COVID-19 vaccine efficacy and effectiveness—the elephant (not) in the room

Dying of the fake 'vaccine' which shall protect against the fake Covid-1984 scamdemic.
MSM-Presstitutes, corrupted lying 'politicians', Youtube, Facebbook, Twitter, Police & Co have now a lot of work to hide the truth.

THE EFFICACY OF COVID-19 VACCINES HAS BEEN STAGGERINGLY LOW!!!
Total failure! Global Falsification of study results from manufacturers has been exposed.

The most prestigious medical journal in the world, The Lancet, which never publishes unverified information, much less fakes, has published a study showing that COVID-19 "Vaccines" are only 0.84% effective, which is less than one percent and does not match the claimed effectiveness, and, not one of the previously lauded vaccines!

Pfizer-BioNTech (claimed 95% efficacy)
Moderna-NIH (94% efficacy)
SPUTNIK-V by Gamaleya (90% efficacy claimed)
AstraZeneca-Oxfordvaccines (67% effectiveness claimed)
J&J (67% effectiveness, stated)
And others (96 vaccines total)

Source:

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanmic/article/PIIS2666-5247(21)00069-0/fulltext


Approximately 96 COVID-19 vaccines are at various stages of clinical development.
1
At present, we have the interim results of four studies published in scientific journals (on the Pfizer–BioNTech BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine,
2
the Moderna–US National Institutes of Health [NIH] mRNA-1273 vaccine,
3
the AstraZeneca–Oxford ChAdOx1 nCov-19 vaccine,
4
and the Gamaleya GamCovidVac [Sputnik V] vaccine)
5
and three studies through the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) briefing documents (on the Pfizer–BioNTech,
6
Moderna–NIH,
7
and Johnson & Johnson [J&J] Ad26.COV2.S vaccines).
8
Furthermore, excerpts of these results have been widely communicated and debated through press releases and media, sometimes in misleading ways.
9
Although attention has focused on vaccine efficacy and comparing the reduction of the number of symptomatic cases, fully understanding the efficacy and effectiveness of vaccines is less straightforward than it might seem. Depending on how the effect size is expressed, a quite different picture might emerge




Vaccine efficacy is generally reported as a relative risk reduction (RRR). It uses the relative risk (RR)—ie, the ratio of attack rates with and without a vaccine—which is expressed as 1–RR. Ranking by reported efficacy gives relative risk reductions of 95% for the Pfizer–BioNTech, 94% for the Moderna–NIH, 90% for the Gamaleya, 67% for the J&J, and 67% for the AstraZeneca–Oxford vaccines. However, RRR should be seen against the background risk of being infected and becoming ill with COVID-19, which varies between populations and over time. 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.
ARR is also used to derive an estimate of vaccine effectiveness, which is the number needed to vaccinate (NNV) to prevent one more case of COVID-19 as 1/ARR. NNVs bring a different perspective: 76 for the Moderna–NIH, 78 for the AstraZeneca–Oxford, 80 for the Gamaleya, 84 for the J&J, and 117 for the Pfizer–BioNTech vaccines. The explanation lies in the combination of vaccine efficacy and different background risks of COVID-19 across studies: 0·9% for the Pfizer–BioNTech, 1% for the Gamaleya, 1·4% for the Moderna–NIH, 1·8% for the J&J, and 1·9% for the AstraZeneca–Oxford vaccines.
ARR (and NNV) are sensitive to background risk—the higher the risk, the higher the effectiveness—as exemplified by the analyses of the J&J's vaccine on centrally confirmed cases compared with all cases:
8
both the numerator and denominator change, RRR does not change (66–67%), but the one-third increase in attack rates in the unvaccinated group (from 1·8% to 2·4%) translates in a one-fourth decrease in NNV (from 84 to 64).
There are many lessons to learn from the way studies are conducted and results are presented. With the use of only RRRs, and omitting ARRs, reporting bias is introduced, which affects the interpretation of vaccine efficacy.
10
When communicating about vaccine efficacy, especially for public health decisions such as choosing the type of vaccines to purchase and deploy, having a full picture of what the data actually show is important, and ensuring comparisons are based on the combined evidence that puts vaccine trial results in context and not just looking at one summary measure, is also important. Such decisions should be properly informed by detailed understanding of study results, requiring access to full datasets and independent scrutiny and analyses.
Unfortunately, comparing vaccines on the basis of currently available trial (interim) data is made even more difficult by disparate study protocols, including primary endpoints (such as what is considered a COVID-19 case, and when is this assessed), types of placebo, study populations, background risks of COVID-19 during the study, duration of exposure, and different definitions of populations for analyses both within and between studies, as well as definitions of endpoints and statistical methods for efficacy. Importantly, we are left with the unanswered question as to whether a vaccine with a given efficacy in the study population will have the same efficacy in another population with different levels of background risk of COVID-19. This is not a trivial question because transmission intensity varies between countries, affected by factors such as public health interventions and virus variants. The only reported indication of vaccine effectiveness is the Israeli mass vaccination campaign using the Pfizer–BioNTech product. Although the design and methodology are radically different from the randomised trial,
2
Dagan and colleagues
11
report an RRR of 94%, which is essentially the same as the RRR of the phase 3 trial (95%) but with an ARR of 0·46%, which translates into an NNV of 217 (when the ARR was 0·84% and the NNV was 119 in the phase 3 trial). This means in a real-life setting, 1·8 times more subjects might need to be vaccinated to prevent one more case of COVID-19 than predicted in the corresponding clinical trial.
Uncoordinated phase 3 trials do not satisfy public health requirements; platform trials designed to address public health relevant questions with a common protocol will allow decisions to be made, informed by common criteria and uniform assessment. These considerations on efficacy and effectiveness are based on studies measuring prevention of mild to moderate COVID-19 infection; they were not designed to conclude on prevention of hospitalisation, severe disease, or death, or on prevention of infection and transmission potential. Assessing the suitability of vaccines must consider all indicators, and involve safety, deployability, availability, and costs.

