You can't rush Stage III of vaccine trials.
95% with a p of < .0001 is unheard of in Vaccines. This is an amazing feat for science.
95% with a p of < .0001 is unheard of in Vaccines. This is an amazing feat for science.
In this context it means that the probability of getting the result they got, in the assumption that vaccine does not work, is less than 1 in 10000.
That can't possibly be true.
Not to diminish the accomplishment though.
Most are 85-90% but the jump from high 80s --> 95% is massive,
I would think extremely low p values are not just normative, but required for a vaccine to reach public acceptance. This vaccine is noteworthy for the speed at which it was developed, but its not the first really good vaccine.
edit: and because I'm getting a lot of downvotes for some reason, Anthrax, Measles, Rubella, and Polio also seem to have 90%+ effectiveness ratings.
edit edit: and as a corollary, with equivalent n sizes for the trials and higher effect sizes, the p value is by necessity smaller, not that it matters below very small thresholds
edit^3: high 80s to 95 isn't that noteworthy, and is likely within the margin of error of the clinical trials.
This leads to frightening considerations. The reason FDA testing is so stringent is that trying to explain statistics along with a myriad of other fields, that are at this point likely too complex and exhaustive for any one human to fully comprehend even if they spent their entire lifetime learning, to the "public" for them to truly make an informed decision is a futile effort.
A vaccine is no doubt a great thing and much needed. Two things bother me very greatly about it:
1) A lot of testing was skipped. This will be injected into tens, possibly hundreds, of millions of people long before we even know the long term side effects. If by some very low chance this introduces an inheritable change, and if by an even lower chance that inheritable change leads to genetic collapse in 10-20 generations - just to be very clear, this is extremely unlikely - we have opened the window to humanity's end.
2) A far more realistic ethical concern is what happens to states (god forbid if the fed does it) who legally require this (unconstitutionally, of course, since most modern laws already are and nobody seems to have an issue with this) like New York who've already had a number of terrifying assembly bills for something similar, if this backfires and causes permanent harm to people?
The human body is incredibly complex. A doctor's oath includes "above all, do no harm", and most of the people that will be vaccinated have a 90%+ survival chance. Granted, the above is a very myopic view that completely ignores large scale economics - so please bare with me and use your medicine/ethics hat for it. Is this the right thing to do in the long run?
As a country, the US has proven track record of making stupid decisions in tough times (911 -> PATRIOT, etc).
That's such a vague, unqualified (in the "lacking specificity" sense) concern, that you could apply that to practically any new technology or medical treatment.
10-20 generations is 250-500 years, if somehow this particular vaccine did cause inheritable damage, I'm sure that medical technology would be advanced enough at that point to find a solution.
And on that timescale there's also much more tangible and evidential existential crises, like climate change and nuclear war.
Indeed, extremely unlikely. Have you considered that writing this comment could also trigger the "end of humanity" by some as-of-yet unknown and unforeseen butterfly effect? Extremely unlikely, but still. Better consider it.
As for the rest of this nonsense, no, there is no chance that this induces a genetic collapse. mRNA vaccines do not alter your DNA.
The IPV polio vaccine is actually over 99% effective after three doses (the standard schedule in the US is four doses).