The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Preprint COVID Vaccine Study Withdrawn: Key Number Was Off by Factor of 25
Mistakes happen, especially in non-peer-reviewed studies (though they also happen in peer-reviewed ones); but it's a good reminder to be skeptical. From Reuters:
A pre-print study which claimed that there is a 1 in 1,000 risk of contracting a heart inflammation condition known as myocarditis has since been retracted due to a calculation.
The study which was conducted by researchers at The University of Ottawa Heart Institute, was featured in numerous blogs and social media posts as proof that the COVID-19 vaccine is unsafe for use….
The study had calculated an incidence rate of myocarditis in the Ottawa region post-vaccination by dividing the number of occurrences of the heart inflammation condition over a two-month period (June and July 2021) in Ottawa (32) by the total number of vaccinations in the area (reported as 32,379 in the pre-print) [vaccinations here refers to vaccine doses -EV] ….
[But b]etween the week beginning May 30 and the week starting July 25, there had [actually] been 845,930 vaccines administered in the Ottawa region, according to data published by Ottawa Public Health ….
I should note that this error should have been apparent just by eyeballing things: The Ottawa area has nearly 1 million people, June and July were heavy vaccination periods in Canada (especially for the second doses), and 32,379 would thus be a visibly strange number of vaccinations for that period. Still, as I said, mistakes happen, even to the best of us.
The retraction is here; the original study is here. True to the rule that stories about corrections will have errors of their own, the Reuters article has been corrected, with a note:
Correction Oct. 4: corrects spelling of denominator in paragraph 13, and in the same paragraph corrects "25 orders of magnitude off" to "25 times smaller". Changes 'magnitude' to 'factor' in verdict.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Not sorry; I do not believe any number given in relation to the Communist Chinese Virus.
So do you just make up your own? I mean you've already given the virus a nationality and ideology.
I didn't "give" it to them.
It came from Communist China.
Communist China deliberately allowed international travel from Wuhan province while restricting internal travel, making it a world wide problem.
They own it.
I don't make up numbers for it, I just accept it is a virus, and will do what a virus does.
This could generate useful exchanges. Perhaps the targets of the Volokh Conspiracy's correction observations could begin to provide corrections to the Volokh Conspiracy's many uncorrected, unacknowledged mistakes.
You could maybe start said "useful exchange" by identifying one if you were capable of anything more than baseless slurs, but you aren't.
Correction Oct. 4: corrects spelling of denominator in paragraph 13, and in the same paragraph corrects "25 orders of magnitude off" to "25 times smaller". Changes 'magnitude' to 'factor' in verdict.
Either way it is poor phrasing. Given that the radius of the observable universe is only 14 Gigaparsecs and 1 Gigaparsec is 3.3x10^25 meters, the "25 orders of magnitude" is a plainly ridiculous formulation.
Also, "25 times smaller" is meaningless. It is far better to say that is was too large by a factor of 25.
I was just about to try and figure out if there even were 25 orders of magnitude in the universe, but I guess there are. However, I do not believe that there is any human phenomenon (such as wealth, height, etc.) which varies over 25 orders of magnitude.
I mean, as far as vaccine reactions go, 25 orders of magnitude is clearly impossible. If everyone on the planet got the vaccine, the difference between "one person had an adverse reaction" and "literally everyone on the planet had an adverse reaction" would be about 10 orders of magnitude. OK, you can have more than one dose per person, but you'd need about a quadrillion doses per person to even reach the level where an error of this magnitude would be *possible* to make.
On the one hand, exponential factors like that should be a red flag that makes any writer or reviewer stop and do a sanity check of the numbers.
On the other hand, one of my engineer coworkers who really is a pretty smart guy always says "[n] magnitudes of order". He's pedantic about things like 10 log X vs 20 log X to get correct decibel values, but the wording always trips him up.
See the Eddington Number in astrophysics and cosmology at 10^80
As I recall, there are not 10^80 COUNTABLE anything in the universe.
That is, there are not 10^80 grains of sand in the universe.
I first met the Eddingeon Number and its applications in The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (1988, OUP) by Barrow and Tipler
That can't be true. Avogadro's Constant is roughly 6.02 * 10˄23. That is the equivalent of 12 grams of carbon. So there are definitely 10˄80 of things, but it is very, very small set of things.
I was curious about the number of grains of sand. According to an NPR story, some scientists estimated there are 7.5 * 10˄18 grains of sand on Earth. That means you'd need 10˄62 comparable planets to reach that figure. The size of these numbers are too big for the mind to comprehend.
The correction is probably irrelevant.
The Anti-vaxxers will just say the original conclusion was correct and the so-called correction is just proof that there is a conspiracy by the liberal elite to kill people by vaccinating them and then hiding or lying about the data.
The NYT just had to correct an article that claimed ~900,000 child hospitalizations for SARS-2 had taken place over a period where the actual number was 63,000. The COVID totalitarians will just insist that the original conclusion was anyway correct and that there is anyway a conspiracy by the anti-coercive right to kill people.
I mean, there was just a comment thread about that very correction and no one said anything like that... Not sure why you'd keep thinking something like this when the opposite actually happened.
Maybe the lesson is....don't breathlessly hype pre-print studies to the public as being definitive? One would think large media organizations would have learned that lesson. Apparently not. This will be exhibit #1,723,924 on why distrust of the media is at all-time highs.
Heck, don't believe a single study at all, even if it's been peer reviewed.
+1.
Don't believe even multiple peer-reviewed studies until you've seen and evaluated the criticisms of them. The process of peer review is often just mutual backscratching.
You and I don't have the expertise to evaluate criticism of scientific studies. That's just a recipe for outcome-oriented cherry picking.
