"Statistical significance" is a qualification in statistical jargon regarding how certain you can be in the absolute of your result (how the experiment was designed, how precise the measurement inherently is, number of measures, presence of cofounding phenomena, how much the measurement inherently varies, etc).
You may have a very clear positive trend, but, because of other factors, you can't say without a trace of doubt : "This is what happens, that's a bulletproof correlation".
This is why when you say there's not a "Statistical Significance" it doesn't mean the result is wrong if the trend shown is strong, rather just that you need to improve your experiment and measurements, and check for cofounders to be certain, to validate it to a sufficient degree.
Is recency of the last shot considered? It's looking more and more like mrna vaccines taper off over the course of six months or so, to some baseline of protection that significantly prevents hospitalization in a majority of cases, but it's hard to get a read on the data - there's so much cruft and badly designed experimentation, it seems like it will be years before clarity is achieved.
6 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 24.7 ms ] threadYou may have a very clear positive trend, but, because of other factors, you can't say without a trace of doubt : "This is what happens, that's a bulletproof correlation".
This is why when you say there's not a "Statistical Significance" it doesn't mean the result is wrong if the trend shown is strong, rather just that you need to improve your experiment and measurements, and check for cofounders to be certain, to validate it to a sufficient degree.
In other news "SA is extremely vulnerable to C-19 with an average IFR of 0.5%. The IFR of Omicron is estimated at 0.053%."