巴西称科兴疫苗总体有效率为50.38%

Churchill008 发表于 2021-1-13 06:23
“不能说这个疫苗多么完美，但是已经不用批判抹黑了，足够终结pandemic了”
这是只是解读一下文章数据 ...

没有统计显著性这个应该是指100%对重症这个。

彭博社有更详细的报道，安慰剂组有7人需要住院，疫苗组0人，所以100%对重症。但是这个数字太小，没有统计显著性。https://www.bloomberg.com/news/a ... razil-just-above-50

Seven volunteers in the placebo arm of the trial needed hospitalization, while none in the group who received the shot did.

The shot proved 100% effective in preventing severe cases, they said, though they added the number was small and not yet statistically significant

mzlr 发表于 2021-1-13 06:51
没有统计显著性这个应该是指100%对重症这个。

彭博社有更详细的报道，安慰剂组有7人需要住院，疫苗组0 ...

你这也是猜得吧？怎么确定？
nytimes 就是说那个78.3%没有statistical significance.

Churchill008 发表于 2021-1-13 06:59
你这也是猜得吧？怎么确定？
nytimes 就是说那个78.3%没有statistical significance.

The 78% was calculated considering the mild, moderate and severe cases, officials said. When very mild cases among the 13,000 volunteers are included, the figure is 50.4% -- 167 infected in the placebo arm, and 85 in the vaccine arm.

因为彭博社报道里具体数据，总共13000人，167个安慰剂组感染，85个疫苗组感染，这都没有统计显著性，那实验都不用做了。
而且nytimes说了是“absolute protection against moderate to severe symptoms”，78%又不是absolute protection，明显不包括。

mzlr 发表于 2021-1-13 07:15
因为彭博社报道里具体数据，总共13000人，167个安慰剂组感染，85个疫苗组感染，这都没有统计显著性，那 ...

看明白我说什么了吗？
我说得是78.3%没有统计显著性， 这也是巴西人承认了的。

我同意50.3%是有统计意义的。你的这个数据就是50.3%, 就是指absolute protection, 之所以安慰组有167感染，是因为安慰组人数比疫苗组多一倍。

Churchill008 发表于 2021-01-12 15:45:06
看明白我说什么了吗？
我说得是78.3%没有统计显著性， 这也是巴西人承认了的。

发布会上78%的p值是0.0029，Twitter链接https://twitter.com/hildabast/status/1349046581421428737?s=21

Churchill008 发表于 2021-1-13 07:45
看明白我说什么了吗？
我说得是78.3%没有统计显著性， 这也是巴西人承认了的。

巴西人什么时候承认78%是没有统计显著性？

https://www.nytimes.com/live/202 ... ective-than-thought

That rate was far lower than the 78 percent efficacy rate announced last week.

Officials have since clarified that the higher figure pertained to the protection the vaccine offered against developing symptoms of Covid-19 significant enough to require medical treatment. While officials had asserted last week that the vaccine provided absolute protection against moderate to severe symptoms, they acknowledged on Tuesday that the data underpinning that claim was not statistically significant.

nytimes原文说了“absolute protection against moderate to severe symptoms”这个claim是没有统计显著性，
78%什么时候是“absolute protection”？明显是指100%保护，而且我13楼彭博社的链接也说明了这点。

数据都真的明确了，significance拿个pytho. Ztest 一跑就出来了，就这么几个人感染本来就不可能有多significant 的结果。

非significant ，解读下50%接触阴性的结果也不知道伤了什么心啊

mzlr 发表于 2021-1-13 08:12
巴西人什么时候承认78%是没有统计显著性？

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/01/12/world/covid-19- ...

看不懂英文吗？

“Officials have since clarified that the higher figure pertained to the protection the vaccine offered against developing symptoms of Covid-19 significant enough to require medical treatment. ”

真实累算给你看可行？ratio
置信区间0.39 0.66

Churchill008 发表于 2021-1-13 08:38
看不懂英文吗？

“Officials have since clarified that the higher figure pertained to the prote ...

15楼都把原始数据列出来了，还来？

你说说这句啥意思呗。

顺便也解释一下14楼你说“安慰组人数比疫苗组多一倍”这个的出处呗