[News] Moderna's coronavirus vaccine is 94.5% effective

[Benched]

(CNN)The Moderna vaccine is 94.5% effective against coronavirus, according to early data released Monday by the company, making it the second vaccine in the United States to have a stunningly high success rate.

Moderna heard its results on a call Sunday afternoon with members of the Data Safety and Monitoring Board, an independent panel analyzing Moderna's clinical trial data.

Vaccinations could begin in the second half of December, Fauci said. Vaccinations are expected to begin with high-risk groups and to be available for the rest of the population next spring.


https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/16/healt...rus/index.html

[greyshep]

Very good news, especially since I dont believe the Moderna one requires the special temperature handling that the Pfizer one does.

[GGG]

With Pfizer’s 1.3 billion 2021 doses and Moderna’s 500 million that’s 900 million people getting vaccinated in 2021 with a 90% effective vaccine.

[djsFlames]

Enough talk of percentages.

Get it into mass production. The world needs that supply more now than ever. Hopefully these companies can cumulatively put out hundreds of millions of doses by year's end to those most at risk.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

I don't think you can get it into production yet. Isn't it the case that you get to this stage (effectiveness) first, before ensuring that the safety profile is acceptable? Someone correct me if I'm mistaken.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I don't think you can get it into production yet. Isn't it the case that you get to this stage (effectiveness) first, before ensuring that the safety profile is acceptable? Someone correct me if I'm mistaken.

I think they are already ramping up production based on pre-orders. Normally you wouldn’t as the cost of building mass production would have been punitive but the governments underwrote these costs to save time.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I don't think you can get it into production yet. Isn't it the case that you get to this stage (effectiveness) first, before ensuring that the safety profile is acceptable? Someone correct me if I'm mistaken.

My understanding was it was the opposite.

Phase I was where most of the safety issues were dealt with. Phase III is for ensuring effectiveness on a mass scale.

[opendoor]

It's not just a matter of producing vaccines at the drop of a hat. For the Moderna vaccine, the Swiss facility (which will supply non-US countries) still isn't even completed yet. They've spent the last 6-7 months putting the production lines together and getting the machinery they need (normally a 2-year process). They're aiming for it to be ready to go by December, and only then can they begin producing doses.

The US facility is completed and is already producing limited doses (and ramping up as time goes on), but those are destined to stay in the US.

[calgaryred]

Originally Posted by GGG

With Pfizer’s 1.3 billion 2021 doses and Moderna’s 500 million that’s 900 million people getting vaccinated in 2021 with a 90% effective vaccine.

The oxford vaccine should have numbers by December and and Johnson and Johnson both should have results to share in a couple months if positive that number grows.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by blankall

My understanding was it was the opposite.

Phase I was where most of the safety issues were dealt with. Phase III is for ensuring effectiveness on a mass scale.

I'm no expert, but this doesn't seem to make sense, does it? Don't they have to monkey with it and tweak things to get it to maximum effectiveness? If so, wouldn't you have to re-do the safety tests on the tweaked version to ensure your changes didn't result in adverse health risks?

I dunno, maybe someone who knows about this process can weigh in.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I'm no expert, but this doesn't seem to make sense, does it? Don't they have to monkey with it and tweak things to get it to maximum effectiveness? If so, wouldn't you have to re-do the safety tests on the tweaked version to ensure your changes didn't result in adverse health risks?

I dunno, maybe someone who knows about this process can weigh in.

That's what animal tests are for. They test both efficacy and safety in animals to come up with something that seems to work well and is safe, then they move onto human trials. Phase I/II trials are usually to figure out the safety and the most effective dosage. Once that's determined, Phase III trials determine efficacy in real-world conditions. We knew months ago that these vaccines produced antibodies; what we didn't know was whether the antibodies they produced would actually prevent infections (or at least prevent illness) on a wide scale. Now we have preliminary evidence that the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are extremely effective at doing that. And that likely means others will be too.

