For example, your first dose gives you a likely 76% efficacy rising to 82% after the second dose and time for that to take effect.
@Ajax Bay that challenged my post which stated Efficacy but chose to use the term Effective. As it appeared to be a direct rebuttal of the statistic I provided, I then provided the source of my statistic, albeit one provided by AZ themselves.
Well since you wish to nit-pick, a first dose doesn't "give you efficacy", the vaccine dose has a protection efficacy rate (I note the AZ press release doesn't say efficacy against what (symptomatic illness?). But efficacy rates estimated in 2020 trials are completely OBE (so why quote them?), and real world effectiveness is the best measure. So 76% is not "likely" it's just wrong - except as an example, I suppose, but why not say 99%.
Here's the Lancet paper (8 Dec 2020) where the RCT trial results are reported:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)32623-4/fulltext
"Oxford/AZ vaccine efficacy for more than 14 days after the second dose in the standard dose (SD)/SD cohort was 62·1% [against symptomatic infection]."
Beware of press releases. Published peer-reviewed papers are far more reliable.
Of course we now know that the efficacy estimates were at variance with real life effectiveness.
Here's an even more up-to-date study (today): reported here (with link to NEJM):
https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/955207