Science|What Do Vaccine Efficacy Numbers Actually Mean?
https://nyti.ms/2O0qTH0

Comments 52

What Do Vaccine Efficacy Numbers Actually Mean?Skip to Comments
Share your thoughts.
The Times needs your voice. We welcome your on-topic commentary, criticism and expertise. Comments are moderated for civility.
Sort by: Newest
Horace Fundt commented 24 minutes ago
Horace Fundt
Bretton Woods8m ago

If you're like me, you're over 60. You may also have the benefit of a lot of statistics courses in your transcript like I do. Of course I looked over all the clinical trial papers to make sure I got the truth about the vaccines. I could have listened to Trump or Q-Anon, but then statisticians don't do that. All of this mostly misses the point for us older people. What's the reduction in probability that I (or you) will end up in the ICU, or on a ventilator, or in a coffin? The clinical trials don't answer that question. Yet. Fortunately for those of you who got the Pfizer vaccine, there is a study--the entire nation of Israel. The entire national health system, using one vaccine. Some of the numbers coming out of there might give you comfort that getting the vaccine might more or less protect you from being tested positive for Covid-19 et seq., but it does dramatically improve your chances of avoiding that hospital and ICU. The story is the same for many other vaccines. Keep your eye on the real goal.

Gino G commented 28 minutes ago
Gino G
Indio, CA11m ago

OK. I'll be the first one to admit it. After reading that article ( or trying to) I am hopelessly confused and don't understand anything one iota more than before reading it. I am fairly well educated, but I must humbly acknowledge when something is over my head. I am fully vaccinated, and, I think for my own mental self preservation, I'm just going to ignore the article and enjoy the feeling of safety and liberation the vaccine has given me.

Rob commented 39 minutes ago
Rob
Cville23m ago

The main problem I have found with getting people to understand the statistics is not being able to say the entire thought in one sentence, simply stated. So many qualifiers and but...ifs, understanding just wanders off into the woods. 72% efficacy means that when you have group of 5000 people who didn't get the vaccination, 63 people would get COVID, but if these 5000 had gotten the vaccination only 45 fewer people would have gotten COVID. 45 fewer people divided by 63 total people equals 72%. The focus of all this explanation needs to be on how much lower the number is for the vaccinated group than the unvaccinated group, not on just the lower number of the vaccinated group. So focus on the "45 fewer vaccinated people who didn't get COVID" rather than 18 vaccinated people who did get COVID. The number 45 never appears in this article. A missed opportunity.

Bernie commented 40 minutes ago
Bernie
Vermont24m ago

Which all goes to show that the J&J vaccine might be as good as the others, and it might not. At this point, I 'll take what I can get, but I would not take J&J instead of Pfizer or Moderna if I had a choice. I don't want to wait until we are all swimming in vaccine and I do have a choice.

John commented 48 minutes ago
John

See comment below by Carlos about time-to event testing. Also it should be mentioned that with a short time of the trial, we don't know the subject's exposure rate. If the volunteer subjects were not exposed to the virus (perhaps because they were conscientious, mask-wearing, social-distancing, hand-washers), the relatively low infection rate during the trial will probably underestimate the infection rate among vaccinated people in the general population of non-mask-wearers. But, after months of touting the "95% effectiveness" slogan, it is a nice to see an effort to tone down the expectations about the vaccine. Just as the annual flu vaccine does not guarantee that you will not get the flu, the covid19 vaccines will not prevent you from getting covid19. Nice job Carl.

F Wolfe commented 53 minutes ago
F Wolfe
Wichita, KS37m ago

If I remember correctly, the J&J vaccine did poorly in the elderly. particularly in those with comorbidities. The confidence intervals were vary large. I believe the lower limit got down to 15%. Wouldn't it be wise for the elderly to avoid this vaccine in favor of the others, at least until more data are acquired?

Rob commented 58 minutes ago
Rob

Could someone explain to me why the Oxford vaccine is not approved for the USA when it is now being used WORLDWIDE? It is recommend by WHO and by many national vetting agencies.Is the fact it is not all American a factor?

