ha! I was really getting a kick at the back and forth of folks asking and others answering and the fact it actually does not show up first on a Google search!
Now I have another one for ya' Wayne!
try to get Steve to be nice to the non-statistically oriented(ie MOST readers) for the significance of scientific notation of the P value.
(For those who read this, really low values are preferred because they show HOW significant the finding is. The closer to zero the better, meaning this fact is TRUE, man!
So, a P value number like 1.4 e -14 actually means: 0.000000000000014 THUS, it is zero! The statement it represents really is TRUE.
and anything that reads e-xx this can be said for. . .)
I don't think "true" is an applicable expression when using the p-value statistical method. If I understand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-value correctly, a lower p-value does not prove a hypothesis - it only allows stronger rejection of the null-hypothesis, ie. in this case the statement that getting the Moderna jab does not result in a higher ACM than getting the Pfizer jab. This is not the same as proving that getting the Moderna jab results in a higher ACM than getting the Pfizer jab.
heck, at least at one point in the whole newsletter. . . like the idea when you use an acronym for the first time, show the full name next to it. . . just once.
ACM = All Cause Mortality - article updated to show that.
Acronyms are a bitch. Thanks for the clarification!
2nded
ha! I was really getting a kick at the back and forth of folks asking and others answering and the fact it actually does not show up first on a Google search!
Now I have another one for ya' Wayne!
try to get Steve to be nice to the non-statistically oriented(ie MOST readers) for the significance of scientific notation of the P value.
(For those who read this, really low values are preferred because they show HOW significant the finding is. The closer to zero the better, meaning this fact is TRUE, man!
So, a P value number like 1.4 e -14 actually means: 0.000000000000014 THUS, it is zero! The statement it represents really is TRUE.
and anything that reads e-xx this can be said for. . .)
I don't think "true" is an applicable expression when using the p-value statistical method. If I understand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-value correctly, a lower p-value does not prove a hypothesis - it only allows stronger rejection of the null-hypothesis, ie. in this case the statement that getting the Moderna jab does not result in a higher ACM than getting the Pfizer jab. This is not the same as proving that getting the Moderna jab results in a higher ACM than getting the Pfizer jab.
so, do you really think that such proofing of this term is the most explanatory or ,
just further confuses those statistically-handicapped? <== rhetorical
Truth cannot be known. It can be a feeling though.
Thank you. Yes, I've always said to also put the numbers listed out to help those who may not be familiar with math.
heck, at least at one point in the whole newsletter. . . like the idea when you use an acronym for the first time, show the full name next to it. . . just once.