4 ms·

What's the alternative? A few months ago drug discovery chemist Derek Lowe wrote an article saying that frequently strict experimental procedures are the only w

What's the alternative? A few months ago drug discovery chemist Derek Lowe wrote an article saying that frequently strict experimental procedures are the only way to tease out enough statistical power.

WalterBright 6y ago
> enough statistical power Meaning the adverse effects are small enough to require large numbers to discern. Balance this against the predictable number of covid deaths from waiting for those large numbers.
- __blockcipher__ 6y ago
  Most countries have already had SARS-2 work its way through them significantly. The utility of a vaccine might be lower than you think. NZ comes to mind as a country that has barely built up any immunity (due to them trying to contain it completely). They can expect more utility from a vaccine than otherwise. Anyway, given the incredibly low rate of both mortality and also any real consequences in, say, those under age 55, their personal benefit of a vaccine is incredibly low. So it really comes down to whether you’re a Sweden person or a New Zealand person. I’m a Sweden person personally.
  - orra 6y ago
    > Most countries have already had SARS-2 work its way through them significantly. Noope, that isn’t what antibody testing shows. Take England for example. Coronavirus working its way through a mere, say, 6% of the population is devastating. > The utility of a vaccine might be lower than you think. Nonsense. We need to protect the other 94%.
    - ketamine__ 6y ago
      You're referring to antibody testing? Is any T-cell testing being done?
    - lbeltrame 6y ago
      The problem with aggregate numbers like that 6% is that they assume a uniform distribution of the virus within the population, which is not the case: some areas are far more hit than others. I think this should always be kept into account.
      - orra 6y ago
        Yeah, in major population centres like London, about 20% of people caught it. Whereas rural England will be lower than that 6% average. That’s the areas. As for age or demographics of people who caught it in England, I don’t think that is well known.
  - harambae 6y ago
    >The utility of a vaccine might be lower than you think. Especially given that most Americans won't take it [0]. [0] https://www.axios.com/covid-vaccine-election-f267a641-a19f-43e0-80a0-87c8e6eb303f.html https://www.axios.com/covid-vaccine-election-f267a641-a19f-4...
- andreareina 6y ago
  Isn't there already a protocol for early stopping if the effect sizes (positive or negative) are bit enough?

WalterBright 6y ago

> enough statistical power Meaning the adverse effects are small enough to require large numbers to discern. Balance this against the predictable number of covid deaths from waiting for those large numbers.

__blockcipher__ 6y ago
Most countries have already had SARS-2 work its way through them significantly. The utility of a vaccine might be lower than you think. NZ comes to mind as a country that has barely built up any immunity (due to them trying to contain it completely). They can expect more utility from a vaccine than otherwise. Anyway, given the incredibly low rate of both mortality and also any real consequences in, say, those under age 55, their personal benefit of a vaccine is incredibly low. So it really comes down to whether you’re a Sweden person or a New Zealand person. I’m a Sweden person personally.
- orra 6y ago
  > Most countries have already had SARS-2 work its way through them significantly. Noope, that isn’t what antibody testing shows. Take England for example. Coronavirus working its way through a mere, say, 6% of the population is devastating. > The utility of a vaccine might be lower than you think. Nonsense. We need to protect the other 94%.
  - ketamine__ 6y ago
    You're referring to antibody testing? Is any T-cell testing being done?
  - lbeltrame 6y ago
    The problem with aggregate numbers like that 6% is that they assume a uniform distribution of the virus within the population, which is not the case: some areas are far more hit than others. I think this should always be kept into account.
    - orra 6y ago
      Yeah, in major population centres like London, about 20% of people caught it. Whereas rural England will be lower than that 6% average. That’s the areas. As for age or demographics of people who caught it in England, I don’t think that is well known.
- harambae 6y ago
  >The utility of a vaccine might be lower than you think. Especially given that most Americans won't take it [0]. [0] https://www.axios.com/covid-vaccine-election-f267a641-a19f-43e0-80a0-87c8e6eb303f.html https://www.axios.com/covid-vaccine-election-f267a641-a19f-4...
andreareina 6y ago
Isn't there already a protocol for early stopping if the effect sizes (positive or negative) are bit enough?