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.
[+]oooooo0 points0 points0 points
ago
(edited ago)
[–]oooooo0 points
0 points
0 points
(+0|-0)
ago
(edited ago)
I was (perhaps incorrectly?) offering the benefit of the doubt.
According to table 2, 16 cases were reported in the delayed clusters. While 12 of them were not vaccinated, 4 of them were. Did I miss where in the report an explanation for these?. So even if we take just the number who were vaccinated, that still seems like 99.95% effectiveness to me (please correct me if I'm wrong, I'll be the first to admit that my statistical intuition is often incorrect). We're splitting hairs at this point for sure, but this is the exact number the original commenter challenged.
view the rest of the comments →
[–] 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.
[–] DrRedbeard ago
Actually, 100%
"No new cases of Ebola virus disease were diagnosed in vaccinees from the immediate or delayed groups from 6 days post-vaccination"
In no case did anyone who had received the vaccine and had time to develop immunity get Ebola. Pretty straight forward.
[–] oooooo ago (edited ago)
I was (perhaps incorrectly?) offering the benefit of the doubt.
According to table 2, 16 cases were reported in the delayed clusters. While 12 of them were not vaccinated, 4 of them were. Did I miss where in the report an explanation for these?. So even if we take just the number who were vaccinated, that still seems like 99.95% effectiveness to me (please correct me if I'm wrong, I'll be the first to admit that my statistical intuition is often incorrect). We're splitting hairs at this point for sure, but this is the exact number the original commenter challenged.