It's not about being enough, it's about making a fair assessment.
If 1 million people do a thing and 1000 of them have an adverse result, but 100 don't and only 50 have an adverse result then you list the numbers this way it implies "50 is smaller than 1000 so it's safer" but it is not the case.
You have to compare averages of both groups. That is how you do a fair assessment.
As for the hep b vaccine, I have no idea how you related this to my post specifically about numbers and averages, nor how you presumed my support for the process of it's approval. But no, 147 people is not enough information to make an informed decision, but also has nothing to do with my issue of average numbers.
If 1 million people do a thing and 1000 of them have an adverse result, but 100 don't and only 50 have an adverse result then you list the numbers this way it implies "50 is smaller than 1000 so it's safer" but it is not the case.
Do you know what "rate" means?
If 147 was enough to get the vaccine approved then thousands should be enough to get it unapproved, no?
Makes sense to me
(post is archived)