3 ms·
You can presume that a large percentage of that 40,000 weren't exposed to covid19 during the study. I remember a year ago the Chinese shutting down a covid19 s
by Gibbon1 5y ago
You can presume that a large percentage of that 40,000 weren't exposed to covid19 during the study.
I remember a year ago the Chinese shutting down a covid19 study in China because their infection rates went to zero.
- throwaway4good 5y agoCould be interesting to see comparative studies of vaccines. Right now the efficacy numbers seem be affected by when and where the studies were done.
- hannob 5y agoThere were ideas thrown around to do one big study of various vaccines instead of multiple ones. Didn't happen, probably was too much of an organizational challenge and would've required all companies to comply to a protocol made by a third party. Scientifically it would've been the best idea. The challenge now is that the more the world gets vaccinated the harder it gets to do any meaningful trial.
- throwaway4good 5y agoWhy would the companies producing the vaccine have a say in this? Sure Pfizer might go “nah - we are happy with our trial - we don’t need another”. But come on ..,
- spadez 5y ago> Why would the companies producing the vaccine have a say in this.. Because, if I am not mistaken, these studies are funded by the companies themselves.
- throwaway4good 5y agoSure but they do them because they are required by law to do so.
- spadez 5y agoSure, that is what I meant, they are required by law to show the benefit of the drug once. So its really upto them if they want to do another trial, right? At least as per current law..
- throwaway4good 5y agoAnyway. The public is paying for this in the end. If there is genuine suspicion that these efficacy numbers no longer hold, we should just sponsor a test of it. Otherwise we base our decisions on what to buy and how to roll it out on wrong data.