The Lancet peer reviewed study confirms vaccine efficacy, not at 95%, but as:

* Astra Zeneca 1.3%
* Moderna 1.2%
* J&J 1.2%
* Pfizer 0.84%

They deceived everyone by reporting Relative Risk Reduction (RRR) rather than Absolute Risk Reduction (ARR)
https://www.thelancet.com/action/showPdf?pi...%2821%2900069-0

https://twitter.com/MindshockPod/status/1414007190898229250

you can explain whichever way u like, you can even say u prayed therefore god healed you too, why not? it doesn't matter to me how you want explain, as long as it pleases you right?

because i do not argue with the incorrigibles 

But then uk and us does not use majority of inactivated virus based vaccine, then again, thats another topic altogether

Big part of it is because a lot of the vulnerable people who would have died from covid already died from covid.

US antibody testing based on commercial laboratory testing shows that about 22% of their population already infected. https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#national-lab

If it's based on blood donor antibody testing, about 33% already infected. https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#n...-seroprevalence

US and UK have about the same covid deaths per capita (almost 1,900 covid deaths per million people) so I think it's safe to assume that the percentage of UK population already infected with covid is about the same as the USA.
In the USA only about 50% have been fully vaccinated. If plus the 22% to 33% already infected people, then up to 80% of their population already have immunity. If we assume half of the already infected people also took the vaccines, then at least 60% to 75% of their population already have immunity.

Big part of it is because a lot of the vulnerable people who would have died from covid already died from covid.

US antibody testing based on commercial laboratory testing shows that about 22% of their population already infected. https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#national-lab

If it's based on blood donor antibody testing, about 33% already infected. https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#n...-seroprevalence

US and UK have about the same covid deaths per capita (almost 1,900 covid deaths per million people) so I think it's safe to assume that the percentage of UK population already infected with covid is about the same as the USA.
In the USA only about 50% have been fully vaccinated. If plus the 22% to 33% already infected people, then up to 80% of their population already have immunity. If we assume half of the already infected people also took the vaccines, then at least 60% to 75% of their population already have immunity.

PCR vs antibody tests.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/seroprevalence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seroprevalence

I think you are not getting the idea of ARR. ARR is dependent on the background risk of catching covid in the first place. For the lancet article, they had low ARR because during the time they were doing the trials the  prevalence of Covid was not as high as during the second wave. you mention 5mil/60 mil population in the UK already infected with Sars2-covid. that is for the entire period since pandemic started in Mar 2020. ARR is always calculated base on a defined period (for eg the vaccine trial period).

If you can imagine that over a period of X years, you will have 100% chance of catching covid, then the vaccine ARR = RRR.

This is also why using ARR is problematic during an ongoing infectious pandemic cycle. ARR would be more appropriate if used during a steady state endemic level situation where the background risk is stable and constant. However during a pandemic, the force of the infection is dynamic, if its not well controlled by vaccines, SOP etc, the background risk would increase exponentially. The ironic thing is, the higher the background risk, the higher the ARR figures would be.