So if you have typically 99.97% recovery rate, and the "vaccine" has a 95% (in theory, in practice ~60%, check Israel) efficacy, then after needle you would have a 99.9985% ((1-.9997)*(1-0.95)=0.000015, 1-0.000015=0.999985) recovery rate. So we're talking about a <0.03% difference. Why would anybody do anything remotely controversial for a 0.03% benefit? Why would anybody expect to see differences in the population from a 0.03% benefit? And that is just strictly talking about the benefits in regard to COVID without regard to any negative consequences.
Math is fun!
It's actually worse because while it may provide the slightest efficacy in regards to actual degree of sickness it causes all kinds of problems in the body all by itself.
If it was an inert substance that provided some kind of prophylactic benefit then that would be one thing. But it's not even inert. The slight mitigation as you've calculated is balanced against a lot of data that says it causes all kinds of clots and cardiac issues.
The idiots who take it are perhaps very slightly less likely to die from COVID but significantly more likely to die from other vaxx-related complications.
They had to change the testing metrics to make it look like the vaxx was working as intended to reduce cases amongst the vaxxed.
Pfizer had a study recently wherein they had roughly 21,000 people who received the vaxx and 21,000 who received the placebo. During the study period they had 15 people die with the vaxx (of all causes) and 14 die with the placebo. Interestingly, the data revealed that 8 people who were vaxxed died from heart-related issues whereas only one person died from heart-related issues on the placebo side.
Additionally, the sample size of 42,000 people participating was not representative of the population as diabetes affects roughly 6.5% of the general population but only 0.5% of those sampled. Also, obesity was not even included as a tracked comorbidity in the study, and we all know how prevalent that is.
So basically they used significantly healthier than average people to study the effects of the vaxx and it those who took it died 8 times more often from heart-related issues as the people who got the placebo.
What a joke.
This number is your chance of survival (and not dying) if you "get Covid." This assumes that the CDC's numbers regarding "died FROM Covid" is accurate, which it is not.
In reality, people (even the oldest) have 99.99% (maybe even 100% if real numbers are used) chance of not dying if they "get Covid."
This is not accurate. It is Pfizer's claim, but they lied via statistical manipulation. Pfizer claimed that their drug was "95% effective" against getting a SYMPTOM (not getting or spreading Covid). But their claim is not true. Here is the math on that:
https://greatawakening.win/p/12jJPv3MkS/
The reality is that their drug is less than 1% effective against getting a SYMPTOM, and they DID NOT EVEN CONSIDER whether or not their drug did anything to protect people from (a) getting it, (b) spreading it, or (c) dying from it.
ALL of the stats on Covid are FAKE. ALL of them.
Your basic idea, that it is all bullshit, is correct. But the bullshit is far deeper than even you stated.
This looks right, probability of non-recovering naturaly, times probability of the vaccine failing, yields new probability of non-recovering.