Share this comment
I appreciate the article, and agree absolute risk reduction and NNT should always be provided whenever relative risk reduction is cited. I'm bothered by a couple things though. My understanding is the jab makes you MORE likely to contract COVID. Most readers are bound to have read about the Cleveland Clinic study which showed negative ef…
I appreciate the article, and agree absolute risk reduction and NNT should always be provided whenever relative risk reduction is cited. I'm bothered by a couple things though. My understanding is the jab makes you MORE likely to contract COVID. Most readers are bound to have read about the Cleveland Clinic study which showed negative efficacy, and there are plenty of others. So, if you are MORE likely to get COVID with a particular treatment, it follows there is no NNT, unless you want to go into negative numbers, IE -100 means treat 100 to increase CoVID incidence by one.
So, it appears a bit more complicated than presented. Is the NNT measured during the treatments most efficacious period, ignoring periods of lesser or negative efficacy? Even more pertinent is the question - What is the source of the underlying numbers used to calculate RRD, ARD, and NNT? Studies conducted by the drug company? Forgive me for thinking such numbers are worthless, so RRD, ARD, and NNT based on those numbers are equally meaningless.
SteelJ: RRR and ARR (and NNT) are all determined based on scientific studies — not subsequent reports (e.g. VAERS or ICAN). The studies in this case are linked above. Once can certainly question — and should — such studies, but that is not the subject of this commentary.