Posted on 05/21/2021 9:50:01 AM PDT by TheDon
"Vaccine efficacy is generally reported as a relative risk reduction (RRR). It uses the relative risk (RR)—ie, the ratio of attack rates with and without a vaccine—which is expressed as 1–RR. Ranking by reported efficacy gives relative risk reductions of 95% for the Pfizer–BioNTech, 94% for the Moderna–NIH, 90% for the Gamaleya, 67% for the J&J, and 67% for the AstraZeneca–Oxford vaccines. However, RRR should be seen against the background risk of being infected and becoming ill with COVID-19, which varies between populations and over time. Although the RRR considers only participants who could benefit from the vaccine, the absolute risk reduction (ARR), which is the difference between attack rates with and without a vaccine, considers the whole population. ARRs tend to be ignored because they give a much less impressive effect size than RRRs: 1·3% for the AstraZeneca–Oxford, 1·2% for the Moderna–NIH, 1·2% for the J&J, 0·93% for the Gamaleya, and 0·84% for the Pfizer–BioNTech vaccines."
(Excerpt) Read more at europepmc.org ...
I am absolutely convinced that the vaccines will _increase_ the spread of CV over what it would have been—because over-confident and arrogant folks that have taken the vaccine will get together in large crowds that will more than offset any “benefit” from the vaccine.
I’ve been wondering about the risk reduction of the vaccine. I didn’t know there was a term for that, the Absolute Risk Reduction or ARR. The numbers are small, aren’t they?
I wonder how these ARR values compare to other vaccines and diseases.
One of the constant pro-jab posters presented published Phase 3 trials on monkeys, which showed that those given a light dose of the vaccine, showed a 50% higher rate of infection upon exposure, than monkeys never vaccinated at all.
Sometimes I wonder if the pro-jab people don’t even bother to read their own articles before posting them.
A vaccine that does not prevent you from getting the virus. They should give it another name.
Yep, I and mine will continue to arrogantly live our lives just as we did prior to vaccination.
If you carefully read my post you will see that I am talking about arrogant people who thought they were in grave danger prior to taking the vaccine, and now think they are perfectly safe after taking it.
_They_ are the folks who are more likely to spread the disease (regardless of what the previous probability was—and note I was _not_ commenting on the probability of spreading the disease...).
I have been saying this, and people here have questioned my literacy in mathematics. It does not make any sense whatsoever to take an experimental drug with a questionable reduction rate, and the highest death rate of any vaccine in 30+ years to prevent the possibility, remote as it is, of succumbing to a virus from which I stand a 99+% chance of recovery. Not gonna do it. Wouldn’t be prudent...
The LANCET = Bullsh*t
Very nice summary! This is madness.
Exactly. I read the Phase 3 trial study the same week it came out, and was shocked this sold so well based on the Relative Risk “efficacy”. It continues today and the Establishment will never back down.
Read the books by Dr. Nortin Hadler. Using relative risk instead of absolute risk is standard practice when companies are touting the effectiveness of their drugs, including statins, blood pressure drugs, and drugs for type 2 diabetes. It also applies to various medical tests and so-called preventive measures.
If There is No Benefit, Why Tolerate Any Risk?
https://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=3232247&page=1
Books - Worried Sick, The Last Well Person, Rethinking Aging: Growing Old and Living Well in an Overtreated Society
because [over-confident] **normal** and [arrogant] **uncowed** folks
Fixed that fer ya!
Obviously the ARR will be lower since the virus has limited spread. That's why getting vaccinated should be an individual decision based on a person's own risk of getting and spreading the virus. For example 80% of front line health care workers chose vaccination at UNC health. 20% chose to not get a vaccine. They didn't break down the numbers but perhaps they already had COVID.
“the Establishment will never back down”
Were truer words ever spoken?
In an unvaccinated population what is the infection rate? Then comes the recovery rate.
London (CNN Business)Covid-19 vaccineshave created at least nine new billionaires after shares in companies producing the shots soared.
Topping the list of new billionaires are Moderna(MRNA) CEO Stéphane Bancel and Ugur Sahin, the CEO of BioNTech (BNTX), which has produced a vaccine with Pfizer (PFE). Both CEOs are now worth around $4 billion, according to an analysis by the People’s Vaccine Alliance, a campaign group that includes Oxfam, UNAIDS, Global Justice Now and Amnesty International.
Senior executives from China’s CanSino Biologics and early investors in Moderna have also become billionaires on paper as shares skyrocketed, partly in expectation of profits earned from Covid vaccines, which also bode well for the companies’ future prospects. The analysis was compiled using data from the Forbes Rich List. Moderna’s share price has gained more than 700% since February 2020, while BioNTech has surged 600%. CanSino Biologics’ stock is up about 440% over the same period. The company’s single-dose Covid-19 vaccine was approved for use in China in February.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.