Covid 19 Vaccine

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Register Log in
ChemGal said:
It's explained within the article:

The percentage of events in the vaccine group is the experimental event rate (EER) or the risk of infection in the vaccine group (1/100 = 1%), and the percentage of events in the placebo group is the control event rate (CER) or the risk of infection in the placebo group (2/100 = 2%). Absolute risk reduction (ARR) is the disease risk difference between the placebo and vaccine groups, i.e., the CER minus the EER (2% − 1% = 1%). The ARR is also known as the vaccine disease preventable incidence (VDPI) [17]. Relative risk reduction (RRR) or vaccine efficacy (VE) is the reduced risk from vaccination, the ARR or VDPI, relative to or divided by the risk in unvaccinated individuals, the CER (1%/2% = 50
Click to expand...
In common English, doesn’t that mean that absolute risk reduction is about not getting sick at all if vaccinated, and relative risk reduction means that even if one gets the virus their symptoms will be milder? Like, it’ll reduce the possibility of hospitalization and death, down to a simple manageable illness at home, even in the higher risk groups? That’s how I understand it.

Despite the info going around by a doctor (that Rita is spreading) saying that the vaccines will create worse infections due to mutated strains...scientific consensus agrees, evidence is showing, that the vaccines will reduce the risk of serious illness even on the new strains. (And mutated strains would occur without the vaccine even with an attempt at herd immunity through natural infection - because mutating is what viruses tend to do for their own survival and thriving - they’re kind of opportunistic that way. They run through everybody like a locomotive, and when they’re blocked by immune systems on the second go round, they often mutate to survive. Isn’t that right? Maybe Rita wants to save the virus, not the people?) Kind of like how the flu shot still offers some protection even if they don’t get the perfect formulation in time to include new strains? Am I understanding correctly?
 
Last edited:
It’s probably going to end up like a flu shot that needs a yearly update. I also read that the vaccines provide a stronger immunity to the new strains than immunity from natural infection. Is that others’ understanding?
 
Last edited:
Kimmio Laughterlove said:
In common English, doesn’t that mean that absolute risk reduction is about not getting sick at all if vaccinated, and relative risk reduction means that even if one gets the virus their symptoms will be milder? Like, it’ll reduce the possibility of hospitalization and death, down to a simple manageable illness at home, even in the higher risk groups? That’s how I understand it.
Click to expand...

That was what I was thinking. I left it to others to explain because I knew there were better brains than mine for that task.
It's nice to have that restated. Thanks.
 
We dont know how long immunity lasts with the vaccine.....so far its around 4 months and counting.
We also dont know how long immunity lasts through a natural infection. So far its 8 months and counting because Covid has been around longer than the vaccines.
Lots of questions still to be answered.
Will either one give us a lifetime of protection?
Or will there be a definite time frame when protection has to be renewed for either?
Only time will tell.
Then I look at the Spanish flu and it seemed to die off on its own after killing millions of people.
But it didnt just die off, it became the direct ancestor of every seasonal flu we have today.
Every influenza A we have had in the past 102 years is directly related and derived from the introduction of the Spanish flu.
Every once in awhile the strains flare up to become something deadly....like bird flu.
They say Covid is not the Spanish flu and has a different genetic code.....so I only bring it up to point out different possibilities from other viruses that preceded this one.
What I get from all of this is all countries should be prepared just in case immunity doesnt last very long or doesnt mutate into a less harmful virus.
Canada really needs to get its own production of vaccines going as soon as possible IMO because if there is a worse case scenario down the road we will remain dependent on other countries for our safety. If we have the best case scenario then our future descendents will be more prepared, unlike us.
 
A heads up to ontarians 60-64. There are still vaccines available at selected drug stores. You enter your postal code into the web site and it gives you the closest 20 drug stores. Then unfortunately you have to make a lot of phone calls. It I snagged two appointment for tomorrow in Toronto. You need to be the right age and live in Ontario to get it
 
Lastpointe said:
A heads up to ontarians 60-64. There are still vaccines available at selected drug stores. You enter your postal code into the web site and it gives you the closest 20 drug stores. Then unfortunately you have to make a lot of phone calls. It I snagged two appointment for tomorrow in Toronto. You need to be the right age and live in Ontario to get it
Click to expand...
Do you know which vaccine it is?
 
Kimmio Laughterlove said:
In common English, doesn’t that mean that absolute risk reduction is about not getting sick at all if vaccinated, and relative risk reduction means that even if one gets the virus their symptoms will be milder? Like, it’ll reduce the possibility of hospitalization and death, down to a simple manageable illness at home, even in the higher risk groups? That’s how I understand it.

Despite the info going around by a doctor (that Rita is spreading) saying that the vaccines will create worse infections due to mutated strains...scientific consensus agrees, evidence is showing, that the vaccines will reduce the risk of serious illness even on the new strains. (And mutated strains would occur without the vaccine even with an attempt at herd immunity through natural infection - because mutating is what viruses tend to do for their own survival and thriving - they’re kind of opportunistic that way. They run through everybody like a locomotive, and when they’re blocked by immune systems on the second go round, they often mutate to survive. Isn’t that right? Maybe Rita wants to save the virus, not the people?) Kind of like how the flu shot still offers some protection even if they don’t get the perfect formulation in time to include new strains? Am I understanding correctly?
Click to expand...
No the absolute risk is one number and the relative risk is the absolute risk dividided by the risk of unvaccinated patients. The same numbers are being used to calculate 2 different formulas.
 
