4 ms·

That's just not True. 1. The absolute risk reduction is something like 1%. And that was before Omnicron. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanmic/article/PII

That's just not True. 1. The absolute risk reduction is something like 1%. And that was before Omnicron. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanmic/article/PIIS2666-5247(21)00069-0/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanmic/article/PIIS2666-5... 2. The average age of someone that dies from Covid is 82+ with multiple co-morbities. 3. You can calculate your risk here. https://qcovid.org/ https://qcovid.org/ I'm not that young, and not that healthy. My risk comes out to 1/30,000. comparatively, my risk from dying in a car accident is 1 in 107. https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/all-injuries/preventable-death-overview/odds-of-dying/ 4. Based on the Data for Ontario. The vaccinated and unvaccinated are getting infected at the near the same rate. Vaccinated cases were higher for the past month before dropping recently. https://covid-19.ontario.ca/data?fbclid=1 https://covid-19.ontario.ca/data?fbclid=1 (3rd graph shows the case rate) No one I know would take 10 doses of these vaccines. Canadians are pretty passive people. But at third dose the country is near rebellion. Good luck, thinking this will succeed.

noduerme 5y ago
I don't think you understand statistics. A 1% absolute risk reduction is huge in this scenario. An absolute risk reduction of 1% on something with let's say a 1.2% mortality rate takes away 83% of your risk. If your unvaxed risk is 1/30,000, then your vaxed risk is 1/150,000 just because of that 1% absolute change. What I said was that being vaxed drastically lowers your risk. You said "that's just not true" and you followed up by saying your risk was already low, and the only difference is 1% absolute. But the 1% absolute is enormous when you look at the fact that the absolute risk is only slightly over 1% for the general population to start with.
m-p-3 5y ago
They published the following a month after https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8121497/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8121497/ ... It is customary yet inappropriate to compare vaccine efficacies and make policy decisions solely on relative risk reduction (RRR) from clinical trials with different protocols in populations with different background risks for COVID-19—unless vaccines were tested within a common trial as advocated by WHO.[3](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8121497//#bib3 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8121497//#bib3) RRR focusses on those who benefit from the vaccine and, although more stable across event rates (levels of risk for COVID-19), its interpretation requires knowing the actual background risk and its variability. Absolute risk reduction (ARR) considers all individuals and translates conveniently into number needed to vaccinate within a population with a given risk,[3](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8121497//#bib3 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8121497//#bib3) but its public health significance varies with the risk. For any given RRR, ARR is higher when event rates are higher—eg, earlier into a vaccination programme, or in high-risk groups—and decreases as risks decline. Both ARR and RRR are helpful to assess trade-offs between benefits and harm, because evidence is still limited on whether or how they change across the range of individual responses and risks related to age, comorbidities, behaviours, and level of exposure, as well as over time—with risk of COVID-19 decreasing with vaccination scale-up or altering due to virus variants. ...

noduerme 5y ago

I don't think you understand statistics. A 1% absolute risk reduction is huge in this scenario. An absolute risk reduction of 1% on something with let's say a 1.2% mortality rate takes away 83% of your risk. If your unvaxed risk is 1/30,000, then your vaxed risk is 1/150,000 just because of that 1% absolute change. What I said was that being vaxed drastically lowers your risk. You said "that's just not true" and you followed up by saying your risk was already low, and the only difference is 1% absolute. But the 1% absolute is enormous when you look at the fact that the absolute risk is only slightly over 1% for the general population to start with.

m-p-3 5y ago

They published the following a month after https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8121497/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8121497/ ... It is customary yet inappropriate to compare vaccine efficacies and make policy decisions solely on relative risk reduction (RRR) from clinical trials with different protocols in populations with different background risks for COVID-19—unless vaccines were tested within a common trial as advocated by WHO.[3](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8121497//#bib3 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8121497//#bib3) RRR focusses on those who benefit from the vaccine and, although more stable across event rates (levels of risk for COVID-19), its interpretation requires knowing the actual background risk and its variability. Absolute risk reduction (ARR) considers all individuals and translates conveniently into number needed to vaccinate within a population with a given risk,[3](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8121497//#bib3 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8121497//#bib3) but its public health significance varies with the risk. For any given RRR, ARR is higher when event rates are higher—eg, earlier into a vaccination programme, or in high-risk groups—and decreases as risks decline. Both ARR and RRR are helpful to assess trade-offs between benefits and harm, because evidence is still limited on whether or how they change across the range of individual responses and risks related to age, comorbidities, behaviours, and level of exposure, as well as over time—with risk of COVID-19 decreasing with vaccination scale-up or altering due to virus variants. ...