Difference between revisions of "Talk:2400: Statistics"
(biontech/pfizer study link) |
|||
| (7 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and don't delete this text. New comments should be added at the bottom.--> | <!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and don't delete this text. New comments should be added at the bottom.--> | ||
This is a representation of the actual graph showing the efficacy of the Pfizer/BioNTech coronavirus vaccine, based on data from Deutsche Bank AG and the FDA as published in John Authers' Bloomberg Opinion column. And yes, the results are just that clear and graphically obvious (pun unintended). [[User:RAGBRAIvet|RAGBRAIvet]] ([[User talk:RAGBRAIvet|talk]]) 00:51, 19 December 2020 (UTC) | This is a representation of the actual graph showing the efficacy of the Pfizer/BioNTech coronavirus vaccine, based on data from Deutsche Bank AG and the FDA as published in John Authers' Bloomberg Opinion column. And yes, the results are just that clear and graphically obvious (pun unintended). [[User:RAGBRAIvet|RAGBRAIvet]] ([[User talk:RAGBRAIvet|talk]]) 00:51, 19 December 2020 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | : I agree, but the original graph can be found in this paper: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577#figures_media --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.203.25|162.158.203.25]] 09:11, 19 January 2021 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :So, the value on bottom right of the graph ... is it three days? -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 03:55, 19 December 2020 (UTC) | ||
| + | ::The corresponding graph in the FDA report covers about 100 days. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 05:00, 19 December 2020 (UTC) | ||
When I saw this comic I immediately thought of this bit about doublespeak in graphs. Not saying I inherently believe or disbelieve numbers/statistics about covid but an impressive graph with no numbers...Apparently it is actually that clear though. | When I saw this comic I immediately thought of this bit about doublespeak in graphs. Not saying I inherently believe or disbelieve numbers/statistics about covid but an impressive graph with no numbers...Apparently it is actually that clear though. | ||
https://youtu.be/qP07oyFTRXc?t=292 | https://youtu.be/qP07oyFTRXc?t=292 | ||
[[User:DarkVex9|DarkVex9]] ([[User talk:DarkVex9|talk]]) 01:05, 19 December 2020 (UTC) | [[User:DarkVex9|DarkVex9]] ([[User talk:DarkVex9|talk]]) 01:05, 19 December 2020 (UTC) | ||
| + | '''Bold text''' | ||
| + | The graph really is a scientist's dream. It's so pretty that I had to add it to the explanation, but I'm not sure my upload worked (permissions?). Someone should screen grab fig 2 from [https://www.fda.gov/media/144434/download the FDA briefing] and add it. [[User:Mperrotta|Mperrotta]] ([[User talk:Mperrotta|talk]]) 03:56, 19 December 2020 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | I dispute that graphs are only a way of visualizing data; this graph is actually the platonic graph talked about in a textbook about graphs which funnily I found on xkcd. tldr: a good graph makes the truth obvious. This is everything working out as it should be. | ||
| + | [[Special:Contributions/172.69.63.135|172.69.63.135]] 08:28, 19 December 2020 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | In the kinds of statistical analyses I have been involved with, this is what's called a "bridge of the nose" analysis. It hits you right between the eyes. Roll on science. (brad) | ||
| + | |||
| + | Interestingly, the "Statistical Analysis" section of the cited study reads, in its entirety: "No formal statistical hypothesis was tested in this study and all results were descriptive." Even they went by the "hot damn check out this chart" test. Anyhow, is that notable enough to put somewhere in the explanation? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.248.144|172.69.248.144]] 18:12, 21 December 2020 (UTC) | ||
Latest revision as of 09:11, 19 January 2021
This is a representation of the actual graph showing the efficacy of the Pfizer/BioNTech coronavirus vaccine, based on data from Deutsche Bank AG and the FDA as published in John Authers' Bloomberg Opinion column. And yes, the results are just that clear and graphically obvious (pun unintended). RAGBRAIvet (talk) 00:51, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
- I agree, but the original graph can be found in this paper: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577#figures_media --162.158.203.25 09:11, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
- So, the value on bottom right of the graph ... is it three days? -- Hkmaly (talk) 03:55, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
When I saw this comic I immediately thought of this bit about doublespeak in graphs. Not saying I inherently believe or disbelieve numbers/statistics about covid but an impressive graph with no numbers...Apparently it is actually that clear though. https://youtu.be/qP07oyFTRXc?t=292 DarkVex9 (talk) 01:05, 19 December 2020 (UTC) Bold text The graph really is a scientist's dream. It's so pretty that I had to add it to the explanation, but I'm not sure my upload worked (permissions?). Someone should screen grab fig 2 from the FDA briefing and add it. Mperrotta (talk) 03:56, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
I dispute that graphs are only a way of visualizing data; this graph is actually the platonic graph talked about in a textbook about graphs which funnily I found on xkcd. tldr: a good graph makes the truth obvious. This is everything working out as it should be. 172.69.63.135 08:28, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
In the kinds of statistical analyses I have been involved with, this is what's called a "bridge of the nose" analysis. It hits you right between the eyes. Roll on science. (brad)
Interestingly, the "Statistical Analysis" section of the cited study reads, in its entirety: "No formal statistical hypothesis was tested in this study and all results were descriptive." Even they went by the "hot damn check out this chart" test. Anyhow, is that notable enough to put somewhere in the explanation? 172.69.248.144 18:12, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
