Obviously they'll be a bit disappointed with those numbers, but I think the article undersells how big a difference the ease of storage will make. It requires a fridge instead of specialist cold chain equipment.
Won't they have to do another trial for that effectiveness number to be official ? Otherwise the other manufacturers could have announced results earlier, due to having to wait for fewer infections.
I really don’t get the point of averaging two different dose regimens when only one of the two will be used in practice. The real news here is 90% efficacy, plus it will get even easier to mass produce because it will only require a half dose the first time.
From my point of view, this is all very encouraging and actually lets me find redeeming qualities in this whole Corona crisis. While the SARS-COV-2 virus is certainly not to be trifled with, it's easy to imagine more serious virus outbreaks and I think after this pandemic is over, we will be capable of developing effective vaccines for many viruses in 6 months which would make us much more resilient in the future.
15 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 21.9 ms ] threadhttps://twitter.com/covidvaxnews/status/1330783886830256128?...
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-11-22/astra-oxf...
Also considerably cheaper, even before the savings from easier storage/transport.
Weird IMO that all the headlines so far seem to be focusing on the efficacy.
So calling 70% is inaccurate?
ref: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-11-23/astrazeneca-oxford-co...
Isn't it 90% or not?
n=8,895 for the 62% efficacy variant