What does a 30-40% reduction in infection risk mean for an individual's absolute risk?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
A reported 30–40% relative reduction in infection risk means that a person’s chance of getting infected is multiplied by 0.60–0.70 compared with the unprotected baseline; the actual change in their absolute risk depends entirely on how likely infection was to begin with (the baseline risk) (available sources do not give a worked example of 30–40% reductions specifically, but describe vaccine and prevention effectiveness ranges such as 32–53% in cited studies) [1]. Public-health sources emphasize that measures that yield moderate relative effects can still be important at population scale but have different implications for individuals depending on baseline exposure and vulnerability [1] [2].
1. What “30–40% reduction” technically means — a relative change, not an absolute one
A statement that a measure reduces infection risk by 30–40% is a relative-risk reduction: it multiplies an individual’s original (baseline) probability of infection by 0.60–0.70. If your baseline chance of infection over a given period was 10%, a 30% reduction lowers it to 7% (10% × 0.70); a 40% reduction lowers it to 6% (10% × 0.60). The sources reporting vaccine effectiveness and outcome reductions frame benefits in the same relative terms — e.g., influenza vaccine studies cited report reductions such as 32% for hospitalization in immunocompromised adults and up to ~42% in older adults [1].
2. Why absolute risk matters for individual decisions
Relative reductions sound large even when absolute benefits are small. Public-health guidance and clinical recommendations—like those in the IDSA vaccine guidance—use relative-effect estimates but stress tailoring actions to risk groups because absolute benefit varies with baseline risk [1]. For a young, healthy person with low exposure and a low baseline risk, a 30–40% relative reduction may translate into a tiny absolute difference in chance of infection. For an older or immunocompromised person with a higher baseline risk, the same relative reduction yields a much larger absolute decrease in expected infections, hospitalizations or severe outcomes [1].
3. Examples drawn from the reporting available
The IDSA guidance gives real-world effectiveness estimates to show how relative numbers translate: influenza vaccination was associated with a 32% reduction in influenza-associated hospitalization for immunocompromised adults (95% CI 7–50%) and a 42% reduction in older adults (95% CI 36–47%) — those are relative effects that would yield a greater absolute reduction where baseline hospitalization risk is higher [1]. The CDC and WHO materials emphasize that prevention strategies and infection-control measures are applied and prioritized based on differing risks across settings and populations [3] [4].
4. How to turn a relative reduction into your own absolute-risk estimate
You need two numbers: (A) your baseline risk of infection over the time period in question, and (B) the relative reduction (0.30–0.40). Multiply baseline risk by (1 − reduction). For example: baseline 5% → with 30% reduction = 5% × 0.70 = 3.5% (absolute drop 1.5 percentage points); baseline 20% → with 30% reduction = 14% (absolute drop 6 percentage points). Sources provide similar reasoning implicitly when reporting vaccine effectiveness and urging tailored recommendations by risk group [1].
5. Limitations, uncertainties and competing viewpoints in the sources
Available sources underline several caveats: effectiveness estimates vary by population (immunocompromised vs. older adults), outcome measured (infection, hospitalization, ICU admission, mortality), and study design (real-world vs. trial) [1]. CDC and WHO guidance emphasize adapting infection prevention to setting and transmission levels; neither organization presents a single universal absolute-risk number for a 30–40% reduction because baseline risks vary widely across time, place, and population [3] [4].
6. Practical takeaways for individuals and clinicians
Treat 30–40% as a meaningful but relative benefit: it can be decisive for people with high baseline risk (older adults, immunocompromised, healthcare workers) and modest for those with low baseline exposure [1] [5]. Public-health authorities (CDC, WHO, IDSA) recommend using layered prevention—vaccination, infection control practices and risk assessment—because combined measures change both relative and absolute risk in ways that single-number headlines obscure [3] [6] [4].
Limitations: available sources do not provide a single worked example labeled “30–40% reduction” in isolation; instead they report comparable effect sizes for vaccines and emphasize context-specific interpretation [1] [2].