Should be Headlines of the Day

[Spartacus]

https://www.thecollegefix.com/prof-outdoor-recreation-a-white-dominated-space-has-roots-in-systemic-racism/

 

According to KAKE.com, Lee said “The issue becomes excruciatingly clear that historical institutional racism has banished people of color from the great outdoors.”

[Foxx]

1 hour ago, Spartacus said:

What the massive study of 29 vax victims really shows 

is that the vaxxed but not sick group have no antibodies from the jab.

 

 

 

https://www.lucianne.com/2021/12/19/people_who_get_breakthrough_covid-19_infections_after_being_fully_vaccinated_have_super_immunity_with_antibody_levels_rising_as_much_as_2000_study_finds_75323.html

 

The small study compared 26 vaccinated staff at Oregon Health & Science University who had breakthrough infections to people who were vaccinated but never got the coronavirus. The breakthrough group saw a surge in antibodies. 'The increases were substantial, up to a 1,000 percent increase and sometimes up to 2,000 percent, so it's really high immunity,' said study author

 

 

How do you get 2000% increase from 0?

[Spartacus]

11 minutes ago, Foxx said:

How do you get 2000% increase from 0?

minimal instead of none

[Crap Throwing Clavin]

11 minutes ago, Foxx said:

How do you get 2000% increase from 0?

 

Because the study compares people who were vaccinated but did not have a breakthrough infection to people who were vaccinated and DID have a breakthrough infection.  In other words: comparing a non-zero value to an - apparently - much larger non-zero value.  

 

It's probably still a bullshit result, comparing only two groups (vaccinated, and vaccinated & infected).  There's no real null hypothesis or control group evident in that study.  If you want that to be meaningful, compare vaccinated, vaccinated & infected, unvaccinated & infected, and unvaccinated & uninfected.  And do it at 14, 90, 180, and 360 days after vaccination.

 

But that'd take too long, and generate meaningful data.  We're too busy following the science to do the science...

[Foxx]

2 minutes ago, Crap Throwing Monkey said:

 

Because the study compares people who were vaccinated but did not have a breakthrough infection to people who were vaccinated and DID have a breakthrough infection.  In other words: comparing a non-zero value to an - apparently - much larger non-zero value.  

 

It's probably still a bullshit result, comparing only two groups (vaccinated, and vaccinated & infected).  There's no real null hypothesis or control group evident in that study.  If you want that to be meaningful, compare vaccinated, vaccinated & infected, unvaccinated & infected, and unvaccinated & uninfected.  And do it at 14, 90, 180, and 360 days after vaccination.

 

But that'd take too long, and generate meaningful data.  We're too busy following the science to do the science...

So... sitcom maths. Thanks.

[Crap Throwing Clavin]

3 minutes ago, Foxx said:

So... sitcom maths. Thanks.

 

Not quite that bad.  Bad science, and bad science reporting.  Less "sitcom math" than "police procedural science." 

 

(Of course, my standard for sitcom math is The Big Bang Theory, where they use real physics equations correctly.)

[devnull]

Attention K-Mart Shoppers

https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/the-last-Kmart-in-California-closed-permanently-16716830.php

[Crap Throwing Clavin]

43 minutes ago, devnull said:

Attention K-Mart Shoppers

https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/the-last-Kmart-in-California-closed-permanently-16716830.php

 

Always preferred Twin Fair or Two Guys.

[Foxx]

37 minutes ago, Crap Throwing Monkey said:

 

Always preferred Twin Fair or Two Guys.

Loved Two Guys. Also liked Gems and Gold Circle.

[Crap Throwing Clavin]

2 hours ago, Foxx said:

How do you get 2000% increase from 0?

 

And I found the study.  It's an antibody increase between 0% and 500%, depending on what they're measuring (IgM/G/A), and about a 1000% increase in virus inactivation.  Their methodology is still questionable, though...there's nothing in the study that connects levels of antibodies to levels of inactivation, and there's no detail on their methodology - they use something called "FRNT" for measuring inactivation, which looks sensitive to a variety of variables that should be documented in any reasonable research publication.

 

Which is also why it's not a "paper," it's a "letter" - the standard for "letters" in American journals is lower than for papers (source: I've published both, in Physics Review, and can't believe that JAMA's standards are all that much different.)  But even as a letter, if a student put a paper like this in front of me and said "What do you think?" I'd tell them it wasn't fit for publication, for lack of methodological detail.

