You can login if you already have an account or register by clicking the button below.
Registering is free and all you need is a username and password. We never ask you for your e-mail.
[–]oooooo0 points
14 points
14 points
(+14|-0)
ago
Attack the tad-sensationalized headline if you will, but did either of you even bother reading the article or the linked results pdf?
Among the 2,014 people vaccinated immediately, there were no cases of Ebola from 10 days after vaccination – allowing time for immunity to develop – according to the results published online in the Lancet medical journal (pdf). In the clusters with delayed vaccination, there were 16 cases out of 2,380.
And from their published paper:
Between April 1, 2015, and July 20, 2015,
90 clusters, with a total population of 7651 people were included
in the planned interim analysis. 48 of these clusters (4123 people) were randomly assigned to immediate vaccination
with rVSV-ZEBOV, and 42 clusters (3528 people) were randomly assigned to delayed vaccination with rVSV-ZEBOV.
In the immediate vaccination group, there were no cases of Ebola virus disease with symptom onset at least 10 days
after randomisation, whereas in the delayed vaccination group there were 16 cases of Ebola virus disease from
seven clusters, showing a vaccine efficacy of 100% (95% CI 74·7–100·0; p=0·0036). No new cases of Ebola virus
disease were diagnosed in vaccinees from the immediate or delayed groups from 6 days post-vaccination. At the
cluster level, with the inclusion of all eligible adults, vaccine effectiveness was 75·1% (95% CI –7·1 to 94·2;
p=0·1791), and 76·3% (95% CI –15·5 to 95·1; p=0·3351) with the inclusion of everyone (eligible or not eligible for
vaccination). 43 serious adverse events were reported; one serious adverse event was judged to be causally related to
vaccination (a febrile episode in a vaccinated participant, which resolved without sequelae). Assessment of serious
adverse events is ongoing.
So yes, It wasn't 100%, but it was damn effective, and no, it wasn't one guy.
the Norwegian government helped pay for development, and I think it's a Norwegian project. So I'm guessing it will be sold at production price/non-profit, or just given for free to the people who need it, and then our oil money will pay the costs.
[–]TalkingAnimal0 points
2 points
2 points
(+2|-0)
ago
(edited ago)
Part of the worry was how concentrated the infections were. Some towns were pretty much wiped out. Think about if a few American towns were completely destroyed by a disease. Plus, this isn't like the flu where most people who get it are fine. People who got it had a high mortality rate.
In Liberia, about 1 in 800 people of the total population died from Ebola. That would be on part with 400000 Americans dying if you compare the populations.
Imagine a mortality rate of 40% in a disease in your own country. That's not a trivial mortality rate.
According to wikipedia, this was the most widespread epidemic of the Ebola virus ever. And a significant percentage of those cases were from this outbreak. It's not like half of them happened a hundred years ago so the "all of history" claim is implicitly disingenuous. This outbreak was severe enough as to cause significant economic impact to the region.
Additionally, you can see from the graph here based on the wikipedia page numbers at the time that there was an early point where the rate of infection was growing exponentially: http://www.geert.io/exponential-growth-of-ebola.html. It's exactly because people sounded alarm bells and started working hard to contain the outbreak that the disease didn't spread further.
I'm not saying it's not tragic. I'm saying that, in 2014, we were having a picture painted about ebola that made it sound like the whole world was at risk. even the countries that were most effected only lost a few thousand people. that's not an epidemic. shit, that's not even influenza.
Sort: Top
[–] SweetEasy 0 points 6 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago (edited ago)
Not even my damn condoms are that effective.
[–] obi-1 [S] 1 point 1 point 2 points (+2|-1) ago
If you use two at the same time it's twice as effective :)
[–] SweetEasy 1 point 2 points 3 points (+3|-1) ago
But I don't have two dicks.
[–] [deleted] 1 point 2 points 3 points (+3|-1) ago
[–] pm_me_firearms 2 points -2 points 0 points (+0|-2) ago
Yeah, it's bullshit. What, did they try one guy, and he didn't get ebola?
[–] oooooo 0 points 14 points 14 points (+14|-0) ago
Attack the tad-sensationalized headline if you will, but did either of you even bother reading the article or the linked results pdf?
And from their published paper:
So yes, It wasn't 100%, but it was damn effective, and no, it wasn't one guy.
[–] [deleted] 5 points 0 points 5 points (+5|-5) ago
[–] MrNPC ago
wow. That's...... That's concerning.
[–] Elemental_Lightning ago
And now all that were given the vaccine are sterilized
[–] Codex ago
And how much will that go for?
[–] Diavolo1988 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
the Norwegian government helped pay for development, and I think it's a Norwegian project. So I'm guessing it will be sold at production price/non-profit, or just given for free to the people who need it, and then our oil money will pay the costs.
[–] CommonSense 1 point 0 points 1 point (+1|-1) ago
So, wait...only 30k in all of history up to July 26? and only 12k deaths? That's nothing. It's definitely not "devastating."
I'm glad they claim they can beat it, but come on. We were lead to believe there was some major outbreak heading our (first world) way.
[–] TalkingAnimal 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago (edited ago)
Part of the worry was how concentrated the infections were. Some towns were pretty much wiped out. Think about if a few American towns were completely destroyed by a disease. Plus, this isn't like the flu where most people who get it are fine. People who got it had a high mortality rate.
In Liberia, about 1 in 800 people of the total population died from Ebola. That would be on part with 400000 Americans dying if you compare the populations.
[–] CommonSense 1 point -1 points 0 points (+0|-1) ago (edited ago)
Well, the mortality rate wasn't that high. It was under 40%. And, that is in areas of extreme malnutrition.
[–] oooooo 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Imagine a mortality rate of 40% in a disease in your own country. That's not a trivial mortality rate.
According to wikipedia, this was the most widespread epidemic of the Ebola virus ever. And a significant percentage of those cases were from this outbreak. It's not like half of them happened a hundred years ago so the "all of history" claim is implicitly disingenuous. This outbreak was severe enough as to cause significant economic impact to the region.
Additionally, you can see from the graph here based on the wikipedia page numbers at the time that there was an early point where the rate of infection was growing exponentially: http://www.geert.io/exponential-growth-of-ebola.html. It's exactly because people sounded alarm bells and started working hard to contain the outbreak that the disease didn't spread further.
[–] CommonSense ago
I'm not saying it's not tragic. I'm saying that, in 2014, we were having a picture painted about ebola that made it sound like the whole world was at risk. even the countries that were most effected only lost a few thousand people. that's not an epidemic. shit, that's not even influenza.
[–] Diavolo1988 1 point -1 points 0 points (+0|-1) ago
that was just fear mongering. the media loves fear mongering, since you know, it sells.
[–] escapefromredditbay 1 point 0 points 1 point (+1|-1) ago
cool.
[–] IGuessThisIsIt 1 point -1 points 0 points (+0|-1) ago
Sweet.
[–] jeegte12 1 point 0 points 1 point (+1|-1) ago
Nice.
[–] give-it-a-try 1 point -1 points 0 points (+0|-1) ago
But natural immunity is the best immunity. You can't beat nature. (sarcasm)