4 ms·

Read the results in the paper: https://www.nejm.org/doi/suppl/10.1056/NEJMoa2113017/suppl_file/nejmoa2113017_appendix.pdf https://www.nejm.org/doi/suppl/10.105

Read the results in the paper: https://www.nejm.org/doi/suppl/10.1056/NEJMoa2113017/suppl_file/nejmoa2113017_appendix.pdf https://www.nejm.org/doi/suppl/10.1056/NEJMoa2113017/suppl_f... Group A and Group B had the same amount of deaths. Group B also had more adverse reactions, some serious and some minor. Given these details in isolation, I would want to be in Group A. But then you look at what that Group A is, and it's actually the control group.

thehappypm 5y ago
Some statistics about the table: There were 30,000 participants, and in both test and placebo, there were 16 deaths. The test arm had 3 covid deaths, and the control arm had 1, but it was an HIV patient who was not fully vaccinated so they are arguing it’s 0 deaths for the fully vaccinated cohort. So, the numbers we’re looking at here are pretty small. So what can we learn from this? Basically, if you remove all the covid deaths, it’s 13 deaths in test and 15 in placebo. These are statistically equivalent. In both test and control you’re equally likely to die of something other than covid in that window. Now onto the covid deaths. There were 3 in placebo and 0 in control. These are horribly small numbers. More data would be useful. However.. you can do the stats anyway. The placebo group suggests that the death rate is .02%, with some error. Having 0.00% death rate in the test group is unlikely, but within that error. So this data is too weak to draw much of a conclusion.
maxerickson 5y ago
But why would you go look at the results of a year old study with 30,000 participants when there is recent data covering many more people where protection from death among the vaccinated is blatantly obvious? That's the trick, focus on the evidence that paints a particular picture instead of actually evaluating the available evidence.

thehappypm 5y ago

Some statistics about the table: There were 30,000 participants, and in both test and placebo, there were 16 deaths. The test arm had 3 covid deaths, and the control arm had 1, but it was an HIV patient who was not fully vaccinated so they are arguing it’s 0 deaths for the fully vaccinated cohort. So, the numbers we’re looking at here are pretty small. So what can we learn from this? Basically, if you remove all the covid deaths, it’s 13 deaths in test and 15 in placebo. These are statistically equivalent. In both test and control you’re equally likely to die of something other than covid in that window. Now onto the covid deaths. There were 3 in placebo and 0 in control. These are horribly small numbers. More data would be useful. However.. you can do the stats anyway. The placebo group suggests that the death rate is .02%, with some error. Having 0.00% death rate in the test group is unlikely, but within that error. So this data is too weak to draw much of a conclusion.

maxerickson 5y ago

But why would you go look at the results of a year old study with 30,000 participants when there is recent data covering many more people where protection from death among the vaccinated is blatantly obvious? That's the trick, focus on the evidence that paints a particular picture instead of actually evaluating the available evidence.