2 Replies

Sisyphus commented 32 minutes ago
Sisyphus
Pennsylvania16m ago

@Rob AZ did not file for approval till Mid February. It is predicated that it may be approved by April. There were some concerns raised as to its effectiveness in the elderly as initial results were open to interpretation. It was stated that AZ did not include enough elderly in its studies. BTY, The WHO web site says "this vaccine has yet to be recommended for an Emergency Use Listing by WHO, it has undergone review by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and consequently meets WHO’s criteria for SAGE (WHO Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization ) consideration." Germany's national vaccine committee refused to approve the AstraZeneca for people over 65 years old, citing a lack of data from the trials proving it worked well on those older individuals. Reportedly this has led to refusal by some EU citizens. "But the effectiveness of the AstraZeneca vaccine is still unclear, particularly when doses are spaced out. AstraZeneca’s vaccine so far shows 62 percent efficacy when used as two full doses administered 28 days apart. But after a dilution mistake in one arm of a phase 3 trial, scientists found that the vaccine was 90 percent effective when a small group received a half-dose first." Errors like this raise the scrutiny by the regulators. We want to avoid another Cutter Incident (polio infections from poorly prepared vaccine.)

Andrew commented 31 minutes ago
Andrew
Brooklyn15m ago

@Rob the studies done for the Oxford vaccine were sloppily done, and the results are not as trustworthy. Frankly I don't know why anyone would accept the Oxford vaccine when it has been shown (in a preliminary study) to be useless against the South African variant. As the variant spreads, the UK might have to re-vaccinate nearly it's entire population, or at least those that didn't get the Pfizer shot.

Andrea Gombani commented 1 hour ago
Andrea Gombani
padova, italy54m ago

I would say that the rounding of 5/7 is 71%. If you try to explain the math, do it properly.

Nn commented 1 hour ago

Why do you not show the efficacy results for AZ and J&J in the upper figure for the non-B.1.351 regions they were tested in? Eg, in the US, J&J was 72% effective and there was no widespread B.1.351 in the US, and similarly AZ was tested in the UK when there was no widespread B.1.351. If you can separate out the results for Novavax, you can do the same for AZ and J&J.

vbering commented 2 hours ago
vbering
Pullman WA1h ago

Good efficacy primer. Life expectancy at birth would be another good topic. It does not mean what people think it means.

Willett Kempton commented 2 hours ago
Willett Kempton
Philadephhia, PA2h ago

This article is good at explaining how the “efficacy” percentage is calculated, for people with statistics training. Based on my non-representative small sample, and informal interviewing, a different problem with meaning of these percentages exists for many people. The statement that a vaccine is, say, 85% effective can easily but incorrectly be interpreted as “if I get the vaccine, I have a 15% chance of getting the virus.” This modest protection could lead to discounting the vaccine as much less worthwhile than it actually is. Taking the J&J example of 17 getting sick of 5,000 in the vaccinated group, the actual number & interpretation is “if I get the vaccine, and if I have average exposure like the trial group, then I have only a 0.3% chance of getting Covid-19.” In other words, again based on a small sample, the metric used by epidemiologists (ok for them) seems to be misinterpreted some or many of the public in a way that a vaccine that leaves the recipient with a 0.3% chance of getting sick is believed to only reduce the risk to 15%. Public health communications, by both the CDC and by publications like the New York Times, could continue to provide the efficacy percentage, but add the more interpretable % chance of getting sick after vaccination. I speculate that this is probably the cheapest method available for increasing the vaccination rate (to be added to other measures of course).

2 Replies

Mark longtine commented 1 hour ago
Mark longtine

@Willett Kempton The problem is that the % chance of getting Covid-19 is entirely dependent on the current situation (fraction of people with the virus). Thus, any number you provide in this way will be wrong almost instantly, and thus not very useful. For example, if infection rates triple (for example, see Brazil), then the "% chance of getting the virus" is much different than before the increase.

Willett Kempton commented 56 minutes ago
Willett Kempton
Philadephhia, PA40m ago

@Mark longtine yes, totally understood. But look at the numbers. You are saying “0.3% might be wrong”. Correct! It might be 1% or 0.1%. But the problem is that many people think it is 15%!! So for fear of having them be off by, say 0.7%, you want us to let people continue to be wrong by 14%. That’s bad public health communications (which is what we are doing now). Per my example, if the small error you mention is a concern, the public communication statement could be “... for a person with average exposure, like those in the test sample ...” or similar.

shira commented 2 hours ago
shira
Herndon, Virginia2h ago

"One vaccine may have a higher point estimate than another, but their confidence intervals may overlap. That effectively makes their results indistinguishable." The above statement is too broad. If the intersection of the 95% confidence intervals doesn't overlap the means of both sets of data, it's likely that the vaccine with the higher mean is more effective. To determine just how much more effective requires creating a confidence interval of the difference between the means of the two results; a separate analysis from the the single-study analyses.

