-
-
Think of it this way; which number sells more covid shots and makes people feel better; RRR at 95% or ARR at 0.84%? The average person can hardly read a newspaper let alone be discerning enough to care about RRR vs ARR.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
but don’t you know what absolute risk reduction is? it’s always lower unless the whole population is exposed during the current period of the study
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
True but consider two scenarios with Two groups of 10K people. Scenario one: 162 cases in group with no shots and 8 cases with shots so 154 cases reduction. RRR is 95% (154 / 162). ARR is 1.54% ( 154 / 10,000), which does not sound as good as the RRR of 95%.
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
yeah it’s definitely worse marketing but it’s also objectively a less useful measure than the relative protection, unless you’re really just trying to highlight that this is a rare disease, which during this delta wave it most certainly is not
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
No. It's to say that the vaccines are 95% effective, which clearly they aren't.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
in the case shared above “RRR is 95% (154 / 162).“ matches pretty much perfectly my sense of what effectiveness means, for what it’s worth. ARR is not the measure of relevance when I think effectiveness…
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
I think most people think like this which is why using the other % is deceptive.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
wait, you think using *which* number is deceptive? i’m confused by what you mean.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Ok. I think that we should use the % change not the 95% or at the very least define numbers that are being thrown around and show that only 1% would have died anyways... or whatever.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
not sure what your counter proposal is! 95% implies that for everyone one that get a breakthrough, 20 would have gotten it were it not for the vax.
afaik it’s closer to 87.5% but 
-
-
Exactly. That was kind of what I had a problem with. Also, using 2 years of COVID data vs 2 months of vax info and then stopped collecting the info, so the vax numbers still look good. I just want more number transparency. If they are that good, show us more
#s.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Pravduh15 @DanielleFong and
I'm not saying necessarily that they aren't, I just want the numbers, not the numbers from where COVID isn't that bad but from where it is.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
