Thread by @PerBylund

I really hate these modern fakester "fact checkers," who provide almost no guidance on what to think of things. Take this telling example from @TheAtlantic. The claim: cases may spike after first dose. The "rebuttal": research shows 90% effective two weeks after the *second* dose

A rebuttal must address the actual claim, not something else. The fact is that, by what's in the article, it may well be that both are correct: a possible spike after the first dose *and* effective protection after the second. (Maybe there's a reason 2 doses are recommended?)

Note also that the article doesn't quote (or link to) Berenson. (We have only the fact-checker's summary.) Isn't that a little odd if you're fact-checking? Even more so when claiming it is a "theme," which means there should be plenty of material to choose a juicy quote from.

Also note that the linked article to support the rebuttal is outrageously vague in presenting the data. In fact, you would have to read the study yourself to figure out what this means. (This journalist is really doing us a diservice reporting on the study like this.)

The article's presented conclusion, supposedly taken from the study, is a recommendation to get fully vaccinated. But, surely, this is in error? A study on vaccine effectiveness cannot *conclude* in the normative. If it does, then the researchers screwed up--it's bad science.

Finally: no, this is not about the actual facts about the vaccines or the disease. It is about the schmucks pretending to fact-check while only serving us nonsense. In this case, @DKThomp on @AlexBerenson, but there are plenty of examples. Do better, please.