Results so stunningly clear they inspired this classic xkcd (xkcd.com/2400/):
Yes, it was carefully hidden in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine (www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1... )
1/2
Replies
-
📌
-
📌
-
Strictly speaking though, estimation is statistics (in this case, incidence was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier estimator; these are not raw proportions of the sample).
-
📌
-
-
Classic?
-
That xkcd text under the graph actually promotes cherry picking.
-
This is silly and uninformative.
The graph asks the wrong question. How many have/had covid with mild or no symptoms?
96.4% of Americans had COVID-19 antibodies in their blood by fall 2022.
-
The new definition of vaccine, obviously.
-
🧪 ☝️
-
📌
-
TRUMP and the Magas would counter that this was done by experts.
-
If we didn't test, we wouldn't have any cases.
-
If vaccination + still masking data were included there would be a downward sloping line - even more inspiring. 😷❤️
-
Not “rocket science” ….. is it 🤷♀️
-
“I could report a p-value, but why?”
-
That is so good!
When I was young, I thought statistics was a magical clarifier
I also thought the error term was produced by nature
When I turned 30 it was like, ohhhhhh, it’s a metaphor
It is not as though I had not been told, either
