Several issues here Sir Lastnail
1. This was not a peer reviewed article, it was a letter by an author
2. The author has been disappointed with how the letter has been twisted
https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-thelancet-riskreduction-idUSL2N2NK1XA3. Look at this paragraph for the explanation of ARR
The Lancet commentary by Olliaro, Torreele and Vaillant shows here the numbers for ARR, misleadingly referenced in social media posts, were obtained.
Meedan Health Desk exemplifies how the ARR “will always appear low” as it depends on the event rate.
“Let’s say a study enrolled 20,000 patients into the control group and 20,000 in the vaccine group. In that study, 200 people in the control group got sick and 0 people in the vaccine group got sick. Even though the vaccine efficacy would be a whopping 100%, the ARR would show that vaccines reduce the absolute risk by just 1% (200/20,000= 1%). For the ARR to increase to 20% in our example study with a vaccine with 100% efficacy, 4,000 of the 20,000 people in the control group would have to get sick (4,000/20,000= 20%).”
"
In other words RRR is a measure of risk reduction assuming you get sick, ARR doesn't assume that,
This is the issue when people cut and paste something which looks good but on deeper examination (which those who spread it know won't happen by those who swallow it)