Talk:Vaccine efficacy

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

"Cases Studied" Section

Should this section be renamed to "A Case Study", since it seems to describe just one study?

Spel-Punc-Gram (talk) 10:22, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Including information on uncertainty of calculation of efficacy

Including discussion on uncertainty of the estimates of vaccine efficacy seems important for readers to understand why clinical trials include many participants and why these estimates vary, and how reliable they are. This relates to ongoing clinical trials and questions on how laboratories and regulatory agencies conclude on a seemingly small number of cases in the trials.

Simplified formulas for estimating these uncertainties, which can be understood much more easily than actual formulas used in medical textbooks seemed at an okay level of academic requirements for the readers.

Could you help me improve my contribution? Zefr --MForFacts (talk) 19:04, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We'll see what other editors say and agree to per WP:CON. Although one can appreciate the possible value for academics in equations for uncertainty estimates, this is excessive for typical encyclopedia users, WP:NOTJOURNAL #6-8. Better to stick to broader reviews discussed in WP:MEDRS. Zefr (talk) 19:18, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comparisons

Do we have a simpler article, or at least one that compares various vaccines such as those for smallpox, diphtheria, influenza, measles etc? Jim.henderson (talk) 22:58, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]