Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-02-05 14:13:23 UTC - HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: C3111BFD2E2C29D1DAA06E6C4583E7FC8DDAB97767EA6C1A822775DAE657D711
Participant Details

Original Note:

当該研究は下記の論文になり、著者はaffiliationの項目を見るとわかるように病院や大学の所属であり、著者の医師は製薬会社から講演料をもらっていますが、本論文は製薬会社が書いた訳ではありません。 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2794072 なお、ワクチンのコロナ後遺症予防効果は観察研究のメタ解析でも確認されている頑健な知見でオミクロン期に絞ってもわずか(3割程度)に接種者は感染後の症状が続くリスクが低かった事がわかっています↓ 下記論文のtable 2の4つ目の項目がオミクロン期の結果です。 https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/antimicrobial-stewardship-and-healthcare-epidemiology/article/effectiveness-of-covid19-vaccine-in-the-prevention-of-postcovid-conditions-a-systematic-literature-review-and-metaanalysis-of-the-latest-research/A0B115B5D3AA60846799857B801D116E

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1754153324012765250
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - C3111BFD2E2C29D1DAA06E6C4583E7FC8DDAB97767EA6C1A822775DAE657D711
  • createdAtMillis - 1707142403950
  • version - 2
  • agree - 0
  • disagree - 0
  • helpful - 0
  • notHelpful - 0
  • helpfulnessLevel - HELPFUL
  • helpfulOther - 0
  • helpfulInformative - 0
  • helpfulClear - 1
  • helpfulEmpathetic - 0
  • helpfulGoodSources - 0
  • helpfulUniqueContext - 0
  • helpfulAddressesClaim - 0
  • helpfulImportantContext - 0
  • helpfulUnbiasedLanguage - 0
  • notHelpfulOther - 0
  • notHelpfulIncorrect - 0
  • notHelpfulSourcesMissingOrUnreliable - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculationOrBias - 0
  • notHelpfulMissingKeyPoints - 0
  • notHelpfulOutdated - 0
  • notHelpfulHardToUnderstand - 0
  • notHelpfulArgumentativeOrBiased - 0
  • notHelpfulOffTopic - 0
  • notHelpfulSpamHarassmentOrAbuse - 0
  • notHelpfulIrrelevantSources - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculation - 0
  • notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 0
  • ratingsId - 1754153324012765250C3111BFD2E2C29D1DAA06E6C4583E7FC8DDAB97767EA6C1A822775DAE657D711