Sputnik V vaccine peer reviewed with efficacy of 91.6%

Re:Sputnik V vaccine peer reviewed with efficacy of 91.6% by abraxas on Tuesday February 02, 2021 @10:37PM (#26010346)

No question that Russia has some of the best minds in the world, still. But a big headline product like this would be incredibly tempting for the regime to exaggerate the efficacy of for propaganda reasons. That’s not to say the vaccine is not brilliant. It’s just that I’d say we still have insufficient evidence to assert that it is.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Sputnik V vaccine peer reviewed with efficacy of 91.6% by franklyt on Tuesday February 02, 2021 @10:48PM (#26010401)

The good money is on it being an exemplary vaccine.

The Sputnik name and the glowing data we’ve heard about it.

Besides, it’s not like you can trust big pharma only if has a Western brand slapped on it. Some of the worst drugs, possibly all of them (that I’m aware of), came from us.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Sputnik V vaccine peer reviewed with efficacy of 91.6% by Judgmentality on Tuesday February 02, 2021 @11:06PM (#26010487)

> The good money is on it being an exemplary vaccine.

What do you mean by "the good money?" When I think of supposedly savvy investors backing biotech, I think Theranos.

> The Sputnik name and the glowing data we’ve heard about it.

Your justification is the name itself, and the data that OP is questioning. I don't know if it's a good vaccine or not, but I don't find this convincing. And after the Russian government went to such ridiculous lengths to cheat during the Olympics, I think it's fair to question their data.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Sputnik V vaccine peer reviewed with efficacy of 91.6% by franklyt on Wednesday February 03, 2021 @02:48AM (#26011518)

Alrighty. You’re entitled to a contrary opinion. Not much to add beyond that.

All we can do is see how this shakes out.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Sputnik V vaccine peer reviewed with efficacy of 91.6% by Judgmentality on Wednesday February 03, 2021 @02:38PM (#26018138)

I was genuinely asking. What is "the good money" because I truly have no idea what you mean.

I also don't understand why the name is relevant. At least in the US, things with patriotic names - aka the Patriot Act - are almost always obvious propaganda attempts.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Sputnik V vaccine peer reviewed with efficacy of 91.6% by franklyt on Thursday February 04, 2021 @03:15AM (#26023647)

Can’t say I’m too much into internet arguments.

It was a turn of phrase. The good money is a good bet, i.e. I think a tenable and wise position would be to believe what I do, but understand if you do not and recognize my own propensity to be wrong.

As for the name, I felt immediately that it was significant because I knew Russia wouldn’t stake so much national pride on it if it was a dud. Indeed, the evidence coming in seems to suggest that it isn’t, so I feel doubly confident in that assessment.

That’s all.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Sputnik V vaccine peer reviewed with efficacy of 91.6% by Judgmentality on Thursday February 04, 2021 @04:37PM (#26030095)

Fair. I was antagonistic. Thank you for the reply.

[ Parent | on HN ]