dealtn wrote:UncleEbenezer wrote: Also since you will recall that half the recommended dose of the AZ vaccine is actually better than the full dose
Isn't that an accidental (not tested as such) observation, and therefore no better than anecdotal?
No it was accidentally done, not accidentally observed, and was as tested as other variants. It was unintentional, not anecdotal.
I didn't say anecdotal, I said
no better than anecdotal. Apologies for the wording.
Statistically speaking, a result that is observed without being explicitly tested may be entirely due to random variations. We then pose the hypothesis that the result is valid, and devise a test for it. Only if and when that test proves successful can we claim the result as statistically meaningful.
Now I'm not saying we should delay the vaccine while we conduct such a trial. But I would contrast quotes from Dr Pangloss (mediated by a journalist) with the many times since about April I've heard Sarah Gilbert on t'wireless speaking of very promising observational results but never suggesting we go ahead with a rollout before they had conducted a testing programme.
Why bother with the clinical trials in the first place if we then go ahead with an un-trialled regime? And yes, I am guilty of conflating different issues here: dosage and interval are not the same!