2 ms·
What it’s saying is that in both cases the unvaccinated group had less risk from not taking the vaccine than taking it. The placebo isn’t relevant, just the fa
by EGreg 4y ago
What it’s saying is that in both cases the unvaccinated group had less risk from not taking the vaccine than taking it.
The placebo isn’t relevant, just the fact they didn’t take the vaccine. Since it’s randomized, it’s unsurprising that both groups of unvaccinated people had diff risk outcomes. What IS surprising is that the vaccine performed worse than both random groups of unvaccinated people.
- vannevar 4y ago>What it’s saying is that in both cases the unvaccinated group had less risk from not taking the vaccine than taking it. I get that, but why is the quantitative description of the risk different in the first sentence than it is later in the paragraph? The first sentence clearly indicates that the risk is higher with Moderna (excess risk of 15.1 vs 10.1 per 10,000), while later the excess risk of Pfizer is stated as 18.0 per 10,000, while Moderna's is a much lower 7.1 per 10,000. I assume the numbers describe different things, but it isn't clear what the difference is.
- yakak 4y agoThese two studies are not normalized on time so slightly more events in ~two months for A vs B verse a lot more in ~one month for C vs D means more total events in A than C. Really, if you believe the primary difference is that pfizer was a lower dose and that this isn't all just noise, the data seems to be showing that there's a pretty short window where the risk of the jab wasn't made up for by benefit such that a longer study lost ground on finding a measurable risk.