And by that I mean that by selecting a strain and measuring that - it per-determines the result as compared to a random event.
No it doesn't.
They're vaccinating against a specific strain so of course they're going to measure the efficacy of the vaccine by measuring the reduction in people getting sick with that strain.
Also, when you get the flu you're getting infected by a single strain (usually). It's not like a natural infection is with multiple different strains.
That means its little better than an anectdote - whichever way you wanna spin it, meaningless to the original question.
No it isn't. The point of the paper (read the damn title dipshit) is to compare two different vaccine types to a specific strain of influenza (H3N2).
That's what they measured.
It's by no means "little better than an anecdote".
ESPECIALLY since there are people with side effects.
How is this at all relevant?
BTW "95% confidence intervals" with less than 100 people in the result-data-tables demonstrates the sparseness of the data-set too.
Ummmm I don't remember the statistical rationale behind it, but and N of 100 in a controlled study is more than enough. Hell, most mouse studies use less than 100 per condition but still have statistically significant outcomes.
The number has to higher for random, but these arent' random.
But of course nobody is paying for my "peer review input"
Of course not. You're an ignorant fool
- and anyone who analyzes that data will be well paid to keep their reviewers list among themselves. Here: have fun.
What the fuck does this even mean? Do you have the foggiest idea how peer review works? (for real, not your paranoia ridden bullshit fantasy version)
