This was the “Relative Risk Reduction.” What was not conveyed to people during this time was the “Absolute Risk Reduction”, also referred to as “risk difference.”
According to a paper in The Lancet,
“It does not mean that 95% of people are protected from disease with the vaccine”
“If we vaccinated a population of 100 000 and protected 95% of them, that would leave 5000 individuals diseased over 3 months, which is almost the current overall COVID-19 case rate in the UK. Rather, a 95% vaccine efficacy means that instead of 1000 COVID-19 cases in a population of 100 000 without vaccine (from the placebo arm of the abovementioned trials, approximately 1% would be ill with COVID-19 and 99% would not) we would expect 50 cases (99·95% of the population is disease-free, at least for 3 months).”https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00075-X/fulltext
In science, Absolute Risk Reduction is the most useful way of presenting research results to help your decision-making, so why wasn’t this number emphasized along with the Relative Risk Reduction? Who knows.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) even strongly advises that Absolute Risk Reduction be provided.
“Provide absolute risks, not just relative risks. Patients are unduly influenced when risk information is presented using a relative risk approach; this can result in suboptimal decisions. Thus, an absolute risk format should be used.”Communicating Risks and Benefits, An Evidence Based User’s Guide, FDA.....<<<Read More>>>...
