I know this is quibbling and off topic, but I have a question about the "interpretation" of the stats in the article. Not arguing the accuracy of the stats or about vaccines, just questioning the verbage used to interpret the stat. Is it correct?
It says, "That means for every 100 unvaccinated people severely ill in Canadian hospitals, 95 of them could have been prevented by receiving two doses of either the AstraZeneca-Oxford, Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines, or some combination of the three. "
I thought the stat of 95% actually meant that of every 100 unvaccinated people severely ill in Canadian hospitals, 100 of them had a 95% chance of having been prevented by receiving the two doses.
So, not that out of 100, 5 would still be there. Each person has a 95% chance of a good outcome, not 95 people out of 100 will have a chance.
I know we often think of those stats the way the article stated it, but is it accurate?