10

60% isn't exactly the greatest confidence booster -- that's almost at the level of a coin flip. That's actually not quite so. So, for example, let’s imagine a vaccine with a proven efficacy of 80%. This means that – out of the people in the clinical trial – those who received the vaccine were at a 80% lower risk of developing disease than the group who ...


4

The official (high-level) explanation is In the context of very high vaccine coverage in the population, even with a highly effective vaccine, it is expected that a large proportion of cases, hospitalisations and deaths would occur in vaccinated individuals, simply because a larger proportion of the population are vaccinated than unvaccinated and no vaccine ...


4

Bad estimates of the number of unvaccinated people can also explain these weird statistics. Public Health England might have overestimated the unvaccinated population, which means that their estimation of the infection rate for unvaccinated persons is too low. In addition to potential base rate fallacies pointed out in the other answers above, there might ...


3

The statement in another answer that common allergens (like ovalbumin) are not labelled or measured in vaccines is specific to the US. Since the Q is about the EU as well, I'm fairly certain that some testing and labelling is required or at least strongly recommended for such trace products. For example, the EMA info for a flu vaccine says: The vaccine may ...


1

If we picked 50% of people randomly and vaccinated them, then we would expect fewer Covid infections and fewer Covid deaths among the vaccinated (if the vaccination works). And we would expect the same number of other health problems (unless a Covid vaccination is unhealthy). But that's not what happens. First, over 80% of adults in the UK are double ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible