The article argues that Shingrix’s widely marketed “90% effective” figure is a relative risk reduction that obscures a low baseline rate, with trial data showing shingles falling from 3.4% to 0.3% over 3.5 years, equating to an absolute reduction of 3.1% and a number needed to vaccinate of 32 to prevent one case.

It contrasts this with the lifetime claim that one-third of Americans get shingles, noting the annual risk for those over 50 is only 0.3–1%, and highlights higher numbers needed to prevent postherpetic neuralgia (333) alongside numbers needed to harm of 11–25 for systemic reactions.

The piece calculates high aggregate costs—roughly $12,800 per shingles case prevented and potentially over $1.5 trillion if every American over 50 were vaccinated at the uninsured rate—while criticizing media such as the New York Times for emphasizing relative efficacy without absolute-risk context.

In this skill-testing question, tell me which of these statements is true: 

The shingles vaccine is 90% effective in preventing shingles. 

The shingles vaccine prevents shingles in ONE in every 32 people vaccinated. The other 31 people see no benefit.

Answer: both are true.

Guess which statement dominates the marketing of Shingrix, the most popular shingles vaccine in America?

90% effective. 90% effective. 90% effective.

That’s the main marketing message coming from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention discussing the efficacy of the vaccine. So common is this sort of statistical sleight of hand that the CDC doesn’t even seem to see any real problem in how those effects are presented to the public. Because they are so impactful, and are essentially marketing messages, and they need to be deconstructed. 

We can look to professional health reporters working for the mainstream media to deconstruct these numbers and explain what they all mean, right? 

I was in for a surprise when I went to see what the New York Times had to say about this allegedly 90% effective vaccine. Remember, this is a news outlet giving us all the news that’s fit to print. 

Earlier this year the New York Times published a remarkable article describing associations between certain vaccines and aging, headlined: “Vaccines Are Helping Older People More Than We Knew.” It starts out boldly:

Let’s be clear. The primary reason to be vaccinated against shingles is that two shots provide 90 percent protection against a painful, blistering disease that a third of Americans will suffer in their lifetimes, one that can cause lingering nerve pain and other nasty long-term consequences.

Let’s be clear. The primary reason to be vaccinated against shingles is that two shots provide 90 percent protection against a painful, blistering disease that a third of Americans will suffer in their lifetimes, one that can cause lingering nerve pain and other nasty long-term consequences.

Let’s “be clear” alright. 

The New York Times reporters and editors are smart people, smart enough to make sure their narrative about the use of vaccines in older people flows in the “right” direction. It’s relatively straightforward to produce a plausible bit of vaccine cheerleading when you don’t have to actually critically examine the numbers someone hands you. Thus, the story follows a predictable direction honed to please the many........

© Eurasia Review