KimberleyDave commented 2 hours ago
KimberleyDave
Sydney2h ago

Many of the vaccine trials were conducted between October and December in South Africa, Brazil and the United Kingdom, and in all of those places new variants of the SARS-CoV-2 virus came into being. What is the likelihood that the reduction in natural human immunity - a result of the vaccines being developed using chimpanzee vectors - led to the development and proliferation of mutations of the virus?

1 Reply

Reasonable Man commented 2 hours ago
Reasonable Man
Raleigh, NC2h ago

@KimberleyDave CDC.gov website answers your question. But all viruses will inevitably have variants emerge over time. Some variants emerge and disappear and others emerge and persists. Vaccines do not cause viruses to change over time and become a variant. Vaccines made specifically for a specific pathogen only causes human beings to form antibodies to that pathogen(virus) and thus when the person becomes exposed to that virus mounts a quick and strong immune response to eliminate the invader. The vaccine regardless of how it was made or tested would not cause the Corona19-virus to then become a variant.

Campbell commented 2 hours ago
Campbell
Ames IA2h ago

I've never seen anyone link the correct interpretation of a confidence interval within an incorrect interpretation of a confidence interval! The statement "we can be 95 percent confident that the efficacy falls somewhere inside it" is just not correct. Efficacy is not "falling somewhere inside the interval," because efficacy is not treated as random in the model. Instead, the procedure used for generating confidence intervals (such as the ones shown) is guaranteed to cover the true efficacy 95% of the time, conditional on the model being the correct model (or close to it). We don't know if the confidence interval we generated covers the efficacy rate or not!

Francis commented 2 hours ago
Francis
Australia2h ago

Press reports on vaccine effectiveness largely feature their ability to stop infection - with less information on preventing hospitalisations and death. The article explains why - it's all got to do with numbers of volunteers. And with an infection fatality rate of less than 1%, the trial confidence intervals will be huge. But I have read that new data rolling in from vaccinated large populations in Israel and the UK suggest that both the Pfizer and AstraZeneca vaccines are very effective in this respect. I believe that death/hospitalisations should be the important parameter when reporting vaccine efficacy - especially to the new variants. I have seen little to nothing on this, not even here. We shouldn't let good be the enemy of perfect.

Johan Buys commented 2 hours ago
Johan Buys
Cape Town2h ago

btw J&J is busy with a trial in South Africa (where over 90% of cases are new variants), but this trial has second jab 57 days after first jab. I am part of the trial : to date zero to report so maybe we received placebo. As to stats, I do not really care about vaccines’ efficacy for not getting covid (and anyway have questions how this is calculated other than in a challenge trial that exposes the entire group to the virus and then compares) I care, for now, about what was mentioned : did vaccine recipients go on to develop severe symptoms? Every year we have flu. Some people have a shot, others not. Some people breeze past, others not so lucky. Most likely, virtually everybody was exposed and did have flu whether they knew or not. We have covid forever.

A Goldstein commented 2 hours ago
A Goldstein

As this article explains, there are several ways to define "vaccine efficacy." But there is another measure of the value of a vaccine which is essentially unknowable until well after large numbers of shots are given and lots of time goes by. A good example is the Shingrix vaccine, designed to prevent the virus that causes chickenpox, Herpes zoster, from returning as the very unpleasant disease, shingles. It's about 90% effective in preventing shingles but even if you still get it, it will most likely be a milder, shorter case. And before Shingrix, there was another, less effective vaccine called Zostavax, only about half as effective but still better than no vaccine at all. Science keeps advancing. Like so many other vaccines, improved versions for Covid are coming and just like the flu vaccines, there will be many types and they will change from year to year. We need to become accustomed to this reality unless a universally effective, life long vaccine for all coronaviruses is developed. In the meantime, we can thank our lucky stars for medical science and the many researchers who continue to save billions of lives.

Pota commented 2 hours ago
Pota

Is it just me or these numbers make the vaccine looks like just an added protection. If you view this as a lottery, 63/5000 and 18/5000 doesn't look like a big difference in win rate. Masking, keeping distance, and having good hygiene would go a much longer way.

