Covid-19

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 94GRAD

You forgot to ask what percent are unvaccinated.

---

Thank you! That should be the FIRST question asked, but some people just don’t want to ask the obvious questions when distraction suits their position better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xu82

Thank you! That should be the FIRST question asked, but some people just don’t want to ask the obvious questions when distraction suits their position better.

---

And it’s the only question that you care about for your position. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

And it’s the only question that you care about for your position. :)

---

Yet hmm you don’t call out Lou for his clear bias with his questions. Hmmm wonder why? That’s a mystery. You do the same damn thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xu82

Thank you! That should be the FIRST question asked, but some people just don’t want to ask the obvious questions when distraction suits their position better.

---

Perspective, my friend.... Don't let fear make you lose sight of the real risks....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xville

Yet hmm you don’t call out Lou for his clear bias with his questions. Hmmm wonder why? That’s a mystery. You do the same damn thing.

---

I thought the vaccine question was obvious. His questions were looking at issues other than the vax which is at least interesting and rarely discussed.

Also, 94 already challenged Lou.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

And it’s the only question that you care about for your position. :)

---

ABSOLUTELY FALSE. But thanks for speaking for me and telling me how I think and feel.

I care about ALL the answers to those questions so we can have some actual context. It just stuck out as such an obvious omission I was almost embarrassed for anyone who would post that. Almost. Pathetically biased.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xu82

ABSOLUTELY FALSE. But thanks for speaking for me and telling me how I think and feel.

I care about ALL the answers to those questions so we can have some actual context. It just stuck out as such an obvious omission I was almost embarrassed for anyone who would post that. Almost. Pathetically biased.

---

Thanks for telling us all how Lou thinks and feels.

It really wasn’t all that pathetic or biased.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

I thought the vaccine question was obvious. His questions were looking at issues other than the vax which is at least interesting and rarely discussed.

Also, 94 already challenged Lou.

---

No, it was a glaringly obvious omission. Let’s look at ALL the info, instead of things that just “help” one “side” or the other.

You still seem to think I’m way off to one extreme, which is not true. I got vaccinated, and wish people would get vaccinated. I am NOT for the government mandating that they get vaccinated. I think that will be taken care of if/when you are not allowed on public transportation, allowed to fly or travel, or return to the workplace. Many universities and employers will not let people back without proof of vaccinations. That’s already been announced, and I’m very curious as to how it plays out. I don’t pretend to have all the information, or the ability to discern it from misinformation, so I play it safe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Thanks for telling us all how Lou thinks and feels.

It really wasn’t all that pathetic or biased.

---

So you thought it was moderately pathetic and biased?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xu82

No, it was a glaringly obvious omission. Let’s look at ALL the info, instead of things that just “help” one “side” or the other.

You still seem to think I’m way off to one extreme, which is not true. I got vaccinated, and wish people would get vaccinated. I am NOT for the government mandating that they get vaccinated. I think that will be taken care of if/when you are not allowed on public transportation, allowed to fly or travel, or return to the workplace. Many universities and employers will not let people back without proof of vaccinations. That’s already been announced, and I’m very curious as to how it plays out. I don’t pretend to have all the information, or the ability to discern it from misinformation, so I play it safe.

---

The way you speak about the DIL and others tells me you’re obnoxious as hell and definitely not as moderate as you think.

Lou really isn’t all that extreme and he’s stated he’s a bit of a contrarian. Presenting both sides. You don’t even want to give that any thought. You seem to have no concern for other’s opinions. I wouldn’t be surprised if the DIL and others are not getting vaxxed in part to spite you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Sweet Paul. Point?

---

One might make the point that those measures that brought the case count down to almost zero, and the death count to zero, might be warranted to again reduce the health crisis for the citizens of Florida.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paulxu

One might make the point that those measures that brought the case count down to almost zero, and the death count to zero, might be warranted to again reduce the health crisis for the citizens of Florida.

---

So we need to implement Spring in Florida?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paulxu

One might make the point that those measures that brought the case count down to almost zero, and the death count to zero, might be warranted to again reduce the health crisis for the citizens of Florida.

---

Which measures? Wouldn’t want to make assumptions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xu82

No, it was a glaringly obvious omission. Let’s look at ALL the info, instead of things that just “help” one “side” or the other.

