@chai2,
Quote:Well, first of all, the overall effect of the trivalent inactivated vaccine, which is the shot that we think about, it's the one that has been around largely unchanged for a number of decades. And in that case, when we look at that, in eight of 12 vaccine seasons, or we study influenza during influenza season, we found that the vaccine was protective, so in two-thirds of the studies.
And when it was protective, it was protective at about a 59-percent rate across all the different studies. When we looked for live attenuated vaccine, the puff that goes up the nose that has been around more recently, there we could not identify any studies that either from an observational disease - or observational study standpoint or from an actual vaccine randomized control trial standpoint, showed that the vaccine was effective.
Two thirds of the study show it was protective, and when it was protective only 59 percent rate across these different studies.
2/3=66.6 and 3/5 =0.6 So let's say the probability of both the study succeeding, and that in that study there is success rate happening to be on average 63%. And since the probability that the study shown that the flu vaccine was successful is 2/3. The conditional probability is 0.95.
If both these events are dependent, then the probability that a success rate occurs given that the study shows it is already occurred. So the conditional probability is 0.95*0.66*100% = 63%
So on average the study shows that the vaccine prevents flu 63% of the time.
Quote:Well, first of all, the overall effect of the trivalent inactivated vaccine, which is the shot that we think about, it's the one that has been around largely unchanged for a number of decades. And in that case, when we look at that, in eight of 12 vaccine seasons, or we study influenza during influenza season, we found that the vaccine was protective, so in two-thirds of the studies.
And when it was protective, it was protective at about a 59-percent rate across all the different studies. When we looked for live attenuated vaccine, the puff that goes up the nose that has been around more recently, there we could not identify any studies that either from an observational disease - or observational study standpoint or from an actual vaccine randomized control trial standpoint, showed that the vaccine was effective.
Two thirds of the study show it was protective, and when it was protective only 59 percent rate across these different studies.
2/3=66.6 and 3/5 =0.6 So let's say the probability of both the study succeeding, and that in that study there is success rate happening to be on average 63%. And since the probability that the study shown that the flu vaccine was successful is 2/3. The conditional probability is 0.95.
If both these events are dependent, then the probability that a success rate occurs given that the study shows it is already occurred. So the conditional probability is 0.95*0.66*100 = 63%
So on average the study shows that the vaccine prevents flu 63% of the time. Not really significant, because the study is a correlation of variables such as one's own immune system. Not impressive at all.
Further more.
Quote:Because I think that, first of all, I want to be really clear. I'm not saying the glass is half-full or half-empty. It's a very straightforward point. If we talk about the vaccine doing its very best, when it's closely matched to the circulating strain, the H1N1 pandemic vaccine was as close a match as we've had for almost 40 years, meaning that the strain did not change in any measurable way that should or could impact vaccine effectiveness.
And all we're pointing out is even with that, we still only got 59 to 69 percent.
I'm not impressed at all. If it was an 80% to 90% success rate, then I'd agree with you.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace