Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre
This was on the news this morning, saying the jab might not prevent you from getting a mild infection. So what?
You’re already 99.2% unlikely to die from the virus without any vaccine, if the vaccine means you stay out of hospital but get the sniffles and a cough then it’s good enough.
|
The thing is there's no guarantee it will keep anyone out of hospital, or prevent death, as the sample size was 2000 healthy adults. The data doesn't exist to say either way.
Anything that indicates a belief that it'll perform better in people with worse immune systems - the elderly, those with pre-existing conditions who weren't included in the study - is entirely hypothetical.
---------- Post added at 12:04 ---------- Previous post was at 12:02 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1
I guess it depends what criteria you used to big up a vaccine on. For ease of storage and cost, the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine wins. But for tackling the new variants, the BioNTech-Pfizer vaccine currently wins.
|
An ineffective vaccine ultimately won't resolve the issue of lockdowns, social distancing and greater social and economic restrictions on their societies. An ineffective or partly effective vaccine against a virus running wild in the community is only likely to generate escape mutants in the long run that are resistant to the vaccine. It's debatable whether we'd be better off just running with herd immunity at the start compared to a half-baked attempt.