Jump to content

Covid-19 #19 Tsunami Wave


Zorral

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, rotting sea cow said:

Don't worry. Pfizer announced 90% effective, Russia announced 92% with theirs. Now Moderna 94.5%. Pretty sure that Oxford/AstraZeneca will be 98% or so.

As the time goes on, we will find ourselves with vaccines with 110% or 150% effective. Why not?

 

150% effective? Does it cure baldness too then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Hereward said:

While I agree that specific example doesn’t sound like a lockdown, I disagree that only what Chine did is a lockdown. China nailed people’s doors shut. No one could go out, full stop. I’m pretty sure the three and a half months where we could only leave the house for essential grocery shopping and once a day for an hour’s outdoor exercise counted as a lockdown, doors unnailed or not!

That's fair. I always am confused by what you brits do

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apologize if this has been discussed previously, but I am confused about how these vaccine effectiveness numbers are calculated.  Take the Moderna announcement, they said that there were two groups of equal size, one given a placebo, the other given the vaccine.  After they reached a certain number of infections (95) they check and see how many of them were in the placebo group.  In this case, it was 90 got the placebo, and 5 got the vaccine.  Hence the vaccine is 1 - (5/95) = 94.7% effective. 

However, that doesn't strike me as right.  Imagine if the numbers were instead 100 people got infected and 50 of them were placebo, 50 were vaccinated.  Well using this metric, the vaccine is 50% effective.  But in this hypothetical the vaccine is providing no protection at all, it's exactly the same as the placebo. 

Hence, to me, the number should be calculated as 1 - (2*(5/95)) to get the actual effectiveness.  That is telling you that if you get the Moderna vaccine, your chances of getting sick from the virus are ~89% lower than if you don't get it, and the Pfizer one would be 80%.  Those are still really good numbers, but less eye popping.

Is this just a case of a press release putting the most positive spin on it, and everyone is just going with that interpretation?  Or am I screwing up the math somehow?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

In this case, it was 90 got the placebo, and 5 got the vaccine.  Hence the vaccine is 1 - (5/95) = 94.7% effective. 

However, that doesn't strike me as right.  Imagine if the numbers were instead 100 people got infected and 50 of them were placebo, 50 were vaccinated.  Well using this metric, the vaccine is 50% effective.  But in this hypothetical the vaccine is providing no protection at all, it's exactly the same as the placebo.

Try (90 - 5) / 90 vs (50-50) / 50.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Impmk2 said:

Your hypothetical using your calculation above it'd be 1-(50/50) = 1-1 = 0%

Which looks right to me?

No, by my method it would be 50/100, with 100 being the the number of total infected in both groups.  Is the calculation to divide by the number of infected in one group by the number of infected in the other group?  That seems like a weird way of calculating it, but I suppose that might be what they're doing and where I'm making my mistake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Maithanet said:

No, by my method it would be 50/100, with 100 being the the number of total infected in both groups.  Is the calculation to divide by the number of infected in one group by the number of infected in the other group?  That seems like a weird way of calculating it, but I suppose that might be what they're doing and where I'm making my mistake.

Yeah its 6am. I shouldn't try math.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

No, by my method it would be 50/100, with 100 being the the number of total infected in both groups.  Is the calculation to divide by the number of infected in one group by the number of infected in the other group?  That seems like a weird way of calculating it, but I suppose that might be what they're doing and where I'm making my mistake.

At the risk of more math fail:

Their calculation looks to be 1-(5/90) = 94.4%

Which is the number ive seen reported. Also works for your hypothetical. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Impmk2 said:

At the risk of more math fail:

Their calculation is 1-(5/90) = 94.4%

Which is the number they're reporting. Also works for your hypothetical. 

Maybe that's where I'm going wrong.  I should be dividing the infected in the vaccine group by the infected in the placebo group (90), rather than the total infected (95).  That seems like a weird way to do it, conceptually, but this isn't my field. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what is it that Boris Johnson got?  Was it covid=19?  But then what did he have earlier when he was in the hospital with a ventilator?  Or is this another bit of evidence that one can be re-infected?  Or was it a relapse? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's still not a whole lot of numbers, mind you. It's what their standard is (given that they can't, ya know, infect people randomly and hope they turn out okay), but it's not a ton.

But it along with the animal and other studies are probably sufficient to give confidence that it's pretty effective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Filippa Eilhart said:

he’s not sick, he’s self isolating.

Because he was exposed and it's unknown whether someone can be reinfected?

Shoggoth isn't taking any precautions around anybody in these events that he keeps holding to infect others....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Because he was exposed and it's unknown whether someone can be reinfected?

Shoggoth isn't taking any precautions around anybody in these events that he keeps holding to infect others....

That’s why my post-presidency prediction is he gets Covid again and this time dies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Maithanet said:

Maybe that's where I'm going wrong.  I should be dividing the infected in the vaccine group by the infected in the placebo group (90), rather than the total infected (95).  That seems like a weird way to do it, conceptually, but this isn't my field. 

The placebo group tells you how many infected to expect in a typical group. So you're dividing actual infected in the vaccine group by expected infected in the vaccine group. I'd guess the margin of error must be pretty big for such small numbers, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is not a complete surprise as many of the groups that are against the measures to control to virus are far right some people have started blaming Jews for the planned school closings(which are not real school closings anway as our Schrödinger's schools are open and closed at the same time). Apparently they ordered our chancellor to do it. :blink:

I can understand that many parents are pissed because most schools and education ministry did not prepare for this situation although it seems like leaving children alone while parents work is now a crazy idea to most people. Are latchkey kids not a thing anymore?

The vaccine news are locking better and better in the other hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...