Hacker News Reader

Comment by markvdb | Hacker News Reader

Why do they sabotaged their own messaging by using the 70% number? Reading further, it looks like the vaccine is 90% efficient.

Also, "There were no hospitalised or severe cases in anyone who received the vaccine".

Can we infer anything from that statement? They seem to be suggesting that the infection might be less serious in the vaccinated population...

View on HN

Note that only n=2,741 people received the 90% efficient dosing. That's 10+ times less than the mRNA vaccines so the confidence intervals on that number will be a lot wider

Thank you for that answer. Much appreciated.

To put it bluntly, who wants to give anti-vaxxers more ammo to make noise with?

"They're lying to you, they claimed it's 90% effective but actually it's 70%".

The 70% is the combined data, so probably the most reliable estimate. For two high doses, they got 62% effectiveness and for one low and one high dose they got 90%. They don't know why the latter was more effective.

70% is still a great effectiveness rate, specially for a cheaper and easier to distribute vaccine.

The problem with adenovirus vaccines is that body might build immunity against the adenovirus as well. So, you give one jab, adenovirus infects enough cells and creates enough antigens, immune systems notices and does something about it, but it also notices the adenovirus and makes antibodies against that, too.

With the second jab those antibodies immediately neutralize the adenovirus so it can't infect enough cells and make enough of the COVID antigens so the protection is not that strong.

The Russian vaccine avoids it by using two different strains of adenovirus for the two jabs

> The Russian vaccine avoids it by using two different strains of adenovirus for the two jabs

That would complicate manufacturing, logistics and distribution somewhat right?

Very interesting! Thanks for sharing

Classical British understatement.

I think they are being very careful because the press will pick every aspect of this to bits and put the worst possible light on any positive spin as in "the secret plot to fool you into taking the failed vaccine developed by Boris Johnson's old university". There will be active attempts to derail any intervention that mitigates the coronavirus crisis because it suits so many bad actors to do that and it suits a large part of the population who like a crisis.

It would be a pretty lousy vaccine if the side-effects of the vaccine were as bad and as common as getting the actual disease.

Why the downvotes? I'm answering the question that is being asked. The study is talking about the side-effects of receiving the vaccine.

> "Also, "There were no hospitalised or severe cases in anyone who received the vaccine".

Can we infer anything from that statement? They seem to be suggesting that the infection might be less serious in the vaccinated population... "

Reply on news.ycombinator.com