Download PDFPDF

Review of COVID-19 vaccine subtypes, efficacy and geographical distributions
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g.
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests


  • A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter, Correspondence or as other content. Find out more about rapid responses.
  • We intend to post all responses which are approved by the Editor, within 14 days (BMJ Journals) or 24 hours (The BMJ), however timeframes cannot be guaranteed. Responses must comply with our requirements and should contribute substantially to the topic, but it is at our absolute discretion whether we publish a response, and we reserve the right to edit or remove responses before and after publication and also republish some or all in other BMJ publications, including third party local editions in other countries and languages
  • Our requirements are stated in our rapid response terms and conditions and must be read. These include ensuring that: i) you do not include any illustrative content including tables and graphs, ii) you do not include any information that includes specifics about any patients,iii) you do not include any original data, unless it has already been published in a peer reviewed journal and you have included a reference, iv) your response is lawful, not defamatory, original and accurate, v) you declare any competing interests, vi) you understand that your name and other personal details set out in our rapid response terms and conditions will be published with any responses we publish and vii) you understand that once a response is published, we may continue to publish your response and/or edit or remove it in the future.
  • By submitting this rapid response you are agreeing to our terms and conditions for rapid responses and understand that your personal data will be processed in accordance with those terms and our privacy notice.
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on:
    Confidence Intervals and proportion of older subjects in the trials
    • oscar,m jolobe, retired geriatrician British Medical Association. Also a member, but not an affiliate, of the Manchester Medical Society

    In an otherwise excellent paper, the authors of the review of Covid-19 vaccine subtypes omitted to mention the confidence intervals of the statistics for vaccine efficacy(1). The importance of confidence intervals goes beyond .mere documentation of the possible range around the estimate.:the confidence interval also tells us about how stable the estimate is. A stable estimate is one that would be close to the stated value if the clinical trial were repeated. The same is not true of an unstable estimate.
    The authors also omitted to mention the proportion of older subjects in the respective trials. That in formation is a guide to the applicability of the trial results to the older population at large.
    The following are the answers to those questions:-
    Pfizer Vaccine
    Participants numbered 43,548 of whom 42.2% were aged >55.
    Vaccine efficacy amounted to 95%(95% Confidence Interval(CI): 90.35% to 97.6%(2).
    Moderna Vaccine:-
    Participants numbered 30,420 of whom 24.8% were aged 65 or more.
    Overall efficacy was 94.1%(95% CI, 89.3 to 96.8%)(3).
    Janssen Vaccine
    Participants numbered 39,291 of whom 33.5% were aged 60 or more.
    Overall efficacy amounted to 66.1%(95% CI 55% to 74.5%)
    AstraZeneca Vaccine
    In the subgroup who received two standard doses(the doses subsequently used in clinical practice) there were 8,895 participants. An important statistic is that 9% of the UK participants in that subgroup were...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.