81–90 of 569 posts
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...
Title is misleading. They tested few configurations, we should use the most optimal one, not the average. Much better source: https://www.astrazeneca.com/media-centre/press-releases/2020... Good: + likely 90% effective if we use optimal dosing + no significant side effective. Looks better than Pfizer or Moderna. + already pre-produced at huge scale, 3 Bln doses in 2021 + easy to store and administer, just regular fri…
Interesting its cheaper than mRNA, i thought that was one of the benefits of using mRNA, was that it was supposed to be cheaper to manufacture.
The other major benefit is that these vaccines can be developed more quickly, which is worthwhile in its own right.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe for less developed countries, but i think for major economies, the price difference is insignificant relative to the benefits of any vaccine.
If they actually get to 90% or more, why would anyone bother with the more expensive and cumbersome vaccines? Except that the EU already signed a deal to buy the vaccines from AstraZeneca, Sanofi and Johnson & Johnson.
Additionally, lots of countries have already preordered all the major candidates, so in those cases its already spent money.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1. Smallpox vaccine is 100% effective 2. 90% is high. 3. Probably not. Immune systems are weird and incredibly complicated (think even more complicated than the brain).
I dont think its true that smallpox is 100% effective
A vaccinated individual will also have milder symptoms.
Together with how rare adverse reactions are to the vaccination, the smallpox vaccine is really a wonder.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What are the storage requirements for the other two?
-80ºC for Pfizer vaccine and -20ºC for mRNA vaccine. https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/11/17/9355633...
You might want to update the comment to avoid confusion.
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...
Why the downvotes? I'm answering the question that is being asked. The study is talking about the side-effects of receiving the vaccine.
> "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... "
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, the Oxford vaccine stated "... no hospitalised or severe cases ..." The Pfizer press release states: "There were 10 severe cases of COVID-19 observed in the trial, with nine of the cases occurring in the placebo group and one in the BNT162b2 vaccinated group." So, zero severe cases for Oxford, and one for Pfizer. Interesting. Should also point out the Pfizer trial may have had 43,000 participants, and the Oxford…
"So, zero severe cases for Oxford, and one for Pfizer. Interesting." What is interesting? That they probably both have the same rate, and we are seeing a statistical fluctuation because of the low sample number?
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…
Medicine is a bit different though and every country probably has institutes checking the vaccines independently. A lot of eyes are on this probably. No company wants to be the company that botched the corona vaccine.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The two existing mRNA vaccines touted earlier also require two doses.
I wonder what happens if you get two doses, but not of the same vaccine?
1. You may end up just getting very short and weak immunity, making this approach ineffective.
2. You may get a combination of immunity which can have different efficiency.
3. For some vaccines of same type this works, but is rarely recommended.
4. Mixing partly mRNA and Adenovirus vaccines doesn't to be winning strategy. It is rather more likely to give another vaccine if after two doses you didn't get immunity.