A study on COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness, initially blocked from a CDC journal by Trump administration appointees, has been published in JAMA Network Open. The study found vaccines about 55% effective against hospitalizations.
The publication of this study highlights ongoing debates within public health regarding vaccine effectiveness research methodologies and the potential for political interference in scientific dissemination.
A study examining the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines has been published in JAMA Network Open after being initially blocked from a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) journal. The research found that the vaccine was approximately 55% effective against COVID-19-associated hospitalizations and reduced related visits to emergency departments and urgent care clinics by 50%.
The paper drew attention when Trump administration political appointees decided not to publish it in the CDC's flagship publication, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, citing concerns that the study's design was too vulnerable to flawed assumptions. However, many public health researchers argue that the 'test-negative design' used in the study is a reliable methodology, employed for decades, and offers the best current assessment of vaccine efficacy.
Proponents of the design contend it is built to account for differences in who seeks care and that prior infection is less of a concern given widespread immunity. They also note that U.S. Department of Health and Human Services officials have not proposed a viable alternative for real-time vaccine effectiveness estimates. The CDC recently hosted a forum to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of such studies, featuring experts who largely supported the methodology, though one critic, Martin Kulldorff, questioned its reliance on assumptions and the exclusion of longer-term studies.