3 ms·

This appears to be a hasty conclusion. Older people with paxlovid did equally well as younger people without paxlovid. That indicates that paxlovid actually wor

This appears to be a hasty conclusion. Older people with paxlovid did equally well as younger people without paxlovid. That indicates that paxlovid actually works, given that older age leads to covid mortality! The author's only refutation of this is that the same pattern was observed before Paxlovid was around. But that pattern itself is an aberration that is not true of the general population, it's only true in that one geographical area due to, I would assume, a statistical anomaly.

BugsJustFindMe 2y ago
> That indicates that paxlovid actually works It had no measurable effect in the measured group. You can't say that it works based on that. If it had a measurable effect in that group, you would expect to see improvement in the treatment group between the two scenarios. If (65-69 no treatment) == (70-74 no treatment) and also (65-69 no treatment) == (70-74 treatment), then (70-74 treatment) == (70-74 no treatment) by the transitive property of equality. Now the reason for (65-69 no treatment) == (70-74 no treatment) may be its own mystery, but we expect to see at least _something_ happen anyway between (70-74 no treatment) and (70-74 treatment) if the treatment had some benefit for that group, and apparently they didn't see that.
- ulfw 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - BugsJustFindMe 2y ago
    Which part of that are you having trouble with? We have two different age ranges, one of them separately measured with and without treatment, with the same outcomes across all groupings.
    - ulfw 2y ago
      Apologies. My dyslexia hit me. You are right and I was wrong
  - mort96 2y ago
    I think they're okay? That expression makes perfect sense to me If X == Y and also X == Z, then Y == Z
directevolve 2y ago
They were comparing two time points as well as two age groups: before vs after Paxlovid became available, and late 60s (disallowed Paxlovid) vs early 70s (allowed Paxlovid). There was no significant different before or after Paxlovid became available to the early 70s patients. This updates us against Paxlovid being effective in this patient population, for the specific outcome metrics.

BugsJustFindMe 2y ago

> That indicates that paxlovid actually works It had no measurable effect in the measured group. You can't say that it works based on that. If it had a measurable effect in that group, you would expect to see improvement in the treatment group between the two scenarios. If (65-69 no treatment) == (70-74 no treatment) and also (65-69 no treatment) == (70-74 treatment), then (70-74 treatment) == (70-74 no treatment) by the transitive property of equality. Now the reason for (65-69 no treatment) == (70-74 no treatment) may be its own mystery, but we expect to see at least _something_ happen anyway between (70-74 no treatment) and (70-74 treatment) if the treatment had some benefit for that group, and apparently they didn't see that.

ulfw 2y ago
[flagged]
- BugsJustFindMe 2y ago
  Which part of that are you having trouble with? We have two different age ranges, one of them separately measured with and without treatment, with the same outcomes across all groupings.
  - ulfw 2y ago
    Apologies. My dyslexia hit me. You are right and I was wrong
- mort96 2y ago
  I think they're okay? That expression makes perfect sense to me If X == Y and also X == Z, then Y == Z

directevolve 2y ago

They were comparing two time points as well as two age groups: before vs after Paxlovid became available, and late 60s (disallowed Paxlovid) vs early 70s (allowed Paxlovid). There was no significant different before or after Paxlovid became available to the early 70s patients. This updates us against Paxlovid being effective in this patient population, for the specific outcome metrics.