1 Reply

Tom Tailor commented 2 hours ago
Tom Tailor

@Pota why are we choosing? Getting the vaccine helps, wearing the mask helps, in a different way. Win win.

Twg commented 2 hours ago
Twg

Thanks for this! It does help clarify how efficacy is actually determined and what factors come into play. What it also clarified for me – in a positive way – is that one: Johnson & Johnson's trial was larger (which is always better) and that it took place during a known occurrence of a viral variant, the B.1.351, and was still found to be effective. But having said this, I think Dr. Fauci and others must make the message simpler because all the info about the various vaccines and the mutating Covid virus is confusing when there are so many talking heads. I'm well educated and have made a concerted effort to stay informed, yet I was concerned that J&J's vaccine would be a poorer alternative. This article alleviates that issue for me. NV, like many other states, still only allows those 65 and older or front line workers to get vaccinated because of a shortage of vaccine supply. So, feeling like our state would be given a "lesser" vaccine would (has) fostered a dangerous skepticism and stubborness to hold-out for a better shot. Simplify the message and get that public service campaign going! Because what worries me a lot, are states like TX, FL, and SD where the GOP governors have already wrongly & dangerously decided the pandemic has ended.

Jack commented 3 hours ago
Jack
Boston, MA2h ago

Is the data available for the frequency of COVID in the people who were vaccinated as part of the Phase I and Phase II trials that occurred in the summer of 2020? This will provide additional useful information to go along with the analysis of the short term efficacy in the Phase III trials covered in the article.

Liz commented 3 hours ago
Liz
Los Angeles2h ago

Great article. I have also come across a *lot* of people who do not understand that they could still have and spread the coronavirus after getting a vaccine. (I.e., there is not evidence that people who are vaccinated are protected against asymptomatically carrying the virus and spreading it.) Some of these misinformed folks are doing things like traveling and discontinuing mask use. I hope future articles about the vaccines always contain this information as a disclaimer, as a public health measure that could save thousands or even millions of lives. I am hopeful for the author's response to this idea.

1 Reply

Paul commented 2 hours ago
Paul
Colorado1h ago

@Liz I agree that we do not know the change in likelihood that a vaccinated person will infect other people. Data from multiple past cases of other types of vaccinations might be very useful in helping guess/extrapolate the risk of transmission from vaccinated people. It seems likely to me that vaccinated people will be carrying much smaller "viral loads" than unvaccinated people, and would therefore pose much smaller risk. The most important question to answer might be what is the "reproduction number" from people who are vaccinated; if it is well below 1.0, then they would probably able to feel comfortable in returning to normal behavior, but I've heard nothing about that reproduction number.

Kevin commented 3 hours ago
Kevin
Wa St2h ago

It is never easy to try to teach standard deviations and p values in a short order. Generally, it takes a fair amount of time around the data to get a sense of applying theory to practice. Having said that, this is a good and important effort at getting people to understand the stats behind the analysis.

1 Reply

Paul commented 2 hours ago
Paul
Colorado2h ago

@Kevin I agree. However, one oversimplification that I believe occurred in this article is that they seem to define "confidence interval" as always relating to 95% probability; if I remember correctly from my college probability and statistics class, they've defined a "95% confidence interval", whereas a "confidence interval" can involve any fraction of confidence, rather than just 95%. I believe that any meaningful "confidence interval" must explicitly state the relevant fraction of confidence.

Michael Lindsay commented 3 hours ago
Michael Lindsay
St. Joseph, MI2h ago

It would seem then based on this article, that it would be possible to calculate the efficacy of the J&J vaccine for only the US participants in their trial. Can they not segregate those individuals out and then run the numbers? We realize that it still won't be an apples-to-apples comparison with the other two vaccines, but it should be more comparable. And I believe that would be a number most people would be interested in.

2 Replies

Peter Goodin commented 2 hours ago
Peter Goodin
Naples, FL2h ago

@Michael Lindsay The authors did give the J&J efficacies separately for the US (72%) and South Africa (64%) in the text of the article, and you're right that the US efficacy is inherently more comparable to the numbers from earlier pre-variant trials. But by separating the data by source, we lose some of the power of the large enrollment of the J&J trial, i.e. the confidence interval grows. Another point, only the future will tell us whether the South African trial will wind up better representing the future trajectory of the pandemic in the US.