---

Oh, don't worry 82, we'll have an update on Massachusetts tomorrow. Stay tuned, we'll see how the vaccinated are doing in that state.

Oh, why do we have to use MASS data - it's because YOUR CDC won't report those numbers - I wonder why....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

I thought the vaccine question was obvious. His questions were looking at issues other than the vax which is at least interesting and rarely discussed.

Also, 94 already challenged Lou.

---

so obvious yet it was omitted...im sure had 94 not said anything you would have stepped right up to the plate as you have done with all of Lou's other inherently biased links .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xville

so obvious yet it was omitted...im sure had 94 not said anything you would have stepped right up to the plate as you have done with all of Lou's other inherently biased links .

---

Maybe, no way to know now. Would you like to post a link to relevant information or do you plan to continue to drunk uncle this thread?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

The way you speak about the DIL and others tells me you’re obnoxious as hell and definitely not as moderate as you think.

Lou really isn’t all that extreme and he’s stated he’s a bit of a contrarian. Presenting both sides. You don’t even want to give that any thought. You seem to have no concern for other’s opinions. I wouldn’t be surprised if the DIL and others are not getting vaxxed in part to spite you.

---

holy crap are you joking?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

The way you speak about the DIL and others tells me you’re obnoxious as hell and definitely not as moderate as you think.

Lou really isn’t all that extreme and he’s stated he’s a bit of a contrarian. Presenting both sides. You don’t even want to give that any thought. You seem to have no concern for other’s opinions. I wouldn’t be surprised if the DIL and others are not getting vaxxed in part to spite you.

---

Well, since you’ve brought that up, I have never once had the discussion with the DIL. She has not been vaccinated, and that’s her right. I earlier though she was about to get it done, but is still wavering as she has concerns about starting a family. Her sister is the one who got the first shot since a close friend is brain dead in an Orlando hospital, the last I heard.

You’ve determined I’m obnoxious, despite never having seen me interact with others. I just am not wetting myself about letting the government steal my liberties. It made sense for me, so I did it.

Since we have never even had the conversation, I’m positive they aren’t avoiding the shot to spite me. BIG swing and a miss there! Again. But you feel free to continue making stuff up. It just exposes you further.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xville

holy crap are you joking?

---

Not joking Ville. He’s stated he deliberately posts information that is not normally found or is blacked out.

I appreciate it. Read it for what it’s worth and find some of it to be a nice break from the machine. Oddly, Ville. His stuff isn’t that far off from reality sometimes. I like to read Lloyd and especially GFFMD (and others, sorry for unintended hurt feelings). If I make challenges it’s because it’s helpful to have someone defend their opinion instead of taking it as fact.

I don’t challenge Lou much because he is always challenged.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xu82

Well, since you’ve brought that up, I have never once had the discussion with the DIL. She has not been vaccinated, and that’s her right. I earlier though she was about to get it done, but is still wavering as she has concerns about starting a family. Her sister is the one who got the first shot since a close friend is brain dead in an Orlando hospital, the last I heard.

You’ve determined I’m obnoxious, despite never having seen me interact with others. I just am not wetting myself about letting the government steal my liberties. It made sense for me, so I did it.

Since we have never even had the conversation, I’m positive they aren’t avoiding the shot to spite me. BIG swing and a miss there! Again. But you feel free to continue making stuff up. It just exposes you further.

---

So you choose to speak about them here instead of directly?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xville

holy crap are you joking?

---

I shouldn’t have sunk to this. I’ll be stepping away for a while, but it’s worth mentioning nothing will be accomplished here. As information changes, I may change how I feel. For now it’s just people who are stuck in their opinions, often confusing them with facts. At least I freely admit, I DON”T KNOW FOR SURE, so I play it safe.

For what it’s worth, my father was as far right as my sister is far left. I grew up with that (she’s 8 years older) and learned to stay out of the fray. I avoid politics at all costs, other than voting for the person I feel is best qualified, regardless of party affiliation. I don’t have a “side” other than trying to play it safe and try to be a good neighbor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

So you choose to speak about them here instead of directly?

---

Yes, because to them that would be too personal. It’s not worth it to broach the topic. If she wants to know how I feel she can ask, but it’s still and ALWAYS 100% her choice, which I would certainly include in that conversation.

