Typical antivaccine propoganda misrepresenting information.
The ARR will always appear low.
Let’s say a study enrolled 20,000 patients into the control group and 20,000 in the vaccine group. In that study, 200 people in the control group got sick and 0 people in the vaccine group got sick. Even though the vaccine efficacy would be 100%, the ARR would show that vaccines reduce the absolute risk by just 1% (200/20,000= 1%).
Seatbelts for example have an ARR of about 1% that doesn't mean that they're not effective.
Quoting: Bullsh!t there were a few things about the Pfizer study that defied common sense
from memory:
8 out of 20,000 in vaxed group got sick
154 out of 20,000 in nonvaxed group got sick
if everyone got sick in the sample size and the sample size was 162 then I could see how they get 95% reduction
but they didn’t and it wasn’t, the sample size was 40,000
and then there are the suspected but unconfirmed cases, hmmm:
“Among 3410 total cases of suspected but unconfirmed COVID-19 in the overall study population, 1594 occurred in the vaccine group vs. 1816 in the placebo group. Suspected COVID-19 cases that occurred within 7 days after any vaccination were 409 in the vaccine group vs. 287 in the placebo group. It is possible that the imbalance in suspected COVID-19 cases occurring in the 7 days postvaccination represents vaccine reactogenicity with symptoms that overlap with those of COVID-19. Overall though, these data do not raise a concern that protocol-specified reporting of suspected, but unconfirmed COVID-19 cases could have masked clinically significant adverse events that would not have otherwise been detected.”
what a fucking joke, lol
[
link to www.fda.gov (secure)]
