2515: Vaccine Research

|< < Prev Comic #2515 (September 14, 2021) Next > >|

Vaccine Research

Title text: Honestly feel a little sheepish about the amount of time and effort I spent confirming "yes, the vaccine helps protect people from getting sick and dying" but I guess everyone needs a hobby.

Explanation

This explanation may be incomplete or incorrect: Created by a VACCINE RESEARCH HOBBYIST - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon. If you can address this issue, please edit the page! Thanks.

The comic starts with White Hat using a common conversational tactic used by vaccine skeptics, and other conspiracy theorists, in order to try to persuade others, typically claiming that they did their own research. Generally, this research is usually biased, and generally only entrenches the position of the skeptic. In some cases, this research may be made up completely. However, subverting expectations, it seems that White Hat actually properly researched the subject, surprising Cueball. In the last panel, it shows White Hat as he asks if people are trying to give them to lots of people, which Cueball responds to nonchalantly, possibly because telling him that the vaccine rollout was a major event could cause White Hat to change his mind. So far, only about 42.3 % of the wolrd population have been vaccinated against COVID-19. In low income contries, this rate is as low as 1.9%.

In the title text, Randall comments that he has spent way too much time researching the vaccines, commenting that there has only been confirmation of his previous beliefs.

Transcript

[White Hat and Cueball are standing in an empty panel talking.]

White Hat: I've been hearing about vaccines. But I decided to do my own research.

White Hat: So I spent months on the internet reading hundreds of studies.

[Close up on White Hat's head]

White Hat: And wow, I gotta say, these vaccines are pretty good.

Cueball, from outside the frame: Oh, really.

White Hat: Yeah, seems like it'd be great if lots of people got them. Is anyone working on that?

Cueball: There's been some effort.

White Hat: Okay, cool.

 add a comment! ⋅  add a topic (use sparingly)! ⋅  refresh comments!

Discussion

Too bad White Hat and Randall didn't bother to research the other half of the question. YES, vaccines work to save lives. But There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch, and you need to research *both* sides of any question, not just the side you agree with.Seebert (talk) 12:52, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I really don't want this to turn into a long debate, but how do you know White Hat/Randall didn't find anything about the risks of vaccines? They never claim that and the fact that White Hat calls the vaccines "pretty good" instead of something like "perfect" would suggest he's aware of the downsides but considers the benefits to outweigh the risks. Bischoff (talk) 13:27, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Since that's left ambiguous (deliberately?), one possible reading of the comic is as a joke on how "my own research" just reinforces prior beliefs, whatever they were. This reading doesn't play as well with the understatement in the punchline, though. --172.69.71.157 21:20, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't trust the "scientists", so I decided to do my own research. Anyway, I need 5000 people for a double-blind clinical trial, so DM me if you know anyone interested. Svízel přítula (talk) 13:25, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

That's exactly where I thought this comic was going to go when I read the first panel. 172.68.133.217 18:07, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

It so happens that I did register to participate in vaccine trials. They didn't call on me yet, so I'm available. Reach out to the Coronavirus Prevention Network here: https://www.coronaviruspreventionnetwork.org/ and maybe I can be one of your subjects. Nitpicking (talk) 03:23, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm unsure whether I'd call Cueball's response "nonchalant", nor that there's any indication as to his motives being deceptive. I read it more as US-style "irony", or UK-style "understatement as intensifier". --172.69.71.157 21:20, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I read it as sarcastic, too. Perhaps the explanation should be updated. Sarcasm would also suggest that clearly White Hat doesn't know about the effort because they've spent so much time reading the already produced research on the "100s of Studies" Sem 1983 (talk) 21:26, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I did that. Hope my rework didn't suck. --108.162.221.193 21:47, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Should we tag this as a Tuesday comic, or as a Monday comic? This comic was posted on the site on Tuesday, but the "official publication date" per https://xkcd.com/archive/ says it to be 9/13 (Monday). 172.69.34.183 22:03, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

If Randall states it is a Monday comic I think we should leave it as such, but it could be stated in a trivia that the comic was first released on Tuesday. Do we know exactly when it was released, and was it for sure Tuesday all over the world at that moment? --Kynde (talk) 10:15, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

It was later than its usual timeframe (hello from the UK where the exception seems to be that "today's" comic arrives "today" - usually they're an hour or three post-midnight) but if Randall the same nonchanlent attitude towards waking hours as me then even post 5AM might be 'intended' to count... 162.158.88.5 10:56, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

The bot that posted this comic posted it at 11:00 UTC on 9/14 (Tuesday), which corresponds to 4am Pacific Time and 7am Eastern. 172.68.133.139 17:53, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

And 1am Hawaii time. But still Monday near the date line where the US has possessions of small island. I have made a trivia about this. --Kynde (talk) 10:55, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Did Randall misspell “sheepish” or is there a subtle joke in the title text? It reads “sheapish” as of this comment. 172.70.130.87 23:14, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Says "sheepish" at 03:22 UTC Tuesday. Nitpicking (talk) 03:23, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

It also was the correct spelling when this page was created by the bot here on explain. --Kynde (talk) 10:52, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I’m feeling gaslit. May need to check my eyesight.172.70.130.209 13:19, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

He he, maybe ;-) --Kynde (talk) 10:55, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I missed the use of "sheepish" on my first read, until this comment pointed it out. I suspect this is a reference to how some people refer to others as "sheep" for believing what experts are telling them. This should probably be included somehow. Ianrbibtitlht (talk) 12:05, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

maybe a double entendre but I’m pretty sure Randall means the usual usage of sheepish - affected by or showing embarrassment caused by consciousness of fault 162.158.74.198 13:24, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Agree with the usual meaning. --Kynde (talk) 10:55, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I wonder if this is related with some declarations^{[citation needed]} from rapper Nicki Minaj, unvaccinated, who, after becoming covid-positive, wrote in her Twitter that would leave music aside for a while to investigate by herself the effects of the vaccines. 172.70.147.165 (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

I highly doubt it, but maybe is you could give us a link? --Kynde (talk) 10:55, 16 September 2021 (UTC)