This all revolves around conservatives focusing on ARR instead of RRR numbers on vaccine efficacy. Here’s a description I found of the difference from another article:

Let’s say a study enrolled 20,000 patients into the control group and 20,000 in the vaccine group. In that study, 200 people in the control group got sick and 0 people in the vaccine group got sick. Even though the vaccine efficacy would be a whopping 100%, the ARR would show that vaccines reduce the absolute risk by just 1% (200/20,000= 1%). For the ARR to increase to 20% in our example study with a vaccine with 100% efficacy, 4,000 of the 20,000 people in the control group would have to get sick (4,000/20,000= 20%).

      • mateomaui@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        Paxton said the claim was based on only two months of clinical trial data

        I love how he says this as if most of the country world wasn’t desperately waiting for something to come out as soon as possible, especially Republicans who were in their own tug of war of trying to cast it all as nonsense while wanting it available to get all these lazy people back to work in the office. They had to provide efficacy estimates. What the hell did he expect them to do?