[Sidney Crosby's Hat]

Originally Posted by opendoor

That's what animal tests are for. They test both efficacy and safety in animals to come up with something that seems to work well and is safe, then they move onto human trials. Phase I/II trials are usually to figure out the safety and the most effective dosage. Once that's determined, Phase III trials determine efficacy in real-world conditions. We knew months ago that these vaccines produced antibodies; what we didn't know was whether the antibodies they produced would actually prevent infections (or at least prevent illness) on a wide scale. Now we have preliminary evidence that the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are extremely effective at doing that. And that likely means others will be too.

This is a great explanation of it ^^

For some additional info, I recommend this article on the Oxford/Astrazeneca process (it's a long read but worth it): https://www.politico.com/news/magazi...ne-saga-412208

[bc-chris]

sorry guys - i'm so not into twitter stuff but saw this on a local news webpage (so i don't how to get it to show the twitter post)....


from the news webpage and then the twitter link is below

Dolly Parton fans were quick to fact check and point out that Dolly Parton is mentioned in a list of organizations that funded research for a COVID-19 vaccine. The star reportedly donated $1 million to scientists for the development of a vaccine, which is reporting a 94.5% effectiveness rate.

https://twitter.com/MeadeKrosby/stat...45952685121537


^^i LOVE the reply from jonathan katz

Vaccine, vaccine, vaccine, vacciiiiiiiiiiiiiine

[sureLoss]

Interesting how Pfizer now says its vaccine is now 95% as well after the Moderna news.

[MoneyGuy]

^I noticed that. It appears that they’re lying just to keep up with the competition. That’s so wrong when you’re dealing with a potential life-saving vaccine.

I wish that countries and drug companies would have worked together in a coordinated effort to quickly develop an effective vaccine rather than everyone doing their own thing.

[TheIronMaiden]

Does this one require multiple boosters like the reported pfizer vaccine?

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

^I noticed that. It appears that they’re lying just to keep up with the competition. That’s so wrong when you’re dealing with a potential life-saving vaccine.

I wish that countries and drug companies would have worked together in a coordinated effort to quickly develop an effective vaccine rather than everyone doing their own thing.

I haven't ready of of the articles, but is this true? I would have guessed that they got more data back, and it just moved the percentage, since the original number was based on a fairly limited number of results. I'd suspect it would be pretty dumb to falsify your data in this highly scrutinized trial. So is this just conjecture on your part?

[MoneyGuy]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I haven't ready of of the articles, but is this true? I would have guessed that they got more data back, and it just moved the percentage, since the original number was based on a fairly limited number of results. I'd suspect it would be pretty dumb to falsify your data in this highly scrutinized trial. So is this just conjecture on your part?

Yes, conjecture on my part, but why else come out with one percentage number and then revise it to the same percentage another company is claiming?

[nik-]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

Yes, conjecture on my part, but why else come out with one percentage number and then revise it to the same percentage another company is claiming?

More data? This is a continually expanding testing process.

Just going straight to assuming it's lying is silly.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

Yes, conjecture on my part, but why else come out with one percentage number and then revise it to the same percentage another company is claiming?

Because if you had 60 results back and had 6 from the vaccine group your initial release is 90% effective. If now they have gotten 120 back but still only 6 from the vaccine group they would now be at 95. As more people test positive for Covid in the study the effectiveness of the vaccine can be more accurately be determined.

Edit: From the New York Times they are up to 170 positives

Pfizer and BioNTech’s trial included nearly 44,000 volunteers, half of whom received the vaccine. The other half received a placebo shot of salt water. Then the researchers waited to see how many in each group developed Covid-19.
The companies said that out of 170 cases of Covid-19, 162 were in the placebo group, and eight were in the vaccine group. Out of 10 cases of severe Covid-19, nine had received a placebo.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/18/h...d-vaccine.html

Earlier they were basing it off less than 100 results.