3 ms·

Four incidents does seem like a really small number to be finding much significance. I know the overall N is large, but don't you need sample size large enough

by lkbm 5y ago

Four incidents does seem like a really small number to be finding much significance. I know the overall N is large, but don't you need sample size large enough for the incident count to be large(ish) as well? Obviously, at this point we're seeing very clear divergence in both hospitalizations and deaths wherever we track vaccinated vs. non-vaccinated people (e.g., NYC and more recently the CDC), but I'm surprised how small the relevant case numbers are in that study.

vannevar 5y ago
If you read the abstract of the study (which the author clearly hoped no one would do), you'll see this: "The efficacy in preventing severe disease was 98.2% (95% CI, 92.8 to 99.6), with 2 cases in the mRNA-1273 group and 106 in the placebo group..." This was in a study that included over 30,000 participants.
- emtel 5y ago
  You're confusing efficacy against severe disease, which this study proved, and efficacy against death, which this study did not prove.
  - vannevar 5y ago
    No, I'm not. Clinically, severe disease is (and was known to be at the time of the study) a pre-requisite for death. We don't see people with mild covid dropping dead. The study saw only 2 severe cases among the vaccinated and 106 in the unvaccinated. Coupled with the rarity of negative reactions to the vaccine, the researchers were justified in saying that the study proved that the vaccine would prevent death. Experience has proven them correct, as death rates among the unvaccinated are much higher than the vaccinated.
    - lkbm 5y ago
      Ah, that's a good point. The limited death data itself was (I assume) not significant, but we don't need it to be given the size of the effect earlier in the "conversion funnel".
      - peteradio 5y ago
        It's a bad argument, it implicitly assumes you know only severe COVID-19 can lead to death. You cannot say this study proved lower incidence of all cause death. You would have to extrapolate via some model of disease transmission. Once you get to that point you ought to get more imaginative than vaccine vaccine vaccine. It's a slick argument though, very "these aren't the droids you are looking for"
the_why_of_y 5y ago
Indeed, the numbers in that table are small. I think a more pertinent objection to the OP is cherry picking a table with small numbers in the first place, instead of, say, Table S27 on the very next page that has Severe Covid-19 Starting 14 Days After Second Injection 118 (placebo) vs. 3 (vaccine).

by lkbm 5y ago

vannevar 5y ago

If you read the abstract of the study (which the author clearly hoped no one would do), you'll see this: "The efficacy in preventing severe disease was 98.2% (95% CI, 92.8 to 99.6), with 2 cases in the mRNA-1273 group and 106 in the placebo group..." This was in a study that included over 30,000 participants.

emtel 5y ago
You're confusing efficacy against severe disease, which this study proved, and efficacy against death, which this study did not prove.
- vannevar 5y ago
  No, I'm not. Clinically, severe disease is (and was known to be at the time of the study) a pre-requisite for death. We don't see people with mild covid dropping dead. The study saw only 2 severe cases among the vaccinated and 106 in the unvaccinated. Coupled with the rarity of negative reactions to the vaccine, the researchers were justified in saying that the study proved that the vaccine would prevent death. Experience has proven them correct, as death rates among the unvaccinated are much higher than the vaccinated.
  - lkbm 5y ago
    Ah, that's a good point. The limited death data itself was (I assume) not significant, but we don't need it to be given the size of the effect earlier in the "conversion funnel".
    - peteradio 5y ago
      It's a bad argument, it implicitly assumes you know only severe COVID-19 can lead to death. You cannot say this study proved lower incidence of all cause death. You would have to extrapolate via some model of disease transmission. Once you get to that point you ought to get more imaginative than vaccine vaccine vaccine. It's a slick argument though, very "these aren't the droids you are looking for"

the_why_of_y 5y ago

Indeed, the numbers in that table are small. I think a more pertinent objection to the OP is cherry picking a table with small numbers in the first place, instead of, say, Table S27 on the very next page that has Severe Covid-19 Starting 14 Days After Second Injection 118 (placebo) vs. 3 (vaccine).