Nn commented 1 hour ago

@Michael Lindsay I agree. They should show in the upper box the US efficacy rate for J&J and the UK efficacy rate for AZ, since both those tests were relatively large and neither were in the presence of B.1.351. And if the confidence intervals are larger due to smaller samples, that's fine, that's what confidence intervals are for -- allowing us to show both the point estimates and uncertainty around them, so that we can make apples-to-apples comparisons.

Christin Carney commented 3 hours ago
Christin Carney
Santa Barbara, California3h ago

I'd like to know the procedure(s) used for infection. Do they vaccinate some, pretend to vaccinate the rest, then turn them out into the world to take their chances? Or do they vaccinate some, pretend with the others, then deliberately expose them to the virus? And if so, what are the mechanics of infection? Thanks!

1 Reply

Michael commented 3 hours ago
Michael
Wisconsin2h ago

@Christin Carney Typically, these are double blind studies, meaning that neither the people participating in the trial nor the ones conducting it know who got the vaccine and who got the placebo. Obviously, there is a record of that somewhere that isn't accessed (example a record of which batches of what was injected was the actual vaccine) until the study is complete and needs to be analyzed. All participants are released out into the wild so to speak. The Phase 1,2, and 3 studies were all these types of trials. Exposing vaccinated people to the virus is an entirely different type of trial - a challenge trial. These types of trials are being conducted but not as part of vaccine qualification.

Syliva commented 3 hours ago
Syliva
Pacific Northwest3h ago

We know nothing about any of these vaccines' efficacy in preventing what for most people is the most significant risk around getting Covid - the possibility of "long Covid". Up to 1 in 3 people have lingering, often disabling symptoms months after having the disease, even mild disease. The idea that a vaccine could prevent me from being hospitalized is reassuring, but Covid sending me to the hospital is not my main concern. It's long-term heart or neurological problems that scare me.

3 Replies

Liz commented 3 hours ago
Liz
Los Angeles2h ago

@Syliva I agree about the importance of flagging that we have not studied so called "long haulers". This article is helpful but over-simplified in my opinion.

Johan Buys commented 2 hours ago
Johan Buys
Cape Town2h ago

@Syliva that unfortunately takes time : I am part of a 25 month J&J trial with second jab at 57 days so the scientists do hear you. Of immediate import is preventing severe and worse symptoms, to prop up overall system.

Rose commented 2 hours ago
Rose

@Syliva : I agree that there should be more research on long Covid. Until then, maybe you should get vaccinated but remain hypervigilant. Just don't expect everyone to do the same thing. Because while it's reasonable to expect masking in indoor public places -- and social distancing and hand washing, many people are eager to resume visiting family and friends, traveling, eating inside, etc. Post-vaccination, everyone is going to find their risk tolerance and live with it.

Ski bum commented 3 hours ago
Ski bum
Colorado3h ago

Very informative article; aren’t statistics and science great companions? My wife and I get our first jabs on Saturday, at long last. Colorado changed their guidelines such that anyone over the age of 60 now qualifies for an injection; smart move Governor Polis. I don’t know which vaccine I will be receiving and really don’t care, as this article articulates so well. My daughter, a high school teacher, got her second jab yesterday, and she is looking forward to resuming in-school instruction; but she may have to wait until next autumn as her district will still offer remote learning for those students and parents that prefer it and she is a great remote teacher.

Harry commented 3 hours ago
Harry

Can someone help? Suppose I take a vaccine which has, say, 80% efficacy. What are my chances that I don't get the virus in the next 6 months?

2 Replies

AT commented 3 hours ago
AT
Ann Arbor3h ago

@Harry There are two issues here--first is the personal protection from developing COVID-19 if you are exposed, which is 80%. The second, which is more important from a public health standpoint, is getting to herd immunity. If enough of the population has immunity such that transmission of the virus is significantly decreased, the virus cannot spread exponentially in a population. Once we as a population reach herd immunity, your own protection from developing COVID-19 will be substantially higher than 80%. Two doses of the MMR vaccine are only 88% protective from mumps (per the CDC) and yet 12% of the US population does not get mumps in their lifetime. There is some preliminary evidence trickling out that the COVID vaccines may also reduce transmission though the magnitude of this effect has yet to be determined with confidence.

