3 ms·
(A) Did they have someone with Covid-19 sneeze or cough or spit on them? (B) Or did the candidate just go about their daily lives afterwards? Because, unless
by blackrock 6y ago
(A) Did they have someone with Covid-19 sneeze or cough or spit on them?
(B) Or did the candidate just go about their daily lives afterwards?
Because, unless path A was taken, then this 95% efficacy sounds very misleading.
- mansr 6y agoNothing is misleading. Half the participants got the vaccine, the rest placebo, before going about their usual lives. Now, a few months later, 95 cases have been confirmed across both groups. Of these, 90 had received the placebo and only 5 the vaccine. If the vaccine didn't work at all, the split would be roughly 50/50. A somewhat effective vaccine might result in a 70/30 split, and so on.
- blackrock 6y agoThis sounds like a terrible way to test the vaccine’s efficacy. A better test would be to have all the participants walk through a minefield of people with the virus. Breath in all that infected air. Then run the numbers and see who got infected.
- mansr 6y agoIt's the standard method, and I see nothing wrong with it. What you suggest (deliberate exposure) is called a challenge trial. This is normally considered ethical only when an effective cure (e.g. antibiotics) is available. Even so, there are plans to conduct such a trial in the UK, and there's no shortage of volunteers. We'll see if they get approval.