Back

How effective are the COVID-19 vaccines? A Bayesian analysis

Wibbens, P. D.

2020-11-30 infectious diseases
10.1101/2020.11.30.20240671 medRxiv
Show abstract

This short paper reports a Bayesian analysis of the publicly available COVID-19 trial results. The analysis casts some doubts on whether the half+full dose regime of the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine is truly more effective than the 2x full dose regime. The 95% posterior interval for the efficacy of the half+full dose regime is 66.6-96.3%, while for the 2x full dose regime it is 39.0-74.8%. Hence, it is possible that in both dosage regimes the vaccine has similar efficacy, around 70%. The estimated efficacy for the Pfizer vaccine is 89.9-97.4% and for Moderna 86.3-97.5%. These results should be interpreted with care though, since this analysis does not account for differences in for instance trial population, COVID-19 testing, and storage requirements for the various vaccines.

Matching journals

The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Vaccine
○ 203 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
13.1%
Similar papers in this journal
2
PLOS ONE
● 5266 papers in training set
Top 15%
12.1%
Similar papers in this journal
3
BMC Medical Research Methodology
○ 47 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
9.9%
Similar papers in this journal
4
Vaccines
○ 198 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
4.4%
Similar papers in this journal
5
Clinical Infectious Diseases
◐ 235 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
4.1%
Similar papers in this journal
6
Trials
○ 29 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
3.5%
7
Statistics in Medicine
○ 40 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.3%
50% of probability mass above
8
F1000Research
○ 88 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
3.3%
9
BMC Infectious Diseases
○ 133 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.5%
10
Frontiers in Pharmacology
○ 111 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.1%
11
Epidemiology and Infection
◐ 89 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
2.1%
12
Clinical Trials
○ 11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.8%
13
Scientific Reports
○ 3612 papers in training set
Top 53%
1.7%
14
Epidemiology
○ 32 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.5%
15
Royal Society Open Science
● 214 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.5%
16
PLOS Computational Biology
● 1863 papers in training set
Top 15%
1.5%
17
BMJ Open
● 601 papers in training set
Top 10%
1.5%
18
Frontiers in Medicine
○ 120 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.5%
19
Archives of Clinical and Biomedical Research
○ 28 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.1%
20
Journal of Medical Internet Research
◐ 87 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.1%
21
BMC Research Notes
○ 33 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.0%
22
Cureus
○ 68 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
23
Vaccine: X
○ 22 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.9%
24
Statistical Methods in Medical Research
○ 11 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.9%
25
Medical Decision Making
○ 12 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.9%
26
International Journal of Infectious Diseases
○ 129 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.9%
27
Infectious Disease Modelling
○ 54 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.6%
28
BMJ Global Health
● 113 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.6%
29
BMJ
● 51 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.6%
30
Mathematical Biosciences
○ 49 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.6%

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.