Talk:New study analyzes the varying levels of protection offered by COVID-19 vaccines

Thank you

Hey @SVTCobra, thanks for catching that title case issue. I got too focused on the article and getting the image to work that I forgot to check the headline. I'll be better about that next time. Dr vulpes (talk) 10:26, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Speaking of the image. At a glance it looks like it is copyrighted. SVTCobra 12:49, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Hey @SVTCobra, the paper and it's figures were published under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license. I thought that license was fine to use but if I'm wrong just let me know and I'll remove it. Here's a link to it's license notice https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-05896-x#rightslink Dr vulpes (talk) 18:23, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

OK, cool. When I clicked on the source link from Commons, I only saw the "© 2023 Springer Nature Limited" at the bottom of the page. All good! Thanks. SVTCobra 18:32, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

I admit I did this late last night and was kind of tired you scared me there for a second! Glad it's ok, I couldn't really find any other images that would work for this article. Normally if the data was publicly available I would just use that to make the figures in R or something. Dr vulpes (talk) 18:40, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

I was going to this link which is your source on Commons. It doesn't show the CC-BY-4.0. Sorry if I scared you. I will see if I can find a way to link the rights on Commons. I always fear Commons will delete an image we use and then Wikinews ends up with {{missing image}} in our archives. That's why I brought it up. Cheers, SVTCobra 21:40, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Review of revision 4726756 [Passed]

Revision 4726756 of this article has been reviewed by SVTCobra (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 00:24, 12 May 2023 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Good work, Dr vulpes. Try to keep an international reader in mind. We should not assume people know where UCSF is ... or even California. Normally, we also include geo-location in the titles, but since the pandemic was global, I didn't try to rename for that. The title is quite long already. You can see the changes I made by looking at the edit history. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 4726756 of this article has been reviewed by SVTCobra (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 00:24, 12 May 2023 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Good work, Dr vulpes. Try to keep an international reader in mind. We should not assume people know where UCSF is ... or even California. Normally, we also include geo-location in the titles, but since the pandemic was global, I didn't try to rename for that. The title is quite long already. You can see the changes I made by looking at the edit history. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Math

"Smokers showed the strongest reduction with measured antibodies being 240% lower than for nonsmokers." So they have negative 140% as many antibodies? It would be meaningful to say that non-smokers had 240% as many antibodies as smokers, but .... IAmNitpicking (talk) 12:39, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

A 240% decreases doesn’t make -140%, you can’t have negative antibodies the bottom of the range can only be zero. Both 240% decrease in smokers and 240% greater in non-smokers work. The text from the article for this fact was “Similarly, non-smokers had 2.4-fold higher nAB compared to smokers (mean difference = − 0.37, CI − 0.64 to − 0.10; p = 0.007; Fig. 4B).”. Dr vulpes (talk) 16:48, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Quite correct. The idea of 240% less is just wrong.

While it is possible to restate this as 60% lower, it is conceptually challenging to get the quantitative picture even then. Thus saying something like "less than half the antibodies" would be easy to grasp.

(As an aside, upon reading the original paper, I found the article pretty shaky. The statistics are all over the place and were apparently run through a statistical analysis program without much critical thinking. General trends without p-values is about all you can report that is believable.) Mlee (talk) 01:16, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I puzzled over this for a while and then just realized I was reading it all incorrectly and this is a simple factual error: smokers had -240% the number of antibodies...which is obviously very different from 240% less antibodies. So don't we need a correction, SVTCobra, as this is substantive and well over the 24-hour deadline? Heavy Water (talk) 02:27, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I haven't got the time. It's not archived, so do what you think is best. SVTCobra 12:27, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

@Mlee: Did I get this correction right? Heavy Water (talk) 15:00, 16 May 2023 (UTC)