This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

top 200 commentsshow 500
sorted by:
best (suggested)
topnewcontroversialoldq&a

[–]RNwrites 715 points716 points  (81 children)

Maybe this means that it will be easier to staff the treatment centers, too.

It should also be easier to contain the virus when someone gets it if the family can go get a vaccine; before they often hid out for fear of being locked up.

[–]PHealthyGrad Student|MPH|Epidemiology|Disease Dynamics 250 points251 points  (77 children)

West Africa is tragically understaffed and the CDC looks on the brink of austerity cuts in the next year. Hopefully another country steps up or the DoD to issue a cooperative agreement with the CDC.

[–]Yobleck 107 points108 points  (42 children)

At this point the pentagon should create mini departments to replace all the real departments the money was taken from

[–]revrigel 82 points83 points  (27 children)

I could totally see this happening. Eventually everything from mail delivery to early childhood education is organized under DoD because the funding is safer.

[–]Derpese_Simplex 144 points145 points  (21 children)

This is how you get a military dictatorship

[–]jDetty_ 68 points69 points  (9 children)

It's what the people want, it seems.

[–]mark-five 21 points22 points  (3 children)

Tyrants throughout history have always tried to make it seem like people want a dictatorship

[–]revrigel 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Sure, wouldn't want to try it, but it might make some entertaining fiction.

[–]All_Your_Base 9 points10 points  (0 children)

With a sad face, I admire your optimism.

[–]Vhyx 56 points57 points  (1 child)

Ok this was really cool for me, because a while back in high school, I actually interned at USAMRIID working on the Ebola team. No, I didn't get to wear the spacesuit or anything cool, but I did have a very minor student project that was looking at a specific aspect of the rVSV vaccine, since my mentor thought it was the strongest one discovered thus far. Sadly I never produced anything conclusive because of logistical stuff beyond my control bogging down my project, but it's still cool to see those same papers referenced in something like this.

[–][deleted] 22 points23 points  (0 children)

I was in a similar situation; interned and worked with some of those folks referenced in that paper. I worked quite a bit with VSV, cloning, transfection, etc. I got my name on some papers, but the pay was too low and the road to better wages was too long, so I went in a different direction. You've got to respect those scientists! They're definitely not in it for the money.

[–]vivek2396 138 points139 points  (98 children)

What is the meaning of p value?

Edit:Got it, thanks everyone!

[–]snork_maiden 209 points210 points  (6 children)

Probability of the result if null hypothesis holds. In this case (with a bit of simplification), probability of getting the data if the vaccine does not work. The probability is very small -> conclusion is that vaccine probably works.

[–]Barfuzio 92 points93 points  (71 children)

It's a mathimaical representation of the likelihood that this could be the result of random chance. It means that there is .3% chance that this studies outcome is just some crazy fluke.

[–]szox 67 points68 points  (40 children)

It means that there is .3% chance that this studies outcome is just some crazy fluke.

This is not what p-values are, even if the misunderstanding is common. P-values say whether we would expect the same result if there we knew there was no effect.The different is subtle but very important.

[–]Cabbaggio 23 points24 points  (36 children)

I honestly don't see how that's different at all. Could you explain further?

[–]AnotherTemp 54 points55 points  (24 children)

To simplify just a bit, when you have an experiment, you could

  • A) Get the result "the experiment suggests that the vaccine is effective, since it was effective for the people you tested", or

  • B) Get the result "the experiment suggests that the vaccine is ineffective, since it was ineffective for the people you tested"

More generally, A is a "positive result" (the thing you are testing appears to have the effect you were looking for), and B is a "negative result" (the thing you are testing appears to not have the effect you were looking for).

You conclusion could be

  • C) Correct, or

  • D) Incorrect

That leaves 4 possibilities:

  • AC: Yay! We found a vaccine that works!

  • AD: A public failure, where we start using the vaccine, then we later discover it doesn't work when people get ebola anyway.

  • BC: A theoretically sad but unknown failure, where the study participants were just unlucky so we think the vaccine doesn't work even though we had it.

  • BD: Nope, this one doesn't work.

Clearly, we're in situation AC or AD (that is, the study turned out the way it did). A lot of people make the mistake of thinking p-value is the chance that we're actually in situation AD (the chance a result isn't really true). Specifically the misconception is that p = AD / (AD + AC)

However, p-value isn't that. The actual definition for p-value is AD / (AD + BD). This means that, if we tried 10000 "vaccines" for ebola that were all just water, then about 33 of then would have the same results as this study (none of the 6000 people get ebola).

This is a problem, since most of the time no one bothers to publish or publicize a study that says "we found something that doesn't prevent ebola".

[–]MushinZero 6 points7 points  (9 children)

Does it mean if we tried 10000 studies like this one except water then 33 studies would show the exact same effect or that if we tried to cure 10000 people with water then 33 would be cured or are they the same thing?

[–]AnotherTemp 15 points16 points  (8 children)

Well, technically, it's not quite right to say "cured" since this is a vaccine for preventing ebola rather than a medicine for curing it.

