The latest vaccine to be approved, AstraZeneca, is estimated to be 62% efficient with the original variant after two shots. I'm wondering why this is approved when other vaccines have been said to be 90% efficient. It's not surprising that some people are refusing the vaccine.
"Health Canada has approved use of the COVID-19 vaccine from AstraZeneca, clearing the way for millions of more inoculations in Canada.
Canada's regulatory experts had been assessing the submission from AstraZeneca and Oxford University for safety and efficacy since October, and announced their approval Friday morning.
"AstraZeneca COVID-19 Vaccine is indicated for active immunization of individuals 18 years of age and older for the prevention of coronavirus disease 2019," reads their website.
"The efficacy of the vaccine was estimated to be 62.1 per cent. Overall, there are no important safety concerns and the vaccine was well tolerated by participants."
Canada has secured access to 20 million doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine.
Some jurisdictions, notably France, have restricted the vaccine to people under the age of 65 despite the World Health Organization's insistence that the product is safe and effective for all age groups. Health Canada said it has no immediate safety concerns for those 65 and older."
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/astrazeneca-approved-1.5929050
Everyone in Summerside, P.E.I., aged 14 to 29 urged to get tested for COVID-19
Everyone from age 14 to 29 in the city of Summerside, P.E.I., is being urged to get tested immediately for COVID-19, whether or not they have any symptoms.
The news came as Islanders got an update on a worrisome new cluster of three COVID-19 cases in the Summerside area from P.E.I. Chief Public Health Officer Dr. Heather Morrison.
"We certainly have concerns about possible community spread in P.E.I., this is why we are focused on increased testing," Morrison said Friday, during a rare second briefing for the day.
"I am worried."
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/prin...6gEg8ZZxSi_lmbQZA1DEpkmcGNbwnQ27hSGrX7eV5O0_M
Interesting article, thank you.The latest vaccine to be approved, AstraZeneca, is estimated to be 62% efficient with the original variant after two shots. I'm wondering why this is approved when other vaccines have been said to be 90% efficient. It's not surprising that some people are refusing the vaccine.
"Health Canada has approved use of the COVID-19 vaccine from AstraZeneca, clearing the way for millions of more inoculations in Canada.
Canada's regulatory experts had been assessing the submission from AstraZeneca and Oxford University for safety and efficacy since October, and announced their approval Friday morning.
"AstraZeneca COVID-19 Vaccine is indicated for active immunization of individuals 18 years of age and older for the prevention of coronavirus disease 2019," reads their website.
"The efficacy of the vaccine was estimated to be 62.1 per cent. Overall, there are no important safety concerns and the vaccine was well tolerated by participants."
Canada has secured access to 20 million doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine.
Some jurisdictions, notably France, have restricted the vaccine to people under the age of 65 despite the World Health Organization's insistence that the product is safe and effective for all age groups. Health Canada said it has no immediate safety concerns for those 65 and older."
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/astrazeneca-approved-1.5929050
On the other hand though, if the governments didn't have to worry so much about the hospitals and medical staff being overwhelmed, significant numbers of deaths, etc., the economy could at least get moving again and possibly so many more businesses may be able to survive, and hence so many more peoples' livelihoods. It would mean people might still become sick, but perhaps not to a worrisome degree.The argument that a weak vaccine is better than no vaccine, when a strong vaccine is available albeit in short supply, doesn't work for me. Rather than do a half-baked job for a good percentage of the population, why not get it right even if it takes longer?
It's almost as though there's a panic to get everyone vaccinated, so the decision is to be sloppy with vaccine options. Panic should be eliminated from the equation, and a slower, more methodical and quality solution should be implemented.
On the other hand though, if the governments didn't have to worry so much about the hospitals and medical staff being overwhelmed, significant numbers of deaths, etc., the economy could at least get moving again and possibly so many more businesses may be able to survive, and hence so many more peoples' livelihoods. It would mean people might still become sick, but perhaps not to a worrisome degree.
Also, wasn't it said awhile back that they didn't actually know yet, how long the vaccines would even be good for? ie will we end up having to get one every 3 or 6 months? In any case, one could still get the more effective vaccines perhaps a few months further down the road, when they're more readily available? For myself, I think I'd rather have a less effective vaccine, than none.. and then get the more effective one a bit later. It does sound like a bit of a sham, but if it prevents mass deaths, at least it's something?
The argument that a weak vaccine is better than no vaccine, when a strong vaccine is available albeit in short supply, doesn't work for me. Rather than do a half-baked job for a good percentage of the population, why not get it right even if it takes longer?
It's almost as though there's a panic to get everyone vaccinated, so the decision is to be sloppy with vaccine options. Panic should be eliminated from the equation, and a slower, more methodical and quality solution should be implemented.
Yes, I guess so.. but the only reason they created the vaccine was *because* it was causing severe sickness, overwhelming hospitals, and causing massive death, etc. If this illness was mild in the first place, perhaps they wouldn't have even bothered to create a vaccine at all? ie I remember when we went through the Sars thing and the H1N1 thing, they were doing testing, and then eventually they said, 'don't even bother getting a test because there's nothing we can do for it anyway' (because they seemed to be milder than this Covid thing).That's true, but if a less effective vaccine is used, such that people are still getting sick and potentially suffering the long term side effects of the virus, is it really a good long term solution? As long as the virus is circulating, new variants will emerge.
If the goal of the vaccine is to merely reduce symptoms rather than prevent illness, it seems like a temporary patch rather than a solution.