Now lets do the math on the Pfizer data. I will try to simplify. Of all participants, in a universe of 43,000 participants, only 348 total got infected, let me detail:
Placebo results:In the first assessment 169 of placebo were infected.
In the second assessment 162 of placebo were infected.
For placebo, results are 332 (169 + 162) being infected in the entire trial period, in a universe of 21,500 placebo participants. This means only (1.54 %) of the placebo were infected and 98.46% of them were not. So, we can say that the success rate of the placebo in preventing infection was 98.46 %. Really? Yes, really, make the calculations again if you want.
Vaccine results:In the first assessment 9 of vaccine were infected.
In the second assessment 8 of vaccine were infected.
For vaccine, results are 17 (9 + 8) being infected in the entire trial period, in a universe of 21,500 vaccine participants. This means only (0,07 %) in the vaccine group was infected and 99.93% of them were not. So, we can say that the success rate of the vaccine in preventing infection was 99,93 %.
What is wrong here?
As you can see above if we look at the number of all participants (43,000) and do the calcs:
Placebo success rate in preventing infection = 98.46%
Vaccine success rate in preventing infection = 99,93%.
Almost no difference between placebo and control (vaccinated), why? Because, if take into account all 43,000 participants, the results for the vaccine, are meaningless or ineffective, compared to placebo. Placebo has the same success in preventing covid (98.46%)
So what do i believe the trick they are using? They are looking only at the participants, who got infected (placebo or vaccine) and ignoring all the other thousands of remaining participants, who didn't get infected, wish is a huge number of participants. Really?? Yes, really. Let me show you:
In the first assessment the results were (only 9 vaccine participants infected) = 94.6% success (95% credibility interval (CI) 89.9–97.3%) based on what? On only the 178 participants both placebo and vaccine who go infected in the first assessment, meaning 95% of the 178 infected participants, not the 43,000!!!!! They say, oh, only 9 of the vaccine in 178 got infected so 95% effective, on who? Only the 178 on the first assessment, the other, (21,500 minus 169 placebo) = 21,331 remaining on placebo and (21,500 minus 9 vaccinated) = 21,491 remaining on vaccinated, this remaining both participants, totaling 42,822 who were ignored in the first assessment!!!!!!
In the second assessment the same think, the results were (only 8 vaccine participants infected) = estimated VE of 95.0% (95% CI 90.3–97.6%) based on what? On 170 participants both placebo and vaccine infected in the second assessment, the other, (21,500 minus 162 placebo) = 21,338 and (21,492 minus 8 vaccinated) = 21,491 the remaining both participants, totaling 42,829 who were ignored in the second assessment!
You see, they get the 95% efficacy because they only based their data on the infected participants, but they would NOT have this results, if they took in account all participants, wish they ignored.
AS anyone got this? How is it possible that the experts, who reviewed the data, only took in account the small number of 348 participants (178+170) who were infected in a universe of 43,000 participants??
What am i getting wrong here and what is this???!! Please give me your thoughts about
this? If you have any question about
the calculations above just ask me.
Post Edited (isitlyme) : 3/20/2021 8:10:44 PM (GMT-6)