Breaking news: 95% of apples are better than 95% of all other fruits.
A fundamental imperative of the design of a trial is that it's participants are as close to “of equal value” as practically possible. A credible trial will set parameters to assure this.
An essential parameter for a Covid trial is that all it's participants are equally exposed to Covid, as practically possible. You can't compare a participant with low exposure to a participant with high exposure.
If I'm correct, the 2 vaccine trials basically lumped any breathing humans without Covid into their trials, where they were given the vaccine or placebo and then sent home, to be exposed to Covid in their daily lives, regardless of their degree of exposure.
If I'm wrong, go get some coffee and don't bother reading on.
I can work from my rural home and have as much control of my exposure to covid, as possible.
I also am extremely proactive in protecting myself from unavoidable exposure by wearing a mask, and going grocery shopping prior to the store closing time, when there are very few shoppers.
I have very little chance of ever getting the virus (knock on wood), and would contribute little to no significance to the statistical outcome of a study, unless I were given the vaccine, in which case, it would give a false positive value in favor of the efficacy of the vaccine.
What statistical efficacy of a vaccine can be determined by comparing someone like myself to the bag person at my rural grocery store, or someone that doesn't wear a mask, or someone from inner city Boston that takes mass transportation to work, or a Covid front line health worker?
How can any of these people be considered of equal value even when compared to each other.
The trial participant profiles are endless and only contribute to the unequal value of the vaccine trial participants.
Vaccine trials using participants of equal value would be different trials such as:
500 Covid front line health workers.
500 Bostonians that don't wear masks.
500 Bostonians that wear masks.
500 from South Dakota that wear masks.
500 from South Dakota that don't.
Etc etc etc
How can I be compared to someone from South Dakota that doesn't wear a mask when we are both given the vaccine. I'm probably not going to get it anyway also giving the vaccine a positive % may not be deserved.
If I'm correct that all the participants are being considered of equal value, than the 95% value is worthless.
If I'm wrong, then I just waisted a good part of my morning.
A fundamental imperative of the design of a trial is that it's participants are as close to “of equal value” as practically possible. A credible trial will set parameters to assure this.
An essential parameter for a Covid trial is that all it's participants are equally exposed to Covid, as practically possible. You can't compare a participant with low exposure to a participant with high exposure.
If I'm correct, the 2 vaccine trials basically lumped any breathing humans without Covid into their trials, where they were given the vaccine or placebo and then sent home, to be exposed to Covid in their daily lives, regardless of their degree of exposure.
If I'm wrong, go get some coffee and don't bother reading on.
I can work from my rural home and have as much control of my exposure to covid, as possible.
I also am extremely proactive in protecting myself from unavoidable exposure by wearing a mask, and going grocery shopping prior to the store closing time, when there are very few shoppers.
I have very little chance of ever getting the virus (knock on wood), and would contribute little to no significance to the statistical outcome of a study, unless I were given the vaccine, in which case, it would give a false positive value in favor of the efficacy of the vaccine.
What statistical efficacy of a vaccine can be determined by comparing someone like myself to the bag person at my rural grocery store, or someone that doesn't wear a mask, or someone from inner city Boston that takes mass transportation to work, or a Covid front line health worker?
How can any of these people be considered of equal value even when compared to each other.
The trial participant profiles are endless and only contribute to the unequal value of the vaccine trial participants.
Vaccine trials using participants of equal value would be different trials such as:
500 Covid front line health workers.
500 Bostonians that don't wear masks.
500 Bostonians that wear masks.
500 from South Dakota that wear masks.
500 from South Dakota that don't.
Etc etc etc
How can I be compared to someone from South Dakota that doesn't wear a mask when we are both given the vaccine. I'm probably not going to get it anyway also giving the vaccine a positive % may not be deserved.
If I'm correct that all the participants are being considered of equal value, than the 95% value is worthless.
If I'm wrong, then I just waisted a good part of my morning.
1
