Time to assume that health research is fraudulent until proven otherwise?

Re:Time to assume that health research is fraudulent until p... by faeriechangling on Monday July 19, 2021 @03:49PM (#27886596)

I've got both vaccines especially early for my age group (clinical vulnerability) and I've been lobbying my vaccinated peers to at least get one dose, so apparently not.

I say "mostly confident" because we have literally zero data of effects after 3 years and can only make inferences, and it's foolish to feign knowledge you do not have to avoid being called "hesitant", but my lack of confidence does not make me hesitate to recommend the vaccine. I also lack knowledge of long term effects of COVID itself which may in fact be worse than the long term effects of any vaccine given COVID does most of what the vaccines do plus extra nasty stuff.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Time to assume that health research is fraudulent until p... by adolph on Monday July 19, 2021 @05:35PM (#27887513)

You are recommending something over nothing despite not being confident in the data about your recommendation?

Which vaccines were in "both vaccines?" An mRNA and J&J, or just both administrations of a two-shot mRNA vaccine?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Time to assume that health research is fraudulent until p... by wizzwizz4 on Monday July 19, 2021 @05:56PM (#27887713)

> You are recommending something over nothing despite not being confident in the data about your recommendation?

(Not OP but) Yes. Reasoning despite uncertainty is entirely possible; if you want a mathematical formalism, look into Bayesian statistics.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Time to assume that health research is fraudulent until p... by adolph on Monday July 19, 2021 @08:30PM (#27888873)

I don’t think Laplace would call reasoning without data (the commenter’s avowed position) Bayesian.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Time to assume that health research is fraudulent until p... by wizzwizz4 on Tuesday July 20, 2021 @08:59AM (#27893176)

Zero data of the effects after three years. Plenty of data about the effects after one. It's not “reasoning without data”; it's reasoning without as much data as one would have liked.

Are you doing this on purpose?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Time to assume that health research is fraudulent until p... by adolph on Tuesday July 20, 2021 @07:46PM (#27900652)

The commenter did not say the results of one year were under consideration. They described a state of recommendation without information. Besides, March to July isn’t even half a year for phase 3 trials.

https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04811664

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Time to assume that health research is fraudulent until p... by faeriechangling on Thursday July 22, 2021 @04:13AM (#27916613)

I did mention inferences.

You seem to be concerned that I don't maintain a state of complete agnosticism in any matter which I lack data for, but it's really hard to do so in practice in a world of distinct choices. Most everybody will either get vaccinated or not get vaccinated and at least have made an implicit prediction about the future. Since I was pressured into making that choice it seems hardly surprising that I'm willing to opine on this issue where I lack data.

[ Parent | on HN ]