On the effectiveness question, I think 64% and 97% are hugely different numbers—they are an order of magnitude difference in remaining risk. So a CI that wide to me very much screams not enough data in terms of deciding how to act. I expect tons of expensive prevention efforts to be justified by that 64% number, that would be much harder to justify if we could be confident in 89%, and if it was known to be 97% would be much harder still.
On treatment versus prophylaxis, yes I understand that, but treatment and prophylaxis can be either complements or substitutes depending on the situation—if you have a good enough treatment it makes it less important to do prophylaxis (and vice versa).
On the effectiveness question, I think 64% and 97% are hugely different numbers—they are an order of magnitude difference in remaining risk. So a CI that wide to me very much screams not enough data in terms of deciding how to act. I expect tons of expensive prevention efforts to be justified by that 64% number, that would be much harder to justify if we could be confident in 89%, and if it was known to be 97% would be much harder still.
On treatment versus prophylaxis, yes I understand that, but treatment and prophylaxis can be either complements or substitutes depending on the situation—if you have a good enough treatment it makes it less important to do prophylaxis (and vice versa).