2 ms·
> The fact that they saw the same effect size in groups that didn't get the vaccine is a reason to doubt the result Where does it say that in the article? The
by roywiggins 3y ago
> The fact that they saw the same effect size in groups that didn't get the vaccine is a reason to doubt the result
Where does it say that in the article? The closest it gets is "The mortality benefit was documented even in the areas with the lowest RTS,S coverage" but the lowest coverage was 62% (the highest was 75%).
- timr 3y agoYep, but then they go on to make the credulous woo-woo argument. None of us know what the actual results are here (since this is a conference talk, translated by a reporter), so I can only work with what they say. In any well-done study with an effective treatment, you'd expect, a priori, that a reduction in intervention produces a reduction in effect. In other words, you don't benefit if you don't get the drug.
- roywiggins 3y agoThe article is actually silent on whether the mortality effect was reduced, or whether the study was powerful enough to reliably detect that the mortality effect was reduced in lower-vaccinated communities. It just says the effect "was documented" in those communities, not whether it was exactly as strong.