Sure. Suppose we knew 20 people were destined to die from COVID. But now 10 of those people get vaccinated and we assume 90% VE. Now, we would project all 10 unvaccinated people to die & 1 of the vaccinated people for a total of 11. We have reduced deaths by 45% (reduction of 9 divided by the original 20)... 50% vaxxed x 90% VE = 45% reduction . I do this for every age bracket and then weight the average by how many died last year in each age bracket (i.e. its more impactful to the total to reduce deaths in the high death ages)
I vaguely remember reading (by Dr. Mercola I believe)that their “95% effectiveness” was a relative effectiveness, which tells basically nothing. Because doing nothing could give you a relative 95% effectiveness
In the first place, the definition of "efficacy rate" is a promotional definition by Pharma and the FDA hijacked by Pharma.
Effective rate ≡ (number of people who developed symptoms without vaccination - number of people who developed symptoms after vaccination) / number of people who developed symptoms without vaccination
However, in short, it is a cheating definition that does not consider the overall parameter(total number of cohort)
Pfizer's initial published trial figures (trials typically have 4-5 phases)
Investigation total Onset Non-onset ｜Non-onset rate (this is my calculator calculation)
Number of people vaccinated 21,500 8 21,492 ｜ 99.962%
Number of people not vaccinated 21500 162 21338 | 99.246%
Certainly, according to the pharmaceutical company's definition, the effective rate is (162-8) / 162 = 0.9506 = 95%,
Looking at the non-onset rate, it seems that there is not much difference whether the corona vaccine is given or not.
Difference in number of cases: 154 / 21,500 population = 0.72% is the true effective rate of vaccination.
As soon as you insert the following numbers into the bogus definition above, you know it's weird no matter how you look at it.
It doesn't take into account tital numbers at all.
Even if the onset is 80 vaccinated/1620 non-vaccinated, the efficacy rate is the same 95%.
Even if the onset is 800 vaccinated/16,200 non-vaccinated, the efficacy rate is the same 95%.
Vaccines have several implications.
Even with 1075 vaccinated people and 21500 non-vaccinated people, the efficacy rate is 95%.
Vaccines have important implications.
Because, if you don't get vaccinated, you will develop the disease 100% of the time.
It was later found that the trial counted people within 14 days of vaccination as unvaccinated.
It is a workmanship that makes the infection rate of clogged vaccinated people low and the infection rate of non-vaccinated people high.
The clogging effectiveness rate is much lower than 0.72%, and it is almost the same regardless of hitting or not hitting.
In a later animal trial, surviving animals were killed after only 14 days.
Anyone can guess that the reason is to hide long-term side effects.
The vaccine response is not durable. Antibody responses are short lived both for vaccine-acquired immunity and natural immunity. Hence the need for boosters at frequent intervals. Your assumptions are all predicated on lasting immunity, which is not the case for COVID.
Great work! Can you further explicate the logic behind your calculations for finding the expected numbers of deaths assuming 90% efficacy?
Sure. Suppose we knew 20 people were destined to die from COVID. But now 10 of those people get vaccinated and we assume 90% VE. Now, we would project all 10 unvaccinated people to die & 1 of the vaccinated people for a total of 11. We have reduced deaths by 45% (reduction of 9 divided by the original 20)... 50% vaxxed x 90% VE = 45% reduction . I do this for every age bracket and then weight the average by how many died last year in each age bracket (i.e. its more impactful to the total to reduce deaths in the high death ages)
I vaguely remember reading (by Dr. Mercola I believe)that their “95% effectiveness” was a relative effectiveness, which tells basically nothing. Because doing nothing could give you a relative 95% effectiveness
Secondly, what do you think is a reasonable estimate for vaccine efficacy, if any, using the same strategy?
I need to think on this more, but my gut (and some evidence) would suggest it is not a static number but something that degrades over time.
In the first place, the definition of "efficacy rate" is a promotional definition by Pharma and the FDA hijacked by Pharma.
Effective rate ≡ (number of people who developed symptoms without vaccination - number of people who developed symptoms after vaccination) / number of people who developed symptoms without vaccination
However, in short, it is a cheating definition that does not consider the overall parameter(total number of cohort)
Pfizer's initial published trial figures (trials typically have 4-5 phases)
Investigation total Onset Non-onset ｜Non-onset rate (this is my calculator calculation)
Number of people vaccinated 21,500 8 21,492 ｜ 99.962%
Number of people not vaccinated 21500 162 21338 | 99.246%
Certainly, according to the pharmaceutical company's definition, the effective rate is (162-8) / 162 = 0.9506 = 95%,
Looking at the non-onset rate, it seems that there is not much difference whether the corona vaccine is given or not.
Difference in number of cases: 154 / 21,500 population = 0.72% is the true effective rate of vaccination.
As soon as you insert the following numbers into the bogus definition above, you know it's weird no matter how you look at it.
It doesn't take into account tital numbers at all.
Even if the onset is 80 vaccinated/1620 non-vaccinated, the efficacy rate is the same 95%.
Even if the onset is 800 vaccinated/16,200 non-vaccinated, the efficacy rate is the same 95%.
Vaccines have several implications.
Even with 1075 vaccinated people and 21500 non-vaccinated people, the efficacy rate is 95%.
Vaccines have important implications.
Because, if you don't get vaccinated, you will develop the disease 100% of the time.
It was later found that the trial counted people within 14 days of vaccination as unvaccinated.
It is a workmanship that makes the infection rate of clogged vaccinated people low and the infection rate of non-vaccinated people high.
The clogging effectiveness rate is much lower than 0.72%, and it is almost the same regardless of hitting or not hitting.
In a later animal trial, surviving animals were killed after only 14 days.
Anyone can guess that the reason is to hide long-term side effects.
The vaccine response is not durable. Antibody responses are short lived both for vaccine-acquired immunity and natural immunity. Hence the need for boosters at frequent intervals. Your assumptions are all predicated on lasting immunity, which is not the case for COVID.