Numbers like that are highly misleading, because it's a conditional. If your chances of dying from something are 1 in 10 million, and a treatment changes that to 1 in a billion, then that treatment would mean you're 99% less likely to die of whatever. But the risk of death is so extremely low to begin with, that that 99% figure is largely just noise.
I mean noise in both the colloquial sense, as well as the statistical one. It's difficult to measure the effectiveness of treatments when what you're treating is so relatively harmless. An experimental study, outside of an absurd size, would show 0 deaths. So you only have observational studies left, which tend to be deeply flawed and highly susceptible to number juking.
In any case, if somebody dies from the flu they were likely quite elderly, or had severe preexisting conditions. And so it's this group of people that taking things like a flus hot can make the most sense. But if you take e.g. a younger to mid aged person of good health, his chance of dying from the flu are practically zero. If they want to get it, more power to them. But saying all people should get a flu shot, does not seem to make much sense.
I mean noise in both the colloquial sense, as well as the statistical one. It's difficult to measure the effectiveness of treatments when what you're treating is so relatively harmless. An experimental study, outside of an absurd size, would show 0 deaths. So you only have observational studies left, which tend to be deeply flawed and highly susceptible to number juking.
In any case, if somebody dies from the flu they were likely quite elderly, or had severe preexisting conditions. And so it's this group of people that taking things like a flus hot can make the most sense. But if you take e.g. a younger to mid aged person of good health, his chance of dying from the flu are practically zero. If they want to get it, more power to them. But saying all people should get a flu shot, does not seem to make much sense.