[eesmith]

Do you expect HN comments to use more accurate language than medical researchers use in published papers?

I don't.

So describing the difference between "93%" and "about 93%" as 'much more sensible', in this context, seems excessively nitpicky.

Even more so given that you got the wrong vitamin and it took you a couple of tries until you got the right citation.

[_0w8t]

I am extremely skeptical about precise numbers in medicine. The biology just does not work in that way. And it does no matter if the number comes from HN comments or peer-reviewed journal article. It signals that with very high probability that at best those who gave the number do not understand what they are talking about. At worst in can be just an arbitrary number where the extra precision was used to give a sense of legitimacy.

And note how much better the claim from the original article sounds: the efficiency of at least 90%. Which tells that even if one follow a reasonable lifestyle that minimizes chances of getting the infection (or at least feed infants in a reasonable way as we are talking about <2 years old), then still the vaccine reduces the chance of infection by a factor of 10.

And yes, it was stupid for me to rely on the memory when claiming about particular vitamin.

[ashtonkem]

> And it does no matter if the number comes from HN comments or peer-reviewed journal article.

I’m sorry, that’s absurd. You will always be picking pedantic fights with people if you expect everyone everywhere to meet the standards of peer reviewed medicine.

From the outside picking a fight over the difference between “93%” and “about 93%” on a technology board is pedantic to the point of being suspicious.