3 ms·

[deleted]

eunos 6y ago
I thought the most important question of the vaccine is how effective are they on preventing severe infection. I believe all vaccines managed to achieve 100% on preventing severe infection/death.
Doctor_Fegg 6y ago
"By the fourth week after receiving the initial dose, the Pfizer and Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccines had reduced the risk of hospital admissions from Covid-19 by up to 85% and 94% respectively, according to a study by Scottish universities and Public Health Scotland." https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/feb/22/one-vaccine-protection-severe-covid-evidence https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/feb/22/one-vaccine-pr...
ctrlp 6y ago
Frankly, I'm surprised the opposite isn't the case, given the technical novelty of the mRNA vaccines. Anyone who says mRNA vaccines are proven technology is being dishonest. They're very promising and I truly hope they succeed but we are running a massive public health trial and I doubt anyone will be surprised if we encounter some unpleasant side effects at scale, whether from the vaccines themselves or as a consequence of administering a new drug protocol at massive scale. I'll happily take less effectiveness for less risk. Germans must enjoy living on the edge.
bipson 6y ago
This is simply not true as stated. Further, BioNTech/Pfizer has also show to have reduced efficacy. The study that all these "simplified" horror-stories in the press are based upon is not giving the full picture. - The timing cannot show how good the effects possibly are (we know that vector-vaccines take longer to create a sufficient protection) - The sample is tiny - It only talks about mild and semi-severe cases. Nothing in the study about severe cases (there were none in both groups) AstraZeneca has a huge PR-Problem. Since they were running this in cooperation with research (Oxford), a lot of smaller results were published early, which was taken up by the press out-of-context, simplified further and further when going down the ladder to the boulevard-press. Further, Germany had at least one politician state ridiculous numbers (8% efficacy above age 65 or 75) since he misunderstood something (only 8% of the participants were in this group) and simply had no idea what he was talking about. And now it is too late, you can't kill these false-hoods once they circle. Actually AstraZeneca has some nice properties the mRNA vaccines have not, e.g. etter T-Cell response.

[deleted]

I thought the most important question of the vaccine is how effective are they on preventing severe infection. I believe all vaccines managed to achieve 100% on preventing severe infection/death.

Doctor_Fegg 6y ago

"By the fourth week after receiving the initial dose, the Pfizer and Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccines had reduced the risk of hospital admissions from Covid-19 by up to 85% and 94% respectively, according to a study by Scottish universities and Public Health Scotland." https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/feb/22/one-vaccine-protection-severe-covid-evidence https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/feb/22/one-vaccine-pr...

ctrlp 6y ago

Frankly, I'm surprised the opposite isn't the case, given the technical novelty of the mRNA vaccines. Anyone who says mRNA vaccines are proven technology is being dishonest. They're very promising and I truly hope they succeed but we are running a massive public health trial and I doubt anyone will be surprised if we encounter some unpleasant side effects at scale, whether from the vaccines themselves or as a consequence of administering a new drug protocol at massive scale. I'll happily take less effectiveness for less risk. Germans must enjoy living on the edge.

bipson 6y ago

This is simply not true as stated. Further, BioNTech/Pfizer has also show to have reduced efficacy. The study that all these "simplified" horror-stories in the press are based upon is not giving the full picture. - The timing cannot show how good the effects possibly are (we know that vector-vaccines take longer to create a sufficient protection) - The sample is tiny - It only talks about mild and semi-severe cases. Nothing in the study about severe cases (there were none in both groups) AstraZeneca has a huge PR-Problem. Since they were running this in cooperation with research (Oxford), a lot of smaller results were published early, which was taken up by the press out-of-context, simplified further and further when going down the ladder to the boulevard-press. Further, Germany had at least one politician state ridiculous numbers (8% efficacy above age 65 or 75) since he misunderstood something (only 8% of the participants were in this group) and simply had no idea what he was talking about. And now it is too late, you can't kill these false-hoods once they circle. Actually AstraZeneca has some nice properties the mRNA vaccines have not, e.g. etter T-Cell response.