depending on whether or not you believe this pandemic is real, these trials are the most important thing that is going on medically around the world

Sure, I can agree with that.

first, if you accept the possibility of a typo in one direction, who's to say that there are not more "typos" throughout the report?

Very possible there are other errors.

B if you say that a difference of 4 is not statistically significant, then how are 17 or 21 statistically significant?

I am saying that out of a sample size of 22,000, a change from 17 to 21 is not a statistically significant change. If a poll of 22,000 people were done and it was changed from 17 to 21 people who said Biden was doing a good job it would make no real difference.

read what i said previously, they unblinded the study and gave the control group the vaccine, eliminating the possibility of finding out any longer term effects due to these numbers?
do you not have an issue with "typos" in a study of this supposed magnitude?

Typos, if that is what they were should always be something to try and avoid but I also know they are humans and it happens. It isn't a good excuse, it is just something to keep in mind.
It is not uncommon for medical trials to be halted and the control group given the treatment when there is ample evidence that it may save their lives. This is an ethical issue.

I am saying that out of a sample size of 22,000, a change from 17 to 21 is not a statistically significant change. If a poll of 22,000 people were done and it was changed from 17 to 21 people who said Biden was doing a good job it would make no real difference.

i am saying that you are dismissing 4 as a significant number, then you must also dismiss the number of deaths in the control and vaxx groups as insignificant, therefore making the trial insignificant...

It is not uncommon for medical trials to be halted and the control group given the treatment when there is ample evidence that it may save their lives. This is an ethical issue.

please show me where i said otherwise
i am saying that if there are "typos" possible, then that means there are possible "typos" that make the halting without ample evidence...

please show me where i said otherwise
i am saying that if there are "typos" possible, then that means there are possible "typos" that make the halting without ample evidence...

I didn't say you said otherwise.
There are always possibilities of typos and having one typo doesn't mean the whole document is not credible. Do you never make any typos? If you did should I not trust anything you say? Of course not.

If there was a plethora of typos then sure this brings the credibility of the data into question but if there is one small typo I can give people a little leeway because I know people aren't perfect.

i am saying that you are dismissing 4 as a significant number, then you must also dismiss the number of deaths in the control and vaxx groups as insignificant, therefore making the trial insignificant...

I am saying that a change of 4 people out of 22,000 people is not statistically significant.

Now if the difference between dead vaccinated and dead unvaccinated were only 4 people different (for example 10 vaccinated and 14 unvaccinated) then I would agree this would not be statistically significant. If it were 4 vs zero that would be a little different but thats not the case so we can disregard that. Please note though that I never made the argument that the difference between deaths in vaccinated vs unvaccinated in this study were significant.

I am saying that a change of 4 people out of 22,000 people is not statistically significant.

Now if the difference between dead vaccinated and dead unvaccinated were only 4 people different (for example 10 vaccinated and 14 unvaccinated) then I would agree this would not be statistically significant. If it were 4 vs zero that would be a little different but thats not the case so we can disregard that. Please note though that I never made the argument that the difference between deaths in vaccinated vs unvaccinated in this study were significant.

i never said you made that argument

"didn't like considering that option" =/= "default to the most negative belief"
FOCUS

still waiting for an answer/retraction/apology here...

I am saying that a change of 4 people out of 22,000 people is not statistically significant.

Now if the difference between dead vaccinated and dead unvaccinated were only 4 people different (for example 10 vaccinated and 14 unvaccinated) then I would agree this would not be statistically significant. If it were 4 vs zero that would be a little different but thats not the case so we can disregard that. Please note though that I never made the argument that the difference between deaths in vaccinated vs unvaccinated in this study were significant.

it was reported as 15 vaxx/14 control when it was actually 21 vaxx/17 control
if the "typos" were not statistically signficant, then the numbers were also not statistically significant, so they shouldn't have "approved" the vaccine and the shouldn't have unblinded it, nor mandated it...

"Pfizer said publicly in July it had found 15 deaths among vaccine recipients by mid-March. But it told the FDA there were 21 - at the same data cutoff end date, March 13.
21.
Not 15.
The placebo figure in the trial was also wrong. Pfizer had 17 deaths among placebo recipients, not 14. Nine extra deaths overall, six among vaccine recipients."

it was reported as 15 vaxx/14 control when it was actually 21 vaxx/17 control
if the "typos" were not statistically signficant, then the numbers were also not statistically significant, so they shouldn't have "approved" the vaccine and the shouldn't have unblinded it, nor mandated it...

"Pfizer said publicly in July it had found 15 deaths among vaccine recipients by mid-March. But it told the FDA there were 21 - at the same data cutoff end date, March 13.
21.
Not 15.
The placebo figure in the trial was also wrong. Pfizer had 17 deaths among placebo recipients, not 14. Nine extra deaths overall, six among vaccine recipients."

I would be inclined to agree.

Was this the only data set that the approval was based on?

I would be inclined to agree.

Was this the only data set that the approval was based on?

it's THE REPORT FROM PFIZER that "proved" the "effectiveness" of the vaccine and was the justification for unblinding...
so now do you change your mind?

it's THE REPORT FROM PFIZER that "proved" the "effectiveness" of the vaccine and was the justification for unblinding...
so now do you change your mind?

Change my mind about what? I never made the claim that this small difference in numbers between vaxed and unvaxed proved it was so effective or safe. The only point I made here was that a change from 17 to 21 was not significant in terms of a population of 22,000.

still waiting for an answer/retraction/apology here...

and...

still waiting...

still waiting for an answer/retraction/apology here...

You are expecting a retraction from a position I never took.

I repeat:
"The only point I made here was that a change from 17 to 21 was not significant in terms of a population of 22,000."

You are expecting a retraction from a position I never took.

I repeat:
"The only point I made here was that a change from 17 to 21 was not significant in terms of a population of 22,000."

Quote from: macsak on November 17, 2021, 10:41:10 PM
"didn't like considering that option" =/= "default to the most negative belief"
FOCUS

Quote from: macsak on November 17, 2021, 10:41:10 PM
"didn't like considering that option" =/= "default to the most negative belief"
FOCUS

still waiting...

still waiting...

You jumped all over me for considering that it was a typo.

If you weren't defaulting to some negative conclusion then fair enough, my bad but don't act like I am crazy for considering it could have been a typo.

You jumped all over me for considering that it was a typo.

If you weren't defaulting to some negative conclusion then fair enough, my bad but don't act like I am crazy for considering it could have been a typo.

"my bad"?
yeah, i guess you still not wrong...