Besides, when I brought it up it was because a person deeply entrenched in their position was able to change her mind in the face of losing a close friend, and I found that encouraging. They acted like adults in the face of new information, and that is something we ALL need to be able to do regardless of what direction new info takes us.


.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xu82

I’ll be stepping away for a while

---

again...but he'll be back because he loves the abuse...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xu82

so I play it safe.

---

who knew?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xu82

Yes, because to them that would be too personal. It’s not worth it to broach the topic. If she wants to know how I feel she can ask, but it’s still and ALWAYS 100% her choice, which I would certainly include in that conversation.

Besides, when I brought it up it was because a person deeply entrenched in their position was able to change her mind in the face of losing a close friend, and I found that encouraging. They acted like adults in the face of new information, and that is something we ALL need to be able to do.

---

Ok, talk to you soon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xu82

I shouldn’t have sunk to this. I’ll be stepping away for a while, but it’s worth mentioning nothing will be accomplished here. As information changes, I may change how I feel. For now it’s just people who are stuck in their opinions, often confusing them with facts. At least I freely admit, I DON”T KNOW FOR SURE, so I play it safe.

For what it’s worth, my father was as far right as my sister is far left. I grew up with that (she’s 8 years older) and learned to stay out of the fray. I avoid politics at all costs, other than voting for the person I feel is best qualified, regardless of party affiliation. I don’t have a “side” other than trying to play it safe and try to be a good neighbor.

---

One last thought. For someone who claims to not know everything you don’t seem to ask a lot of questions.

I’ll start. Hey Lou! Why did you omit the unvaxxed in your response?

I'm quite amused how Ville, 82 and others have gotten so exorcised by my "questions". It's pretty obvious that this is truly the proverbial elephant in the room. Is it that deep down they know the risks are quite low for healthy individuals, but they don't want to admit it (never give an inch!)?

a) Regardless of whether or not those that are getting sick are vaccinated or not, those 4 questions are still the most relevant questions to ask if we're trying to determine the true risk for the young and healthy populations.

b) The faux outrage that I had the gall not to ask what percentage are unvaccinated is quite rich. As if I've never addressed this. See post #5662

c) Finally, you say that my 4 questions are somehow extreme? Really, that's quite amusing because I've shared data on these 4 topics on several occasions - including data from the CDC website itself! And that's not good enough for ville and 82? That's your problem - not mine. If you want to stick your heads up your asses and pretend that these aren't the key factors for negative Covid outcomes, it doesn't change reality.


Any time you see Fauci or someone in the media spouting off a bunch of dire Covid fearmongering numbers, you need to ask these 4 questions:

* What's the average age compared to last winter or last year?

* What percent are overweight?

* What percent have a comorbidity?

* What percent have a vitamin D deficiency?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XU_Lou

I'm quite amused how Ville, 82 and others have gotten so exorcised by my "questions". It's pretty obvious that this is truly the proverbial elephant in the room. Is it that deep down they know the risks are quite low for healthy individuals, but they don't want to admit it (never give an inch!)?

a) Regardless of whether or not those that are getting sick are vaccinated or not, those 4 questions are still the most relevant questions to ask if we're trying to determine the true risk for the young and healthy populations.

b) The faux outrage that I had the gall not to ask what percentage are unvaccinated is quite rich. As if I've never addressed this. See post #5662

c) Finally, you say that my 4 questions are somehow extreme? Really, that's quite amusing because I've shared data on these 4 topics on several occasions - including data from the CDC website itself! And that's not good enough for ville and 82? That's your problem - not mine. If you want to stick your heads up your asses and pretend that these aren't the key factors for negative Covid outcomes, it doesn't change reality.


Any time you see Fauci or someone in the media spouting off a bunch of dire Covid fearmongering numbers, you need to ask these 4 questions:

* What's the average age compared to last winter or last year?

* What percent are overweight?

* What percent have a comorbidity?

* What percent have a vitamin D deficiency?

---

It’s my non expert opinion that we will continue the circular spiral about vaccines and masks until the relevancy of these and potentially other questions are addressed with the same vigor as vaccines. Also, these questions are one of the reasons I’ve moved to information on treatments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

It’s my non expert opinion that we will continue the circular spiral about vaccines and masks until the relevancy of these and potentially other questions are addressed with the same vigor as vaccines. Also, these questions are one of the reasons I’ve moved to information on treatments.

