智利科兴疫苗的结果出来了

第一针28天内的有效性为3%,基本上可以说是无效,属于误差范围内;第二针打完后2周内有效性28%;第二针二周以后的有效性上升到了56.5%;综合有效率为54%。
 
It estimated Coronavac's efficacy in real-life conditions at 54 percent -- in line with trial results in Brazil.

The study estimated that for people between 75 and 79 -- targeted in the initial vaccination campaign -- there would have been 80 percent more infections without the vaccine.

这两段是矛盾的。
 
第一针28天内的有效性为3%,基本上可以说是无效,属于误差范围内;第二针打完后2周内有效性28%;第二针二周以后的有效性上升到了56.5%;综合有效率为54%。
这个结果基本解释了为什么智利的疫情没有缓解,必须等第二针以后14天才有54%的保护率
 
这个情况我估计,如果打3针,有效率会超过80%。
 
The study estimated that for people between 75 and 79 -- targeted in the initial vaccination campaign -- there would have been 80 percent more infections without the vaccine.


For those aged 70 to 74, the percentage dropped to 60 percent.

这个不make sense,年纪越大保护力越强?是不是样本太少?
 
The study estimated that for people between 75 and 79 -- targeted in the initial vaccination campaign -- there would have been 80 percent more infections without the vaccine.


For those aged 70 to 74, the percentage dropped to 60 percent.

这个不make sense,年纪越大保护力越强?是不是样本太少?



应该是因为年轻的更可能在注射后参加社会活动。
 
应该每两个星期接种一次,一个月内接种3次,效果会大幅提高。
 
应该是因为年轻的更可能在注射后参加社会活动。
解释比较牵强,实验数据对比的是同年龄打疫苗和不打疫苗的人的感染率。
 
最后编辑:
The study estimated that for people between 75 and 79 -- targeted in the initial vaccination campaign -- there would have been 80 percent more infections without the vaccine.


For those aged 70 to 74, the percentage dropped to 60 percent.

这个不make sense,年纪越大保护力越强?是不是样本太少?
现在就只有结果出来,没有数据佐证。make不make sense就只能这样了
 
说不定这个疫苗对老年人的保护率高呢
 
现在就只有结果出来,没有数据佐证。make不make sense就只能这样了
等等看智利有没有biotech效果公布,两个数据在一个地方同一个时间真刀实枪比较。当然有可能有一定差别,比喻有钱人或者权贵打biotech疫苗
 
后退
顶部