Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-10-04 02:51:04 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: DB3FF9D63BE685094E7F74DB79C3D36103BF4A2D15EC90A0C48CFA2F759285B3
Participant Details

Original Note:

公開ノートの再掲です https://twitter.com/i/birdwatch/t/1770282386061955525 重症予防効果は臨床試験や研究者により際限なく報告済です ランダム化比較試験のメタ解析↓ https://www.carenet.com/news/general/carenet/56042 オミクロン期の観察研究のメタ解析↓ https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(22)00409-1/fulltext 日本の感染研・長崎大報告↓ https://medical-tribune.co.jp/news/2023/0519556650/ https://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/html/20230304/k10013998631000.html 福島氏の話は65歳以下の陽性者で接種者の方が致死率が高いという物で(画面30秒)この論法はシンプソンのパラドックスと呼ばれる接種者が年齢が高い事を補正してない有名な誤謬です↓ https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL1N2SN1P4/ さらにワクチンは初期にRCTのメタ解析で高い発症予防率と同程度の死亡予防率がありました↓ https://www.carenet.com/news/general/carenet/56042 ので、この時期の「発症者の中の死亡率」の差の微妙さは有効性の無さを意味しません

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1841934168357536137
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - DB3FF9D63BE685094E7F74DB79C3D36103BF4A2D15EC90A0C48CFA2F759285B3
  • createdAtMillis - 1728010264966
  • version - 2
  • agree - 0
  • disagree - 0
  • helpful - 0
  • notHelpful - 0
  • helpfulnessLevel - NOT_HELPFUL
  • helpfulOther - 0
  • helpfulInformative - 0
  • helpfulClear - 0
  • helpfulEmpathetic - 0
  • helpfulGoodSources - 0
  • helpfulUniqueContext - 0
  • helpfulAddressesClaim - 0
  • helpfulImportantContext - 0
  • helpfulUnbiasedLanguage - 0
  • notHelpfulOther - 1
  • notHelpfulIncorrect - 1
  • notHelpfulSourcesMissingOrUnreliable - 1
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculationOrBias - 0
  • notHelpfulMissingKeyPoints - 1
  • notHelpfulOutdated - 0
  • notHelpfulHardToUnderstand - 1
  • notHelpfulArgumentativeOrBiased - 1
  • notHelpfulOffTopic - 0
  • notHelpfulSpamHarassmentOrAbuse - 1
  • notHelpfulIrrelevantSources - 1
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculation - 1
  • notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 1
  • ratingsId - 1841934168357536137DB3FF9D63BE685094E7F74DB79C3D36103BF4A2D15EC90A0C48CFA2F759285B3