I just thought of this in the context of this study on hydroxychloroquine in which 14⁄15 patients on the drug improved vs 13⁄15 patients treated with something else. To the average Joe, HCQ curing 14⁄15 people is an amazing positive result, and it’s heartening to know that other antivirals are almost as good. To the galaxy-brained journalist, there’s p>0.05 and so “the new study casts doubt on hydroxychloroquine effectiveness… a prime example of why Trump shouldn’t be endorsing… actually isn’t any more effective.”
Well, we can say that 27⁄30 (90%) patients improved. With a very high level of confidence, we can say that this disease is less fatal than Ebola (which would have killed 26 or so).
I just thought of this in the context of this study on hydroxychloroquine in which 14⁄15 patients on the drug improved vs 13⁄15 patients treated with something else. To the average Joe, HCQ curing 14⁄15 people is an amazing positive result, and it’s heartening to know that other antivirals are almost as good. To the galaxy-brained journalist, there’s p>0.05 and so “the new study casts doubt on hydroxychloroquine effectiveness… a prime example of why Trump shouldn’t be endorsing… actually isn’t any more effective.”
And the correct reaction (and the study’s own conclusion) is that the sample is too small to say much of anything.
(Also, the “something else” was “conventional treatment”, not another antiviral.)
Well, we can say that 27⁄30 (90%) patients improved. With a very high level of confidence, we can say that this disease is less fatal than Ebola (which would have killed 26 or so).