I loved this video very helpful, don't be deceived by the vaccines, here are some vaccine numbers from Lancet - July 1, 2021, Pfizer/BioNTech - Relative risk reduction: 95%. Absolute risk reduction: 0.84%. Moderna - Relative risk reduction: 94%. Absolute risk reduction: 1.2%. Johnson & Johnson - Relative risk reduction: 67%. Absolute risk reduction: 1.2%. AstraZeneca/Oxford - Relative risk reduction: 67%. Absolute risk reduction: 1.3%. Thanks for making this perfectly clear.
COVID-19 vaccine efficacy and effectiveness-the elephant (not) in the room Although the RRR considers only participants who could benefit from the vaccine, the absolute risk reduction (ARR), which is the difference between attack rates with and without a vaccine, considers the whole population. ARRs tend to be ignored because they give a much less impressive effect size than RRRs: 1·3% for the AstraZeneca-Oxford, 1·2% for the Moderna-NIH, 1·2% for the J&J, 0·93% for the Gamaleya, and 0·84% for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines.
It is so hard to get people to understand this basic principle. Use relative risk to sell you ... anything. On a product, in medicine and in science. What is the n value? Just show the y-axis that is the other trick. Compress the y-axis to make the comparison look huge.
Good angle. But it leaves out what's behind the hysteria. Most network ad revenues come from pharma. Anchors are reading corporate lit and presenting it as journalism.
What you don't say is that the absolute risk is a very misguided number too because what is the standard population? What is the sample? Healthy individuals mixed with unhealthy ones, so if you sample from people at risk (I may be one and I don't know), then the absolute risk approaches more the relative risk. It's different if you have underlying conditions than if you don't. The absolute risk to develop COVID is significantly different from a young healthy individual than from an obese old one. So you have to consider what is the absolute risk for your profile.
That's DOCTOR McLovin buddy.
Medical journals do this too, especially in the headlines.
Watching this after finding out about the RRR &ARR of covid vaccines 95-97% vs 0.7%!
THANK YOU!
Doing the exact same too
I loved this video very helpful, don't be deceived by the vaccines, here are some vaccine numbers from Lancet - July 1, 2021, Pfizer/BioNTech - Relative risk reduction: 95%. Absolute risk reduction: 0.84%. Moderna - Relative risk reduction: 94%. Absolute risk reduction: 1.2%. Johnson & Johnson - Relative risk reduction: 67%. Absolute risk reduction: 1.2%. AstraZeneca/Oxford - Relative risk reduction: 67%. Absolute risk reduction: 1.3%. Thanks for making this perfectly clear.
Negative. You don't understand what you think you understand.
@@DrReginaldFinleySrExpound Doc.
COVID-19 vaccine efficacy and effectiveness-the elephant
(not) in the room
Although the RRR considers only participants who could benefit from the vaccine, the absolute risk reduction (ARR), which is the difference between attack rates with and without a vaccine, considers the whole population. ARRs tend to be ignored because they give a much less impressive effect size than RRRs: 1·3% for the AstraZeneca-Oxford, 1·2% for the Moderna-NIH, 1·2% for the J&J, 0·93% for the Gamaleya, and 0·84% for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines.
It is so hard to get people to understand this basic principle. Use relative risk to sell you ... anything. On a product, in medicine and in science. What is the n value? Just show the y-axis that is the other trick. Compress the y-axis to make the comparison look huge.
When talking about the yellow scale, I should have said "from 0 to 100", and not from "1 to 100". Minor mistake!
Yep, a common error I discuss with my students. Sadly, people will try to apply such principles to prevention.
In what circumstances would Relative Risk be more appropriate than Absolute Risk?
I love your presentation style😎 easy to understand.
Great work
Excellent information!
Great simple explanation 👏
Great job
Ah, the evil media. But you’re almost giving a pass to the drug makers who truly know all about ARR vs RRR, but choose to report only RRR.
Good video.
Good angle. But it leaves out what's behind the hysteria. Most network ad revenues come from pharma. Anchors are reading corporate lit and presenting it as journalism.
This is excellent, thanks for creating it. Will definitely share with students.
Well done. Subscribed. I hope you get a 1000 soon, you have quality content.
Thank you.
The smoke did it for me. haha
Finally get it! Thanks :)
What you don't say is that the absolute risk is a very misguided number too because what is the standard population? What is the sample? Healthy individuals mixed with unhealthy ones, so if you sample from people at risk (I may be one and I don't know), then the absolute risk approaches more the relative risk. It's different if you have underlying conditions than if you don't. The absolute risk to develop COVID is significantly different from a young healthy individual than from an obese old one. So you have to consider what is the absolute risk for your profile.
That's a very critical point too! Yes.
You are exactly right. You can tell by some of the comments that the Covid deniers don't understand the distinction.