Is it common practice to measure effectiveness in this way?
They only evaluated ~90 of their 30000 test group, and out of that tiny sliver of the data there were more in the placebo group that got covid than the vaccinated group. My questions would be:
Does their small subset have the same number of vaccinated vs placebo? Are the ~90 evaluated cases representative of the whole group, or are they only from one area or health profile? How long have they followed this group?
It still seems like this early on in the study you could cherry pick the data to show any amount of effectiveness that you want.
This is how you do it. They evaluated the ~90 that got covid. There were equal amounts who got the placebo vs the vaccine, so if the vaccine doesn't work you would expect ~45 of that ~90 to have got the vaccine. However only 5 of that ~90 got the vaccine, that implies that the vaccine works.
You can cherry pick it if you want: the full data isn't released so they can hide something. There is no reason hide anything though: all the data will be given to the FDA (and other national equivalents) so you aren't hiding anything for long. There is every reason not to: this release is legally binding to the SEC, so if they are hiding anything there are legal implications: CEOs go to prison for less.
They only evaluated ~90 of their 30000 test group, and out of that tiny sliver of the data there were more in the placebo group that got covid than the vaccinated group. My questions would be:
Does their small subset have the same number of vaccinated vs placebo? Are the ~90 evaluated cases representative of the whole group, or are they only from one area or health profile? How long have they followed this group?
It still seems like this early on in the study you could cherry pick the data to show any amount of effectiveness that you want.
Did I miss something here?