It's obvious this article is glancing over the real truth as well. Eg. for Pfizer, in the placebo group, 0,88% experienced COVID symptoms. Yet Moderna and AstraZeneca tests had a 1,2/1,3% absolute risk reduction, indicating that their placebo controls had a significantly higher rate of COVID symptoms than the Pfizer trial.
This only tells us one thing: these early trials were non-representative, and could only be used as signals that vaccines do help. Later results based on much larger numbers provide better indications. It makes one wonder why did the article not cover those?
Is it disingenious to not use ARR? Well, a 1% absolute reduction from 95% death rate is not something to write home about, yet ARR of 1% on 1.1% death rate definitely is. As such, a relative reduction rate is a much better indicator as a single number: 95% relative reduction rate is simple to interpret (1 out of 20 people would experience symptoms that would have done so without a vaccine).
First thing to remember is that the risk of COVID comes from it being highly transmissive, and not highly deadly. Only because of that have vulnerable groups been heavily infected and thus the absolute death numbers are large.
Demasi criticizes the (in her opinion) exaggerated statements from public health officials (regarding protection against death), citing the statistical insignificance found in Pfizer/BioNTech's efficacy trial. Later on, she discusses the difference between ARR & RRR and refers to scientific works which deal with its problematic communication. All references are linked.
This text (not the website or person) is, imo, more transparent (not necessarily more correct) than most articles found in leading news outlets.
However, imo content without context is only half the picture in this day and age I want to know the source of where content is coming from, especially on this topic.
I felt it relevant to share what I learned about this source upon inspecting the content, that is all.
I do not intend to generalize this content as wrong, controversial or untrustworthy per se. I hope the context allows readers to more accurately form their opinion from the content.
Yup. This kind of thinking is prevalent in politics where leftists disregard right-wind media and vice versa. Both sides have good points worth considering, but they are simply disregarded due to being "the viewpoint of the wrong/evil/whatever side". That's what the political divide is all about, as I see it.
