Instead of press releases and little bits of detail gleaned from the UK regulator, we now have what scientists would regard as more of the meaty detail.

Today we saw the publication of Efficacy and Safety Analysis from the Oxford AstraZeneca Vaccine trials.

We've also seen a much full of data set of the fighter by and Tech vaccine trial.

That's because before the US regulator, the FDA discusses the possible approval of a drug or a vaccine.

It publishes a synopsis of the submitted evidence.

So what have we learned about how well they protect people from getting ill from co vid?

We got more detail on the headline results of the Oxford trial.

You may remember it returned two results.

The largest study group who were given to full doses showed 62% efficacy.

We now know the range of uncertainty.

That figure could be a slow was 41% or as high as 75.7% thes figures of what is known as confidence intervals.

Meanwhile, a much smaller group who were given a low dose followed by a higher dose in a move that was not initially planned, showed 90% efficacy with confidence intervals of 67.4 and 97%.

We need to be careful interpreting this.

They may not be a big difference between the doses.

Pfizer's large trial showed 94.6% efficacy were smaller confidence intervals of 89.9% and 97.3%.

One issue that has been flagged with Oxfords vaccine is that there were very few older people involved in the analysis for the low dose standard dose group.

Everyone was under 55 so we don't know how well it works.

And older people there was quite consistent efficacy between different age groups and races.

But we've got to remember we're talking about around 190 symptomatic infections on their spread across these different age groups and race groups.

So it's difficult to be sure about the reliability of each comparison.

I think we need to look at the overall results and see that this WAAS a very powerful vaccine in terms of stopping people getting sick with Kobe this'll isn't just about illness, it's about controlling the spread of the virus.

One of the big questions is whether the vaccine is able to prevent people who get the virus but don't display symptoms from spreading the virus.

Unlike the other trials, Oxford took weekly swabs toe identify infections, so we're able to pick up asymptomatic cases.

Other trials only looked at people with symptoms and didn't test more widely for the virus.

There is some evidence that Oxfords low dose, standard dose combination might prevent asymptomatic infection.

There was a 59% reduction, but it's very uncertain because those numbers involved a so small.

The confidence interval range is huge.

It's from 1% to 83%.

When the combination of two standard doses was used, there was essentially no reduction in asymptomatic infection.

The figure was 4% with very wide confidence intervals of minus 72% to 46%.

This might mean more data on analysis and needed.

We weren't expecting this disconnect between a vaccines effect on symptoms on the vaccines effect on overall protection, and if we see the same shift for the fires from Madonna vaccines, it's an important thing to know because it affects how you deploy the vaccine.

You might need much higher coverage levels to actually achieve eradication in the long term.

Both trials report that there were MAWR mild adverse effects in the vaccine groups than in the control group.

Thes included fatigue, fever and headache.

Most vaccines produce any harm that they have within two months.

Occasionally, there will be problems.

At four months on, it's pretty rare toe.

Find problems that go beyond that, but we still need to be sure.

So the really key next steps will be surveillance.

All those who have Bean vaccinated Margaret Keane and made history today is the first person vaccinated for covert outside of a trial.

We have a vaccine, but what exactly that means, Yet for us, all is less clear.