[palmer]

Of course the higher reduction is relative. That means the vaccine works for exposed / high risk group people. The small absolute risk reduction means that natural immunity and vaccination have reduced the spread of the disease to where people are unlilely to get it.

Here's a simple example. The absolute risk reduction from the Ebola vaccine is tiny, about a thousandth of a percent. Does that mean you don;t need the Ebola shot before your canoe camping trip on the Ebola river? No, you'll need that along with malaria, hepatitis, etc. Your colloidal silver and quinine isn't going to cut it. And you'll be quarantined when you return.

[Polynikes]

That may be true but to market to the public as 95-94% efffctive is duplicitous at best with out clearly stating how those number are arrived at. When you start telling little white lies for the greater good you lose your credibility.

From the linked article on the previous post

“To a lay person, a phrase like “95% effective” means one of two things: either that she or he,
upon exposure to the virus, is protected 95% of the time, or that 95% of the people who take
the vaccine are protected 100% of the time.
And this is where the mutual eagerness of the two highly motivated groups — the public; the
profiteers — intersect. The public wants to hear “95% effectiveness” and think it knows what
those words means. The drug companies want the same thing as the public; it wants the
public to think it knows what those words mean.”