4 ms·
13% over 4 years sounds pretty weak.
by shipscode 3y ago
13% over 4 years sounds pretty weak.
- djoldman 3y agoIt's presumably all-cause mortality. So deaths solely attributed to malaria might have seen a far larger drop.
- Someone 3y agoFTA: “the first vaccine approved to fight malaria cut deaths among young children by 13% over nearly 4 years” I read that as 13% of all young children deaths. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S240584402030791X# https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S240584402...: “Malaria was the fourth highest cause of mortality in Sub-Saharan Africa, accounting for 10% of children's deaths” “In 2013, malaria in Malawi was the leading cause of hospital admissions and death in children under five years of age and pregnant women. The disease accounted for 20% of all deaths of children under five” ⇒ I guesstimate this decreased mortality by malaria in those regions by 50-ish percent.
- Teever 3y agoWhat numbers would your layman mind cosider acceptable?
- dang 3y agoThanks—we've s/slash/reduc/'d the title above to make this point clearer.
- Fomite 3y ago13% over 4 years for a novel vaccine against a disease we have been trying and failing to eradicate for the better part of several centuries sounds like a pretty significant step forward to me.