4 ms·

That is the efficacy results from the AZ phase 3 clinical trial, in the over 65 group as published by AZ. I can sense your doubt ... we can even go to the fact

That is the efficacy results from the AZ phase 3 clinical trial, in the over 65 group as published by AZ. I can sense your doubt ... we can even go to the factcheckers to see it. https://fullfact.org/health/german-astrazeneca-8-percent-handelsblatt/ https://fullfact.org/health/german-astrazeneca-8-percent-han... Robert Koch Institute (RKI), including its calculations on the vaccine’s efficacy data submitted by the manufacturers. These appeared to show the vaccine was just 6.3% effective among over 65s.

yokaze 5y ago
The next sentence right after the one you chose to quote in your last paragraph: "This is close to 8%. However this number shouldn’t be taken at face value." Why? TLDR: Too small group and too few cases in groups (one each) to be statistical significant.
- shapefrog 5y ago
  Yeah the 8% was circulating in the media as the efficacy and thus this was debunking it as not the efficacy. I said at the start not statistically significant. That is becuase they designed a shitty trial, if you are going to have an insignificant number of 65+'s in the trial, then dont make the target endpoint 'the number of cases' then when reporting a low efficacy are shocked when people took it on face value and ignored the p-value. If you want to test for side effects / will it kill people then make that the endpoint for that section of the trial. That is horrifically bad science and communication. But if you publish a headline number of 70% efficacy in under 65's and 6.3% efficacy in over 65's what are you meant to think? That is might be quasi-ineffective in over 65s?
alimw 5y ago
Thanks! I don't speak German but it looks like there were 341 who took the vaccine, 319 who took the placebo and 1 who got sick in each of those groups. Solve for e in (1 - e) * (1 / 319) = 1 /341 and you get 6.5%. Almost...

yokaze 5y ago

The next sentence right after the one you chose to quote in your last paragraph: "This is close to 8%. However this number shouldn’t be taken at face value." Why? TLDR: Too small group and too few cases in groups (one each) to be statistical significant.

shapefrog 5y ago
Yeah the 8% was circulating in the media as the efficacy and thus this was debunking it as not the efficacy. I said at the start not statistically significant. That is becuase they designed a shitty trial, if you are going to have an insignificant number of 65+'s in the trial, then dont make the target endpoint 'the number of cases' then when reporting a low efficacy are shocked when people took it on face value and ignored the p-value. If you want to test for side effects / will it kill people then make that the endpoint for that section of the trial. That is horrifically bad science and communication. But if you publish a headline number of 70% efficacy in under 65's and 6.3% efficacy in over 65's what are you meant to think? That is might be quasi-ineffective in over 65s?

alimw 5y ago

Thanks! I don't speak German but it looks like there were 341 who took the vaccine, 319 who took the placebo and 1 who got sick in each of those groups. Solve for e in (1 - e) * (1 / 319) = 1 /341 and you get 6.5%. Almost...