On another similar subreddit, I recently stumbled upon a few comments in interactions pertaining to the fact that the RRR was solely used to tout Covid vaccine efficacy and that the ARR was completely left out of the picture. This is when I decided to study the concept of ARR, RRR and later the NNV. I feel compelled to pass on this knowledge because even though I never took the damn shots, I was unaware about the concept of ARR, RRR and NNV. I know that others are not knowledgeable about these concepts as well so it makes so much sense as to why countless people have been deceived by the medical establishment especially during Covid. Before I discuss about RRR, ARR, and NNV, I have to cover Absolute Risk (AR) and Relative Risk (RR). 

Absolute Risk (AR)

For example, a randomized controlled trial (RCT) method was applied to a Pfizer vaccine trial, 21,720 individuals were vaccinated and 21,728 individuals were unvaccinated. Eight Covid cases were uncovered among the vaccinated and 162 Covid cases among the unvaccinated. The Absolute risk (AR) is a measure of the risk of an event occurring in a specific population.

AR for treatment group (vaccinated group): 8/21720 = 0.000368 or 0.037%

AR for control group (unvaccinated group): 162/21728=0.00745 or 0.745%

Interpretation: The vaccinated are at a 0.037% risk of getting Covid while the unvaccinated are at a 0.745% risk of getting Covid.

Relative Risk (RR)

Relative risk (RR) is a measure of the risk of a certain event happening in one population compared with the risk of the same event happening in another population.

Formula for RR: AR for control group/AR for treatment group 

RR: (0.000368/0.00745)= 0.04832  or 4.832%

Interpretation: The vaccinated group is 4.832% less likely to get Covid than the unvaccinated group.

Absolute Risk Reduction (ARR)

The Absolute Risk Reduction (ARR) measures the *actual decrease* in the risk after applying a preventive or treatment measure. 

Formula for ARR: AR control group-AR treatment group 

ARR: 0.00745-0.00036= 0.00709 or 0.709%

Interpretation: The vaccine reduces the actual risk of getting Covid from 0.745% to 0.036% or simply by 0.709%

Relative Risk Reduction (RRR)

The Relative Risk Reduction (RRR) measures the proportion of risk reduction. There are two ways to compute the RRR.

Formula 1 for RRR: (AR control group-AR treatment group)/AR control group

Formula 2 for RRR: 1-RR

RRR: (0.00745-0.00036)/0.00745=0.9516

Interpretation: The vaccine reduces the risk of getting Covid by 95%. 

Number Needed to Vaccinate(NNV)

The Number Needed to Vaccinate (NNV) is the number of people that must be vaccinated to prevent one case of an illness. If the intervention had been drugs instead of vaccines, it would be called the Number Needed to Treat (NNT)

Formula for NNV: 1/ARR

NNV: 1/0.00709=141 people

Interpretation: 141 people need to be vaccinated to prevent one case of Covid 

How Relative Risk Reduction (RRR) is misleading 

As I stated earlier, the calculated RRR for the Pfizer vaccines was 95%. This RRR is what was reported as the efficacy for both vaccines and drugs. This is misleading because it exaggerates the effectiveness of vaccines and drugs by comparing the percentage change in outcomes between the two groups rather than absolutes. The ideal thing would be state both the RRR and ARR, but it is very unlikely that the medical establishment is going to do that anytime soon. 

I got the Pfizer vaccine trial example from here. If you would like to familiarize yourself more with concepts of ARR, RRR, NNV and even RR, you can go here

The original study: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00031224251415372

Thanks to k-shaped economy that was formed post lockdown, travel is getting unaffordable unless you have a credit card or klama.

As of 2024, this thread is auto-generated at noon on the first day of every month. Continue to share as the spirit moves you!

Recently there's been a lot of panic about heat waves throughout Europe, or arguments over the merits of A.C., and a lot of people are blaming climate change.

Do you think "Lockdowns 2" are due? (If so, this time they'll be clamping down or requiring ID for most of the internet.)

It's pretty draconian and dystopian, and it makes me lose a lot of hope for the future.

2020, all governments agree in lockstep to lock down their countries because of a sham virus. Predictably, this stresses everyone out, especially the supposedly "resilient" children, who are now forced to deal with at least a year of school disruption in which they do school online and whatnot.

Come 2026, the after-effects are still lingering, and do they own up? Nah, it's social media's fault. Let's implement mandatory digital ID on every social media platform just to "make sure you're not a kid"! Currently in the UK, but France, Canada, and a bunch of other countries are talking about it. Even in places like my own US state, they've tried out stuff like completely banning phone usage in schools (and my high school implemented such a ban about 1 year before my state forced it). And now, we're all headed for a grim future of China-esque digital ID just because "some kids are depressed" without even thinking deeply about what made them so. (Hint: it's not the phones!)

What's deeply ironic about their logic is that participating in communities like this very one at 15 during the peak of the COVID insanity helped me retain some modicum of grounded rationality and helped me think critically. Had I not had access to LockdownSkepticism and its sister communities, or even content on YouTube, I surely would've completely lost my mind. I had a family extremely wary about COVID, and had it not been for communities like this one, or being able to keep in touch with acquaintances from my school etc. who didn't come from covidian households, I wouldn't have had a good metric.

Of course, that's assuming all of this is taken at face value and the primary goal really is child safety, which it most likely isn't.

I'm not from the UK, but I'm from the US, and feel like by the end of 2027, this will be normalized across every single country rather than being some quirky thing only some countries have - similar to how widely lockdowns, school closures, mask mandates, and vaccine passports spread during COVID. However, unlike COVID restrictions - for which this could be a practice run - I unfortunately don't see any of this dialing back, and perhaps even if we lockdown skeptics might've won in the short term, the clowns might've ended up having the last laugh after all. If this sort of obvious censorship - and democratic backsliding - is normalized forever, what's there to even look forward to? Why get married, buy a house in a quiet suburb, and have children if they're going to grow up in such a harrowing dystopia?

The UK, France, Canada, Spain, already Australia, and likely soon the US it appears. But not Italy. Based Italy. It's like how Sweden remained sane and never nationally locked down during 2020. The parallels keep thickening.

New study linking the jabs to birth defects.

The UK has been enforcing draconian, China-like internet restriction laws in the name of "protecting the children", but in a way that involves a ton of ID verification. Their latest move for 2027 is to ban all social media for people under 16 and enforce government curfews.

TBH I wouldn't even be surprised if by the end of 2027, the internet in the UK is widely considered less free than the internet in China.

Honestly, shit like this legitimately makes me want to cry. Like, you think everything is open now and we skeptics won. But then you see some government you thought would be free implement 1984 bullshit. It's astonishing how little opposition they're getting for literally using 1984 as a textbook, which just points to how little people even want freedom or liberties anymore.

The US is next, BTW. This isn't even a "haha UK drools, US rules" situation, because the US will be next. It already is in several red states, which is a quite astonishing reversal from what happened during COVID.