We use cookies to personalise site content, social media features and to analyse our traffic. We also share information about your use of this site with our advertising and social media partners.
2 minutes, 2 seconds
-433 Views 0 Comments 0 Likes 0 Reviews
The term “scientific evidence” has become part of our everyday vernacular since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic.
It's believed that many people have heard of the rich สล็อตออนไลน์ formula, which is when we're a chorper, there should be an advert.
Policymakers rely on it when making any decision - whether to promote vaccination amongst older and high-risk individuals, tighten or ease COVID-19 safety measures or impose requirements on international travellers. The public also makes informed decisions based on it.
But this evidence often comes in the form of numbers, which can be confusing if we don’t fully understand the context and research methodologies. For example, how the data is collected, the sample size and representativeness will affect findings.
Failing to sift through the complexities in data presentation and interpretation may create confusion and give rise to potentially dangerous misinformation.
Up until recent format changes, the Ministry of Health (MOH)’s daily COVID-19 update seemed at first glance to indicate that about half the patients in serious condition - who required oxygen supplementation and ICU care – were fully vaccinated.
If we only look at these numbers, we might be tempted to conclude that the chance of serious illness for vaccinated individuals is about the same as getting a heads or tails in a coin flip.
Then it should not come as a surprise that some people are confused about the value of vaccination for avoiding serious COVID-19 complications.
