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
 

Keep Current with Ashwin Balagopal

Ashwin Balagopal Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @ashwin_id

14 Jan
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?
Read 6 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!