---

Honestly, that should have been the FIRST question addressed way back in February or March of 2020. But, as we saw, treatments weren't allowed when billions could be made on a vaccine.

Totally agree, we should have a much more in-depth knowledge of which treatments work best, and what the risks are for each one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XU_Lou

Honestly, that should have been the FIRST question addressed way back in February or March of 2020. But, as we saw, treatments weren't allowed when billions could be made on a vaccine.

Totally agree, we should have a much more in-depth knowledge of which treatments work best, and what the risks are for each one.

---

Maybe. Vaccines were important to slow the advance and emerge from lock down. Hindsight is 20/20 but very glad to hear there’s great, quiet treatment work being done. Vax can help before and treatment for when it’s upon you.

I hear it’s beautiful, the best work, smartest work. Sorry couldn’t help myself. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobbiemcgee

Funny those who think the gov't is so evil and quickly line up for the free vax.

---

I'm not really sure what this means, Bobbie. I don't think the government is evil, I just want them to stay in their lanes and stay out of the business of determining that certain people aren't able to make personal choices. Your takes are odd.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XU_Lou

I'm quite amused how Ville, 82 and others have gotten so exorcised by my "questions". It's pretty obvious that this is truly the proverbial elephant in the room. Is it that deep down they know the risks are quite low for healthy individuals, but they don't want to admit it (never give an inch!)?

a) Regardless of whether or not those that are getting sick are vaccinated or not, those 4 questions are still the most relevant questions to ask if we're trying to determine the true risk for the young and healthy populations.

b) The faux outrage that I had the gall not to ask what percentage are unvaccinated is quite rich. As if I've never addressed this. See post #5662

c) Finally, you say that my 4 questions are somehow extreme? Really, that's quite amusing because I've shared data on these 4 topics on several occasions - including data from the CDC website itself! And that's not good enough for ville and 82? That's your problem - not mine. If you want to stick your heads up your asses and pretend that these aren't the key factors for negative Covid outcomes, it doesn't change reality.


Any time you see Fauci or someone in the media spouting off a bunch of dire Covid fearmongering numbers, you need to ask these 4 questions:

* What's the average age compared to last winter or last year?

* What percent are overweight?

* What percent have a comorbidity?

* What percent have a vitamin D deficiency?

---

Below is an excerpt from an interesting article from the NIH website. The article was written in 2008 and discusses the difference between absolute risk and relative risk. It states that when determining the usefulness of a treatment it is the absolute risk reduction that should be considered moreso than the relative risk reduction. Here is the excerpt which explains each term and states that absolute risk reduction is "the most useful way of presenting research results to help your decision making".

Here is the excerpt:

"How do you interpret the results of a randomised controlled trial? A common measure of a treatment is to look at the frequency of bad outcomes of a disease in the group being treated compared with those who were not treated. For instance, supposing that a well-designed randomised controlled trial in children with a particular disease found that 20 per cent of the control group developed bad outcomes, compared with only 12 per cent of those receiving treatment. Should you agree to give this treatment to your child? Without knowing more about the adverse effects of the therapy, it appears to reduce some of the bad outcomes of the disease. But is its effect meaningful?

This is where you need to consider the risk of treatment versus no treatment. In healthcare, risk refers to the probability of a bad outcome in people with the disease.

Absolute risk reduction (ARR) – also called risk difference (RD) – is the most useful way of presenting research results to help your decision-making. In this example, the ARR is 8 per cent (20 per cent - 12 per cent = 8 per cent). This means that, if 100 children were treated, 8 would be prevented from developing bad outcomes. Another way of expressing this is the number needed to treat (NNT). If 8 children out of 100 benefit from treatment, the NNT for one child to benefit is about 13 (100 ÷ 8 = 12.5)."

Here is the link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK63647/

The reason I wound up reading this article is because someone sent an article to me regarding the efficacy of COVID vaccines which pointed out that the 95% figure we have heard is the relative risk reduction, not the absolute risk reduction. The article states that the relative risk reduction of the COVID shots ranges anywhere from 67% (AstraZeneca/Oxford and Johnson & Johson) to 94-95% (Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech). It further states that the absolute risk reduction ranges from .084% (Pfizer) to 1.2-1.3% (AstraZeneca/Oxford, Moderna, Pfizer/BioNTech).

