3 ms·
I'm not sure I'd call that unequivocally good news. But certainly it's fantastic that a high efficacy vaccine already exists. At that time it was available in v
by etiam 2y ago
I'm not sure I'd call that unequivocally good news. But certainly it's fantastic that a high efficacy vaccine already exists. At that time it was available in very restricted quantities, used in countries which had access to it for highly targeted vaccination of individuals at very high risk for the sexual transmission (which seems to be just about the only really effective mode for that lineage). I wonder just how much better off we are for doses and production capacity today. A press release a couple of days ago mentioned about 200k doses from the EU donated to African countries at risk. I'm not going to say that isn't generous, but it's not huge numbers compared to the populations involved.
- bobthepanda 2y agoAt the very least we don’t have to spend the months or years in clinical trial holding our breaths for something that works while people die.
- etiam 2y agoMassive plus for sure. Even better than cutting a decade of research to less than a year for SARS-CoV-2 because most of the lessons learned from SARS-CoV turned out to apply, because in this case the existing vaccines are already tried and effective (and presumably the new clade is not different enough to change that in any significant way).
- 0xbadcafebee 2y agowell since we're being pedantic.... you're saying you still have doubts of whether or not the existence of a working vaccine for a deadly disease qualifies as good news, because the availability of the vaccine may not be universal
- etiam 2y agoCertainly not. Whatever gave you such a bizarre impression? I'm strongly implying that I'm not particularly happy about this being an orthopox virus of significant lethality, despite that circumstance meaning it's reasonably well-researched.