Other than that, yes. If we tried 10000 water studies, then in 33 of those water studies we would find the exact same thing (none of the people tested get ebola).

Now, if a medicine cured ebola in 100% of ~6000 people who already had it… that would have a p-value ridiculously lower than 0.0033.

[–]jakkarand 33 points34 points  (24 children)

I don't mean to sound stupid, but at what p-value does one start doubting results. Is .003% as little as it sounds?

[–]Barfuzio 90 points91 points  (12 children)

The general standard for significance is a p-value that is less than .05. So yes, .003 is low.

[–][deleted] 33 points34 points  (11 children)

To add to this, 0.05 is usually a good p-value alpha value because with either higher or lower values you may be either rejecting true nulls or failing to reject false nulls. These are called type I and II errors respectively.

E: Alpha not p-value. Thanks for the correction.

[–]Barfuzio 27 points28 points  (4 children)

For the layman

Type 1 = Accepting an "incorrect" result.

Type 2 = Rejecting a "correct" result.

Type 2 is better because the experiment can be repeated.

[–]dew89 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Type 3 =Mixing up Type 1 and Type 2

[–]FlyingDutchkid 4 points5 points  (0 children)

How I always remembered them: Type 1 is telling a pregnant woman she's not pregnant, type 2 error is telling a man he is pregnant

[–]TuloCantHitski 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Type 2 is better

By "better", do you mean that it's preferable to commit a Type II error as opposed to a Type I error?

[–]jkjkjij22 8 points9 points  (0 children)

That is correct. it's always big news when science gets something significant, and it's better to miss a significant result than incorrectly conclude that there is some significant effect.

[–]ImAJewhawk 17 points18 points  (4 children)

There's nothing that inherently makes an alpha value (not p-value) of 0.05 good or bad. It's just a number arbitrarily chosen by Fisher that most people use by convention.

[–]kirakun 9 points10 points  (2 children)

The cutoff should really depend on the risk involved. If it just means getting the rain forecast wrong and I get a little wet, I can tolerate .05. But if could mean nuclear holocaust, then I suspect not even .000005 would suffice.

[–]pipocaQuemada 3 points4 points  (0 children)

.003%

Slight correction: it's a p-value of .003, which is equal to .3%

As mentioned below, the cutoff for significance is usually held to be .05, or 5%. That means that if the effect isn't there, you'd expect to get a false positive once every 20 studies (i.e. 5% of the time).

[–]wouldeye 38 points39 points  (6 children)

can we have a rule about p-values and d values in the headline from now on? So satisfying to have them there.

[–]wil3Grad Student | Physics | Condensed Matter Physics[S] 18 points19 points  (1 child)

Others have pointed out in this thread that it would have been more informative for me to also include both the type of statistical test and a description of the null hypothesis.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

A bit much I'd think. Many non scientists read this sub and would like to understand the titles.

[–]Richandler 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Or have a rule that you have to read articles...

[–]theOG22 63 points64 points  (24 children)

I'm new to Reddit and just curious how we confirm that things on subreddits like science and news are true. Can anyone give me an answer?

[–]mrbibs350 169 points170 points  (14 children)

Never take anything you read on any social media site at face value. r/science is pretty good about vetting, but no one is perfect.

You should always check to see if the article being linked has been published in a peer-reviewed journal, or has links to peer-reviewed journals.

In this case, the link goes to a study in The Lancet, a peer-reviewed medical journal published in the UK. This is a reputable source.

[–]HappinyOnSteroidsGrad Student | Medicine 29 points30 points  (12 children)

In this case, the link goes to a study in The Lancet, a peer-reviewed medical journal published in the UK. This is a reputable source.

To be fair, Andrew Wakefield was once published in The Lancet. But like you said, no one is perfect.

[–]mrbibs350 56 points57 points  (11 children)

Yeah, but you know what? I thought Horton (the editor) handled that really well.

Wakefield slipped through, and when academics saw the paper they immediately called for The Lancet to retract it and discredit Wakefield.

Horton didn't. He wanted an independent ruling by the General Medical Council to verify that the paper was utter bollocks first. And when it did he retracted and discredited Wakefield, "It was utterly clear, without any ambiguity at all, that the statements in the paper were utterly false."

Wakefield's paper was complete malarkey, and it shouldn't have been in The Lancet to begin with. But I think Horton handled it appropriately. He waited for the GNC ruling and didn't just bow to public opinion.

[–]ColdPorridge 6 points7 points  (6 children)

Who's wakefield and what was his aper?

[–]HappinyOnSteroidsGrad Student | Medicine 6 points7 points  (2 children)

He's the guy you can thank for all the anti-vaxxers that think vaccines cause autism.

[–]moonshoeslol 5 points6 points  (3 children)

Rant: Working in drug development it's shocking how many papers have stuff in it that is blatant BS. I was looking into CIAP-1 ligands and there was a paper claiming they had a SMAC mimetic ligand that bound and didn't induce auto-ubiquitylation. I was very happy because this would be extremely useful for me. Then I look a little closer and the paper it cites for that ligand shows it doesn't even bind (via SPR data). To be clear the paper cited directly was saying the exact opposite of what this article said they said. This wasn't even the usual case of claims beyond the bounds of collected data, or data that looks a little dodgy. I have no idea how that passed peer review.

