Nate Silver

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

@apoorva_nyc @dzeitzoff You also left out many concerns that experts have about the Provincetown study. So while nothing in the story may be false per se, there are sins of omission as well. https://t.co/emaRN93Ior — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

@apoorva_nyc @dzeitzoff People read lede paragraphs, headlines, tweets and *tone* much more than they read every word in a story. And your tone in that story, especially the earlier versions, was completely out of proportion to the underlying scientific significance of the findings. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

@apoorva_nyc @dzeitzoff And I'll stand by my claim that your coverage has framed the Provincetown study in a misleading and sensationalistic way. That one-word hedge, "may", is doing an awful lot of work against other language that frames this as an incredibly scary and significant development. https://t.co/KkqGsn5oNS — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

And, again, this reflects a random sample of the entire UK population, which is >> more robust than a self-selected sample. The UK has done great work with large random samples like these; see also their work on Long COVID below, for instance. https://t.co/j68wf4wvAa — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

Seen discussion of the sample size in the UK study and it's worth pointing out that (although the overall sample size is very large) the number of *positives* is ~similar to the other studies. Note, however, that they do find a statistically significant result (p-value = 0.01). https://t.co/sr0jNndRj3 — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

@phl43 Yeah. And of course this is going to get even more complicated as we get more people who have both natural and vaccine-induced immunity. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

@apoorva_nyc @dzeitzoff There has been an awful lot of stealth editing and backtracking from the way you and NYT initially framed the Provincetown findings, which both experts and laypeople found misleading and hyperbolic. https://t.co/U2FfjromAl — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

Why? Because in clinical trials, participants were required to have no known history of COVID infection. In real life, a lot of the unvaccinated/"control" group will have antibodies, however. Most studies I've seen don't adjust for this. https://t.co/jn3iJw982r https://t.co/GWZ4mZ44K6 — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

One statistical issue that's crossed my mind: In counties like the US that have been hit hard by COVID, a significant portion of the *unvaccinated* population will have some degree of immunity from a previous infection. That could make vaccines seem superficially less effective. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

To throw a gauntlet down, a pretty simple test of whether news outlets like @nytimes actually care about getting the science right is if they report on this more rigorous UK study with >= fervor to the Provincetown study. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

The study also avoids some of the selection bias issues discussed since it relies on a random sample, not just a convenience sample of those who happened to get tested because they had symptoms. It is much more rigorous than e.g. the Wisconsin or Provincetown Bear Weak studies. https://t.co/4IQjA8qAxh — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

Here is a study from the UK with a MUCH larger sample size (~50K vaccinated people) that indeed finds vaccinated people carry lower viral loads. https://t.co/F6ngV2yX8O https://t.co/kNI6YUJsSa — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

@mattyglesias An item called "Hungarian Goulash" was a staple of the school lunch menu rotation in East Lansing, MI, which IIRC was basically macaroni with some ground beef and tomatoes and maybe some cumin or something. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

I don't think this is a "bad result for progressives" so such as its a vestigial, personality-driven fight from 2016 that probably isn't easy to generalize from. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

@WesPegden Yeah I hope kids who aren't old enough to be vaccinated yet get an exception. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

Maybe the least-worst option for the time being. Note that it's confined to venues (gyms, restaurants, live performances) that aren't life necessities and reflect relatively high risk of transmission. https://t.co/weII5xx1PO — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

RT @AndreasShrugged: @NateSilver538 They exclude 50% of their samples due to Ct>30 (very low viral load) and unsuccessful sequencing (Suppl… — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

If one way that breakthrough infections manifest themselves is thru very low amounts of virus in some people, but then you eliminate people with very low viral loads from your comparison, you're sort of begging the question. Need to be careful in cases like these. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

Another big statistical issue in these studies (at least the Wisconsin one) is that they have truncated samples. People with high Ct values (higher Ct = harder to find virus) are eliminated from the comparison because it's not clear they can be considered "infected". https://t.co/i0EPQjf9Ni — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

RT @NateSilver538: @jeremyfaust No, same issues with sample size in the Singapore study too. The confidence intervals on the Ct values are… — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

@jeremyfaust No, same issues with sample size in the Singapore study too. The confidence intervals on the Ct values are very wide (see below). Also big demographic differences between the vaxxed and unvaxxed group (note age and gender makeup). https://t.co/NJpukQb4ZQ — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

Also as in the Provincetown study it's a convenience sample, meaning people who chose to be tested, and not a random sample of all infections. That likely biases the sample toward more severe infections since people with more severe symptoms are more likely to seek out testing. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

The sample size is this non peer reviewed study is 79 vaccinated people (corrected, misread as 83 before) and completely lacks the statistical power to differentiate between vaccinated and unvaccinanted people. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

The sample size is this non peer reviewed study is 83 people and completely lacks the statistical power to differentiate between vaccinated and unvaccinanted people. Even more ridiculous to come to conclusions based on this than the Provincetown Bear Week study. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

@cwarzel It's a small stadium so anywhere except the bleachers (which are fine for "the experience" but not great for actually watching the game). — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

RT @Herring_NBA: The best acquisition you can make as we start free agency: My book, Blood in the Garden: The Flagrant History of the 1990s… — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

The benefit of the vaccines isn't that they reduce the risk to zero but that they make it *manageable*. Enough that you can get "back to normal" or pretty close to it, in most circumstances. (If you're immunocompromized and not developing antibodies, that sucks and I'm sorry.) — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

Part of what happened too is that there was this myth for a while that the vaccines were *100%* effective, which they never were. There were always some breakthroughs, even pre-Delta, especially for the non-mRNA vaccines. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

RT @thehowie: Correct take. And yet 100 million people remain hesitant or worse. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

Yeah for a long time the smart people seemed to think it might take say 18 months to develop a vaccine that was ~70% effective. Instead it took 10 months to get one that's ~80% (infection) to ~95% (hospitalizations and deaths) effective even against Delta. Seems pretty good! — PolitiTweet.org