End in Sight London Review of Books. The case for optimism, well presented. This paragraph, however, caught my eye:
Are the highly effective Pfizer and Moderna vaccines ‘better’ than the AstraZeneca vaccine? We can’t draw that conclusion yet. The results reported so far aren’t directly comparable: the different trials used subtly different case definitions, and took place in different countries at different times. We will get more information when the full data are published.
Surely it’s possible for scientific journals to expedite publication of the full data? If I were a physician making decisions for my patients — to the extent that such a thing is possible these days — I would surely want to see it.
COVID-19 and mRNA Vaccines—First Large Test for a New Approach JAMA. “All eyes are now on safety and effectiveness…. Experts say several factors argue for mRNA vaccines’ safety. For one, mRNA can’t cause an infection. It also doesn’t enter the cell’s nucleus, so the chance of its integration into human DNA is believed to be very low. In addition, the body breaks down mRNA and its lipid carrier within a matter of hours, assuaging some concerns about long-term risks. However, this rapid degradation raises questions about mRNA vaccines’ protective duration.”
It would be helpful if we had data on infectiousness post-vaccination. Thread:
Will vaccination of health care workers (HCWs) lead to accidental silent spreading of COVID-19?
Big possible downside to vaccine allocation recommendations w/out data on whether vaccines reduce infectiousness. Thread