Eric commented 3 hours ago
Eric

@Harry - that would depend on how many interactions and length of those you have with a currently infected person. As others are also vaccinated, your chance of interacting with such a person would also go down. If you stay at home by yourself in entirely, 100%. But that would be true without the vaccine.

justgimmesometruth commented 3 hours ago
justgimmesometruth
New York3h ago

The clear message is that a head-to-head comparison of these vaccine trials is not possible as they were conducted under significantly different circumstances. Dr. Fauci seems to agree with this, but he then goes on to insist that the J&J vaccine is not 'weaker' than the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines. How can he possibly know this if the studies do not allow comparison? The answer is that he DOESN'T know this. As a public health official who wants people to get vaccinated, he assures them that J&J is not weaker than the others, but he has no evidence that this is actually the case. The correct statement would be that we don't know how these vaccines compare, but they are all reasonably effective, and one should get whatever vaccine is available as soon as possible. Dr. Fauci undermines his credibility by not simply stating this. Instead he tries to persuade the public that J&J is just as effective as the others, something he does not know. He did a similar thing with masks. He didn't want people to use N95 masks that were needed by medical workers, so he lied, saying that masks were unnecessary. I have great respect for Dr. Fauci's knowledge, but I don't trust him because he appears to bend the facts in order to achieve what he sees as a public good. Health officials need to stop doing this. I don't want people lying even if they think it's for 'my benefit'. I want the truth.

1 Reply

Gary C commented 2 hours ago
Gary C
Olympic Peninsula2h ago

@justgimmesometruth For Dr. Fauci not to push directly back against characterizing the J&J vaccine as "weaker" would to most people be an admission that it is "inferior". In the midst of the exigencies of an rolling pandemic holding out for "best" against the very good is wildly counter productive. The vast majority of citizens are not going to follow statistical arguments into the weeds. They need a thumbs up or down for which path to take, And all of us need a large majority to choose the correct path if we are to enjoy herd immunity in the near future. In public health messaging, it is not a lie, or disingenuous to insist simply and directly the J&J vaccine is "not weaker".

John Chesterfield commented 3 hours ago
John Chesterfield
Beaverton, OR3h ago

They should mention how much harder it will be to get repeated boosters for the J&J vaccine due to the use of adenovirus vector. Recipients will generate immunity to the vector itself rather than the covid protein. Repeated boosters will amplify that response.

Michael commented 3 hours ago
Michael
Wisconsin3h ago

"For example, no one who got Johnson & Johnson’s vaccine had to go to the hospital for a Covid-19 infection 28 days or more after getting an injection." This is the most important takeaway and the reason why experts say to take whichever of the three vaccines you get. By holding out for a vaccine that may, on paper, be more efficacious. you just substantially increased your risk of contracting a serious bout of the disease by increasing the duration you are not vaccinated. I plan to take whatever is offered, when my turns comes.

3 Replies

skeptonomist commented 3 hours ago
skeptonomist
Tennessee3h ago

@Michael If you can isolate, it might be better to wait for a more effective vaccine, although 74% is pretty good. If you must be exposed every day, don't wait. Some people who have high risk factors may want to wait to see the results for such subjects specifically, which apparently no company has tested yet. This may not come out until there are data for the general (non-testing) population.

Marcos Dean commented 1 hour ago
Marcos Dean

@skeptonomist No, there is no rational reason to wait. Especially for people who have high risk factors for the disease. The stats presented in this article make it absolutely clear that getting vaccinated is far preferable to taking your time to "see what happens".

Provo1520 commented 4 minutes ago
Provo1520
Miami4m ago

@Michael Yep- it's risk/reward- Get whatever vaccine you are currently offered- if there are variants of the virus out there, there will be a booster soon enough against those also. But any vaccine means you are at reduced risk of severe infection and hospitisation. And if anyone is still worried, maintain basic precautions, wash your hands, maybe don't go for a drink in an enclosed indoor bar, eat/drink on the patio or outdoors, do outdoor excercise rather than in a gym- Where I live there is a lot of vaccine hesitancy in the most vulnerable population, so I was able to get vaccinated at a much younger age than I would be in the US. However as we are still under curfew, and limited (outdoor!) dining to 30% of restaurant space, and school is still online, it's not back to normal by any manner. But that's OK too. I just hope my vaccination will be recognised if there's an app to let us into concerts/theatres in the fall!

