Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

watabadidea t1_j6jlqhh wrote

Reply to comment by Coquenico in The bivalent mRNA boosters from Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna were 48% effective against symptomatic infection from the predominant omicron subvariant (XBB/XBB.1.5) in persons aged 18-49 years according to early data published by the CDC by shiruken

>not at all; I'm not recommending a basic book because it will give you the answer you're looking for, but because it's where you need to start

That implies that I have no "start" in understanding statistics. This is a baseless (and inaccurate) implication.

>its my job

Ok, so apply that. If you get a real-world scenario that you are trying to analyze, you don't consider how observable it is? You don't consider how easily you can measure it? You don't consider how accurate your measurements are? You don't consider how complex the system is?

Instead as long as it occurs "many" times more frequently than a problem that can be successfully analyzed with a high degree of accuracy, then you "know" that this problem will be "easier?"

Seriously, there are instances where you can get statistically meaningful results with a frequency of a few dozen. 1,000 is certainly "many" more than that. Your stance is literally that you can model the most complex systems in the universe as long as they have happened at least 1,000 times.

Not 1,000 times that you've seen. Not 1,000 times that you can accurately measure. They just have to have happened 1,000, period.

Again, this assertion is just ridiculous on its face, yet that's what is suggested by your position. When I've pointed out that it is ridiculous, your go to move is to resort to personal attacks.

>it seems you have formal training in physics but not in statistics

That's the assumptions you've made. That's not the same as that actually being the case, nor is it the same as there being a logical basis to from that conclusion.

>you keep denying elementary statistical principles, so I assume that you don't have that knowledge

The idea that many more occurrences always makes one thing easier to analyze than another, regardless of relative observability, measurability, accuracy of measurements, system complexity, etc. is not an elementary statistical principle. Saying it repeatedly doesn't change the reality.

>you keep failing to see the problem from a broad statistical perspective.

Well your claims aren't limited to a broad statistical prospective though. When you claim that this is "always" the case and you make personal attacks on the knowledge base of anyone that disagrees, then you are pretty clearly taking the stance that it applies in any and all scenarios, including very specific circumstances.

1

Coquenico t1_j6jmfqu wrote

> That's the assumptions you've made. That's not the same as that actually being the case, nor is it the same as there being a logical basis to from that conclusion

there's definitely a logical basis :) now of course, you're clearly not honest with me, so I'm only permitted suspicions

1

watabadidea t1_j6jq3s6 wrote

Look in the mirror.

You're either pretending to have a job collecting and analyzing data or you are pretending to believe that you can easily reach statistically relevant results for any question of interest, as long as something has happened ~1,000 times, even if it is impossible to observe or measure these ~1,000 events.

Not only that, you claim that this is an "elementary statistical principle." Maybe you should pump the breaks on accusing others of not being honest here.

1

Coquenico t1_j6jt22j wrote

I've already given answers to these arguments. You're over-interpreting what I've said and have built a straw man that I won't bother taking down

if you want to believe you know, do just that

1

watabadidea t1_j6jtw3t wrote

>You're over-interpreting

Nope. You said "always." I called you out on that as being an over generalization that didn't hold water when applied to all specific instances. You response was to make personal attacks about how I don't understand statistics.

>...and have built a straw man that I won't bother taking down

You didn't say "always"? You didn't push back and resort to personal attacks when I called you out on this being an over generalization?

Or are you saying that you agree that it was a over generalization, but you still personally attacked me for pointing it out?

1

Coquenico t1_j6jxzfu wrote

> of course there are other factors involved, but statistical power is always hugely dependent on the raw numbers

always is correct

my very first answer could have specified "always in epidemiology studies", but it was evident from context; unless you've forgotten what this discussion is about (which very much seems to be the case, at this point you just want to convince yourself that you are right to doubt the faithfulness of the original article and whoever defends it)

1

watabadidea t1_j6jzpaz wrote

>always is correct

Now you are just being disingenuous. You and I both know that this wasn't your first use of the word "always," nor was it the one I was referring to.

>my very first answer could have specified "always in epidemiology studies", but it was evident from context;

Really? Your very first answer include the following example:

>It's like if you're trying to check if two dice are loaded, but there's one die you can roll every few seconds and another you can roll only once every hour

The reality is that, unless you are suggesting that rolling dice is an epidemiology study, then the context clearly wasn't limiting your claim to epidemiology studies. At the very least, the context was applying your statement to dice rolls as well.

EDIT: Funny that you don't even attempt to address my claim (e.g., at the very least, the context of your example was meant to apply to epidemiology studies and dice rolls). Instead, you just make a reply that doesn't attempt to address this point and then block me.

1

Coquenico t1_j6k57l9 wrote

the metaphor is valid for epidemiology studies. at the core you're just tallying the chances of an objectively observable binary outcome in a series of predetermined groups

I'm not sure where your experiment of rolling infinitesimally loaded dice in a sealed black box is coming from but it's so completely absurd and disconnected from the practical and theoretical considerations associated with epidemiology that I needn't comment on it

1