Quote (Bazi @ Nov 24 2020 08:33am)
That other company with 70% is amazing news, shouldn’t be down played at all. It’s a regulation vaccine, non mrna based aka traditional methodology so easier to implement in a lot of
Societies that don’t have adequate infrastructure.
Don’t forget 1 month ago we all would have been sucking dick for a 70% effective vaccine.
Word on the street is the pfizer/moderna vaccines will be getting rolled out to immunocompromised and health care workers by December. That’s way ahead of any schedule I would have predicted, but it hasn’t happened yet so let’s see
Quote (Black XistenZ @ Nov 24 2020 09:33am)
I've read that the 70% figure for the AstraZeneca vaccine is just an average. Two shots, one month apart and with only half the dose on the first shot, is reported to lead to 90% efficiency. By contrast, if you apply two full doses (again one month apart), protection is only at 62%. The AstraZeneca folks say they're as puzzled by this outcome as we are, and will look into it over the coming months. Based on the unequal frequency of these two dosages in their study, these protection rates then averaged out to 70%.
So, tldr: it's not clear yet if a 90% efficiency can be replicated, but chances are that their vaccine can get higher than 70.
I got this info from a friend who has been following the trials VERY closely, and is participating in the Pfizer trial:
Quote
So why would LESS vaccine be MORE effective?
The prevailing theory so far is that it's because this vaccine uses a weakened adenovirus vector -- basically, just a different kind of virus -- which is manipulated to create the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, which in turn causes the body to learn to fight that protein.
When the first dose is a full dose, the body gets really good at fighting the adenovirus vector -- even though it doesn't have to -- which makes the second vaccine less effective, because the body attacks the adenovirus before the vaccine has a chance to produce the spike protein. Fascinating stuff.