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.
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.
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.
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.
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.