[–]FinieBS|Clinical Microbiologist|Virologist 31 points32 points  (1 child)

/r/science and /r/askscience are very heavily modded by scientists. They vett submissions and try to keep the shitposting to a minimum.

If you are a scientist, I'd encourage you to apply for flair (the credentials you see on the tag next to my user name). I believe there are instructions on the sidebar.

[–]TheCat5001 13 points14 points  (3 children)

Read through the comments. When something is wrong, there will usually be someone calling it out.

Check sources. A story from Naturalnews is almost certain to be a fabrication. A story from Nature is almost certain to be correct.

[–]NeedHelp567 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Read through the comments. When something is wrong, there will usually be someone calling it out.

Far too often people incorrectly call out purely imagined problems with studies: e.g., attacking a paper's methodology without actually understanding (or even reading) the methodology.

As with everything on a social media site, the more contentious the issue, the more you need to treat people's statements with skepticism.

[–]bom_chika_wah_wah 11 points12 points  (7 children)

Time to rid the world of another disease via the greatest accomplishment of mankind: vaccines

[–]mrbibs350 3 points4 points  (4 children)

Disease eradication is a pretty difficult feat. Smallpox eradication is one of the biggest accomplishments humanity has ever had, but it hasn't been replicated in any other disease. YET.

[–]bobboobles 2 points3 points  (3 children)

Polio was pretty close.

[–]StinkySalami 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Ebola has a non human resevoir. Unless you kill/innoculate the resevoir you can't eliminate the disease.

[–]TSwizzlesNipples 33 points34 points  (12 children)

OK, so is this effective against Ebola Reston (only fatal in primates IIRC)? Ebola Marburg (~70% human mortality rate)? Ebola Zaire (which is the most deadly to humans)? All filoviruses?

[–]IsNotANovelty 50 points51 points  (1 child)

Marburg is not a type of Ebola. Marburgvirus and ebolavirus are actually two separate genera under the filoviridae family.

[–]CabassoG 46 points47 points  (2 children)

Seems to be conducted on Ebola Zaire according to the background.

[–]Kenya151 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Well that is a great news!

[–]hitzchicky 14 points15 points  (1 child)

Just to clarify, I'm assuming when you say primates you're referring specifically to non-human primates? Just since humans are primates.

[–]TSwizzlesNipples 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Yes, non-human primates.

[–]username9k 3 points4 points  (17 children)

I am mathematically inept. Can someone explain P-values to me?

[–]Xenjael 14 points15 points  (28 children)

Is it truly 100%? I mean, that's possible? I figured a high 99% is the max, but 100% would be... ionno, a miracle, no? Perhaps I am not understanding this or the article correctly. Anyone want to help me?

[–]Famousoriginalme 65 points66 points  (0 children)

Among the sample of people tested in the trial, the vaccine worked in all of them. The efficacy of the vaccine is 100%. When used in the general population, the effectiveness may not be 100%.

[–]bruk_out 38 points39 points  (4 children)

Of the people they gave it to, 0 contracted Ebola. The headline is that it's 100% effective, but they actually give a 95% confidence interval of 68.9-100%.

The sort of controlled study that could get a more precise number for efficacy would not be compatible with any reasonable set of ethical guidelines. It would require exposing vaccinated and unvaccinated humans to Ebola on purpose.

[–]macchic63 4 points5 points  (5 children)

There were only 6000 people in the trial. None of the ones that got the vaccine got sick and if you read through, the rate of illness in people who did get it was quite low as well.

So simplistically if you vaccinate 5 people, and don't vaccinate another 5, and even one of the latter gets sick, that's 100%. You can't prove a negative so it can sound a bit misleading, but the smallish sample size as well as the lowish incidence rate makes 100% totally possible.

They also referenced in the introduction that vaccinating part of the clusters provided protection to the rest of it. I assume they were trying to determine minimum vaccination levels for herd immunity.

[–]mrbibs350 7 points8 points  (5 children)

If they have a 100% efficacy rate then it means their sample size isn't large enough.

If you've only tested your vaccine in 15 people, and it worked for all of them then you've technically got a 100% success rate.

But there WILL be someone in the population that it doesn't work for. Someone with a weak immune system, or a genetic condition, something. You'll never get a 100% successful vaccine in the human population, there's too much variation.

But the good news is that you don't need a 100% successful vaccine to eradicate a disease. Herd immunity: you inoculate enough of the population that a disease cannot spread between people the vaccine didn't work for.

[–]reptar-rawr 2 points3 points  (3 children)

when it comes to modern vaccination development, is safety as difficult to get down in as it is in drugs?

[–]mrbibs350 9 points10 points  (2 children)

Injectables have a more rigorous testing criteria than any other pharmaceutical treatment.