3 ms·

> The vaccine, developed with Oxford University, was 79% effective in preventing symptomatic illness in the large trial that also took place in Chile and Peru,

> The vaccine, developed with Oxford University, was 79% effective in preventing symptomatic illness in the large trial that also took place in Chile and Peru, according to the data. It was also 100% effective against severe or critical forms of the disease and hospitalisation, and posed no increased risk of blood clots. Am no super smart virologist but my brain immediately pinged when I started hearing the news from AZ quoting ... 100% effective against Xxxxx... Only thing that came to me was the good ol' adverts from bug sprays and disinfectants claiming to be 99.9% effective against bugs/bacteria

ceejayoz 6y ago
> Am no super smart virologist but my brain immediately pinged when I started hearing the news from AZ quoting ... 100% effective against Xxxxx... This is an illustration of why lay people applying "common sense" to data sets and statistics can be a problem. The efficacy stats are based on small numbers, but with sound stats behind them. For example, from https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/03/03/science/vaccine-efficacy-coronavirus.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/03/03/science/vacci...: > What’s more, all the vaccines look as if they have a high efficacy against more serious outcomes like hospitalization and death. For example, no one who got Johnson & Johnson’s vaccine had to go to the hospital for a Covid-19 infection 28 days or more after getting an injection. Sixteen people who got the placebo did. That translates to 100 percent efficacy, with a confidence interval of 74.3 percent to 100 percent. Expanding from the trials (with tens of thousands of people) to billions of people will mean that number can't stay at 100% forever in real-world use. It's still a great number to see.
- freebuju 6y ago
  100% effective against hospitalization is 100% obvious BS. I don't need to be a statistician to make this conclusion.
  - thehappypm 6y ago
    The real-world data they have shows 100% protection compared to placebo in the trial. That's all the number means. Would you prefer they round down to 99% for you?
    - freebuju 6y ago
      I'd prefer they focus on doing research with actual data & figures that actually matter. And getting it right while at it. IMO the 100% effective xxx was absolutely unnecessary. It becomes easy for anyone to tear down this report. AZ aren't helping themselves with such claims. Also prefer they round off nothing. Report your data as-is. Majority of the people aren't stupid. They don't need your loose interpretations nor any nudges. Certainly not from the vax manufacturer.
  - ceejayoz 6y ago
    100% effective against hospitalization in the trial, because no one wound up hospitalized in the experimental group. You'd prefer they lie?
    - freebuju 6y ago
      I think they've already done so (worst case scenario) or they're just incompetent (best case scenario). And if am not wrong, they should be publishing the final report based on this research.
      - ceejayoz 6y ago
        They submitted the analysis of the Phase III trials for publication in February. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3777268 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3777268 > There were no hospitalisations in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group after the initial 21 day exclusion period, and 15 in the control group. You can disbelieve it, if you like, but you can hardly accuse them of not publishing it.
IfOnlyYouKnew 6y ago
That’s, like, your fault, then? Because the data does show 100% effectiveness. And I do trust the data, because (a) explicit, deliberate lying just doesn’t make any sense, for any of the people involved here. And, (b), all the vaccines have been 100% effective. Not a single fully vaccinated person across all the trials has been hospitalized or died from COVID.
- mrlonglong 6y ago
  Which is why I had my AZ jab today.

ceejayoz 6y ago

> Am no super smart virologist but my brain immediately pinged when I started hearing the news from AZ quoting ... 100% effective against Xxxxx... This is an illustration of why lay people applying "common sense" to data sets and statistics can be a problem. The efficacy stats are based on small numbers, but with sound stats behind them. For example, from https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/03/03/science/vaccine-efficacy-coronavirus.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/03/03/science/vacci...: > What’s more, all the vaccines look as if they have a high efficacy against more serious outcomes like hospitalization and death. For example, no one who got Johnson & Johnson’s vaccine had to go to the hospital for a Covid-19 infection 28 days or more after getting an injection. Sixteen people who got the placebo did. That translates to 100 percent efficacy, with a confidence interval of 74.3 percent to 100 percent. Expanding from the trials (with tens of thousands of people) to billions of people will mean that number can't stay at 100% forever in real-world use. It's still a great number to see.

freebuju 6y ago
100% effective against hospitalization is 100% obvious BS. I don't need to be a statistician to make this conclusion.
- thehappypm 6y ago
  The real-world data they have shows 100% protection compared to placebo in the trial. That's all the number means. Would you prefer they round down to 99% for you?
  - freebuju 6y ago
    I'd prefer they focus on doing research with actual data & figures that actually matter. And getting it right while at it. IMO the 100% effective xxx was absolutely unnecessary. It becomes easy for anyone to tear down this report. AZ aren't helping themselves with such claims. Also prefer they round off nothing. Report your data as-is. Majority of the people aren't stupid. They don't need your loose interpretations nor any nudges. Certainly not from the vax manufacturer.
- ceejayoz 6y ago
  100% effective against hospitalization in the trial, because no one wound up hospitalized in the experimental group. You'd prefer they lie?
  - freebuju 6y ago
    I think they've already done so (worst case scenario) or they're just incompetent (best case scenario). And if am not wrong, they should be publishing the final report based on this research.
    - ceejayoz 6y ago
      They submitted the analysis of the Phase III trials for publication in February. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3777268 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3777268 > There were no hospitalisations in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group after the initial 21 day exclusion period, and 15 in the control group. You can disbelieve it, if you like, but you can hardly accuse them of not publishing it.

IfOnlyYouKnew 6y ago

That’s, like, your fault, then? Because the data does show 100% effectiveness. And I do trust the data, because (a) explicit, deliberate lying just doesn’t make any sense, for any of the people involved here. And, (b), all the vaccines have been 100% effective. Not a single fully vaccinated person across all the trials has been hospitalized or died from COVID.

mrlonglong 6y ago
Which is why I had my AZ jab today.