I haven't seen the calculation for the protective benefit of a #sars_cov_2_vaccine against asymptomatic transmission yet, so here it goes : Suppl. Table 18 in the Moderna NEJM efficacy/safety manuscript: nejm.org/doi/suppl/10.1…
Asymptomatic infection at the time of dose #2 administration, appears to be diagnosed by PCR. For the placebo group there were 39 PCR+ infections out of 14598 people; for the vaccine recipients there were 15 out of 14550,
Vaccine efficacy is (((332-293)/14598)-(15/14550))/((332-293)/14598), or 61.4%, against asymptomatic infection.
Importantly, there does not appear to be a second sampling done at some interval after the 2nd dose. Therefore, it is possible that there was an even greater benefit against asymptomatic infection after two doses.
I cannot find similar data from Pfizer, even in the FDA filing, but hopefully those are coming. I want to assume similar protective efficacy, but that my optimism may be getting the better of me.
EDIT, INTERPRETATION: Taken together, the Moderna mRNA vaccine conferred 95% efficacy against symptomatic COVID-19, nearly 100% efficacy against severe COVID-19, and ~60% against asymptomatic infection before the 2nd shot.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Question for #IDtwitter@soupvector and evolutionary virologists about B.1.1.7 VOC: I see that the 'wild type' SCV-2 had a measured R0 in the UK of 0.95, while B.1.1.7 was 1.45, which is admittedly *greater*. But is that enough to conclude it is much more transmissible?
Reminder, Measles R0 is >10. Other points, when uninfected hosts are not limiting, why is wild type being fully replaced by B.1.1.7 unless there is some degree of founder effects?
Confidence interval on B.1.1.7 (if I'm reading the PHE document properly) is 95% CI: 1.34-1.59, and the change in R0 is estimated at 0.74 [95%CI: 0.44- 1.29], so perhaps not at all more transmissible?