Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Statistics are the only tool we have for working with outcomes in large groups of people. They are as accurate as the data they are based on, which gets better by the day.
"A correlation between variables, however, does not automatically mean that the change in one variable is the cause of the change in the values of the other variable" causation is not correlation
Statistics are guesstimates. They can be extremely inaccurate.
Just like when they were deciding how many people had which variant. The testing samples were less than 5% of the total. So if they tested 10 people and 8 had Delta, they wrote that 80% of all new cases were Delta. Even though if they had tested 100 people, they may have still only had 8 that tested for Delta, which would have been 8%. When you only test a small percentage, you are only guessing.
"A correlation between variables, however, does not automatically mean that the change in one variable is the cause of the change in the values of the other variable" causation is not correlation
Statistics are guesstimates. They can be extremely inaccurate.
Just like when they were deciding how many people had which variant. The testing samples were less than 5% of the total. So if they tested 10 people and 8 had Delta, they wrote that 80% of all new cases were Delta. Even though if they had tested 100 people, they may have still only had 8 that tested for Delta, which would have been 8%. When you only test a small percentage, you are only guessing.
The sample has to be large enough to generate meaningful statistics. As sample size of 10 is adequate for testing a population of 100. For a larger population, a larger sample would be used. No one is projecting the results for a population of hundreds of millions from a sample size of 10.
The sample has to be large enough to generate meaningful statistics. As sample size of 10 is adequate for testing a population of 100. For a larger population, a larger sample would be used. No one is projecting the results for a population of hundreds of millions from a sample size of 10.
Without factoring in thousands of variables, a sample of only 5% will never be accurate.
Original Covid was pretty scary. My wife and I are old and were
glad to get the Moderna shots when they became available.
We got the first booster, but we are not getting any more shots.
Original Covid was pretty scary. My wife and I are old and were
glad to get the Moderna shots when they became available.
We got the first booster, but we are not getting any more shots.
They were safe for some people. The Moderna vaccine almost killed me. It has to remain personal choice. I took my chances and got the shot and lost. Some people won't get the shot and will lose. There is no way to be sure about either way.
The sample size is based on the probability of an effect occurring cut to 5% (or 1%).
For example if you’re talking coin flips, you’d need at least 5 samples (n=5).
These are not population surveys.
What you should be asking is how many people we need to vaccinate to avoid 1 death.
The data for this does not exist.
No one knows if these vaccines have any net benefit, neutral, or negative effect as the studies on all cause mortality do not exist. Secondary analysis of existing studies don’t favor the vaccines FYI.
Are you basing this on a personal knowledge of design of statistical studies of large populations? What do you mean by "cut to 5% or 1%". Do you mean confidence levels of 95% or 99%?
Are you basing this on a personal knowledge of design of statistical studies of large populations? What do you mean by "cut to 5% or 1%". Do you mean confidence levels of 95% or 99%?
They admit because of the cost they only did genome sequencing on 5% or less of the cases. Too small a sample for statistical accuracy.
Yesterday my vaccinated friend left work with a 106 fever, went to Urgent Care, tested negative for covid, is isolating anyway, he has twin babies. The doctor told him to take Tylenol and Ibuprofen, the fever has come down somewhat. Could the covid test be a false negative?
Yesterday my vaccinated friend left work with a 106 fever, went to Urgent Care, tested negative for covid, is isolating anyway, he has twin babies. The doctor told him to take Tylenol and Ibuprofen, the fever has come down somewhat. Could the covid test be a false negative?
As I understand, the nostril test can be 40% false negative early on. The throat swab is more accurate, yet most still use the nostril swab.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm glad the vaccines are available for those who want them.
