...but isn’t 80%+ of England vaccinated? If there’s few unvaxed then I’d expect most of the cases to be with vaxed people.
Regardless if we like the vax or not, I’m not sure data based on percentages is useful. I’m interested in understanding the increase/decrease benefit of the shot in terms of Absolute Risk Reduction - as the starting point for unvaxed is (for most) 99.9+%. It seems that even if the vax initially improves this it is only by 0.01% (or so)...which isn’t worth the adverse effects, especially if the net result is a negative efficacy over time - as some are reporting.
Is there a reliable study that focuses on ABSOLUTE Risk Reduction?
| In the General/Chat forum, on a thread titled The BBC won’t tell you that 4 in 5 Covid-19 Deaths in past month were among the Triple/Double Vaccinated according to Official Data, fuzzylogic wrote: |
...but isn’t 80%+ of England vaccinated? If there’s few unvaxed then I’d expect most of the cases to be with vaxed people. Regardless if we like the vax or not, I’m not sure data based on percentages is useful. I’m interested in understanding the increase/decrease benefit of the shot in terms of Absolute Risk Reduction - as the starting point for unvaxed is (for most) 99.9+%. It seems that even if the vax initially improves this it is only by 0.01% (or so)...which isn’t worth the adverse effects, especially if the net result is a negative efficacy over time - as some are reporting. Is there a reliable study that focuses on ABSOLUTE Risk Reduction? |
* The governments chose to use Relative Risk reduction (grading on the curve) during the pharma trials in order to deceive the public into getting the vax. They said 95% (RR) reduction and allowed the public to think that it meant there's now a 95% chance they would not get sick. The CDC, Fauci et. al. knew that was not true but that's what they wanted. In Absolute Risk terms, anyone getting the vax only reduced their risk of getting sick by less than 1%.
But Relative Risk helped the government back then and comparison stats need to use the same choice they made (RR) in order to be an apples-to-apples comparison.
You said: "...but isn’t 80%+ of England vaccinated? If there’s few unvaxed then I’d expect most of the cases to be with vaxed people."
That's catastrophic acceptance of treasonous lies and violations of the Nuremberg code. The public accepted grievous risk while being decieved into thinking they were trading their health for a 95% reduction in risk of Covid, when they gave away their health for less than 1% of risk reduction. Given you're willing to forgive and forget so easily, I don't think having Absolute Risk numbers will matter much.
That is correct - so this part of the article reveals something extraordinary: "This means the vaccinated population accounted for 54% of Covid-19 hospitalizations between November 22nd and December 19th, whilst the not-vaccinated accounted for just 46%." So 54% of hospitalizations from 80% of the populations vs. 46% of hospitalizations from 20% of the population means the vaccinated are overwhelmingly - not even close - more protected from hospitalization than the unvaccinated. The contrast is even greater when you consider it is the younger and healthier (and thus less susceptible to hospitalization and serious illness) that would account for most of the unvaccinated.
Pfizer did a study. Fast forward to 2:00, they discuss ARR vs. Relative Risk Reduction. ARR is not very high.