The study, published Tuesday in JAMA Network Open, examined how well COVID-19 vaccines protected against severe outcomes during a period when the virus continued to circulate. Researchers found that vaccination was about 55% effective at preventing COVID-19-associated hospitalization and reduced trips to emergency departments and urgent care clinics by half.
The paper’s publication had been blocked in April after a methodology dispute with political appointees in the Trump administration, as Main Street Independent reported at the time. Trump administration appointees at the Department of Health and Human Services decided against running the study in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, the agency’s flagship publication for timely public health data.
The appointees argued that the study’s design was too vulnerable to false assumptions that could produce flawed results, according to the Associated Press. But many public health researchers pushed back, maintaining that the design is a reliable method that has been used for decades. They say it offers the best way to understand how well a vaccine is working at any given moment, especially as the virus evolves and immunity wanes.
The findings themselves are not particularly surprising, researchers noted — a large body of evidence has repeatedly shown that COVID-19 vaccines work. But the controversy over its publication drew public attention to the growing tensions between career scientists and political appointees over how federal health agencies communicate vaccine data. The study’s publication in a peer-reviewed journal ensures the methodology and results are available for independent scrutiny, though public health researchers said the delay deprived clinicians and the public of timely information during the ongoing pandemic.