This is a great example of how good publicity and marketing is essential for the success of any product (good or bad). Indeed, I hope to see some good business studies on how covid vaccines were marketed internationally, and their success and failures in capturing the market. It will be interesting to learn their real marketing strategies - I don't remember seeing much advertisements of the different vaccines in my country.
Perhaps because of government control of the distribution of vaccines worldwide, the vaccine manufacturers instead relied on the government to promote their vaccines. And some vaccine manufacturers perhaps also used their influence with the media to subtly promote their vaccines and its technology. There was a bit of international politics too and the state propaganda, both for and against some vaccines, was another interesting aspect here on both product development, marketing and distribution and acceptance of these vaccines that would make another good study.
>>The recent results confirm that it has roughly the same efficacy as the two authorized mRNA vaccines, with the added benefit of being based on an older, more familiar science.
What does roughly mean here? Pfizer and Moderna don't "roughly" have the same efficacy against Delta. Moderna has much higher efficacy.
Efficacy against the Delta variant is not a minor detail, Delta is the dominant variant, by far. Efficacy against older variants is simply not relevant anymore. The clinical trial results published [1] are silent on that.
Given that, I think it's completely unsupported to state that Novavax is "even better". It might be, or it might not; it might be better than Pfizer, but worse than Moderna. We simply don't know. This article should not have been allowed to be published. There is no evidence presented for the strong claim in the title.
4 comments
[ 2.6 ms ] story [ 21.1 ms ] threadPerhaps because of government control of the distribution of vaccines worldwide, the vaccine manufacturers instead relied on the government to promote their vaccines. And some vaccine manufacturers perhaps also used their influence with the media to subtly promote their vaccines and its technology. There was a bit of international politics too and the state propaganda, both for and against some vaccines, was another interesting aspect here on both product development, marketing and distribution and acceptance of these vaccines that would make another good study.
>>The recent results confirm that it has roughly the same efficacy as the two authorized mRNA vaccines, with the added benefit of being based on an older, more familiar science.
What does roughly mean here? Pfizer and Moderna don't "roughly" have the same efficacy against Delta. Moderna has much higher efficacy.
Efficacy against the Delta variant is not a minor detail, Delta is the dominant variant, by far. Efficacy against older variants is simply not relevant anymore. The clinical trial results published [1] are silent on that.
Given that, I think it's completely unsupported to state that Novavax is "even better". It might be, or it might not; it might be better than Pfizer, but worse than Moderna. We simply don't know. This article should not have been allowed to be published. There is no evidence presented for the strong claim in the title.
[1] https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/us-clinical-tr...