Did you know that at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, researchers reported that people who were fully vaccinated were about 90% less likely to be hospitalized because of the virus?
That sounds incredible, right? Ninety percent less likely — who wouldn’t want that kind of protection?
But here’s the thing: that statistic, while true, doesn’t tell the whole story. What most people heard was, “The vaccine reduces your risk of hospitalization by 90%.” It sounds simple, powerful, and reassuring. But that’s exactly where the problem lies.
That statement is an example of relative risk
— one of the most persuasive, and sometimes misleading, ways numbers are presented to the public. It’s not false, but it’s not the full picture either. Both the government and the media used this framing extensively during the pandemic, and businesses do it every day in their marketing. Let’s unpack how this works and why it matters so much for how we understand the truth.
Relative Risk vs. Absolute Risk — The Big Difference
To understand the trick, let’s start with the basics.
Relative risk measures how much more or less likely something is to happen in one group compared to another.
So when we say “the vaccine reduces your risk of hospitalization by 90%,” we’re comparing vaccinated people to unvaccinated people — and that’s all.
What this doesn’t tell you is the absolute risk — the actual chance that either group ends up in the hospital in the first place.
Here’s an example to make it crystal clear:
- Let’s say without the vaccine, 10 out of every 100 people are hospitalized (that’s a 10% absolute risk).
- If the vaccine cuts that risk by 90%, then only 1 out of 100 vaccinated people are hospitalized (a 1% absolute risk).
That’s a big difference and a powerful result.
But now imagine the baseline risk is much lower — say, only 1 out of 100 people (1%) get hospitalized without the vaccine.
A 90% reduction now brings that number down to 0.1%.
Still helpful? Absolutely.
But life-changing for most healthy people? Probably not.
This is the heart of the issue. Relative risk sounds impressive because it highlights the difference between two groups, not the real-world likelihood of the event itself.ds.
Why Headlines Love Relative Risk
Let’s be honest — “90% reduction” looks a lot sexier in a headline than “Your risk drops from 1% to 0.1%.”
Strengths: Embrace What Sets You Apart
That’s why media outlets ran with headlines like:
“Vaccines Cut Risk of Severe Illness by 90%!”
It’s technically correct, but incomplete. For a 75-year-old with preexisting conditions, that number could be life-saving. But for a 25-year-old marathon runner, their absolute risk of hospitalization was already extremely low, vaccinated or not.
This is where the emotional power of framing comes in. When we read “90% reduction,” we interpret it as near-total protection. That false sense of security can lead to overconfidence — people might think they can’t get infected, can’t spread the virus, or don’t need to take precautions anymore.
And when those expectations don’t match reality — when breakthrough infections happen — public trust starts to crumble.
How Government Messaging Added to the Confusion
To be fair, public health officials weren’t trying to deceive anyone. Their goal was to get as many people vaccinated as possible. Using relative risk made the vaccines sound highly effective — and in many ways, they were.
But by not balancing that with explanations of absolute risk, they unintentionally left the public confused.
Remember when the news started reporting on “breakthrough infections”? At first, the tone was almost alarming:
“Fully vaccinated people are still getting COVID!”
What most people didn’t hear was the context: yes, infections were happening, but the absolute risk of serious illness or death was still extremely low among vaccinated people.
By focusing so heavily on relative differences — 90% this, 10x that — public health messaging sometimes traded nuance for persuasion.
The result? A mix of fear, frustration, and mistrust.
The Social Media Amplifier
And then, of course, there was social media — the megaphone that makes every number louder, flashier, and more emotional.
Posts with dramatic claims — “Vaccinated people are 90% less likely to die!” or “Unvaccinated people are 10x more likely to end up in the ICU!” — spread far faster than nuanced explanations about baseline risk.
Even misinformation used the same playbook. Anti-vaccine activists would say things like “The vaccine increases your risk of heart issues by 50%!” But if the original risk was 2 in a million, a 50% increase means 3 in a million — still incredibly rare.
The truth was buried under piles of viral posts, often stripped of context, creating confusion on both sides of the debate.
Learning to Read Between the Numbers
So how can you tell when a statistic is being used to sway your perception rather than inform it?
Here are three simple questions that can save you from being misled:
- What’s the baseline?
Ask what the starting risk is. Going from 10% to 1% is huge. Going from 1% to 0.1% is small but still meaningful—context matters. - What’s the absolute risk?
Instead of focusing on “90% less likely,” look for real numbers — out of how many people does this actually happen? - Who’s telling you this?
Governments, media, and businesses all use statistics strategically. Always ask yourself: what’s their goal in presenting it this way
When you start asking these questions, statistics become a tool for understanding, not manipulation.
Our Shared Responsibility as Consumers
We live in a data-driven world. Numbers are everywhere — in health, marketing, politics, and business. But numbers only tell the truth when they’re presented with context.
As consumers of information, it’s our job to pause and dig deeper. To not just ask, “Is this true?” but “What does this really mean?”
The COVID-19 pandemic showed us how powerful — and dangerous — statistics can be when used to persuade rather than to inform.
The Bottom Line: Truth Is in the Context
Relative risk isn’t the enemy — it’s a valuable way to compare outcomes. But when it’s used without context, it can turn truth into marketing.
Understanding absolute risk gives you the real-world picture — not the headline version. And that’s what we need more of: clarity, transparency, and honest communication.
So the next time you see a number that sounds shocking or impressive, take a step back and ask:
“Compared to what?”
Because sometimes, the truth isn’t in the statistic itself — it’s in what they don’t tell you.
http://alanwozniak.com/relative-risk-absolute-risk-covid-vaccines
Feel free to reach out to me by scanning my QR code below:
