**O**ver my flight to Montpellier last week, I read an arXival on a Bayesian analysis of the vaccine efficiency. Whose full title is *“What is the probability that a vaccinated person is shielded from Covid-19? A Bayesian MCMC based reanalysis of published data with emphasis on what should be reported as `efficacy'”*, by Giulio D’Agostini and Alfredo Esposito. In short I was not particularly impressed.

“But the real point we wish to highlight, given the spread of distributions, is that we do not have enough data for drawing sound conclusion.”

The reason for this lack of enthusiasm on my side is that, while the authors’ criticism of an excessive precision in Pfizer, Moderna, or AstraZeneca press releases is appropriate, given the published confidence intervals are not claiming the same precision, a Bayesian reanalysis of the published outcome of their respective vaccine trial outcomes does not show much, simply because there is awfully little data, essentially two to four Binomial-like outcomes. Without further data, the modelling is one of a simple graph of Binomial observations, with two or three probability parameters, which results in a very standard Bayesian analysis that does depend on the modelling choices being made, from a highly unrealistic assumption of homogeneity throughout the population(s) tested for the vaccine(s), to a lack of hyperparameters that could have been shared between vaccinated populations. Parts of the arXival are unrelated and unnecessary, like the highly detailed MCMC algorithm for simulating the posterior (incl. JAGS code) to the reminiscence of Bayes’ and Laplace’s early rendering of inverse probability. (I find both interesting and revealing that arXiv, just like medRxiv, posts a warning on top of COVID related preprints.)