Read on Twitter
1/This paper is so good. Finally someone dispenses with the faux uncertainty about immunity!
It is not "conservative" to ascribe equal priors to unequal beliefs.
Ignoring background knowledge is not being cautious, it's being dumb.
Some highlights: https://www.jimmunol.org/content/early/2020/09/03/jimmunol.2000839
It is not "conservative" to ascribe equal priors to unequal beliefs.
Ignoring background knowledge is not being cautious, it's being dumb.
Some highlights: https://www.jimmunol.org/content/early/2020/09/03/jimmunol.2000839
"our colleagues failed to properly convey likelihoods of the immune response to SARS-CoV-2 to the public and the media"
"biologically implausible outcomes were given equal weight" as "decades of viral immunology" leading to "questionable results & alarmist news"
"biologically implausible outcomes were given equal weight" as "decades of viral immunology" leading to "questionable results & alarmist news"
"We suggest . . . avoiding the overused approach of assuming nothing."
"After reviewing Ab-mediated immunity after coronavirus and other acute viral infections, we posit that, with few exceptions, the development of protective humoral immunity of more than a year is the norm."
"After reviewing Ab-mediated immunity after coronavirus and other acute viral infections, we posit that, with few exceptions, the development of protective humoral immunity of more than a year is the norm."
