In 2021 I was joyous that Pharma had vaccines that were on the order ot 95% effective. Now we know what that means.
How Pfizer duped billions via statistical manipulation:
Pfizer reported that its vaccine shows a 95% efficacy. That sounds like it protects you 95% of the time, right? But that’s not actually what that number means. That 95% refers to the relative risk reduction, but it doesn’t tell you how much your overall risk is reduced by vaccination.For that, we need absolute risk reduction. In the Pfizer trial, 8 out of 18,198 people who were given the vaccine developed COVID-19. In the unvaccinated placebo group, 162 people got it, which means that even without the vaccine, the risk of contracting COVID-19 was extremely low at 0.88%, which the vaccine then reduced to 0.04%.
So the net benefit or the absolute risk reduction that you’re being offered with a Pfizer vaccine is 0.84%. That 95% number, that refers to the relative difference between 0.88 and 0.04%. That’s what they call 95% relative risk reduction.And relative risk reduction is well known to be a misleading number, which is why the FDA recommends using absolute risk reduction instead, which begs the question, how many people would have chosen to take the COVID-19 vaccines had they understood that they offered less than 1% benefit?
How many of you think your chance of contracting COVID is less than 1%? Of course, not many. Yet, the premise of this statement is that the risk of getting COVID is that low. In reality, nearly half the population has been diagnosed with COVID at least once. And the “relative risk reduction” of developing COVID 19 is not even relevant here, and it is strange that it is mentioned, because the risk reduction of importance — the one they are actually talking about — is reduction in mortality, Long COVID, and cases serious enough to require hospitalization and/or leave permanent injury to the lungs or in other ways. The vaccines are not about “not getting COVID,” they’re about “not dying or being permanently injured.” So, the article is not carefully written at all in that regard.
If you are educated in health statistics, this statement: “And relative risk reduction is well known to be a misleading number, which is why the FDA recommends using absolute risk reduction instead” is, let’s say, interesting. The FDA regularly uses relative risk (such as hazard ratios, odds ratios) and absolute risk measures (such as risk difference, population attributable risk). It entirely depends on the questions being ask. One measure is not inherently better or worse (or recommended) than the other. This is just one more clue to the educated reader that the article’s author is lacking in requisite knowledge.
Prior to the vaccine, approximately 1 out of 50 who got COVID died, or ~ 2% mortality. That is not terribly high by some ways of thinking, but those of us lucky enough to have 50 friends and/or relatives would not want to see one go unnecessarily. And if you include long term or permanent injury, it is even more common and more tragic.
Finally, whatever the vaccine can do to you in terms of harm, the live virus can do also, but 10 times worse, and with greater likelihood. The vaccine is one of the most studied of all time, and to my knowledge, all governments, from U.S. to Israel to Italy to Japan and beyond, have weighed the risks. Yes, it is essential to keep studying the vaccines — to see what harms they can potentially cause. To take anything for granted when the vaccines are still providing data on potential harms is a mistake — we must continually update safety information until no important questions are left to answer. But we need carefully researched and expressed articles in the public domain. This article leaves something to be desired in that regard.