Chat message

Slack / Private Message Drop, p.147 [SLACK_000361] · slack_pm:msg:01508

Date: 2020-08-26 17:23
Type: chat message · slack
recipient: Robert F. Garry, Edward C. Holmes, Andrew Rambaut
speaker: Kristian G. Andersen
Topics: Vaccines

Recipients on this medium are inferred from channel membership, not per-message addressing.

I suspect the first one may be - but the one from the US today looks good. Again, we should totally expect reinfections so none of them are surprising - I just get really fucking grumpy when people talk about what we can learn about COVID immunity and vaccines from n=1 studies (some of which might be false positives). It's just idiotic- we learn exactly nothing! (well, we learn that reinfections are possible - but of course they are - we fucking knew that! We need to know frequency and time dependency before we can say *anything* about immunity/vaccines).

Extracted statements

Rule-extracted, not adjudicated. The grade says what may be done with each one; read the document above before relying on any of them.

Statement	Grade	Attribution	Stance
Again, we should totally expect reinfections so none of them are surprising - I just get really fucking grumpy when people talk about what we can learn about COVID immunity and vaccines from n=1 studies (some of which might be false positives).	needs context	uncertain explicit hedge	instructs
We need to know frequency and time dependency before we can say anything about immunity/vaccines).	own voice, substantive	speaker_own	instructs

Statement

Grade

Attribution

Stance

Again, we should totally expect reinfections so none of them are surprising - I just get really fucking grumpy when people talk about what we can learn about COVID immunity and vaccines from n=1 studies (some of which might be false positives).

needs context

uncertain explicit hedge

instructs

We need to know frequency and time dependency before we can say *anything* about immunity/vaccines).

own voice, substantive

speaker_own

instructs

In context

A single line often inverts meaning once you see what it answers, so neighbouring messages are always shown.

2020-08-26 17:17 Edward C. Holmes open

Is that reinfection story bollocks then Kristian?
2020-08-26 17:23 Kristian G. Andersen

I suspect the first one may be - but the one from the US today looks good. Again, we should totally expect reinfections so none of them are surprising - I just get really fucking grumpy when people talk about what we can learn about COVID immunity and vaccines from n=1 studies (some of which might be false positives). It's just idiotic- we learn exactly nothing! (well, we learn that reinfections are possible - but of course they are - we fucking knew that! We need to know frequency and time dependency before we can say *anything* about immunity/vaccines).
2020-08-26 17:25 Kristian G. Andersen open

I was mostly ticked off by so many people saying "oh, this is totally normal, it's textbook immunology and the case clearly shows that immunity works". Total bollocks - let's hope that's the case, but we just don't know and ifreinfections are a frequent occurrence then that _is_ a huge issue from an epidemic control perspective.
2020-08-26 17:26 Edward C. Holmes open

Agree. n = 1 is ridiculous.
2020-08-26 17:26 Edward C. Holmes open

Also, the sun: what is good for? [shared file(s): image.png]
2020-08-26 17:27 Kristian G. Andersen open

Aaaaaaahahahahahahahaha, that is AMAZING!!!! Soooo funny!

Full conversation →