6 ms·

> According to the state-run biotech corporation, BioCubaFarma, Abdala has proven about 92.28% effective against COVID-19 in clinical trials, which would put it

> According to the state-run biotech corporation, BioCubaFarma, Abdala has proven about 92.28% effective against COVID-19 in clinical trials, which would put it the same league as the most effective vaccines BioNTech-Pfizer and Moderna. Huge applause erupted in the auditorium of the CIGB this week when the impressive results were announced. One thing to be careful about is the the regulating authority and the testing authority and the developing authority are all the same and have a huge incentive to have good numbers, not the least of which is national pride. I would be careful with those numbers.

tdrgabi 5y ago
I think you have a good point. Not sure why you're downvoted or "almost invisible".
- ArgyleSound 5y ago
  I agree too. I look forward to Cuba allowing third parties to corroborate their results.
pepperonipizza 5y ago
Absolutely, this number may be confirmed when tested by a third party. Medias were cautious on the russian's vaccine claims until the Lancet published a study on its efficacy. Edit: grammar
- ArgyleSound 5y ago
  The Lancet publishing data does not mean the data is correct, they do not verify it. It's all based on trust.
- pessimizer 5y ago
  The Lancet published Andrew Wakefield's study on the connection between vaccines and autism, and the recent study on hydroxychloroquine based on entirely fabricated data.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
dataflow 5y ago
Also note efficacy can be misleading. Pfizer was 100% effective at preventing death or serious illness in their trials, which is what's really important. It was "only" 95% effective against getting the disease at all, which isn't particularly important. i.e. even a vaccine that has 0% efficacy (doesn't prevent mild cases at all) and yet is ~100% at preventing severe cases would be on par with Pfizer's, whereas one that does the converse (prevents all mild cases but no severe ones) would be drastically worse. Not saying these extremes are likely, but we need numbers on the former rather than the latter to say whether another vaccine truly 'rivals' that of Pfizer. P.S. (rant): Why don't we just define a single word for the metric for what really matters and just use that?? It boggles my mind.
- cm2187 5y ago
  I believe it is 95% effective at getting the disease with symptoms. I understand they never tested people who had no symptoms in their trials.
  - dataflow 5y ago
    Oh interesting. Would you have a link on this?
    - cm2187 5y ago
      That's what I have seen mentioned repeatedly on HN. Some of the comments link to articles and studies, but not being a doctor myself, I have not verified them https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=pastYear&page=0&prefix=false&query=pfizer%20symptoms&sort=byPopularity&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=pastYear&page=0&prefix=fal...
      - dataflow 5y ago
        Ok thanks. Btw, I think my comment is actually correct with that definition, given how having the disease (COVID-19) implies having symptoms. IIRC that's precisely when they say you have SARS-CoV-2 (the virus, which you'd be an asymptomatic carrier of), but not COVID-19 (the disease).
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

tdrgabi 5y ago

I think you have a good point. Not sure why you're downvoted or "almost invisible".

ArgyleSound 5y ago
I agree too. I look forward to Cuba allowing third parties to corroborate their results.

pepperonipizza 5y ago

Absolutely, this number may be confirmed when tested by a third party. Medias were cautious on the russian's vaccine claims until the Lancet published a study on its efficacy. Edit: grammar

ArgyleSound 5y ago
The Lancet publishing data does not mean the data is correct, they do not verify it. It's all based on trust.
pessimizer 5y ago
The Lancet published Andrew Wakefield's study on the connection between vaccines and autism, and the recent study on hydroxychloroquine based on entirely fabricated data.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

dataflow 5y ago

Also note efficacy can be misleading. Pfizer was 100% effective at preventing death or serious illness in their trials, which is what's really important. It was "only" 95% effective against getting the disease at all, which isn't particularly important. i.e. even a vaccine that has 0% efficacy (doesn't prevent mild cases at all) and yet is ~100% at preventing severe cases would be on par with Pfizer's, whereas one that does the converse (prevents all mild cases but no severe ones) would be drastically worse. Not saying these extremes are likely, but we need numbers on the former rather than the latter to say whether another vaccine truly 'rivals' that of Pfizer. P.S. (rant): Why don't we just define a single word for the metric for what really matters and just use that?? It boggles my mind.

cm2187 5y ago
I believe it is 95% effective at getting the disease with symptoms. I understand they never tested people who had no symptoms in their trials.
- dataflow 5y ago
  Oh interesting. Would you have a link on this?
  - cm2187 5y ago
    That's what I have seen mentioned repeatedly on HN. Some of the comments link to articles and studies, but not being a doctor myself, I have not verified them https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=pastYear&page=0&prefix=false&query=pfizer%20symptoms&sort=byPopularity&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=pastYear&page=0&prefix=fal...
    - dataflow 5y ago
      Ok thanks. Btw, I think my comment is actually correct with that definition, given how having the disease (COVID-19) implies having symptoms. IIRC that's precisely when they say you have SARS-CoV-2 (the virus, which you'd be an asymptomatic carrier of), but not COVID-19 (the disease).

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]