LogFAQs > #962726429

COVxy posted...

So then, it can be effectively summarized that you don't think their sample size is too small for the work they show, just that you think they could do more informative things with a larger sample? The point being, this is not a criticism of the current work, just a wish for future work.

I would say that, given the data, the title of the article is a big stretch. They dont, as far as I can tell, account for the apparent decay of immunity over time that has been broadly observed. Now granted, in April when they were conducting the trials for this research, they wouldnt have had any definitive way to predict that decay of vaccine effectiveness would be an issue. As far as we knew back then once you were vaccinated it was supposed to be the end of it and you could go back to business as usual. But its still an oversight and a weakness in the study.

You are right, though. I should correct myself in saying that rather than the sample size being too small, the cohort groups used were not diverse enough to compare properly to one another, while accounting for variables. A larger sample size in and of itself would not have fixed this.