Graybits commented 4 hours ago
Graybits
San Diego4h ago

The efficacy may also depend on the base rate, the fraction of the population testing positive. Expect different results for a population with a base rate of 5% compared to population with 15%, even though the participants tested negative at the beginning of the trial.

1 Reply

Michael commented 3 hours ago
Michael
Wisconsin3h ago

@Graybits I would think the base rate is covered since what you are measuring is a percent reduction in risk. It would affect the design of your study, though. A lower base rate would require you to extend the trial for a longer duration or, equivalently, recruit more volunteers to get to the same confidence limit in your efficacy estimate.

Carlos commented 4 hours ago
Carlos
California4h ago

This article should describe that the design of these vaccine trials is also quite different. What they are measuring is time to events, or the tine it takes to reach statistical difference between events in the two groups. They do not measure efficacy over time. They look to reach a particular number of events and then they break the blind to determine how many occurred on placebo or vaccine, using a hurdle rate of 50% or more. Traditionally, you would give vaccine or placebo for a period of time, say one or two years, and then compare events between the two groups. By using the time to events design, the studies can be much shorter but we lose the opportunity to observe the duration of effect and the potential for adverse events that occur long after the vaccines were give. We can then only assume duration of efficacy and safety.

What Do Vaccine Efficacy
Numbers Actually Mean?

This week, Johnson & Johnson began delivering millions of doses of its coronavirus vaccine across the United States after receiving an emergency use authorization from the Food and Drug Administration. Central to getting the green light was a trial that Johnson & Johnson ran to measure the vaccine’s efficacy.

Efficacy is a crucial concept in vaccine trials, but it’s also a tricky one. If a vaccine has an efficacy of, say, 95 percent, that doesn’t mean that 5 percent of people who receive that vaccine will get Covid-19. And just because one vaccine ends up with a higher efficacy estimate than another in trials doesn’t necessarily mean it’s superior. Here’s why.

Share of U.S. Johnson & Johnson vaccine trial volunteers who got Covid-19

Placebo group

Vaccinated group

Efficacy estimate

63 per 5,000 volunteers

contracted Covid-19

18 per 5,000

72%

fewer cases in the vaccinated group than in the placebo group

Notes: Numbers are rounded. In the placebo group, 1.27 percent of volunteers were infected with Covid-19; in the vaccinated group, 0.36 percent of volunteers were infected.·Source: The Food and Drug Administration’s analysis of clinical trials conducted by Johnson & Johnson

For statisticians, efficacy is a measurement of how much a vaccine lowers the risk of an outcome. For example, Johnson & Johnson observed how many people who received a vaccine nevertheless got Covid-19. Then they compared that to how many people contracted Covid-19 after receiving a placebo.

The difference in risk can be calculated as a percentage. Zero percent means that vaccinated people are at as much risk as people who got the placebo. A hundred percent means that the risk was entirely eliminated by the vaccine. In the United States trial site, Johnson & Johnson determined that the efficacy is 72 percent.

Efficacy depends on the details of a trial, such as where it took place. Johnson & Johnson ran trials at three sites: in the United States, Latin America and South Africa. The overall efficacy was lower than that in the United States alone. One reason for that appears to be that the South Africa trial took place after a new variant had swept across that country. Called B.1.351, the variant has mutations that enable it to evade some of the antibodies produced by vaccination. The variant didn’t make the vaccine useless, however. Far from it: In South Africa, Johnson & Johnson’s efficacy was 64 percent.

Efficacy can also change when scientists look at different outcomes. Johnson & Johnson’s vaccine had an 85 percent efficacy rate against severe cases of Covid-19, for example. That’s important to know, because it means that the vaccine will prevent a lot of hospitalizations and deaths.

Share of worldwide Johnson & Johnson trial volunteers who got Covid-19

Placebo group

Vaccinated group

Efficacy estimate

49 per 5,000 volunteers

contracted Covid-19

17 per 5,000

66%

fewer cases in

vaccinated group

9 per 5,000 contracted

severe cases

1 per 5,000

85%

fewer severe cases in

vaccinated group

Notes: Numbers are rounded. In the placebo group, 0.99 percent of volunteers were infected with Covid-19 and 0.17 percent of volunteers were severely infected. In the vaccinated group, 0.34 percent of volunteers were infected and 0.03 percent were severely infected.·Source: The Food and Drug Administration’s analysis of clinical trials conducted by Johnson & Johnson

When scientists say that a vaccine has an efficacy of, say, 72 percent, that’s what’s known as a point estimate. It’s not a precise prediction for the general public, because trials can only look at a limited number of people — in the case of Johnson & Johnson’s trial, about 45,000 volunteers.

