The range for men is -1.9 to +2.1 -- which averages out to +0.2 -- which indeed makes it seem as though the vaccine's trend is to make one slightly more susceptible to Alzheimer's, rather than less susceptible, which is itself borne out in the figure's trend line. (Fig 4.)
For women it's -5.3 to -1.3.
Nope. We can be 95% confident that there is an effect for women but we can't be 95% certain that there is no effect for men.
Given that the error ranges overlap, we don't even have a high level of certainty that the effect for men doesn't equal the effect for women.
> The range for men is -1.9 to +2.1 -- which averages out to +0.2
Technically it averages out as +0.1
They're at P=0.93 right now. So they're very close.
Whereas, for women, P=0.0013.
Taking everything into consideration, that's exactly what I'd call "a high level of certainty that the effect for men doesn't equal the effect for women."
A big P value is bad.
> that's exactly what I'd call "a high level of certainty that the effect for men doesn't equal the effect for women."
Then you are operating off a non-standard cutoff for certainty because the paper explicitly states that the difference between the effect on male vs female is only statistically significant for the sub category of Alzheimer's.
They aren't. The paper states that 95% confidence interval for men includes a maximum protective effect of up to -1.9 while the 95% confidence for women include a minimum effect of -1.3.
Thus it is far more likely that there is a protective effect for man than no protective effect for women.