Implications for how future vaccine rollouts are handled.
In 2024, the World Health Organisation (WHO) claimed that jabs prevented the deaths of 14.4 million globally in the first year alone, with some estimates putting the figure closer to 20 million.
However, new modelling by Stanford University and Italian researchers suggests that while the vaccine did undoubtedly save lives, the true figure is “substantially more conservative” and closer to 2.5 million worldwide over the course of the entire pandemic.
The team estimated that nine of 10 prevented deaths were in the over-60s, with jabs saving just 299 youngsters aged under 20, and 1,808 people aged between 20 and 30 globally.
Overall 5,400 people needed to be vaccinated to save one life but in the under-30s this figure rose to 100,000 jabs, the paper suggests.
The web site dedicated to publicizing how many people need to be treated to have one beneficial effect is https://thennt.com/ which is dedicated to evidence-based medicine.
Since @FCorelli mentioned statins, here is their page on statins.
Statin Drugs Given for 5 Years for Heart Disease Prevention (Without Known Heart Disease) is rated “Red” since there was no statistically significant mortality benefit but the prevention of heart attack and stroke was not enough to outweigh the harms from muscle damage and diabetes. Red suggests that benefits and harms may be equal or equivocal; while there may be some benefits, in their opinion the benefits don’t outweigh the harms.
Statins Given for 5 Years for Heart Disease Prevention (With Known Heart Disease) is rated “Green” for actual benefit since 1 in 83 were helped (life saved) and 1 in 39 were helped (preventing non-fatal heart attack) even though 1 in 10 were harmed with muscle damage. Therapies rated green are the best you can get – there is clear evidence of patient-important benefits, and these benefits clearly outweigh any associated harms.
The new study on the Covid vaccine shows clearly that the risk-benefit ratio depends strongly on the patient characteristics. I (and DH) get Covid vaccinations annually because we are both over age 65 and both have extra risk factors (lung disease).
The question is whether the government will encourage vaccinations in the entire population to develop herd immunity (by paying for them even in children) or restrict them only to the highest-risk groups.
Wendy
So, when unvaxxd junior visits grammy in the old folks home, the old girl catches covid from him and expires, junior not being vaxxed does not add to the data of lives that were lost due to not being vaxxed?
Also, if I were in any age group, unless it were shown that vaccination itself causes more harm, I would get vaccinated. I know far too many people in their 30s and 40s who were laid up with COVID for days and did not die but, even now years later, have lasting negative effects (memory fog, lack of taste and/or smell, etc.).
I think the point is that you vaccinate granny. And, from the WHO two years ago…
“The public health impact of vaccinating healthy children and adolescents is comparatively much lower than the established benefits of traditional essential vaccines for children – such as the rotavirus, measles, and pneumococcal conjugate vaccines,” SAGE said in a press release.
Hmmm…giving statins for 5 years to people with no known heart disease of no benefit? Why would that be considered a surprise…or demonstrate lack of efficacy of statins.?
Now, extend the period to 20-30 years for folk with Red Flag biomarkers, you might well see a different picture. In fact, the evidence is irrefutable that you will.
With these sort of statistics being touted, you can almost see why cholesterol denialism/statin phobia is still a thing.
Remarkably similar to the anti vaxx sentiments floating around.
Additionally, and this cannot be emphasized strongly enough…heart attack and stroke are not the only end points of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease that statins play a role in preventing.
For instance, my husband’s bio-Bentall was due solely to a congenital aortopathy (inherited by the daughter) Absolutely zero coronary atherosclerosis at time of surgery (per the Gold Standard pathology review of dissected coronary arteries…an autopsy where he lives to tell the tale) He is now on a statin to protect the new valve.
Unless grammy is immune compromised, or not a candidate for the vax, for some other reason. Of course, most vaccines are not 100% effective, so, if Jr walks into grammy’s room, spewing a cloud of covid virus, the old girl may get a fatal case, even if she was vaxxed.
Seems that, if Jr has his way, HHS will get rid of all vax and screening recommendations, to “unburden” the insurance companies. Then we Proles get a lecture on “personal responsibility” and pay for all vax and screenings out of our own pockets, or forego preventive health measures.
Just think. If they really work on it, they can knock Prole life expectancy below 70, and “unburden” Medicare and Social Security.
Good point that is not studied in the OP. It looks like between 10% and 18% of the working age population suffered or is suffering the effects of long COVID. How many shots in each age group would it take to eliminate 1 case of long COVID?
I also wonder what this (somewhat mythical?) “low risk” person is: does this mean no personal history of heart disease or family history? does it mean high blood pressure? yes?, how high? does it mean age? 50+ or 65+ or…?
We know that smoking effects our health so that’s fairly clear, but what if you smoke one or two cigarettes a day v. a pack or two? what if you smoked 10 years ago for 20 years, but have stopped?
Exercise? how much, how often? what types?
The study is not clear on all of this to me, but maybe Wendy can help analyze it and explain.
I provided a link to the page which links to studies. Obviously, this is going to be a population-based study so individual factors (such as smoking, exercise, etc.) will be averaged in. Everyone should discuss their personal medical care with their doctor since we are all different.
The NNT numbers are based on populations and are meant to apply to population averages.
The real harm would come if insurance companies were to use the NNT numbers to deny treatment to individuals, as @steve203 pointed out.
This has already happened in the UK where mammograms aren’t covered for women under age 50. I don’t know if that can be bypassed by a doctor in the case of a woman with a strong family history of breast cancer.
A good many of the studies that were used to power these headlines date back to the early aughts and a few the late 1990s. I’d venture to suggest that, even at a population level, the conclusions are misleading.
A 5 year follow up in a population deemed not to be at high risk when the endpoints are heart attack and stroke is a redundant statistic for any decision making. The stumbling block here isn’t one of statistics but understanding pathophysiology of a disease that can take decades from that first departure from healthy homeostasis to develop …and which biomarkers and tests can show where on the continuum from health to disease an individual (or a large demographic) is.
.. specially when backed and enforced by governments
When the Covid-19 vaccine was offered on a voluntary basis in Portugal I figured the odds were in favor of getting the shots so I took the first two. Two years later, with more news coming out, I figured the odds were no longer in their favor so I declined the shot.
All good questions, @MataroPete, but ones that wouldn’t be answered by the publication under question (the one that powered the “Red Flag” decision per this NNT site) isn’t a study as such. Rather it’s a data mining exercise (aka a meta analysis) of other studies…a good many of which date back a couple of decades or more now.
Here you go to that article in full…
Statins for Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease in Adults: Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force | Guidelines | JAMA | JAMA Network https://share.google/ADQ4m5jZu5gXAKTJz
It’s a long read…especially if you wade through some of the references supposedly used to inform the authors’ conclusion…which is why it’s taken me this long to answer the post.
An entertaining read for me (only because it’s a break from something really boring) … but also worthwhile as a reminder of the importance of fact checking.
Or, if you’re wanting to think in terms of personal and community wide risk:benefit analysis, don’t glom onto a piece in such a biased, right wing rag as The Telegraph. Srsly…almost as inflammatory as the Daily Fail back in the early aughts when the press were still promoting Andrew Wakefield’s nonsense. Hasn’t learned from its mistakes since.
Protecting yourself from the Big Bamboozle these headlines try to promote takes a lot of work.
