stephenjmcd wrote: » Because its not being seen as great news for some reason as the headline is 70% efficacious, despite 90% being seen. Markets comparing v moderna and Pfizer announcements. Alot to do with how certain media elements are reporting it.
Deleted User wrote: » If they are using statistical confidence statements to establish these numbers, which they probably are, that suggests for 95% confidence that 3 of 94 initial infections were in the vaccine group and 3 of the 164 final total were in the vaccine group
glasso wrote: » it's all a bit of a mess though*up to 90% effective not the sort of asterix-ed claim you want when you're going for a coronavirus vaccine is it? the Moderna one is the most expensive one but also seems to have the best efficacy and reasonably easy (compared to the Pfizer one) in terms of storage - one month at fridge temperature I suppose that we should be grateful that there are options out there with such high efficacy but I'd rather be getting the one with highest efficacy also the Astrazenna one uses a Chimpanzee cold-virus as its delivery mechanism. the mRNA ones seem less likely to produce side-effects as they are not using a live virus to produce a response.
lbj666 wrote: » If the pricier mRNAs vacines meant somewhat normalilty even weeks sooner than Oxford (not suggesting it would though), cost wont come into it. Costs would pale in comparison to how much restrictions are damaging western economies.
Westernworld. wrote: » What is the risk from the mink and the virus mutating in general? Can the vaccines be rendered ineffective?
Stark wrote: » The "expensive" ones were like €40 per dose or thereabouts. Absolute pittance compared to what we're spending on keeping the economy in sleep mode, ICU costs, PPE in hospitals etc.
tobefrank321 wrote: » Its going to be fascinating to see how society opens up once covid vaccines become common place. For example, will cruise ships allow a large number of non vaccinated people on a cruise, with the risk of an outbreak in such a confined space? And if not, surely they will look for proof. Same with several other industries.
tobefrank321 wrote: » For example, will cruise ships allow a large number of non vaccinated people on a cruise, with the risk of an outbreak in such a confined space?
Westernworld. wrote: » Restrictions for anyone refusing the vaccine Fukk them at this stsge
hmmm wrote: » People will travel once they think it is safe. Cruises, airlines etc. will do whatever they think is right to attract the most people back (and there's a concern for staff safety also). Outbreaks of viruses on board ships or planes would put people off travelling. I notice that the Quantas CEO today said that proof of vaccination will be a "non-negotiable" condition for international travel on their planes:https://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/health-safety/qantas-ceo-alan-joyce-says-proof-of-covid19-vaccination-will-be-a-condition-of-international-air-travel/news-story/410d37274bcdbd7adf60db6ca4112a8d
mightyreds wrote: » I see Ticketmaster already looking into no entry without vaccine cert or negative test. I would presume travel will be much stricter and some countries will expect a vaccine cert before boarding the flight.
Duke of Url wrote: » If you receive the vaccine and you come into close contact with someone who has tested positive, Are you expected to still get tested?
hmmm wrote: » AstraZeneca - 200 million doses by end of 2020, 700 million by end of Q1 2021.
ixoy wrote: » And will you be expected to isolate? After all, certainly in the initial roll out, you'll still potentially be transmitting since reductions in transmission aren't yet known and it'll be a while before everyone is vaccinated.
Westernworld. wrote: » Chinese must be manufacturing it, ouch
eigrod wrote: » Taoiseach talking down at Dublin Port right now. Vaccine distribution strategy expected by Dec 11.https://twitter.com/smurphytv/status/1330847577642766336?s=21