>"Misleading": Always good to point out when an author makes a claim that is not supported by their own data.

Be honest…how often do you see redditors actually engaging with the original article and giving valid critiques of the authors interpretations vs spitting out their knee jerk reaction to the headline? I’ve seen an awful lot of “poor communication” and “misleading” complaints that could have been cleared up by actually reading the article.

The one in Tennessee, but multiple other states are considering banning drag

I don’t know that there is much solid data to address that question. Typically flu vaccines are tailored to whatever strains are circulating in a given season, so they’re just thrown away at the before the next flu season.

sad bird noises

It’s largely based on whether or not your own immune system is able to clear the virus or not.

Catch measles? Your immune system will kill it and remember it well enough to protect you forever. All you need to do to make a great vaccine is to use killed virus.

If you’re talking herpes or HIV, your immune system can’t root that out and kill it once it’s in there. The only hope of vaccinating is to prevent every last viral particle you encounter from ever being able to enter any of your cells. That’s a much more difficult prospect.

You’re not trying to get your vaccine into the muscle cells themselves. All the action happens in the draining lymph nodes.

It’s not an overall 18% drop in mortality. A 10 percentage point increase in vaccination leads to an 18% drop in mortality.

Probably, but there’s no chance in hell that you’ll actually be able to vaccinate all those wild animals

>At this point, I feel like there's an ethical issue because are we not knowingly taking individuals with a life threatening illness and deliberately giving them a non treatment?

They wouldn’t be given no medical treatment at all. The control group typically gets whatever the standard treatment is for that condition, while the experimental group gets the new treatment (sometimes on top of the treatment that the control group is getting).

The question being asked by a clinical trial is rarely “does this drug work” it’s “is this drug better than the standard of care”. That’s kind of why the the staunchest defenders of Ivermectin for Covid treatment are wasting their time. It doesn’t really matter if technically there is some slight biological impact on the virus. If it isn’t better than current treatments (which are quite a bit better than they were in Spring 2020) than we have no use for it.

I don’t agree. There are just so many little things in life. You absolutely can accomplish big things in life by focusing on the little things that matter and letting the less important ones slide.