Correct me if I am wrong, Oxford uses traditional Vaccine design technique (using a weaker virus and adding spikes or something similar) while Biontech(Pfizer) and ModeRNA use MRNA which is completely new technique (messenger RNA). This is awesome for more than just vaccinations. Traditionally the groups allocating govt funding to science and industries are very risk averse and this could be one more example where ta…
I thought adenoviral vaccines were also relatively new. Not as new as mRNA which is bleeding edge, but still i think this would be the first time this technique would be approved for human use should it be approved.
Google claims that the smallpox vaccine was somewhere between 90-97% effective (they didnt do fully controlled studies back in the day) Keep in mind, that controlling covid is a giant win. We don't need to eradicate it, just get things under control.
> We don't need to eradicate it, just get things under control Based on what we've seen there is no grey area. Either you fully control it which then ends up basically eradicating it e.g. Australia/NZ or you don't and then you end up like EU/US and going in and out of infection waves.
The thing with the EU is that we have variable, externally controlled infection rates. We could eradicate it, but there's no point because we have land borders to countries we can't control. So we're just trying to keep local rates below crippling. (With mixed success.)
The point of a vaccine is that you can't scale it back for populist appeasement; once you have broad immunity you keep broad immunity for long enough that you end up eradicating the virus almost involuntarily. In comparison, a lockdown is much more vulnerable to feel-good measures reducing the effectiveness.
While we now get the results from various COVID-19 vaccines I see a societal issue brewing up. How will we deal with the perceived uncertainty of the safety of these vaccines and the surrounding (dis-)infodemic? I read recently that in some European country (was it Germany?) the willingness to vaccinate against COVID-19 went down from 80% to 60%. With these numbers policy makers will have a hard time convincing the b…
For me it's a simple risk proposition, how much at risk do I feel my children or I are from covid. For my children it's a slam dunk; their risk from covid is statistical non existent and weigh that against vaccines that may or may not have long term negative impact on them.
From my perception it’s not that easy. Recently there have been research papers released that estimate long term effects also with children comparable to young adults.
For the sake of argument, let’s assume they are right and that we know that COVID-19 has significant long-term risks for children. How do you outweigh that against the uncertainty of risk of the vaccine?
Does anyone have a pointer on how the mrna vaccine actually works? I understand basic genetics mechanisms and how mrna works inside cells. In shot form, I assume the modified mrna strands are floating through the blood stream. What happens after the injection?
Btw .. I think public health needs to start educating people on how these things work in order to get high coverage. I am alarmed at the number of highly educated people I know who seem suspicious. This fear is just borne by a lack of understanding and can be corrected IMHO.
Why do they sabotaged their own messaging by using the 70% number? Reading further, it looks like the vaccine is 90% efficient. Also, "There were no hospitalised or severe cases in anyone who received the vaccine". Can we infer anything from that statement? They seem to be suggesting that the infection might be less serious in the vaccinated population...
Note that only n=2,741 people received the 90% efficient dosing. That's 10+ times less than the mRNA vaccines so the confidence intervals on that number will be a lot wider
The key differentiator here is the storage requirements (2-8c ‘normal refrigerator’). That’s much more accessible to developing / low GDP countries as opposed the cumbersome and expensive storage requirements of the other two.
Another huge differentiator is price. At $3 to $4, many countries will jump on board ASAP and stay away from the expensive vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna.
>At $3 to $4, many countries will jump on board ASAP and stay away from the expensive vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna.
The price difference will likely remain substantial, but in case anyone is unaware, the difference is currently greater due to AstraZeneca pledging to the sell the vaccine at cost "during the pandemic", while Pfizer and Moderna have indicated that they fully intend to profit. [1]
Once AstraZeneca deem the pandemic to be over, the price will likely rise.
It was reported a few months ago that internal AstraZeneca documents showed them projecting the "Pandemic Period" to end on 1 July 2021. [2]
I think I read (and I may be wrong) that the costs for the vaccines per dose were roughly as follows: Moderna: £45, Pfizer: £20, Oxford: £3, The Oxford one is also easier to store and transport.
Considering most economies are losing ~£100/person/day by having everything shut, the cost is fairly irrelevant.
While we now get the results from various COVID-19 vaccines I see a societal issue brewing up. How will we deal with the perceived uncertainty of the safety of these vaccines and the surrounding (dis-)infodemic? I read recently that in some European country (was it Germany?) the willingness to vaccinate against COVID-19 went down from 80% to 60%. With these numbers policy makers will have a hard time convincing the b…
For me it's a simple risk proposition, how much at risk do I feel my children or I are from covid. For my children it's a slam dunk; their risk from covid is statistical non existent and weigh that against vaccines that may or may not have long term negative impact on them.
This issue seems to solve itself. When the risk is higher/more unknown in the early stage, groups that have high/known risk with Covid can take the vaccine. As time passes, more and more data will be gathered on the vaccine risk so the group that can make the correct statistical call to take the vaccine grows. Whether healthy children will take it in 1, 2, 5 or 10 years deepends on what the statistics turn out to be and whether it's required to protect others.
Why do they sabotaged their own messaging by using the 70% number? Reading further, it looks like the vaccine is 90% efficient. Also, "There were no hospitalised or severe cases in anyone who received the vaccine". Can we infer anything from that statement? They seem to be suggesting that the infection might be less serious in the vaccinated population...
To put it bluntly, who wants to give anti-vaxxers more ammo to make noise with?
"They're lying to you, they claimed it's 90% effective but actually it's 70%".