The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
still a relatively small clinical trial hundreds of people and you're still using surrogate markers we don't actually know if this vaccine is providing immunity in the real world it's efficacy we don't know if it's effective and we don't really have any way of knowing what very minor or i shouldn't say minor infrequent negative consequences could look like because we're still dealing with a very small sample size
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
we are not actually able to assess whether or not the people have legitimate immunity we're using a proxy presumably which is some form of serology in other words we're not actually testing their ability to resist an infection we're measuring an antibody is that correct
so phase two is typically hundreds of people now you've got your vaccine you've got your dose and you just wanna make sure that it's consistently induces an immune response that you think is protective and that it's at least safe and that it doesn't cause a relatively common serious side effect that's phase two