Replies

"Here is the lancet report from lancet. Again none of the vaccines give any protection. ...."

OHO! At last I find out where all the conspiracy buzz is coming from, re "The vaccines don't do nothin'! It's right here in this table of stats. Read it and weep!"

Well I did read it. And you should be the one weeping for shame that you've repeatedly propagated a number of lies on FR with this one post you keep repeating, that covers the categories of: "Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics".

First lie is obvious: Peer Reviewed Research. Merely click on the Lancet link you gave me, and look carefully near the upper left corner: It says "COMMENT". It is commentary. Think: Opinion Page of a newspaper. This is not, and has never been "peer-reviewed research".
-No, that doesn't speak to the truth of the words in the commentary.
-But it *does* speak volumes about the integrity and believability of the people who keep hyping this.
-If they happily continue to pass on this obvious lie, what else about the article are they lying about? Hmmmm? Let's read more of the article and find out ...

CATEGORY #3: "... and Statistics":
The three authors focus on a stat called "Absolute Risk Reduction" (ARR) - which is close to 1%.

They ignore the really relevant stat known as "Relative Risk Reduction (RRR) - which is close to 90%.

Here is why the selection of which stat to use is important. I'll create a fictitious example using large round #s to make the math easier:

Suppose you want to test a vaccine or other medical treatment on 200,000 test subjects.
You treat 100,000 of them, and you do NOT treat the other 100,000 people.
Your recorded results are: 1000 of the UN-treated people die of the disease, 0 of the treated people die.
So 1% of the UN-treated people died, and 0% of the treated people died. Those 2 numbers are now used in both the RRR and ARR calculations, but in different ways ....
The RRR / Relative Risk Reduction rate shows the efficacy of your treatment or vaccine = 100%, calculated as (1% - 0%) / 1%.
That means it works 100% of the time to prevent death from the disease. Congratulations! Pass Go and collect your Nobel in Medicine.
But the ARR / Absolute Risk Reduction rate is merely 1%, calculated as (1% - 0%).
That means that *NOT* taking the treatment increases your odds of death by only 1%, because you're moving from a 0% chance of death to only a 1% chance of death.
BOTH STATS ARE VALID (but only one is being lied about; more below). And they can be used/quoted in two different ways:
"RRR": People worried about dying from a disease can look at the RRR, whether it's 100% or 90%, and say, "Hey, it's a no-brainer that I will take this treatment, because it stops the disease 90% of the time".
"ARR": People who do *NOT* worry about diseases in general can tout the ARR to show "there's no huge payoff for me in taking a 90% effective vaccine when my odds of dying of this disease only move between 0% and 1% - depending on whether I take it or not".
(People of that mindset might also say to themselves every time they get in their car: "Hey, on this Highway of Death I take to work daily, my odds of dying in a car crash today if I put the seatbelt on, only decrease from 5-in-1000 to 1-in-1000. That's an absolute reduction of only 0.4% or 4 in 1000. My Conclusion: only cowards wear seatbelts!")

BOTTOM LINE: THE BIG LIE TOLD BY PEOPLE WHO QUOTE THIS LANCET ARTICLE:

The people quoting it completely misunderstand even the most basic tenets of statistics (or else they're lying and know it), by drawing a conclusion that is totally bogus (and was NEVER claimed by the authors of the Commentary in Lancet): They point to the 1% *Absolute* reduction rate, and spout: "The vaccine is useless as it only works 1% of the time". That's an out and out lie, because the reality is that it REALLY DOES work 90% of the time to prevent Covid deaths or hospitalizations or whatever is being measured by some study.

But they are starting with the counter-point of: "So few are going to die of it whether vaccinated or unvaccinated, that an average person taking this 90% effective vaccine is still only going to reduce their odds of dying from Covid by a tiny amount" - which is certainly true - but then changing it to the big lie of: "The vaccine is useless; it only works 1% of the time!"

So please stop spreading this lie of "Vaccines are only 1% effective". They are around 90% effective, and you all know it.

ADDENDUM:

The spokesperson for the 3 Lancet Comment-ers has expressed regret that social media based conspiracists have taken their "1% ARR Elephant in the Room" commentary and lied about it.

He freely admits that the vaccines are around 90% effective. But he is making another point entirely with his "ARR=1%" fact, namely: "Why are we spending so much on something that will save only 1% of people's lives?"

If you wonder why he's doing this, take a quick look at his resume. The answer to the question is a big Duh! This guy works in a Tropical Medicine research facility.

For "Tropical" read: "fighting disease in the other half of the world".

Year after year, people like this beg on their knees for a few table scraps from governments and charitable foundations who dole out disease research $$.

Year after year they see billions go for research into breast cancer, MS, Alzheimers, Lupus, heart disease, and a host of other diseases that are the main killers north of the Tropics. Some of these diseases - like MS - are practically UNHEARD OF in the tropics.

So it must have been a bitter pill to swallow in 2020-2021 to see the entire industrialized world mobilize to pour billions into preventing a new disease that is of high concern in the wealthy countries, where it only saves 1% of people, and compare that to the paltry amounts the tropical disease researchers are getting, where they would save many more lives, though of course they're the people who live on the wrong side of the tracks, so to speak. (I wonder if maybe their funding even went DOWN in some cases as money was diverted to Covid research.)

So, this cry for help of: "Hey, look how few lives you're saving up there with this vax; don't forget about the rest of the world!" has been latched onto and spun into the lie of "The vax doesn't work!" by the clickbait artists ("Pimp my website! Pimp my blog! Pimp my podcast! Pimp my vblog!...") who make Big Bucks off of conspiracy bingers.

90% effective in not giving immunity you mean, and if you have not figured that out you will. The scam artists will be hung!

So how much big pharma stock do you own?

Bravo!

Relative risk reduction was not mentioned in the covid studies which I posted to you. we've only been given Absolute Risk Reduction which as you said was 1%. The +95% absolute risk reduction was a fabrication (my word) again I posted a report explaining how it was derived.

We can't report on information that wasn't given.

You said again,
"They are around 90% effective" You have zero evidence to back that up.
I find it amazing they attacked the author of the lancet report when he is explaining data that is given. This attack on a good person with a valid argument only proves there is nefarious motives.

Please go back and read the original data I posted to YOU. Which I did back in January before you even heard of the this falsification of data claiming of 95% effective. it's not there.

Another reason your argument doesn't hold water. The study in question came out in December there is no way to evaluate protection at that point. WAY To early. it was the first phase of the test. The lancet was evaluating the second phase.