Replies

If I'm reading this table correctly, the top number (N=nnn) is the total population in the study group, the first number in the cell (N1b) is the number of people in the study group who reached the "endpoint definition," and the number in parentheses in the bottom line of the cell (N2d) is the number of people in the study group who are "at risk" for the endpoint.

These morons don't know how to write.

Look at the footnotes successively.

b. n1 = Number of participants meeting the endpoint definition.

c. Total surveillance time in 1,000 person-years for the given endpoint across all participants within each group at risk for the endpoint. Time period for COVID-19 case accrual is from 7 days after Dose 2 to the end of the surveillance period.

d. n2 = Number of participants at risk for the endpoint.

That makes it sound like subjects are "at risk" for the endpoint, which one would assume to be COVID infection.

' I think it makes more sense to read it differently (see the 2nd paragraph after the underlined header, Efficacy in participants 16 years of age and older – after 2 doses:

The population for the analysis of the primary efficacy endpoint included, 36,621 participants 12 years of age and older (18,242 in the COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine group and 18,379 in the placebo group) who did not have evidence of prior infection with SARS-CoV-2 through 7 days after the second dose.

So the endpoint is a number of days after the jab, not a progression to a disease state: the "at risk" refers to the number of people, within either wing of the study, at the endpoint (which is not hard-and-fast calendar date blindly imposed on every test subject, but a number of days past the administration of the jab(s), for each individual).

As another example of sterling writing, consider this:

"In the clinical study, participants were required to observe a minimum interval of 60 days before or after receipt of blood/plasma products or immunoglobulins within through conclusion of the study in order to receive either placebo or COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine."

What the HELL does within through conclusion of the study" mean?

But the more important point is they used PCR to diagnose infection; Kary Mullis, who got the Nobel Prize for inventing PCR, said it shouldn't be used for diagnosis: which makes sense, since it amplifies ALL fragments; and for short enough fragments, you can't prove they came from the intended virus or whatever; and further, you can increase the positive rate by increasing the number of cycles. Finally, just because the target sequences are present in a sample, doesn't mean there was necessarily a viable or symptomatic infection in the subject.