Here is a source with discussions of the claim that the Covid vaccines are highly effective against Covid. One of the core arguments is, apart from the methodological critique of the studies conducted by Big Pharma, such as some studies not being fully “blind,” is that there is a substantial difference between relative risk and absolute risk. First, the relative risk: “Vaccine efficacy is generally reported as a relative risk reduction (RRR). It uses the relative risk (RR) – ie, the ratio of attack rates with and without a vaccine – which is expressed as 1–RR. Ranking by reported efficacy gives relative risk reductions of 95% for the Pfizer–BioNTech, 94% for the Moderna–NIH, 91% for the Gamaleya, 67% for the J&J, and 67% for the AstraZeneca–Oxford vaccines,” But, a more important concept is that of absolute risk: “Although the RRR considers only participants who could benefit from the vaccine, the absolute risk reduction (ARR), which is the difference between attack rates with and without a vaccine, considers the whole population. ARRs tend to be ignored because they give a much less impressive effect size than RRRs: 1·3% for the AstraZeneca–Oxford, 1·2% for the Moderna–NIH, 1·2% for the J&J, 0·93% for the Gamaleya, and 0·84% for the Pfizer–BioNTech vaccines.”
The absolute risk factor is much less impressive and thus favours “risking it,” as one does for the flu each year, taking alternatives, including natural health, hand hygiene, but also social distancing practiced sensibly. Common sense once more. And the disclaimer, that claims of “fraud” are made by the quoted source, not this blog that is merely reporting material in the public domain.