Peer review has it's flaws, but over time the truth will out. Which is why you believe it when multiple studies confirm something.
Will you always be right? No, but you'll be right a lot more than you're wrong. Or if you went with your gut on whether criticism is legit or not.
Longitudinal studies are a pretty good authority. But even then you get missing variables. Like how diet studies go back and forth on the results of a given food/drink - something we're missing there.
[But b]etween the week beginning May 30 and the week starting July 25, there had [actually] been 845,930 vaccines administered in the Ottawa region, according to data published by Ottawa Public Health ….
I should note that this error should have been apparent just by eyeballing things: The Ottawa area has nearly 1 million people, June and July were heavy vaccination periods in Canada (especially for the second doses), and 32,379 would thus be a visibly strange number of vaccinations for that period. Still, as I said, mistakes happen, even to the best of us.
According to you and Ottawa Public Health, > 85% of the people in Ottawa (of all ages) got a vaccine shot in Ottawa in the space of 8 weeks.
I'm sorry, but I just don't believe that. Either your population number for the region is low (by at least a factor of 2), or their number is high.
Because if we assume that just 10% of the population is too young to be vaccinated, that gives us a claim that only 5% of Ottawa was fully vaccinated before May 30. Which i just don't find believable.
I note that none of the "I love science, unlike those stupid deplorables" people who posted before me managed to note this rather basic problem with the numbers
Don't know if you're been paying attention or not, but the most common vaccines (including all of the ones used in Ottawa) are administered in two doses, so this means that somewhere between ~43% of the population getting fully vaccinated during that period or up to ~85% getting partially vaccinated.
In any case, you can see vaccination data here:
https://www.ottawapublichealth.ca/en/reports-research-and-statistics/COVID-19_Vaccination_Dashboard.aspx
The 32K number in the preprint looks likely to have been a (low) weekly number. In the first week of July alone over 150K doses were administered.
No shit Sherlock.
Here, let me help you out. I've pulled out the relevant paragraph from the post you're pretending to "respond" to.
Because if we assume that just 10% of the population is too young to be vaccinated, that gives us a claim that only 5% of Ottawa was fully vaccinated before May 30. Which i just don’t find believable.
What exactly do you think that "fully vaccinated" means?
Now let's look at the numbers you give:
Adding the numbers from May 30 - July 24, we get 818k doses, not 845,930. So the people "debunking" the previous study couldn't themselves do math.
487k doses delivered before May 31, and 211k given after July 24.
But they claim that there were over 1.6 million doses given. Which means their numbers don't even appear to add up.
In any event, it appears that Canada was really stingy about second doses before June. Beyond that, their numbers aren't trustworthy enough to tell you anything
If you knew that "fully vaccinated" meant two doses, I don't understand how you got to thinking that 85% of the population needed to get a dose for the math to work out. It seemed glaringly obvious that some fraction of those people were getting two doses in that window.
As for the rest, you seem to be trying to pick at discrepancies of a few percent and implying that we should therefore take the original study that had a 2500% error seriously? Or maybe you're trying to convey something else? But I'm really not sure what it is.
Also, the ~1M number is the population of Ottawa city proper. The population of the Ottawa MSA is more like ~1.5M.
If that's true, then Ottawa is at best about 50% fully vaccinated, and less than 60% even partially.
As for the US 66% of the population have received at least one dose, 57% of the population have been fully vaccinated.
So I guess that means the Canadians are all a bunch of vaccine denying deplorables, right?
Mistakes do happen all the time. If they aren't caught before publication there are only two things required of researchers, advisors, and their teams:
1. Honesty. Owning up to the error(s) and making an effort to correct them asap even if that means pulling the whole paper.
2. If your advisor or supervisor claims to have reviewed the work and passes it on (even though they missed the mistakes too) and he/she is the yelling type be patient. Especially if they are 4' 10" 130lbs dripping wet and you are 6' 3" 300+lbs and breaking their nose *totally feels like the right thing to dobecausegettingbrowbeatenandhollaredatiswhatyoulefthomeforinthefirstplace... they are the boss. Breathe in, breathe out... 😀 😀 😀
"“A lie will go round the world while truth is pulling its boots on.”
- often misattributed to Mark Twain, apparently without irony.
Here is the other extremely important point, quoted from the original study:
"Symptoms settled quickly with standard therapy and patients were discharged within a few days. No major adverse cardiac events and no significant arrythmias were noted during inpatient stay. Further follow up will be required to ascertain the longer-term outcomes of this patient group."
So basically the conclusion should have been that in rare instances, vaccine recipients suffered temporary chest pain.
These guys can't recognize magnitude errors, but since you like that sentence we should believe it, b/c SCIENCE!
Get back to me when "vax-related" deaths start being attributed as freely as "COVID-related" deaths.
The study also simply assumes that all incidences of the condition are caused by the vaccine.
Why not also divide the number of auto accidents and homocides by the number of vaccine doses and report the risk of auto accidents and homocides caused by the vaccine?
Ah, now you've got the VAERS citers' strategy down pat.
Did you check whether the paper quotes a baseline myocarditis rate or are you relying on a second-hand recitation of its methods?
Science just discovered the glymphatic system in the brain.
I do wonder if this now-known unknown of waste clearance in the brain could potentially be a good place to start reviewing the inflammation in autistic brains that decades of injecting adjuvants into babies by means of vaccines could have caused.
It's almost like some people think just because a substance doesn't cause damage in known systems that it is essentially safe.
Oh FFS. Next we're going to be hearing about chemtrails.
25 orders of magnitude would be a truly historic error:) I hope the 32 cases of heart inflammation is accurate.
I disbelieve any sciency reportage in the media, long ago impeached.