ability to assess the methodology and claims made.

Giving Joe Public a scientific journal article is like giving a 12yo a Hustler. They'll get excited about what they see, but they won't really understand most of it and likely get into trouble if they try to use any of that information.

Also, there's probably less reason to believe an antibody reduction varies greatly among a cohort.  What probably varies more are outcomes from that reduction.

Survival is a mix of the passive immune system and


the body's resilience.

It's information.  That's all.
 
2021-12-08 9:08:37 AM  

iheartscotch: Why do scientific journals publish papers with such small sample sizes? Seems like that would be a recipe to create incorrect impressions.


Well, in the case of the one that said that Omicron is vaccine evasive?

They don't. Or at least, they haven't yet BECAUSE IT IS A FARKING PREPRINT.
 
2021-12-08 9:08:43 AM  

Some Bass Playing Guy: The results of the study was were pretty much just raw data and wasn't weren't peer reviewed in anyway. It should have been taken with a grain of salt.


Fixed it up for you there.

/Grammar Nazi.
 
2021-12-08 9:11:22 AM  
I told one of my coworkers that the pfizer vaccine had viagra in it as a joke and he believed me -_-
 
2021-12-08 9:11:24 AM  
Fark user imageView Full Size

https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-rele​ase/press-release-detail/pfizer-and-bi​ontech-provide-update-omicron-variant

Found the actual announcement. Link in this page goes to further details.
 
2021-12-08 9:12:06 AM  

Iworkformsn: Jesus - can we get a redo on this headline?


I almost had to get out the dry erase board.
 
2021-12-08 9:12:29 AM  

AirForceVet: Iworkformsn: Jesus - can we get a redo on this headline?

Why? Don't you like the plug for KFC?


How about a plug for White Castle?

World's Most Evil Invention - SNL
Youtube z0NgUhEs1R4
 
2021-12-08 9:14:01 AM  

iheartscotch: Why do scientific journals publish papers with such small sample sizes? Seems like that would be a recipe to create incorrect impressions.


It's just preliminary data.  Often enough to warrant a bigger study.  People.atent supposed to take it as dogma, they're supposed to take it as advisement that a phenomenon might be taking place and that more research is warranted to explore it.
 
2021-12-08 9:14:16 AM  

offacue: "...my cousin's husband and his gullible wife."


How many people are in this marriage? Am I having a stroke?
 
2021-12-08 9:15:13 AM  
That headline is so tortured subby will be tried at The Hague.
 
2021-12-08 9:16:01 AM  
I just got my booster on Monday, so getting a kick, etc
 
2021-12-08 9:16:07 AM  

offacue: Stud Gerbil: "studies warn".   Yeah, they asked twelve FB users if they knew of anyone who was harmed by the vaccine and six of them said they knew a guy who knew a guy ...

And I guarantee that two of them were my cousin's husband and his gullible wife.  They read about it on the internet so they know.  This gets filterpawned but he keeps sending me biatchute links that I refuse to open.  How he made it to 70 I'll never know.


[facebook citation needed]
 
2021-12-08 9:17:01 AM  

rga184: iheartscotch: Why do scientific journals publish papers with such small sample sizes? Seems like that would be a recipe to create incorrect impressions.

It's just preliminary data.  Often enough to warrant a bigger study.  People.atent supposed to take it as dogma, they're supposed to take it as advisement that a phenomenon might be taking place and that more research is warranted to explore it.


Well, we all know that the scientific method and 24 hour news cycle work sooooooo well together.
 
2021-12-08 9:17:20 AM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-12-08 9:18:34 AM  

I hereby demand that I be given a Fark account: iheartscotch: Why do scientific journals publish papers with such small sample sizes? Seems like that would be a recipe to create incorrect impressions.

Well, in the case of the one that said that Omicron is vaccine evasive?

They don't. Or at least, they haven't yet BECAUSE IT IS A FARKING PREPRINT.


Because scientific journals are written for experts in their field who are expected to have the ability to assess the methodology and claims made.

Giving Joe Public a scientific journal article is like giving a 12yo a Hustler. They'll get excited about what they see, but they won't really understand most of it and likely get into trouble if they try to use any of that information.

Giving Joe Public a preprint is like taking that 12yo to a Hustler photo shoot with no explanation and no counseling. Very dangerous.
 
2021-12-08 9:18:51 AM  

iheartscotch: Why do scientific journals publish papers with such small sample sizes? Seems like that would be a recipe to create incorrect impressions.


Depending on the issue at hand, small samples can be valuable in establishing lines of further inquiry.  Big studies with lots of people are hugely expensive and not everyone wants to take a chance and blow a grant on an inconclusive study with a huge, expensive meaningless sample. Research costs money.
 
2021-12-08 9:19:10 AM  

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: [Fark user image 500x194]


The difference is that the government and media don't try and panic us about every flu variant. The smart kids in the labs look at what is going around and make an educated guess on what the flu vaccine needs to be for the year. We still don't even know shiat about Omicron and already we've had travel restrictions and fear mongering stories about how the vaccines aren't going to work when it could end up being a whole lot of nothing.
 
