They might still be right; this is only a pre-print, only focused on one specific aspect of COVID and the effect size is small.
But if they are wrong, the most likely explanation is they misunderstood something and were just wrong. Ironically, as is well known but bears repeating, the vocal "follow the science" types tend more to be believers in authority figures than people who care what science says. They aren't especially motivated by evidence.
Actual scientists will usually be circumspect until the evidence is overwhelming.
> the most likely explanation is they misunderstood something and were just wrong
I think you're giving the media far too much credit especially when it comes to this issue. Remember, this is a media that actively called a legitimate, low-side-effect profile, WHO-listed essential drug "horse paste" or at least actively made comparisons to it, and a media that sowed fear and doubt about the vaccine while Trump was still President.
I think the time is long gone for giving the media the benefit of the doubt on things like this. Scientists sure, but the media, absolutely not.
> They might still be right; this is only a pre-print, only focused on one specific aspect of COVID and the effect size is small.
There was a study of Canadian data (Ontario) recently as well which interestingly showed large differences depending on the combo (Pfizer/Pfizer, Pfizer/Moderna, Moderna/Moderna, Moderna/Pfizer) of 1st and 2nd shot: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.02.21267156v...
I think it’s generally true. Check out the discussion sections of the primary sources, they are usually pretty forthcoming about the limitations of the data and methodology.
This in general has been what has kept my uncertainty factor high on the question of omicron’s virulence, while you can find plenty of news headlines misrepresenting the research (on both sides of the issue).
(I’m a scientist, but my field is not bio- or medicine-adjacent)
But if they are wrong, the most likely explanation is they misunderstood something and were just wrong. Ironically, as is well known but bears repeating, the vocal "follow the science" types tend more to be believers in authority figures than people who care what science says. They aren't especially motivated by evidence.
Actual scientists will usually be circumspect until the evidence is overwhelming.