4 ms·
100% effective against hospitalization is 100% obvious BS. I don't need to be a statistician to make this conclusion.
by 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 agoThe 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 agoI'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 ago100% effective against hospitalization in the trial, because no one wound up hospitalized in the experimental group. You'd prefer they lie?
- freebuju 6y agoI 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 agoThey 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.