 

Your posts are very difficult on the eyes. All those run on sentences, long paragraphs, random colors and changing fonts overpower your message. I do NOT have a short attention span so I can only imagine it's that much worse for people that do.

 

If you're declaring COVID (and therefore all of the vaccines) fake, you can't reference this article (not study) in support since it presents and supports the studies that report on the positive efficacy of the vaccines against COVID, it is only raising questions about the technicalities of how those results are presented and reported.

 

What the Lancet has published has been very apparent to many laymen like me. Players in MLB, Bill Maher and many other high profile individuals and ordinary individuals who've taken the shots have become infected. Some have died from it.

These shots are brought under fraud and deception, and that is why they were issued under EUA.

That is far too obvious for a frightened populace to care about. Men go mad in herds, but recover their senses slowly, and only one by one.

Good news from the Lancet. Are the European and US governments capable of doing the right thing? Not likely. Several doctors have called for these things to end for months now, but the rotten government heads remain silent.

 

Governments want to murder as much as possible, all of them know they had committed enough crimes to receive a severe punishment by Nurnberg 2.0

 

It's Nuremberg.

Why do you like to post doom and gloom? The anti-vaxxers don't care and the vaccinated already have it in their system. Terrorizing people just creates a ton of anxiety with no remedy.

If you are spamming the boards with this stuff because you "care" that people know, then there must be some part of you that realizes "sharing is not caring" in this context.

 

Because the International Covid-1984 Scamdemic gang has already signed death sentence to tens of millions 'inoculated', because it's genocide and against all possible laws.
Why Hitler & CO were punished for mass-murders and the Corona gang shall not?

Mr Fuellmich is just the beginning

https://www.fuellmich.com/

 

1. Rinse and repeat. The anti-vax crowd doesn't care and the vaccinated can't become unvaccinated.

2. All this does is terrorize the people who are now wondering if they should have taken the vaccine.

3. As far as I can tell, there are no class action, medical malpractice attorneys on this forum so nobody here can do anything about it.

1. Hitler committed suicide before he could be captured and tried.

2. The German officials captured and brought to trial for war crimes happened at the end of the war.

3. As far as I can tell, there are no class action, war crimes attorneys on this forum so nobody here can do anything about this.

 

Take it not so easy, Mr Left
Anyone in the world has been punished by sadistic government due to Covid-1984 'measures'
Hundred of millions will die due to the fake jab.
It's a crime and it's the Holy Obligation of anyone to demand the fair tribunal to Corona criminals.
Justice Matters More.
Anyone who supported the Corona Lie is guilty of genocide

 

1. Please do not edit my post when quoting.

2. Yeah, so you said. What can any of us do about it?

 

Read the Holy Bible of the Right Version

 

Does this mean this when you’re proven to be wrong again along with all the other anti-vaxxers, that you should all be charged with the murder of every single person who didn’t get vaccinated and caught Covid and died because of your lies?

Any sign of those patents that show it was all planned, the last one take about 10secs to be proved wrong. Can’t imagine why you failed to respond when it was pointed out to you.

as for your first post, nice miss-representation again, any chance you could explain the difference between efficacy, RRR and ARR? You know since this is what the article is about.

 

Screw King James....Limey Bastard.

 

I've read that bible and several other versions. And?

 

This smells of a false flag operation. It’s too cute by half.

The Lancet publication in the OP is merely pointing out absolute risk reduction is a better way to represent data to those not familiar with the differences between relative risk and absolute risk (consumers as opposed to researchers). Both are based on the same data set and both have strengths and weaknesses in “explaining” data.

Here’s more information for anyone interested.
https://academic.oup.com/ndt/article/32/suppl_2/ii13/3056571

 

This OP is one of the propaganda methods to mislead the public.

While the actual data from the Lancet is true, the initial statements of the author

tries to make the idea that the often claimed that the 99% survival means the various vaccines only have "84 effective" up to 95% effective.

The vaccine efficiencies are referring to the reduction of the EXPECTED numbers of infection from non-vaccinated people.

The mistake (attempted fraud?) is to compare the success of reducing infection compared to people with no vaccine.

An example is out of the general populace of 100, 1 person gets infected. Out of that group of 100 infected people, 1 would die, another 5 or 10 percent would get seriously ill, and the remainder 90% of mild or no symptoms.

A 95 efficient vaccine will that instead of usual 100 people infected, ONLY 5 be infected. And out of that 5 people, they will have mild symptoms.

So if we had the 95% effective vaccine at the beginning of the pandemic, instead of 600,000 DEAD, the dead would more like 800 dead and instead of millions of seriously ill people damaging our economy, schools, and hospitals, we would have relatively few poblems and we could have an almost unnoticeable illness.