Skip to main content

COVID Vaccine May Lower your Risk by Only 1%

Let me start by saying I'm generally in favor of vaccines: I got a tetanus shot when I fell off my bike onto the pavement; I got a flu shot last year because I didn't think I could fight off both the flu and COVID if I was unlucky enough to get both. But one reason I haven't gotten a COVID shot is because there's no way of knowing the long-term effects, if any, of the new technology it uses. 

Now I have another reason. For people like me (not old, diabetic, overweight or suffering from heart disease), the clinical trials of the vaccines showed a reduced absolute risk of getting COVID of...wait for it...around 1%. 

Regular readers probably know about absolute risk vs. relative risk. Reducing your relative risk of something by 70% or 95%, as the vaccines do for symptomatic COVID infections, sounds like they are extremely effective. But when your risk of something is low enough to start with, reducing it further may not mean much. This graphic of a hypothetical vaccine trial illustrates relative vs. absolute risk. Absolute risk reduction (ARR) is 1%, while relative risk reduction (RRR) is 50%. One less person out of a hundred got sick with the vaccine--but that's half as many as got sick with the placebo. That's how you can say "50% risk reduction!" with a straight face. 

Hypotethical example of a vaccine clinical trial (1)

The author of the article where this graphic appears notes that vaccine trials are supposed to report absolute risk, since reporting only relative risk can lead people to make suboptimal decisions. But "the manufacturers [Moderna and Pfizer] did not report a corresponding absolute risk reduction..." 

If relative vs. absolute risk is still confusing, the article helpfully states the number needed to vaccinate to avoid a symptomatic case of COVID: 142 people for the Pfizer vaccine; 88 for the Moderna vaccine. 

Sebastian Rushworth likewise reports the Astra Zenica vaccine offers an absolute risk reduction of 1.2% and notes their trial had some problems: two arms of the trial didn't use a real placebo but meningococcal vaccine instead; there were relatively few elderly people in the trial (the people most at risk from COVID); and people with a variety of health conditions were also excluded. So between that, the short length of the trial, and the size of the trial, there's a good deal of uncertainty around the safety of the vaccine. He says he would not take the vaccine (even though he's a junior doctor who presumably sees patients) because he's young and healthy and has a low risk of getting COVID. (2)

Sources:

"Outcome Reporting Bias in COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine Clinical Trials" by Ronald B. Brown. Europe PMC, February 26, 2021.

COVID: Why Most of What you Know is Wrong by Sebastian Rushworth. Karneval Publishing, Stockholm. 2021, pp. 112-131.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Purge, COVID, and Return of GERD

The Purge I've been nostaligic for the days five to ten years back when the worst interaction you might have online was a nasty comment or two. Moderators, who might have to deal with a few hundred comments at most, blocked the trolls if they became too disruptive. Now that Facebook and Twitter are excommunicating people wholesale, maybe we'll go back to smaller, moderated sites and leave the yelling and screaming to the maddening crowds over there.  Dave Rubin asked Tulsi Gabbard today how she'd moderate Twitter. In practice, I don't think it's possible. It's too big with too many users who are completely unhinged and ready to come after you IRL if they don't like what you say. Then there's Facebook, which seemed like a platform for narcissists during the few weeks I used it long ago. They say people used to live in groups of about 150--maybe it's time for virtual communities to return to something closer to that number. Not only was there less trou
Post a Comment
Read more

The NUMBERS! And Fairness! D'oh!

I'll start with some  good news : "...residents 70 and older can now register to receive the coronavirus vaccine through the state [of Indiana]'s website." The CDC and some academics wanted to vaccinate essential workers to " level the playing field ," because "essential workers" include a higher proportion of non-white people than the over-70 crowd does. As readers surely know, the over-70 crowd is far more likely to die of COVID than anyone else. No, the link doesn't go to the Babylon Bee or The Onion : they really called for more deaths in the name of Fairness.  And sorry, teachers , but you don't get to jump the line in front of doctors, nurses, essential medical staff and old people, either.  Oldsters among the first to get COVID vaccines in Indiana. Photo from Pixabay . At least the state of Indiana is more interested in saving lives than ideology. Would that the state had such an interest in science and data. Like most other places,
Post a Comment
Read more

Results of my Carrageenan-Free Diet

Certain things should be left in the aquarium. Readers may recall my ordeal last Saturday with a migraine headache and a trip by ambulance back to my parents' house. Thanks to one of the paramedics jogging my memory, I researched the almond milk I'd started drinking around the time I quit dairy. One of the ingredients was carrageenan, a substance used to induce inflammation, sensitivity to pain and other problems in laboratory animals. Supposedly, the "undegraded" form is safe for human consumption, but undegraded carrageenan has been found to be contaminated with degraded carrageenan, and there are ways that the digestive system could degrade carrageenan itself. For the past few months, I've felt a little bloated, and was starting to have some mild pain in my lower stomach. I thought it might have been the effects of the antibiotics, oral steroids or decongestant (which gave me an allergic reaction) from back in February. I didn't connect it to the sev
10 comments
Read more