Now, I'm not sure what to make of all of this information. From what I recall the vaccine manufacturers are reporting the relative risk reduction figures (their calculations are all over the Internet and should not be tough to verify). It should not be hard to calculate the absolute risk reduction - the formula is provided above. If the absolute risk reduction is accurately reported above, why is the vaccine being pushed for those who are not in high risk categories?

MiD and XU_Lou - any thoughts?

Principal

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by principal

Below is an excerpt from an interesting article from the NIH website. The article was written in 2008 and discusses the difference between absolute risk and relative risk. It states that when determining the usefulness of a treatment it is the absolute risk reduction that should be considered moreso than the relative risk reduction. Here is the excerpt which explains each term and states that absolute risk reduction is "the most useful way of presenting research results to help your decision making".

Here is the excerpt:

"How do you interpret the results of a randomised controlled trial? A common measure of a treatment is to look at the frequency of bad outcomes of a disease in the group being treated compared with those who were not treated. For instance, supposing that a well-designed randomised controlled trial in children with a particular disease found that 20 per cent of the control group developed bad outcomes, compared with only 12 per cent of those receiving treatment. Should you agree to give this treatment to your child? Without knowing more about the adverse effects of the therapy, it appears to reduce some of the bad outcomes of the disease. But is its effect meaningful?

This is where you need to consider the risk of treatment versus no treatment. In healthcare, risk refers to the probability of a bad outcome in people with the disease.

Absolute risk reduction (ARR) – also called risk difference (RD) – is the most useful way of presenting research results to help your decision-making. In this example, the ARR is 8 per cent (20 per cent - 12 per cent = 8 per cent). This means that, if 100 children were treated, 8 would be prevented from developing bad outcomes. Another way of expressing this is the number needed to treat (NNT). If 8 children out of 100 benefit from treatment, the NNT for one child to benefit is about 13 (100 ÷ 8 = 12.5)."

Here is the link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK63647/

The reason I wound up reading this article is because someone sent an article to me regarding the efficacy of COVID vaccines which pointed out that the 95% figure we have heard is the relative risk reduction, not the absolute risk reduction. The article states that the relative risk reduction of the COVID shots ranges anywhere from 67% (AstraZeneca/Oxford and Johnson & Johson) to 94-95% (Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech). It further states that the absolute risk reduction ranges from .084% (Pfizer) to 1.2-1.3% (AstraZeneca/Oxford, Moderna, Pfizer/BioNTech).

Now, I'm not sure what to make of all of this information. From what I recall the vaccine manufacturers are reporting the relative risk reduction figures (their calculations are all over the Internet and should not be tough to verify). It should not be hard to calculate the absolute risk reduction - the formula is provided above. If the absolute risk reduction is accurately reported above, why is the vaccine being pushed for those who are not in high risk categories?

MiD and XU_Lou - any thoughts?

Principal

---

Thank you! Public reps!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paulxu

Not a first place trophy you really want:

---

Crazy. It’s almost like Florida is our southern most State and the virus has a summer peak.

Paul it’s going to really suck for your fabricated liberal narrative when Florida cases drop for no apparent reason. Go recheck that 7-day moving average today. The reproduction rate is now well below 1. https://covidestim.org/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Muskie in dayton

Crazy. It’s almost like Florida is our southern most State and the virus has a summer peak.

Paul it’s going to really suck for your fabricated liberal narrative when Florida cases drop for no apparent reason. Go recheck that 7-day moving average today. The reproduction rate is now well below 1. https://covidestim.org/

---

Bloomberg/Yahoo reported the following in regards to MiD’s point:

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/covid...155250892.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lloyd Braun

Not advocating for refusing to treat unvaccinated but the examples above are not overwhelming hospitals and stretching resources thin.

---

The unvaccinated COVID-19 patients would have plenty of capacity for treatment if not for those smokers, druggies, fat-asses, and people who don’t seek preventive care.

They all stretch equally.

By the way, can you refer me to a good dentist? Mine refused to fill my cavity since I haven’t been flossing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Muskie in dayton

The unvaccinated COVID-19 patients would have plenty of capacity for treatment if not for those smokers, druggies, fat-asses, and people who don’t seek preventive care.