ChemGal said:
No the absolute risk is one number and the relative risk is the absolute risk dividided by the risk of unvaccinated patients. The same numbers are being used to calculate 2 different formulas.
Click to expand...
That doesn't help explain what that looks like in real life terms for people. Can you explain it so we and Rita understand why the vaccine is helpful?
 
Several counties in Europe have stopped the Astrazeneka vaccinations, including Germany, because of seven cases of blood clotting in timely closeness to vaccination. Seven out of 1.2 mio. But it needs to be investigated.
 
Kimmio Laughterlove said:
That doesn't help explain what that looks like in real life terms for people. Can you explain it so we and Rita understand why the vaccine is helpful?
Click to expand...
There are 10000 people, all have been given a placebo vaccine. 6000 of them get COVID. 6/10, 60%
There's another 10000 people, all have been given the real vaccine. 300 of them get COVID. 3/100, 3%

How effective is the vaccine?
Absolute - looks at the difference. We could just look at the specific number, 6000 - 300 = 5700. If that number is reported though, one needs to see how many were in the study for it to have any meaning. So it's the difference using the percent units ie. 60 = 3 = 57%
It is a difference in that it's a direct subtraction calculation between the 2 groups. Ie. What percent of the population will not get sick that would have otherwise.

Relative - a ratio. Using the same numbers, we could look at the numbers of those who were sick. (6000-300)/6000 = 0.95 so 95%
Or using the percents (60% - 3%)/60% = 0.95 so again, 95%

The ARR is going to depend much more on how infectious a disease is, where as the RRR isn't.

For example, imagine another disease isn't going to run through the population as easily - decreased by a factor of 10.
So again, there's a placebo group. 10000 but since this disease doesn't spread so easily only 600 get sick.
Vaccinated group, 30 get sick.
The absolute risk reduction will look very different. 6% - 0.3% = 5.7%
It will prevent only 5.7% of the population from getting sick.

But looking at the Relative Risk Reduction - again it is 95%. (6%-0.3%)/6% = 0.95
 
Many people will hear a value like 95%, and assume that means that they have a 5% chance of getting sick if they get vaccinated. That isn't true in either case.

If the 95% being reported is the Absolute Relative Risk, that means almost everyone would get sick without the vaccine, ie. at minimum it has to be 95% of the population, if the vaccine totally stops the illness. ie. 95% - 0% = 95%. Or it could have been 96% and 1% still get sick. 96% - 1% = 95% The only way someone could have a 5% chance of still getting sick if this number was 95% is if everyone was going to get sick in the first case 100 - 5 = 95.

Whereas for the relative risk reduction, you can see it can be any number of situations that it would work out to 95%. Again, the only way for 5% to still get sick from the vaccine though means everyone would have to get sick without it. 100-5/100 = 0.95.
 
Last edited:
Kimmio Laughterlove said:
Can you explain how it'll help people in RL, without describing the math calculations?
Click to expand...
Absolute - the number of the population who would be sick, but is not, thanks to the vaccine.

Relative - Works much better for comparing very different situations. For example, a disease that would make everyone sick vs a disease that would only make a few sick. It's a ratio of the not sick thanks to the vaccine to those who would have been sick. This is harder to explain what the number means without putting in a bit of math, even if it's in words.
 
@Kimmio Laughterlove thought of a better way to explain it. We could think of the absolute and relative for both getting sick and then dying.

For COVID - the vaccines will make a small difference in the percentages of deaths. Why? Because not a large population is dying. If the death rate of covid with no vaccine is about 0.1%, even if the vaccine prevents ALL deaths the Absolute Risk Reduction will be 0.1% for deaths. If it prevents half the deaths? 0.05%

If it stops people from getting sick though, the absolute value will be much larger, as more people do get sick than die, say it's 20% of the population who would get sick without it and thanks to the vaccine no one gets sick that number will be 20%. Ig a small percent still get sick with being vaccinated, the number may be something like 19%

For the relative risk reduction though, if no one dies after being vaccinated that number would be 100%. If it prevents half the deaths? 50%
Ditto for people getting sick if it prevents everyone from getting sick - 100% If there's still a small percent who get sick? 95%.
 
Thanks for trying. I'll have to read it later and try again. I can't focus. Maybe I have a concussion. Or I just can process words and numbers at the same time. I was never that good at math word problems. I would be helped with terms like Always, Never, Sometimes. Or All, Most, Some, None - large majority, small minority - to get a general understanding.

So the vaccine won't prevent very many deaths because death cases are quite small in number compared to illness cases - but it will prevent illness in almost all cases but 5%? For the remaining 5% is the serious illness factor reduced? Or does the vaccine reduce the risk of more serious illness if infected with new variants? That's sort of what the general public needs to know or not as to why it's worth getting it.
 
Last edited:
Kimmio Laughterlove said:
Thanks for trying. I'll have to read it later and try again. I can't focus. Maybe I have a concussion. Or I just can process words and numbers at the same time. I was never that good at math word problems. I would be helped with terms like Always, Never, Sometimes. Or All, Most, Some, None - large majority, small minority - to get a general understanding.

So the vaccine won't prevent very many deaths because death cases are quite small in number compared to illness cases - but it will prevent illness in almost all cases but 5%? For the remaining 5% is the serious illness factor reduced? Or does the vaccine reduce the risk of more serious illness if infected with new variants? That's sort of what the general public needs to know or not as to why it's worth getting it.
Click to expand...
Reducing risk of serious illness in those infected with new variants - does that relate to relative risk, or absolute risk?

Reducing the infection rate of original strain: Absolute or relative?

Reducing infection rate of all strains: Absolute or relative?

Reducing deaths: Absolute or relative?

Reducing severity of illness: Absolute or relative?

Those are what is important to know as we go about daily life.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top