Erratum: at 1:36 I say "excludes an absolute risk difference of 1" and I meant to say "excludes an absolute risk difference of ZERO." Similarly, at 1:42 I say "you can declare non-inferiority". Well, that's true, you can declare noninferiority if your entire 95% confidence interval falls to the left of an ARD of 0 or a HR of 1, but what I meant to say is that if that is the case "you can declare superiority."
Also, at 7:29, I struggle to remember the numbers (woe is my memory!) and I place the point estimate of the difference, 0.27, to the right of the delta dashed line at .24. This was a mistake which I correct a few minutes later at 10:44 in the video. Do not let it confuse you, the 0.27 point estimates were just drawn slightly to the right of delta and they should have been marked slightly to the left of it. I would re-record the video (labor intensive) or edit it, but I'm a novice with this technological stuff, so please do forgive me.
Finally, at 13:25 I say "within which you can hide evidence of non-inferiority" and I meant "within which you can hide evidence of inferiority."
Again, I apologize for these gaffes. My struggle (and I think about this stuff a lot) in speaking about and accurately describing these confidence intervals and the conclusions that derive from them result from the arbitrariness of the CONSORT "rules" about interpretation and the arbitrariness of the valences (some articles use negative valence for differences favoring "new" some journals use positive values to favor "new"). If I struggle with it, many other readers, I'm sure, also struggle in keeping things straight. This is fodder for the argument that these "rules" ought to be changed and made more uniform, for equity and ease of understanding and interpretation of non-inferiority trials.