All fan's vaccinated at raiders games

[Dhersh]

you do understand that the study @ChiefWB posted above is also pre-print and not peer reviewed, right?

peer review takes months, studies are being released almost daily. a vast majority of the peer reviewed studies are based on data collected back in the early days of COVID.

take a peek at the components of the study, is it observational or randomized control? what regression was applied etc.

Yes, it does take time, but that is no reason for anyone to rush to judgement. One might argue, and have argued, that rush to judgement is why we are seeing mask mandates.

Unfortunately, a significant number of scientific studies are unreliable, for a variety of reasons - some simple and some complex - and when the outcomes of a study stand alone, it should be heavily scrutinized. Like you said, COVID studies are being released daily, and in time we will see lots of studies that support and/or refute certain evidence. That's one of the nice things about this global response - outcomes and confirmations have come quicker.

But the scientific method and other forms of validation are no less important in a time of crisis.

 

[GbrNole]

Yes, it does take time, but that is no reason for anyone to rush to judgement. One might argue, and have argued, that rush to judgement is why we are seeing mask mandates.

Unfortunately, a significant number of scientific studies are unreliable, for a variety of reasons - some simple and some complex - and when the outcomes of a study stand alone, it should be heavily scrutinized. Like you said, COVID studies are being released daily, and in time we will see lots of studies that support and/or refute certain evidence. That's one of the nice things about this global response - outcomes and confirmations have come quicker.

But the scientific method and other forms of validation are no less important in a time of crisis.

agreed and that is my point. rather than relying on another person's thoughts of what a study says just read it and form your own opinion. it's really easy to read a study and understand it to say your preferred result while ignoring the opposite.

it's a bit like in the continued updates to the variants of concern reports in the UK. those with lines drawn in the sand will reference that (a) the majority (over 58%) of delta cases occur in the unvaccinated, but (b) the majority of delta deaths (over 67%) occur in the vaccinated.

there's a real devil in the details there considering the overall vaccination rate in the UK that neither side should feel warm and fuzzy about.

 

[Dhersh]

agreed and that is my point. rather than relying on another person's thoughts of what a study says just read it and form your own opinion. it's really easy to read a study and understand it to say your preferred result while ignoring the opposite.

it's a bit like in the continued updates to the variants of concern reports in the UK. those with lines drawn in the sand will reference that (a) the majority (over 58%) of delta cases occur in the unvaccinated, but (b) the majority of delta deaths (over 67%) occur in the vaccinated.

there's a real devil in the details there considering the overall vaccination rate in the UK that neither side should feel warm and fuzzy about.

Objective analysis of the data from the average person would be fantastic, but it can't be expected, nor should it be thought of as a form of scientific validation.

When I post a study here, I'm hopeful that a handful of people might read the abstract, let alone the full text, which could easily be dozens of pages. I imagine most people read the headline and then move on. I'm not blaming them. It's a habit that a lot of people have fallen into, especially when it comes to news sites and COVID. I can be guilty of it myself.

Even if everyone did read the full text, not everyone is an expert. The average person may find it difficult to interpret the data, or understand how the variables used may affect the outcomes of the study. This is where peer reviews from fellow experts are handy, as they will be able to identify any issues in testing methods or reporting.

Beyond that, have the findings from an experiment been duplicated? The average person isn't the one, and shouldn't be the one conducting scientific studies in order to validate. Will the average person pay to access the treasure trove of academia behind a wall in order to compare the findings?

Raw data is interesting and I love looking at it too, but I'm sure you know it doesn't always tell the whole story.