The sample size is this non peer reviewed study is 79 vaccinated people (corrected, misread as 83 before) and completely lacks the statistical power to differentiate between vaccinated and unvaccinanted people.https://twitter.com/apoorva_nyc/status/1422375380158193678 …
-
-
The study also avoids some of the selection bias issues discussed since it relies on a random sample, not just a convenience sample of those who happened to get tested because they had symptoms. It is much more rigorous than e.g. the Wisconsin or Provincetown Bear Weak studies.pic.twitter.com/4IQjA8qAxh
Show this thread -
To throw a gauntlet down, a pretty simple test of whether news outlets like
@nytimes actually care about getting the science right is if they report on this more rigorous UK study with >= fervor to the Provincetown study.Show this thread -
Seen discussion of the sample size in the UK study and it's worth pointing out that (although the overall sample size is very large) the number of *positives* is ~similar to the other studies. Note, however, that they do find a statistically significant result (p-value = 0.01).pic.twitter.com/sr0jNndRj3
Show this thread -
And, again, this reflects a random sample of the entire UK population, which is >> more robust than a self-selected sample. The UK has done great work with large random samples like these; see also their work on Long COVID below, for instance. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/bulletins/prevalenceofongoingsymptomsfollowingcoronaviruscovid19infectionintheuk/1july2021 …
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Yeah but Nate, you aren’t qualified to read this study so it’s inadmissible.
-
Anyone with statistical training is qualified to read the study. A p value of 0.61 is pitiful whether it's epidemiology or some other area of study. The statistics are the same. This is true also for the methodology critiques.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
@sailorrooscout have you seen this study? Any thoughts and key results from your perspective? - End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
@JacobGudiol , intressant studie som än en gång visar skillnaderna mellan vaccinerad och ovaccinerad.Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Nate, check out Table 7 again. They only have 28 positives from unvaccinated vs 145 positive from vaccinated. Haven’t done the math but it might even be less powered than the Wisconsin study (if not similar).pic.twitter.com/4QDMMC3Pq1
-
But it’s a far more representative sample…
- 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.