4 ms·
It is great news. I didn't see the case numbers but I've inferred to arrive at 90% that there were 9 cases in vaccinated group vs 85 in controls. (95% C.I. 80
by innomatics 6y ago
It is great news.
I didn't see the case numbers but I've inferred to arrive at 90% that there were 9 cases in vaccinated group vs 85 in controls. (95% C.I. 80-99%)
Very interested to see forthcoming results from competitors that don't face the -80 degrees issue.
- StavrosK 6y agoOut of 45,000 people, only 86ish people got infected in the trial arm? Isn't that too few? Even for the control arm, that's still only 774 people infected.
- BurningFrog 6y agoNo, 94 people total got infected. At least 85 were in the control group. Those are the numbers that matter, statistically. If the total number of people in the study were 2 thousand or 2 billion doesn't enter into the math.
- OJFord 6y agoThat's not true, population size absolutely 'enters into the math'. 9 vs. 85 does not give the same result independently of whether N=94, 200, 2k, or 2B. It affects confidence, and potentially the result of the test entirely. I won't be more specific because stats was never a strong suit and my memory's hazy, but I remember enough to know it matters!
- innomatics 6y agoI'm thinking that 85/21,750 or 0.4% of the controls developed the disease (vs 0.04% of those who received vaccine). It does seem low for the US where you have 3% of the population had disease already in 2020. Perhaps more data came from Germany? Or it could be they measure not just PCR +ve results, but antibody levels and/or severe symptoms?