Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Coquenico t1_j6jt22j wrote

Reply to comment by watabadidea 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

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