This is one of the latest papers I was shared with by the Oxford email comms: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14760584.2022.2092472

>"The most-studied COVID-19 vaccines provide consistently high (>90%) protection against serious clinical outcomes like hospitalizations and deaths, regardless of variant"

>"We found that the three most-studied vaccines, BNT162b2, mRNA-1273, and AZD1222, had a high and comparable overall VE against symptomatic infections (average >77%)"

This paper was a review of 79 separate real-world studies into vaccine efficacy in several countries ("Most of the data (28 studies) were from North America where BNT162b2 was the most-studied vaccine, followed by mRNA-1273 and AZD1222")

Seems to find that the 3 major vaccines (Pfizer, Moderna and Oxford/Astra-Zeneca) were broadly comparable and all provided around 90% protection against serious outcomes and 77% overall protection against infection, which they say was comparable across all three. The tables and figures in the paper break it down more into useful categories that I won't attempt to type up in here :)

>they did all sorts of studies on death/harm reduction, immunity, and things like that

Yep and just so you know, these studies weren't done in a lab: they ran clinical trials over the course of a year with thousands of volunteers, to test the vaccines in real people in the real population in real life.

Source: I was one of them for the Oxford vaccine trial.

Had antibody tests first, then received a jab (either the vaccine or a placebo, it was 50/50 in my blind study) in early June 2020 and had to take weekly PCR tests, blood tests at various intervals, and report on my health regularly for 12 months. They then compared this data from the however-many-thousand volunteers against the infection, hospitalisation, and mortality rates amongst the general population in order to arrive at the efficacy rating.