Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Susanna's avatar

I love this idea of utilizing your readers! I can't wait to see what someone produces.

Michael Spurr's avatar

Hi Matthew,

I believe I have done this in essence, perhaps a bit simplistic, but in keeping with the article - "an approximate answer to the right question".

Due to time constraints I've ignored the extreme cases (0.05 and 0.95), but have done the others, and the extreme cases are clearly not necessary as the actuals are closer to the other cases.

Obviously there may be confounding factors, but the conclusions seem straightforward - I won't spell them out for you.

I haven't exported 4 simulations for each scenario, as they all look very similar, but that's easy to do if you want to just run the code multiple times.

As requested, I've uploaded the code, data and images to github for you to review:

https://github.com/DrMikeJS/RandomizedVaccineEfficacy .

To run the code you'll need to download and extract the data, and then point the first few lines of the script "RVER.R" to the extracted files.

This is a best case scenario for the vaccines in that I've based the simulated distributions off the actual distribution. If they were fully randomized, they would look even more different.

I note that there are a few hundred counties where it appears that there are 0% vaccinated. If that is accurate (I haven't attempted to verify the integrity of the data), then we could use that as a control group (in a separate exercise), and I suspect things would look even less favorable for the vaccines.

Anyway, best regards and keep up the good work!

Michael

13 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?