(Total Views: 578)
Posted On: 01/08/2021 10:44:36 AM
Post# of 154031
I understand, that is a good way to look at it, a good way to do the math.
Thus, if out of the 87, even if 50 or 51, a high number, but even if 50 or 51 of those 87 are in the leronlimab groups, then we would still have an acceptable p value of about 0.04 and anything under 51 is clearly great for Statistical Significance and an EUA.
I was not presenting my math as an opinion of 63% reduction in death, just doing the math based upon 14.5% deaths when leronlimab given to s/c in our April 2020 eIND cases.
The general confidence for our achieving an acceptable p value, since Nader announced 87 deaths, has gone from high to very high. Possibly our p value will end up closer to 0.0025 to 0.01 and we celebrate.
Thus, if out of the 87, even if 50 or 51, a high number, but even if 50 or 51 of those 87 are in the leronlimab groups, then we would still have an acceptable p value of about 0.04 and anything under 51 is clearly great for Statistical Significance and an EUA.
I was not presenting my math as an opinion of 63% reduction in death, just doing the math based upon 14.5% deaths when leronlimab given to s/c in our April 2020 eIND cases.
The general confidence for our achieving an acceptable p value, since Nader announced 87 deaths, has gone from high to very high. Possibly our p value will end up closer to 0.0025 to 0.01 and we celebrate.
(2)
(0)
