In regards to the discussion here today about the
Post# of 36568
(Total Views: 416)
Posted On: 12/08/2020 4:42:51 PM
In regards to the discussion here today about the SO CALLED 95% efficiency of the Pfizer vaccine.
Just from a statistical point of view this number simply means very little .
Out of 15000 participants, who received the vaccine, 5 got infected and 90 of 15000 in the Placebo group. Since it is totally unclear how much exposure the participants got to CV, calculating the efficiency from the ratio of the number of infections makes little sense to me, but even just looking at the statistical errors of that ratio tells a lot about the reliability of that number:
In statistics the statistical error of a number is calculated as the square root of that number, ie. 2,23/5 = 44,7% in the nominator and 9,49/90 = 10,5% in the denominator of that equation.
So they should have at least put large +/- error margins to this number, and even then as stated above I would still question the entire method of determining the effectiveness of the vaccine.
Just from a statistical point of view this number simply means very little .
Out of 15000 participants, who received the vaccine, 5 got infected and 90 of 15000 in the Placebo group. Since it is totally unclear how much exposure the participants got to CV, calculating the efficiency from the ratio of the number of infections makes little sense to me, but even just looking at the statistical errors of that ratio tells a lot about the reliability of that number:
In statistics the statistical error of a number is calculated as the square root of that number, ie. 2,23/5 = 44,7% in the nominator and 9,49/90 = 10,5% in the denominator of that equation.
So they should have at least put large +/- error margins to this number, and even then as stated above I would still question the entire method of determining the effectiveness of the vaccine.
(4)
(0)