Quote (Chainsaw47 @ Nov 19 2022 03:13pm)
It isn’t.
I’m not even arguing if the 95% number is correct or not (it isn’t), I’m just arguing that your original post isn’t disproving anything, just pointing out the difference between relative and absolute risk. Hence why the argument is meaningless. If you want to have a meaningful argument, just do the math on real-world data, like the chart I posted on post #62.
Convenient that you skipped over this post:
Quote
Relative risk reduction for an entire population is high because unhealthy people are involved and for that reason the vaccine would help people whose survival rate isn't high to begin with.
Relative risk reduction for a healthy young group of people would be nearly zero because in both groups there would be no difference in mortality.
Meaningless? I think not. In my original post I gave a relative risk reduction of 66% in this second example (for healthy young people) just to satisfy the people that would cry about there not being any deaths (which in a healthy group of young people, there wouldn't be). Point is, relative risk reduction will be high whether you have a vaccine that is very effective in a population or not very effective at all. If you had no deaths in the young healthy sample size relative risk reduction would be 0.
Hence, Pfizer's 95% RRR is useless.
RRR is only useful in sample sizes where you have a population that is at more than a negligible amount of risk for the disease. RRR is useless for people with a 99.7%+survival rate because the incidence of death is so low in both the control and test group that any difference in IFR is noise, at best.
This post was edited by tugofpeace on Nov 19 2022 04:20pm