The Lancet: Wirksamkeit und Effektivität des COVID-19-Impfstoffs – kein Elefant im Raum

Relativer Schutz versus absoluter Schutz. Was passiert, wenn der der daran verdient die Wirksamkeit bewirbt? The Lancet deckt auf:

  • Pfizer/Biontech – beworbener Schutz: 95,03%, tatsächlicher Schutz: 0,84%
  • Moderna – beworbener Schutz: 94,08%, tatsächlicher Schutz: 1,24%
  • Janssen – beworbener Schutz:, 66,62, tatsächlicher Schutz: 1,19%
  • AstraZeneca – beworbener Schutz: 66,84%, tatsächlicher Schutz: 1,28%

Auf dem zweiten Blick wird schnell aus einem Elefant eine Mücke. Jetzt selbst nachlesen. Link zur Lancet Studie:

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanmic/article/PIIS2666-5247(21)00069-0/fulltext

https://www.thelancet.com/cms/10.1016/S2666-5247(21)00069-0/attachment/bb4bb1cf-8d64-453f-a2b7-e1b95194c109/mmc1.pdf

The Lancet (zu Deutsch „Die Lanzette“), eine der ältesten und renommiertesten medizinischen Fachzeitschriften der Welt:

Vaccine efficacy is generally reported as a relative risk reduction (RRR). It uses the relative risk (RR)—ie, the ratio of attack rates with and without a vaccine—which is expressed as 1–RR. Ranking by reported efficacy gives relative risk reductions of 95% for the Pfizer–BioNTech, 94% for the Moderna–NIH, 91% for the Gamaleya, 67% for the J&J, and 67% for the AstraZeneca–Oxford vaccines. However, RRR should be seen against the background risk of being infected and becoming ill with COVID-19, which varies between populations and over time. Although the RRR considers only participants who could benefit from the vaccine, the absolute risk reduction (ARR), which is the difference between attack rates with and without a vaccine, considers the whole population. ARRs tend to be ignored because they give a much less impressive effect size than RRRs: 1·3% for the AstraZeneca–Oxford, 1·2% for the Moderna–NIH, 1·2% for the J&J, 0·93% for the Gamaleya, and 0·84% for the Pfizer–BioNTech vaccines.

Weitere Beiträge

Menü