Oh right you're talking about that initial dosing error. Thing is, even if you ignore that data entirely, the efficacy remains sufficiently high to use in a clinical setting, so again your point does not make sense to me
Nope, it makes it potentially less generalisable. Bias is issues that effect the results, generalisability is whether the results can be applied to populations outside of your trial
-
-
So if making the enrollment criteria more strict made it potentially less generalisable, why’d they do it? We are literally giving the vaccine to everyone in the world.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
So we know with a great deal of certainty that AZ works for the types of people included in their study, but it's possible it works less well for other groups (ofc by now we've got evidence from other groups as well, this was just the case in ~Nov 2020)
-
If AZ intentionally limited the types of people included in their study in the hopes that the post-study evidence from other groups would be positive, that seems reckless. Isn’t the point of a study to test the drug on a small group of people *before* it’s distributed widely?
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.