re: Howie Mandel: “They never said you won't get COVID” - RFKj: 'Can I play a tape for you?'

quote:

---

I'm not gonna gooble it because I don’t care anymore, but when the vaccine first hit the shelves, the talking point I think was 92% to 94% effective. As time passed, I think they dropped the number into the 68% range.

---

That "92% to 94% effective" is based on Relative Risk Reduction, which is highly misleading, as opposed to Absolute Risk Reduction which is far more telling, as recommended by the FDA...

FDA.gov ~ Communicating Risks and Benefits: An Evidence-Based User’s Guide


Chapter 7: Quantitative Information

2. 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.


Chapter 18: News Coverage

This chapter is intended to help people think about the imbalance that exists in so many health care messages — and what can be done about it.
What does the science say about this aspect of communication?
Over the past 20 years, many researchers have written about how the news media affects consumers on behavior change issues such as smoking, diet, and cancer screening. But it remains unclear how consumers receive, comprehend, or act on news stories about the benefits and harms of health
care interventions when uncertainty prevails.
In 2000, Moynihan et al., published a groundbreaking analysis in the New England Journal of Medicine, “Coverage by the News Media of the Benefits and Risks of Medications.”
Their analysis of 207 stories on three widely prescribed
drugs showed that 40% did not quantify benefits. Of those stories that did, most reported only in relative, not absolute, terms. Fewer than half the stories
mentioned potential harms.
The authors concluded:
When reporting on new forms of technology or new treatments, journalists and editors might consider the evidence available in relation to the following questions:
What is the magnitude of the benefit (e.g., both absolute and relative), and what groups of patients can be helped?
What are the associated risks and costs?
What are the possible links between the sources of information (studies or experts) and those (such as the manufacturers) who promote the therapy?
Although not exhaustive, these questions could inform attempts to improve the quality of medical reporting.

Journalism watchdog/improvement projects pg.187

"Our judges grade a story as unsatisfactory if it doesn’t quantify results or if it does so using only relative, not absolute, risk–benefit data."


Based on PFIZER’S ORIGINAL TRIAL REPORT
DECEMBER 31 2020, the Absolute Risk Reduction was only 0.84%.

https://www.canadiancovidcarealliance.org/featured/relative-vs-absolute-risk-reduction-2/

quote:

---

the Absolute Risk Reduction was only 0.84%.

---

That was only because they stoped the study. I think they knew there was a good chance it wouldn’t be 50% effective at 3-6 months.