Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

PhysicsCentrism t1_j5bb6mq wrote

Reply to comment by Obvious-Priority-791 in How Covid-19 vaccines succeeded in saving a million US lives, in charts by ILikeNeurons

The estimate is not based on nothing, it’s a model put together by scientists based on a peer reviewed methodology according to the article

5

DaRandomStoner t1_j5dhqj9 wrote

The article says the study wasn't peer reviewed...

4

PhysicsCentrism t1_j5dif2w wrote

Read a little further and then look at how I worded my comment

1

DaRandomStoner t1_j5dj29h wrote

Oh... ya you're technically right. They based the study on peer reviewed methodology I guess. I'm honestly not even sure what that means. Would be nice to see something peer reviewed though I don't take non peer reviewed studies seriously. 😕

2

Terminarch t1_j5do7x7 wrote

The review process is compromised.

−2

DaRandomStoner t1_j5dqn50 wrote

Ya... I know... it's pretty depressing tbh. Even if this study was peer reviewed I'd have to take it with a grain of salt. Getting pretty orwellian around here.

−3

ArchdevilTeemo t1_j5dh4u4 wrote

yes, it's an educated guess. nice.

People do that with weather every day and we know how accurate that is.

−7

PhysicsCentrism t1_j5dhluo wrote

Accurate enough for weather apps to be standard issue on tons of consumer technologies and for many television news stations to employ someone for weather forecasts?

1

ArchdevilTeemo t1_j5dijed wrote

some informations are better than no informations. And it's also used to check what the current weather in different locations.

Also forcasts drop in accuracy very fast. the forecasts for tomorrow are very accurate, the forecasts for next week are very inaccurate.

−1