I realize I’ve been gone for a while, but a no-comment close vote to my first question since coming back:

Boost of Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine increasing Immune Response to Vector

Caught me by surprise. I’m now trying to tear through the meta and guidelines, and edited to be more clear, but is the real close reason lack of research?

I just want to make sure that there wasn’t some drastic change I was unaware of, or a particular change that should be highlighted.

I will keep updating the question with more information if I find any good examples, or maybe I can add several bad ones, but I was truly surprised by the close vote.

  • 3
    $\begingroup$ The vote is marked as 'needs details or clarity'. Personally, I wouldn't worry too much about an isolated close vote. $\endgroup$
    – AliceD Mod
    Sep 17 at 6:41
  • $\begingroup$ Fair enough. Though I do note another close vote has come in. I can certainly add details, but I suspect what I'm asking for should be clear. $\endgroup$
    – Atl LED
    Sep 17 at 17:31
  • $\begingroup$ I think the first paragraph can easily come off as a rant, and if nothing else it's the sort of thing people call "noise" around StackExchange: it's meta commentary, like things along the lines of "please help" or "thanks". I think the question is much improved since you added the second paragraph explaining what exactly it is you are after. It was probably clear already with a bit of background info, but ideally questions should have enough background to be understandable by anyone in biology (it's pretty amazing how far you can go from basic->domain in just one sentence). $\endgroup$
    – Bryan Krause Mod
    Sep 17 at 22:17
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Specifically about the first paragraph I feel like the linked sections of text are pushy and misleading. When you link "(doesn't) want to talk about", one would expect the linked source to be primarily "People don't want to talk about _______", not a paper about-the-thing-not-to-talk-about. The paper you've linked shows that people are talking about it, and find it important! You're putting words in other authors mouths, and that doesn't come across positively. $\endgroup$
    – Bryan Krause Mod
    Sep 17 at 22:20
  • $\begingroup$ Another reason I can see "unclear" votes to the current question is that it seems like it may be concerned about the wrong thing. The concern with immune responses to these vectors is that they attenuate the response to the vaccination target. It doesn't matter if an immune response is generated against the vector as long as a) safety is good, i.e. you aren't triggering an allergic reaction, and b) efficacy is good, i.e., any immune response to the vector doesn't interfere with the intended immunity. Your question already quotes a study showing this is the case, so why ask the question? $\endgroup$
    – Bryan Krause Mod
    Sep 17 at 22:28
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @bryanKrause I know of two independent researchers that started looking into it this week, and wanted to see what has already been published and possibly missed. The question of attenuation is still a significant question if changes in the target epitopes are required, and it becomes a question of not a single prime-boost series, but multiple changes in formulation. Further, I am specifically concerned with autoimmune complications with anti-III (penton) crossover reactivity. None of that seems specifically required for the question, and couldn’t I just be curious? Thus the meta question. $\endgroup$
    – Atl LED
    Sep 18 at 14:02
  • $\begingroup$ I do accept the first line should be pulled and approve of the edit. I note the linked articles talk around the subject and themselves note a lack of attention to it. But it certainly doesn’t come across positively and was not additive. $\endgroup$
    – Atl LED
    Sep 18 at 14:11

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .