Slashdot Mirror
Ebola Vaccine Gives 100 Percent Protection, Could Be Readily Available By 2018 (bbc.com)
According to a study published in the Lancet medical journal on Thursday, an experimental vaccine against the Ebola virus was found to be 100 percent effective. The results offer hope of better protection against the disease that ravaged West Africa in 2014, killing more than 11,000 people. From a report on BBC: A highly effective vaccine that guards against the deadly Ebola virus could be available by 2018, says the World Health Organization. Trials conducted in Guinea, one of the West African countries most affected by an outbreak of Ebola that ended this year, show it offers 100% protection. The vaccine is now being fast-tracked for regulatory approval. Manufacturer Merck has made 300,000 doses of the rVSV-ZEBOV vaccine available for use should Ebola strike.
GAVI, the global vaccine alliance, provided $5m for the stockpile.
Results, published in The Lancet medical journal, show of nearly 6,000 people receiving the vaccine, all were free of the virus 10 days later. In a group of the same size not vaccinated, 23 later developed Ebola. Only one person who was vaccinated had a serious side effect that the researchers think was caused by the jab.
...among anti-vaxxers :)
Pretty sure this is just a classic science journalism mistranslation. The actual scientific study says that the estimated efficacy from the experimental results, to a 95% confidence interval, is 100%. Because no one in the trial got the disease. That is not the same as the colloquial version of "100% effectiveness" that you are thinking of.
As I understand TFS, there's a lot of doses available now that could be used to cover an outbreak, but those are not covered by full regulatory approval, and manufacturing capability is also probably rather low right now.
Once full approval comes through, in about a year, the vaccine would be generally available, and I would expect it to become part of the recommended treatment for anyone going to a risky area, as is currently the case with the yellow fever vaccine.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
The criticism is over the hype. It's totally life saving but we need another year to test that it really is life saving. So which is it, well understood enough to actually be life saving or not well understood enough and requiring more testing?
Both. It can be clearly life saving with regards to the disease it is meant to treat while at the same time not being studied enough to be given the stamp of approval. In pharmacology we talk about a Perfect Drug which would only do what you want, when you want it, and without any side effects. Perfect drugs pretty much don't exist...hence side effects. That doesn't mean they don't do the thing they're meant to do (e.g. Save Life) but it means they also do other things (e.g. Cause your eyes to change color). Just because you know that it does Good Thing reliably doesn't say anything about whether it will also cause Bad Thing.
Analogy:
New car feature allows cars to stop in any conditions 100% of the time before rear ending car in front of them. Clearly this is life saving as no one ever gets into a rear end accident. Understood and clear. Unfortunately after a year of use it becomes clear that the mechanism for sudden stop damages the drive train in all cars beyond repair. Doesn't change that it saves lives. But probably not ready for mass market with that particular long term side effect.