The number of doses against the incidence of infection table is telling. However, unfortunately, I think most people are going to read the results and say 30% is better than nothing. Many with knowledge of medical studies / statistics will just argue that the time from last infection is a major factor and since they didn't provide a combined view of both the number of doses and time from last infection on the same chart, the telling table alone is not indicating the effectiveness of the vaccine. Not showing the data with both factors in the same graph is a convenient gap in this study and many will take the study's multivariable analysis at face value.
The number of doses against the incidence of infection table is telling. However, unfortunately, I think most people are going to read the results and say 30% is better than nothing. Many with knowledge of medical studies / statistics will just argue that the time from last infection is a major factor and since they didn't provide a combined view of both the number of doses and time from last infection on the same chart, the telling table alone is not indicating the effectiveness of the vaccine. Not showing the data with both factors in the same graph is a convenient gap in this study and many will take the study's multivariable analysis at face value.
(post is archived)