They all stretch equally.

By the way, can you refer me to a good dentist? Mine refused to fill my cavity since I haven’t been flossing.

---

This simply isn’t true, as was explained by the medical people that have been posting. I am seeing the same thing with my significant other working 12 hour days trying to keep on top of covid patients. But continue spreading bull shit disinformation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Muskie in dayton

The unvaccinated COVID-19 patients would have plenty of capacity for treatment if not for those smokers, druggies, fat-asses, and people who don’t seek preventive care.

They all stretch equally.

By the way, can you refer me to a good dentist? Mine refused to fill my cavity since I haven’t been flossing.

---

Lying through your teeth does not count as flossing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by STL_XUfan

This simply isn’t true, as was explained by the medical people that have been posting. I am seeing the same thing with my significant other working 12 hour days trying to keep on top of covid patients. But continue spreading bull shit disinformation.

---

Fair. The same would be true of most outbreaks of this nature.

No snark. How much difference would you see in terms of capacity if the vaccination rate was above 80%? 90%? Is it higher than last year with no vax available. I think the vax is helpful and I have it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by principal

Below is an excerpt from an interesting article from the NIH website. The article was written in 2008 and discusses the difference between absolute risk and relative risk. It states that when determining the usefulness of a treatment it is the absolute risk reduction that should be considered moreso than the relative risk reduction. Here is the excerpt which explains each term and states that absolute risk reduction is "the most useful way of presenting research results to help your decision making".

Here is the excerpt:

"How do you interpret the results of a randomised controlled trial? A common measure of a treatment is to look at the frequency of bad outcomes of a disease in the group being treated compared with those who were not treated. For instance, supposing that a well-designed randomised controlled trial in children with a particular disease found that 20 per cent of the control group developed bad outcomes, compared with only 12 per cent of those receiving treatment. Should you agree to give this treatment to your child? Without knowing more about the adverse effects of the therapy, it appears to reduce some of the bad outcomes of the disease. But is its effect meaningful?

This is where you need to consider the risk of treatment versus no treatment. In healthcare, risk refers to the probability of a bad outcome in people with the disease.

Absolute risk reduction (ARR) – also called risk difference (RD) – is the most useful way of presenting research results to help your decision-making. In this example, the ARR is 8 per cent (20 per cent - 12 per cent = 8 per cent). This means that, if 100 children were treated, 8 would be prevented from developing bad outcomes. Another way of expressing this is the number needed to treat (NNT). If 8 children out of 100 benefit from treatment, the NNT for one child to benefit is about 13 (100 ÷ 8 = 12.5)."

Here is the link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK63647/

The reason I wound up reading this article is because someone sent an article to me regarding the efficacy of COVID vaccines which pointed out that the 95% figure we have heard is the relative risk reduction, not the absolute risk reduction. The article states that the relative risk reduction of the COVID shots ranges anywhere from 67% (AstraZeneca/Oxford and Johnson & Johson) to 94-95% (Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech). It further states that the absolute risk reduction ranges from .084% (Pfizer) to 1.2-1.3% (AstraZeneca/Oxford, Moderna, Pfizer/BioNTech).

Now, I'm not sure what to make of all of this information. From what I recall the vaccine manufacturers are reporting the relative risk reduction figures (their calculations are all over the Internet and should not be tough to verify). It should not be hard to calculate the absolute risk reduction - the formula is provided above. If the absolute risk reduction is accurately reported above, why is the vaccine being pushed for those who are not in high risk categories?

MiD and XU_Lou - any thoughts?

Principal

---

Principal - coincidentally, I ran into an article today that discussed this very concept. It's the first time I heard/read anything with regards to "absolute risk reduction" - and may very well be the same article that you read. I thought it was a bit of an eye opener, and made a lot of sense to me. That's my 2 cents, and I just got a raise the other day.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by STL_XUfan

This simply isn’t true, as was explained by the medical people that have been posting. I am seeing the same thing with my significant other working 12 hour days trying to keep on top of covid patients. But continue spreading bull shit disinformation.

---

They think they can just say stuff, and that makes it true.

I really don’t believe either extreme, but I usually know BS when I see it.