2 ms·
You’ve only emphasized one side of the interval, which suggests some bias. Eg you haven’t written out that the other side implies you might have a smaller chan
by onos 4y ago
You’ve only emphasized one side of the interval, which suggests some bias. Eg you haven’t written out that the other side implies you might have a smaller chance of these issues once you get covid. That said, it probably is reasonable to have as a prior that it’s unlikely that covid would lower your risk of these issues.
- brookst 4y agoDid they not emphasize both sides of the uncertainty? > the data is statistically consistent with myocarditis being 0.45 times as likely in people with COVID infection, or 2.56 times more likely.
- manwe150 4y agoThat feels an awkward way to word that claim, since both of those outcomes have mathematically zero chance of being true literally (interpreted as points), or less than 5% total chance of being true (interpreted as areas) I think the converse statement would have been more strictly true statistically (e.g. that 0.45 is statistically consistent with the data), and more accurately descriptive of what a p-test actually means.