I’ve broken fact these companies report in relative risk reduction instead of the meaningful absolute risk reduction down months ago. Caught that the moment I first laid eyes on their studies.
Stats bros, am I reading this right? Is this saying that the most effective vaccine studied only made you marginally safer from getting sick from the CCP Corona Virus?
I’ve broken fact these companies report in relative risk reduction instead of the meaningful absolute risk reduction down months ago. Caught that the moment I first laid eyes on their studies.
Vaccines generally rely on the victim recovering from the virus. It is safe to say that "unrecoverable viruses" can't have vaccines.
But then there is HPV vax, so who knows.
I am still convinced the entire model of how viruses work is broken. We don't know a lot.
Stats bros, am I reading this right? Is this saying that the most effective vaccine studied only made you marginally safer from getting sick from the CCP Corona Virus?
No, OP seemingly can't read.
The paper states:
and then goes on to note the ARRs, which are the single digit percentages.
"We don't use ARRs because they're shitty measures, here are these shitty measures."
The question now becomes, do other studies use ARR and confirm in any way the claim that ARRs are a poor measure of efficacy?
whats up with aids cures / aids vaccines anyways?