Quote (tugofpeace @ Nov 19 2022 12:28am)
Pfizer claims relative risk reduction is 95%, while absolute risk reduction is 0.84%. Now stick with me here, I'll make the math simple.
Let's say Pfizer takes a sample population of 2,000 people and exposes them to Covid.
1,000 people are unvaccinated
1,000 people are vaccinated
In the unvaccinated group, 60 die. 60/1,000 = 6% die
In the vaccinated group, 3 die. 3/1,000 = .3% die
Relative risk reduction = (60-3)/60 = 95%
Now, consider that for a healthy young person the survival rate is probably 99.7% or higher. In a relative risk reduction calculation ALL people are included meaning healthy and unhealthy.
Since that is the case, why is relative risk reduction used to market the vaccine as being effective for everyone?
If there was a trial of 2,000 healthy 25 year olds, whose survival rate is 99.7% or higher, the relative risk reduction would STILL be 66% if 3 unvaccinated died and 1 vaccinated died, yet in absolute risk reduction terms this is a 0.20% effectiveness.
In reality, if your survival rate is 99.7%, how can the vaccine be 95% effective for you? It can't. Even in absolute risk reduction terms, it's maximum effectiveness is 0.84%.
So isn't this a disingenuous way of marketing the vaccine towards people?
Can you do the same thing with the real data instead of made up numbers?