For all of them 2nd dose is identical?
Yes but the second one goes straight to your brain.
Iâm not sure about âall of themâ as there are numerous ones in development worldwide.
But that is true for Pfizer, Moderna and AZ.
Literally nobody is applauding them. Iâm just pointing out that it is pointless to try to expend resources to stop them.
No research on that so who knows.
This is akin to arguing that no study with both a control group and experimental group is ever valid because conditions in the real world could change for both groups. This is a bad argument, IMO.
True. I got a pretty nasty cold. Headache for a couple days, congestion that has been around for about a week now., phlegm etc. I actually know 4 other people who have gotten this in CA and we all tested negative for the Rona.
Makes me wonder whats going on there. Is it more of a smear transmission one than covid? I havenât been as super anal about sanitizing/washing my hands after touching legit anything the last couple weeks so I kind of assume thats how I got this.
First off, no itâs not.
Second, the external validity of a RCT is a serious question of literal any study.
edit:
I bring this up a lot in the OFS studies, particularly the Wisconsin elementary school study. My point is not that itâs a bad study, just that itâs results arenât applicable to a nationwide rollout of school openings. I make that claim because I believe the Hawthorne effect (where knowing that youâre being observed changes your behavior) and other compliance measures arenât applicable to the rest of the nation. Iâm not claiming that the paper is bad.
Asking if study conditions are reflective of actual conditions under which a treatment is going to be used is a perfectly reasonable question.
If there is a difference, then it doesnât mean the study is invalid. It just means that you need to exercise caution when drawing conclusions from the study.
I donât think so. Churchill made a big deal of this awhile ago and I found no consistent usage even among major academic journals to support this.
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/vaccines-work/effectivenessqa.htm
How do vaccine effectiveness studies differ from vaccine efficacy studies?
Vaccine efficacy refers to vaccine protection measured in RCTs usually under optimal conditions where vaccine storage and delivery are monitored and participants are usually healthy. Vaccine effectiveness refers to vaccine protection measured in observational studies that include people with underlying medical conditions who have been administered vaccines by different health care providers under real-world conditions.
Difference allayed to by others in the thread = P1 vairant not heard of / circulating when current vaccine tested for efficacy - J&J a bit later in the timescale may have less tested efficacy but more real world effectiveness
Thatâs a much broader claim than I made, but even as stated, itâs a central problem in epistemology!
ITVâs Libby Wiener asks Matt Hancock how hard he fought for a more generous pay offer for NHS workers.
And she asks Dr Susan Hopkins if the AstraZeneca vaccine works against the Brazil variant.
Hancock says the government has to take issues of âaffordabilityâ into account but adds that he is glad the NHS was âcarved out of the pay freezeâ.
On the second question, Dr Hopkins says âwe do not yet have lab or clinical data for the Brazilian variantâ adding that this may take weeks to come through.
However she says the vaccine may cause âsome reduction in the risk of transmissionâ.
Link to aboveâŚ
ergo, the P1 Brazillian variant is likely to lower the effectiveness a little further from effiicacy (lab) numbers as initial stuides show anitbodies donât fight so well as they did against covid 1.0 when vaccines where modelled (IMO)
I mean⌠this was the whole issue before. Thatâs not what the thing you just linked said. RCT subjects arenât kept in a lab ffs.
Nah but most worldwide participants of the stage 1, 2 & 3 trials were in a lockdown of sorts
Did you miss this lecture?
I canât read the whole article, but itâs super tilting because tamiflu doesnât really work.
1 Like
Meh, wouldnât get too excited. They likely didnât ask a relevant clinical question for a reason.
What I mean by that is that no one really gives a shit what their viral loads are. They care about things like did I die, did I have to go to the hospital, did I feel better faster, etc. In fact, I highly doubt they didnât look at this things which makes me super suspicious. Canât find the paper yet.
Looks like it might not exist? Hereâs the PR release:
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20210305005610/en/
Tellingly, this was a secondary objective. Wouldnât get too excited.