2021-12-08 9:19:10 AM  
Any one else craving KFC for breakfast now?
 
2021-12-08 9:19:20 AM  

iheartscotch: Why do scientific journals publish papers with such small sample sizes? Seems like that would be a recipe to create incorrect impressions.


Scientific journals are not intended for public consumption. They're intended for people that are already experts on the subject matter. Instead people are trying to use them to play scissors-rock-paper with each other online.
 
2021-12-08 9:20:39 AM  

RTOGUY: Abe Vigoda's Ghost: [Fark user image 500x194]

The difference is that the government and media don't try and panic us about every flu variant. The smart kids in the labs look at what is going around and make an educated guess on what the flu vaccine needs to be for the year. We still don't even know shiat about Omicron and already we've had travel restrictions and fear mongering stories about how the vaccines aren't going to work when it could end up being a whole lot of nothing.


You'll get over it. Just do what you're told, rat.
 
2021-12-08 9:21:40 AM  

iheartscotch: Why do scientific journals publish papers with such small sample sizes? Seems like that would be a recipe to create incorrect impressions.


The job of the journals is to get good information out there, and never to withhold it because it could be misinterpreted. It's the job of the media and public health officials like Fauci to make sure people understand it.

And for this kind of study, how do you know that the sample size is too small? Or not large enough to at least provide solid indicators? There are a lot of people claiming expertise they don't have to attack the validity of the study.
 
2021-12-08 9:21:40 AM  

LawPD: Any one else craving KFC for breakfast now?


I mean, it's a day ending in Y, so...
 
2021-12-08 9:24:19 AM  
Sure subby, but screw that KFC crap:

Fark user imageView Full Size


Gus' also beats Popeyes like a red-headed stepchild.
 
2021-12-08 9:25:48 AM  

v2micca: rga184: iheartscotch: Why do scientific journals publish papers with such small sample sizes? Seems like that would be a recipe to create incorrect impressions.

It's just preliminary data.  Often enough to warrant a bigger study.  People.atent supposed to take it as dogma, they're supposed to take it as advisement that a phenomenon might be taking place and that more research is warranted to explore it.

Well, we all know that the scientific method and 24 hour news cycle work sooooooo well together.


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-12-08 9:27:41 AM  

thealgorerhythm: I hereby demand that I be given a Fark account: iheartscotch: Why do scientific journals publish papers with such small sample sizes? Seems like that would be a recipe to create incorrect impressions.

Well, in the case of the one that said that Omicron is vaccine evasive?

They don't. Or at least, they haven't yet BECAUSE IT IS A FARKING PREPRINT.

Because scientific journals are written for experts in their field who are expected to have the ability to assess the methodology and claims made.

Giving Joe Public a scientific journal article is like giving a 12yo a Hustler. They'll get excited about what they see, but they won't really understand most of it and likely get into trouble if they try to use any of that information.

Giving Joe Public a preprint is like taking that 12yo to a Hustler photo shoot with no explanation and no counseling. Very dangerous.


Worse. I want to claim that studies say vaccines are ineffective in a program to cause large vaccine hesitancy in a population.

Before preprint servers: Have to carefully fake data to get multiple journals to publish, then report that the scientific consensus seems to be vaccines are ineffective.

After preprint servers: Post five "preprints" claiming what  I want, then report "studies conclude."
 
2021-12-08 9:32:52 AM  

Somacandra: iheartscotch: Why do scientific journals publish papers with such small sample sizes? Seems like that would be a recipe to create incorrect impressions.

Depending on the issue at hand, small samples can be valuable in establishing lines of further inquiry.  Big studies with lots of people are hugely expensive and not everyone wants to take a chance and blow a grant on an inconclusive study with a huge, expensive meaningless sample. Research costs money.


Agreed.

And in the case of a pandemic, it's worth multiple groups investigating this at once, as there may be other localized issues that they hadn't managed to account for.

If they waited long enough to do a deeper study before publishing any results, we might be dealing with a different variant by the time the study is replicated

In other scenarios when a few months delay doesn't potentially mean the death of thousands of people, then yes, it makes sense to do a larger study first.  But this isn't one of those times
 
2021-12-08 9:35:10 AM  

jbuist: iheartscotch: Why do scientific journals publish papers with such small sample sizes? Seems like that would be a recipe to create incorrect impressions.

Scientific journals are not intended for public consumption. They're intended for people that are already experts on the subject matter. Instead people are trying to use them to play scissors-rock-paper with each other online.


Well, I've done my own research, and I've concluded that isn't true.
 
2021-12-08 9:39:17 AM  
No one is trying to "panic" you.
You're just very, very stupid.
Two entirely different things.
Cattle only understand stampedes, because they are cattle.
Panic and idiot complacency are your only two settings.
 
Displayed 50 of 123 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.