Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Forums
Other Stuff
The Clubhouse Bar
[COVID-19] General Discussion
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Which Tyler" data-source="post: 1021573" data-attributes="member: 73592"><p>Yeah, that's not the same thing at all.</p><p>What happened is that, during the trial phase, there were too few volunteers amongst the over 65s; which meant that, by the end of the trial, there wasn't "good science" to support vaccinating the over 65s (95% confidence interval of efficacy).</p><p>France and Germany weren't questioning its effectiveness in the over 65s, they were questioning whether than effectiveness had been proven in the original trials. They were right, it hadn't been proven. It was relying on valid assumptions to think that it would be effective.</p><p></p><p>We now have the evidence that it is effective in the over 65s via the UK vaccination program - although as it's not a scientifically conducted trial, there is still room for doubt.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>There is a huge difference between "made for under 65s" or "made OK for the under 65s" as opposed to "made for everyone, but initially only proven for the under 65s due to sample sizes"</p><p>If you want a well-known lesson on the import of sample sizes; look no further than the fable of the tortoise and the hare.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Which Tyler, post: 1021573, member: 73592"] Yeah, that's not the same thing at all. What happened is that, during the trial phase, there were too few volunteers amongst the over 65s; which meant that, by the end of the trial, there wasn't "good science" to support vaccinating the over 65s (95% confidence interval of efficacy). France and Germany weren't questioning its effectiveness in the over 65s, they were questioning whether than effectiveness had been proven in the original trials. They were right, it hadn't been proven. It was relying on valid assumptions to think that it would be effective. We now have the evidence that it is effective in the over 65s via the UK vaccination program - although as it's not a scientifically conducted trial, there is still room for doubt. There is a huge difference between "made for under 65s" or "made OK for the under 65s" as opposed to "made for everyone, but initially only proven for the under 65s due to sample sizes" If you want a well-known lesson on the import of sample sizes; look no further than the fable of the tortoise and the hare. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Other Stuff
The Clubhouse Bar
[COVID-19] General Discussion
Top