We cannot directly compare the numbers in 2 different studies because of differences in study designs and many variables. Maybe you can read the discussion section in the full paper which explains the results more clearly.I actually don't understand that conclusion or the conclusion in the interview Phil provided. In the trial, only 0.8% of the group that received the placebo became infected and only 0.04% of the group that received the vaccination became infected. That's more than 99% in both groups that did not become infected. Yet only 90% of the non-controlled, much larger group that was studied in Israel did not become infected. How are the results of the two studies being considered about the same, not that I'm complaining about 90% effectiveness at preventing infection and 100% preventing hospitalization and death?
What am I missing (other than a glass of wine)?