[Foxx]

5 minutes ago, Crap Throwing Monkey said:

 

And I found the study.  It's an antibody increase between 0% and 500%, depending on what they're measuring (IgM/G/A), and about a 1000% increase in virus inactivation.  Their methodology is still questionable, though...there's nothing in the study that connects levels of antibodies to levels of inactivation, and there's no detail on their methodology - they use something called "FRNT" for measuring inactivation, which looks sensitive to a variety of variables that should be documented in any reasonable research publication.

 

Which is also why it's not a "paper," it's a "letter" - the standard for "letters" in American journals is lower than for papers (source: I've published both, in Physics Review, and can't believe that JAMA's standards are all that much different.)  But even as a letter, if a student put a paper like this in front of me and said "What do you think?" I'd tell them it wasn't fit for publication, for lack of methodological detail.

Has anyone told you lately that you're a nerd, lol.

 

And you can find all the papers you like (thank you, btw), but you are going to have a difficult,  if not impossible time convincing me that 2000 x 0 is going to add up to anything other than 0.

[Crap Throwing Clavin]

13 minutes ago, Foxx said:

Has anyone told you lately that you're a nerd, lol.

 

And you can find all the papers you like (thank you, btw), but you are going to have a difficult,  if not impossible time convincing me that 2000 x 0 is going to add up to anything other than 0.

 

2000 x 0 is 0.

 

But that's not even remotely what the paper says.  

 

Edit: my wife is starting to encourage me to switch careers and start a blog tearing down bad science reporting and explaining research like this properly.  Problem is that I get so pissed off reading this bad science reporting that, if I did that, I'd probably die of an aneurysm within a week.

Edited December 21, 2021 by Crap Throwing Monkey

[Foxx]

16 minutes ago, Crap Throwing Monkey said:

 

2000 x 0 is 0.

 

But that's not even remotely what the paper says.  

 

Edit: my wife is starting to encourage me to switch careers and start a blog tearing down bad science reporting and explaining research like this properly.  Problem is that I get so pissed off reading this bad science reporting that, if I did that, I'd probably die of an aneurysm within a week.

I believe you that that is not what the paper says. My initial comment was directed at Spartacus' contention that the vaccinated have 'n0' antibodies. To which he backtracked.

[Foxx]

18 minutes ago, Crap Throwing Monkey said:

 

2000 x 0 is 0.

 

But that's not even remotely what the paper says.  

 

Edit: my wife is starting to encourage me to switch careers and start a blog tearing down bad science reporting and explaining research like this properly.  Problem is that I get so pissed off reading this bad science reporting that, if I did that, I'd probably die of an aneurysm within a week.

As for your blog, let me know, I have a targeted audience that desperately needs to hear some sane rational thinking.

[Fansince88]

27 minutes ago, Crap Throwing Monkey said:

 

2000 x 0 is 0.

 

But that's not even remotely what the paper says.  

 

Edit: my wife is starting to encourage me to switch careers and start a blog tearing down bad science reporting and explaining research like this properly.  Problem is that I get so pissed off reading this bad science reporting that, if I did that, I'd probably die of an aneurysm within a week.

I would absolutely read it. 

[Crap Throwing Clavin]

12 hours ago, Foxx said:

I believe you that that is not what the paper says. My initial comment was directed at Spartacus' contention that the vaccinated have 'n0' antibodies. To which he backtracked.

 

I didn't see where he said that.  Largely because I was asked to ignore him, for "you're an idiot" reasons.

[Foxx]

1 hour ago, Crap Throwing Monkey said:

 

I didn't see where he said that.  Largely because I was asked to ignore him, for "you're an idiot" reasons.

I guess I was unaware. Greatly appreciated.

[Uncle Joe]

On 12/20/2021 at 3:58 PM, Crap Throwing Monkey said:

 

Always preferred Twin Fair or Two Guys.

Two Guys from Harrison and blue laws.

I'm getting frigging old.

 

[Koko]

On 12/20/2021 at 8:35 PM, Crap Throwing Monkey said:

 

2000 x 0 is 0.

 

But that's not even remotely what the paper says.  

 

Edit: my wife is starting to encourage me to switch careers and start a blog tearing down bad science reporting and explaining research like this properly.  Problem is that I get so pissed off reading this bad science reporting that, if I did that, I'd probably die of an aneurysm within a week.

 

Yeah, but imagine all the entertainment you'll bring to people before that week is up!

[Crap Throwing Clavin]

Defund the police.