10 ms·

91.6% seems like a very good result for this vaccine and a big confidence boost to the companies that bought it. I'm waiting for the J&J results after two-dose

by inglor 6y ago

91.6% seems like a very good result for this vaccine and a big confidence boost to the companies that bought it. I'm waiting for the J&J results after two-dose immunisation given this vaccine takes a similar (non mRNA) approach and appears to be very effective. (Not ignoring that 66% efficiency is still significant but much less so than 91.6%)

lode 6y ago
> I'm waiting for the J&J results after two-dose immunisation given this vaccine takes a similar (non mRNA) approach and appears to be very effective. Given the J&J two dose trial (ENSEMBLE 2) only started just recently, and takes 60 days between two doses, this is going to take a while though. (I'm a volunteer. My second those is scheduled for mid-march.)
- inglor 6y ago
  Thanks! 60 days would still be very interesting to get results for if-only to understand the technology (mRNA vaccines) better for future viruses. A lot of claims were made about how mRNA vaccination was revolutionizing how we approach these problems - but the Sputnik V results show similar gains with the traditional method.
  - bluGill 6y ago
    Sputnik V is not a traditional method either. It is different form mRNA, but both are relatively new on the vaccine scene. No traditional vaccine has finished phase-3 trials anywhere. Everything is something fairly new.
    - cesarb 6y ago
      > No traditional vaccine has finished phase-3 trials anywhere. Everything is something fairly new. According to the table at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_vaccine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_vaccine both CoronaVac and Covaxin are traditional "inactivated virus" vaccines, and both have finished Phase 3 trials; CoronaVac is already being applied by the government here (started last month, so far only health workers and elderly above 90 years old), and IIRC there have been talks of bringing Covaxin to be applied by private clinics.
      - bluGill 6y ago
        I stand corrected.
tinyhouse 6y ago
What's important is hospitalization and death. Ideally you want the vaccine to protect you against infection, but where we are today, having a vaccine with "only" 66% efficiency against infection but that protects you with > 85% from severe reaction is very promising. I'd take the J&J one shot vaccine in a heartbeat.
- bluGill 6y ago
  Short term yes, but long term I want to get rid of this virus and ensure my children don't get it. Since kids cannot get a vaccine that means elimination, and 95% gets us there a lot faster. I'm not even sure if we can eliminate with a 66% vaccine without covering kids - even 95% is questionable but we can get a lot closer.
  - postalrat 6y ago
    As far as I know it's impossible to eliminate this virus. The science we have so far says the virus is safer for children than the vaccine.
    - JumpCrisscross 6y ago
      > As far as I know it's impossible to eliminate this virus Almost no virus is impossible to eliminate or eradicate. It’s a question of cost (and reservoirs). > The science we have so far says the virus is safer for children than the vaccine Source? We haven’t tested the vaccine on children. We have had children die from Covid. This sounds like bunk.
      - postalrat 6y ago
        My only source is the logically conclusion when we don't have the data how the vaccine will affect children yet we do have data on how many children are suffering serious side effects from the virus.
        JumpCrisscross 6y ago
tzs 6y ago
According to an article I read recently, the difference between 66% and 90% isn't actually very important when it comes to ending the pandemic. The 66% vaccines and the 90+% vaccines were about equally as effective at preventing severe COVID cases. More people get it on the 66% vaccine, but their cases were like a mild to medium flu. Most experts seem to believe that COVID is not going to be one of those viruses like smallpox or polio that we can for all practical purposes eliminate. They believe COVID is going to like cold and flu viruses. The long term goal then is to get it so that when we do get it, which most of us inevitably will at some point, it is no worse than a mild flu. The 66% vaccines are as good as the 90+% vaccines for that.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  We could probably eradicate a single cold virus if we wanted. The reason why we didn't is that there are a great many. SARS-CoV-2 is nothing like influenza. Technically, we could certainly eradicate this virus. It would take years, but it would be possible. It's just that it seems many countries just don't want to.

by inglor 6y ago

lode 6y ago

> I'm waiting for the J&J results after two-dose immunisation given this vaccine takes a similar (non mRNA) approach and appears to be very effective. Given the J&J two dose trial (ENSEMBLE 2) only started just recently, and takes 60 days between two doses, this is going to take a while though. (I'm a volunteer. My second those is scheduled for mid-march.)

inglor 6y ago
Thanks! 60 days would still be very interesting to get results for if-only to understand the technology (mRNA vaccines) better for future viruses. A lot of claims were made about how mRNA vaccination was revolutionizing how we approach these problems - but the Sputnik V results show similar gains with the traditional method.
- bluGill 6y ago
  Sputnik V is not a traditional method either. It is different form mRNA, but both are relatively new on the vaccine scene. No traditional vaccine has finished phase-3 trials anywhere. Everything is something fairly new.
  - cesarb 6y ago
    > No traditional vaccine has finished phase-3 trials anywhere. Everything is something fairly new. According to the table at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_vaccine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_vaccine both CoronaVac and Covaxin are traditional "inactivated virus" vaccines, and both have finished Phase 3 trials; CoronaVac is already being applied by the government here (started last month, so far only health workers and elderly above 90 years old), and IIRC there have been talks of bringing Covaxin to be applied by private clinics.
    - bluGill 6y ago
      I stand corrected.

tinyhouse 6y ago

What's important is hospitalization and death. Ideally you want the vaccine to protect you against infection, but where we are today, having a vaccine with "only" 66% efficiency against infection but that protects you with > 85% from severe reaction is very promising. I'd take the J&J one shot vaccine in a heartbeat.

bluGill 6y ago
Short term yes, but long term I want to get rid of this virus and ensure my children don't get it. Since kids cannot get a vaccine that means elimination, and 95% gets us there a lot faster. I'm not even sure if we can eliminate with a 66% vaccine without covering kids - even 95% is questionable but we can get a lot closer.
- postalrat 6y ago
  As far as I know it's impossible to eliminate this virus. The science we have so far says the virus is safer for children than the vaccine.
  - JumpCrisscross 6y ago
    > As far as I know it's impossible to eliminate this virus Almost no virus is impossible to eliminate or eradicate. It’s a question of cost (and reservoirs). > The science we have so far says the virus is safer for children than the vaccine Source? We haven’t tested the vaccine on children. We have had children die from Covid. This sounds like bunk.
    - postalrat 6y ago
      My only source is the logically conclusion when we don't have the data how the vaccine will affect children yet we do have data on how many children are suffering serious side effects from the virus.
      - JumpCrisscross 6y ago

tzs 6y ago

According to an article I read recently, the difference between 66% and 90% isn't actually very important when it comes to ending the pandemic. The 66% vaccines and the 90+% vaccines were about equally as effective at preventing severe COVID cases. More people get it on the 66% vaccine, but their cases were like a mild to medium flu. Most experts seem to believe that COVID is not going to be one of those viruses like smallpox or polio that we can for all practical purposes eliminate. They believe COVID is going to like cold and flu viruses. The long term goal then is to get it so that when we do get it, which most of us inevitably will at some point, it is no worse than a mild flu. The 66% vaccines are as good as the 90+% vaccines for that.

sudosysgen 6y ago
We could probably eradicate a single cold virus if we wanted. The reason why we didn't is that there are a great many. SARS-CoV-2 is nothing like influenza. Technically, we could certainly eradicate this virus. It would take years, but it would be possible. It's just that it seems many countries just don't want to.