Maybe, maybe not.cone said:
the vacc arm of the Pfizer trial didn't look great when it came to Bell's palsy
we can say that in good faith, right?
Question 1 - what is the normal expected number of people to get Bell's Palsy per 100k? - ~23
Question 2 - what rate per 100k in the vaccine arm got Bell's palsy? - ~13
Question 3 - what rate per 100k in the placebo arm got Bell's Palsy? - ~5
Question 4 - Does the 3/21k in the vaccine arm meet statistical significance for us to say that the vaccine definitely caused it? In other words, what is the likelihood that those 3 people got it purely by coincidence and were likely predisposed to getting it anyways?
Now what is interesting is that all the people that got Bells Palsy got it at various times, but all in under about 2 months. So if we extrapolate those numbers out to annuallize them, we get 78 and 30, respectively. So we're looking at the placebo arm potentially having higher rate of Bell's palsy than the population in general?
What if the same 3 people got Bell's palsy but the study was half the size? What if it was double the size? Just to be facetious here, what if 1 of the vaccine arm got struck by lightning? That would mean getting the vaccine increases your chance of getting struck by lighting by 25 compared with the average person's risk. Would that be dumb luck? Or would people be out there saying that it actually does have 5G antennas in it that are making you more conductive?
I'm not smart enough to do statistics really well, but I'm sure some smart Aggie math major can run the numbers and let us know. But the point is all the number have to be put in the correct context.
