Covid-19 Vaccinations.

Last edited by a moderator:
Jason Sitoke said:
What is being quoted is data from the clinical trials. 100% and ‘perfect’ are not necessarily mathematically equivalent. Just means the outliers are statistically negligible. 
Click to expand...
What he doesn’t seem to grasp is that it’s statistically zero on hospitalizations and deaths especially now that the cohort is so large. 

 
Archy1221 said:
What he doesn’t seem to grasp is that it’s statistically zero on hospitalizations and deaths especially now that the cohort is so large. 
Click to expand...


It's not statistically zero it's 7% or whatever the number he gave was. What you're talking about sounds like practical significance.

 

ii. Statistical significance is mathematical and sample-size centric. Practical significance arises out of applicability of the result in decision making. Practical significance is more subjective and depends upon external factors like cost, time, objectives, etc. apart from statistical significance.
Click to expand...


Difference Between Statistical significance and Practical significance | Difference Between

 
Archy1221 said:
What he doesn’t seem to grasp is that it’s statistically zero on hospitalizations and deaths especially now that the cohort is so large. 
Click to expand...
Yep, I must not be able grasp things that weren't claimed.

Here's the posts I was replying to, neither of which mention statistically, virtually, almost, or practically. The first post literally says 100% nor does it mention that's only for the clinical trials. And the second speculates that the number may come down, so I posted the numbers to show that the numbers have indeed come down over time.

Jason Sitoke said:
J&J, Moderna, Pfizer all protect 100% against hospitalization and death
Click to expand...


jaws said:
That is a matter of perspective. A vaccine you can transport and provide just about anywhere in the world looks like it doesn't suck to me. It is nothing short of amazing given the time constraints. 

From COVID at least even though that number might come down a little bit over time. Still amazing. 
Click to expand...

 
Moiraine said:
It's not statistically zero it's 7% or whatever the number he gave was. What you're talking about sounds like practical significance.

 

Difference Between Statistical significance and Practical significance | Difference Between
Click to expand...
I’m not talking about statistically significance and P values of less than or greater than 5%.  The rate of people dying from Covid after being fully vaccinated is 


CDC: Out of 75 million fully vaccinated Americans, 5,800 got COVID-19, and 74 died

[SIZE=23.3799991607666px]74\75 million .00000099 or statistically zero and definitely not 7%[/SIZE]

 
RedDenver said:
Yep, I must not be able grasp things that weren't claimed.

Here's the posts I was replying to, neither of which mention statistically, virtually, almost, or practically. The first post literally says 100% nor does it mention that's only for the clinical trials. And the second speculates that the number may come down, so I posted the numbers to show that the numbers have indeed come down over time.
Click to expand...
I just gave out the death numbers of fully vaccinated individuals, so yes it’s statistically, virtually, almost or practically zero.  

 
Archy1221 said:
I’m not talking about statistically significance and P values of less than or greater than 5%.  The rate of people dying from Covid after being fully vaccinated is 


CDC: Out of 75 million fully vaccinated Americans, 5,800 got COVID-19, and 74 died

[SIZE=23.3799991607666px]74\75 million .00000099 or statistically zero and definitely not 7%[/SIZE]
Click to expand...
"Statistically zero" implies that something is not statistically significantly different from zero, which means you're talking about statistical significance, which involves p values although p values are going out of style. I wasn't arguing with you that the % wasn't low though. I was just saying that wasn't the right phrase to use for 7%. It could be for 0.00000099%. 75 million is a big sample size though. The bigger the sample size the more likely that's a significant difference from 0 but I'm not gonna calculate it.

Anyhow, that's not where the 7% came from. It said out of those vaccinated who got Covid (5,800), 7% were hospitalized. We were talking about 2 different things. You stated it was "significantly zero on hospitalizations and deaths" though. (I think 5,800/75 million might actually be statistically significantly different from 0 but not practically).

Archy1221 said:
7% of the vaccinated public are not getting Covid and ending up in the hospital or dead :facepalm:
Click to expand...




I wasn't claiming this.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
RedDenver said:
Yep, I must not be able grasp things that weren't claimed.

Here's the posts I was replying to, neither of which mention statistically, virtually, almost, or practically. The first post literally says 100% nor does it mention that's only for the clinical trials. And the second speculates that the number may come down, so I posted the numbers to show that the numbers have indeed come down over time.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I thought what I said was pretty common knowledge at this point, so I didn't feel the need to qualify it.  But thanks for pointing out that there are breakthrough cases.

image.jpeg

 
Archy1221 said:
I just gave out the death numbers of fully vaccinated individuals, so yes it’s statistically, virtually, almost or practically zero.  
Click to expand...
Again, here is the post I was responding to:

Jason Sitoke said:
J&J, Moderna, Pfizer all protect 100% against hospitalization and death
Click to expand...


From the article I previously linked:

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/04/13/986411423/a-mystery-under-study-how-why-and-when-covid-vaccines-arent-fully-protective

The three vaccines authorized for use against COVID-19 in the United States appear to be at least 94% effective at preventing severe disease and death (starting about two weeks after a person is fully vaccinated), according to data reported so far, and about 80% effective at preventing infection.
Click to expand...


If you want to pretend that's statistically zero or whatever, then that's on you. I'm showing you that it's not. As I've already said, it's really good for a vaccine but it's not 100%.

 
RedDenver said:
Again, here is the post I was responding to:

From the article I previously linked:

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/04/13/986411423/a-mystery-under-study-how-why-and-when-covid-vaccines-arent-fully-protective

If you want to pretend that's statistically zero or whatever, then that's on you. I'm showing you that it's not. As I've already said, it's really good for a vaccine but it's not 100%.
Click to expand...
The clinical trials were essentially 100%, which is the actual data we have in hand. The breakthrough cases, particularly ones resulting in severe disease and death, aren’t tracked the way the subjects in a trial are, so it’s possible there are other factors to consider.  Your source indicated ‘at least 94%’, which I interpret to mean if every single instance of severe disease being reported after vaccination is considered the result of vaccine breakthrough...which I would think is unlikely. 
 

To recap, the statement was made that J&J vaccine was clearly inferior to the other 2, and several of us pointed out that in clinical data for preventing hospitalization/death, they were all pretty similar.  

You’ve pointed out that there is information that would lead us to believe that people may still be dying after being vaccinated, so therefore not 100%, no money-back guarantee.  Agreed.  Kudos. 
 

moving on...

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top