The uncertainty around a point estimate can be small or large. Scientists represent this uncertainty by calculating a range of possibilities, which they call a confidence interval. One way of thinking of a confidence interval is that we can be 95 percent confident that the efficacy falls somewhere inside it. If scientists came up with confidence intervals for 100 different samples using this method, the efficacy would fall inside the confidence intervals in 95 of them.

Confidence intervals are tight for trials in which a lot of people get sick and there’s a sharp difference between the outcomes in the vaccinated and placebo groups. If few people get sick and the differences are minor, then the confidence intervals can explode.

Efficacy confidence intervals from major vaccine trials

Trials not conducted in the presence of widespread B.1.351 variant

Efficacy

estimate

Novavax

2 doses,

3 weeks apart

14,049 participants

in the U.K.

Lower

bound

Upper

bound

2 doses,

3 weeks apart

Gamaleya Research

Institute (Sputnik V)

19,866 participants in Russia

Moderna

2 doses,

4 weeks apart

27,817 participants

in the U.S.

Pfizer/BioNTech

2 doses,

3 weeks apart

36,523 participants in

Argentina, Brazil,

Germany, South Africa,

Turkey and the U.S.

40

60

80

100

20%

Trials conducted in the presence of widespread B.1.351

Novavax

2 doses,

3 weeks apart

2,684 participants in

South Africa

AstraZeneca/Oxford

2 doses,

4 weeks apart

8,895 participants in Brazil,

South Africa and the U.K.

Johnson & Johnson

1 dose

39,058 participants in Brazil,

South Africa and the U.S.

40

60

80

100

20%

Efficacy required by the F.D.A.

for authorization in the U.S.

Sources: The Food and Drug Administration’s analysis of clinical trials conducted by Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson and Moderna; clinical trial results published by AstraZeneca and Gamaleya Research Institute; company press releases.

Last year, the F.D.A. set a goal for coronavirus vaccine trials. Each manufacturer would need to demonstrate that a vaccine had an efficacy of at least 50 percent. The confidence interval would have to reach down no lower than 30 percent. A vaccine that met that standard would offer the kind of protection found in flu vaccines — and would therefore save many lives.

So far, three vaccines — made by Pfizer and BioNTech, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson — have all been authorized in the United States after their trials demonstrated they surpassed the F.D.A.’s threshold. AstraZeneca and Novavax, which have ongoing U.S. trials, have published efficacy results from studies in other countries. Meanwhile, the makers of the Sputnik V vaccine have published results based on their trial in Russia.

For a number of reasons, it’s not possible to make a precise comparison between these vaccines. One vaccine may have a higher point estimate than another, but their confidence intervals may overlap. That effectively makes their results indistinguishable.

Making matters more complicated, the vaccines were tested on different groups of people at different stages in the pandemic. In addition, their efficacy was measured in different ways. Johnson & Johnson’s efficacy was measured 28 days after a single dose, for example, while Moderna’s was measured 14 days after a second dose.

What’s clear is that all three vaccines authorized in the United States — made by Johnson & Johnson, Moderna, and Pfizer and BioNTech — greatly reduce the risk of getting Covid-19.

What’s more, all the vaccines look as if they have a high efficacy against more serious outcomes like hospitalization and death. For example, no one who got Johnson & Johnson’s vaccine had to go to the hospital for a Covid-19 infection 28 days or more after getting an injection. Sixteen people who got the placebo did. That translates to 100 percent efficacy, with a confidence interval of 74.3 percent to 100 percent.

A clinical trial is just the start of the research on any vaccine. Once it goes into widespread use, researchers follow its performance. Instead of efficacy, these scientists now measure effectiveness: how much the vaccine reduces the risk of a disease out in the real world, in millions of people rather than thousands. Early studies on the effectiveness of coronavirus vaccines are confirming that they provide strong protection.

In the months to come, researchers will keep an eye on this data to see if they become less effective — either because the immunity from the vaccine wanes or because a new variant arises. In either case, new vaccines will be created, and manufacturers will provide new measures of their efficacy.