Er, why would 1,000 out of 20,000 be a surprising result for a vaccine billed as being 95% effective? What were they expecting?https://twitter.com/rkhamsi/status/1416163271904727046 …
-
-
Replying to @cmuratori
I’m not sure what the efficacy measures precisely, but surely statistically that means that all 20,000 were exposed for a duration sufficient to transmit? so still not an amazing job
2 replies 0 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @kingal
Well, in theory it would measure the difference between the control group and the vaccinated group. So if the expected outcome is 20,000 people get COVID, then with the vaccine you expect 1,000 people to get COVID.
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori @kingal
In this case, maybe the expectation would not be that everyone would get COVID from the event - although from looking at the pictures, maybe that is what the expectation should be :)
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori @kingal
But also, not everyone was vaccinated. So I mean... IDK. 1000 doesn't sound off to me even a little bit. It just sounds completely unsurprising. It's within the realm of expected possibility _even if everyone was vaccinated_, which they weren't.
1 reply 0 retweets 7 likes
(And now that I think about it, it's especially weird because I don't know why they would think "vaccinated" or "tested negative" were like, equivalent criteria. Like the 95% literally means vaccinated people will be carrying this virus! 95% is not 100%! So weird :( )
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.