0
0

[–] oooooo ago  (edited ago)

I was (perhaps incorrectly?) offering the benefit of the doubt.

According to table 2, 16 cases were reported in the delayed clusters. While 12 of them were not vaccinated, 4 of them were. Did I miss where in the report an explanation for these?. So even if we take just the number who were vaccinated, that still seems like 99.95% effectiveness to me (please correct me if I'm wrong, I'll be the first to admit that my statistical intuition is often incorrect). We're splitting hairs at this point for sure, but this is the exact number the original commenter challenged.

0
1

[–] DrRedbeard 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

One of the base assumptions of this trial is that it takes 10 days for immunity to develop following vaccination. While it's true there were 16 cases in the delayed group, 12 of these developed before they were vaccinated, and the other 4 at days 0, 2, 6, and 6 following vaccination, which is within their window (10 days) before immunity develops. Had anyone developed an infection 10 days or more following vaccination in either group, they would not be claiming 100% effectiveness.

That said, the vaccine is not 100% effective, they never are, but at this point, it is still statistically 100% effective.

0
0

[–] oooooo ago 

Thank you for clearing up my misunderstanding.