"FDA guidelines for communicating evidence-based risks and benefits to the public: The FDA’s advice for information providers includes: “Provide absolute risks, not just relative risks. Patients are unduly influenced when risk information is presented using a relative risk approach; this can result in suboptimal decisions. Thus, an absolute risk format should be used.” Omitting absolute risk reduction findings in public health and clinical reports of vaccine efficacy is an example of outcome reporting bias, which ignores unfavorable outcomes and misleads the public’s impression and scientific understanding of a treatment’s efficacy and benefits . Furthermore, the ethical and legal obligation of informed consent requires that patients are educated about the risks and benefits of a healthcare procedure or intervention.
Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna reported the relative risk reduction of their vaccines, but the manufacturers did NOT report a corresponding absolute risk reduction, which “appears to be less than 1%”. Absolute risk reduction (ARR) and relative risk reduction (RRR) are measures of treatment efficacy reported in randomized clinical trials. Because the ARR and RRR can be dramatically different in the same trial, it is necessary to include both measures when reporting efficacy outcomes to avoid outcome reporting bias. "

Absolute risk reduction (ARR) is the disease risk difference between the placebo and vaccine groups,

ARRs tend to be ignored because they give a much less impressive effect size than RRRs:
1.3%for the AstraZeneca–Oxford,
1.2% for the Moderna–NIH,
1.2% for the J&J
0.84% for the Pfizer–BioNTech vaccines

And once you realize this fact, claims like this being made can be seen as the ludicrous propaganda that they are

Anyone think those absolute risk reduction rates are worth taking an experimental never before used gene technology shot?