5 hours ago, Moracikus said:

Dakle sve je poznato sto se tice glavnih igraca sa zapada

Efikasnost na orginalni virus:

Novavax 96%

Pfizer 95%

Moderna 94%

JnJ 73%

Oksford 62-70 da sacekamo jos koji dan na US trial.

Sto bi reko nas narod:

kolko para tolko i muzike.

Samo se nadam da ce sve biti min55% na SA mutaciju kao sto je slucaj sa NVAX i JnJ iako je NVAX 20+ bolja na orginalni Covid

gde si nasao podatke za novavax da je na 96%?

Ja sam za Novavax naišao da je 89%.

https://ir.novavax.com/news-releases/news-release-details/novavax-covid-19-vaccine-demonstrates-893-efficacy-uk-phase-3#:~:text=Based on PCR performed on,variant strain [post hoc].&text=Novavax expects to share further,as additional data become available.

Ima i u onom videu.

UK je imao zarazenih sa novim i sa starim covidom.

96% na stari

86% na novi

Ukupno u UK 89%

kinezi ce znati kad im mi kazemo.

Novavax vakcina zvuci nestvarno.

Modifikacijom moze da pokrije nekoliko mutacija a usput bude i vakcina protiv gripa

 

Sputnjik V ima efikasnost od 91,6%, podatke o III fazi objavio Lancet.

 

 

Je li ovo prvi puta da se o Sputnjiku objavljuje rad u Lancetu?

 

I kod njih malo starih osoba testirano, svega 11% starijih od 60 godina, ali su pametno uzeli kontrolnu grupu 3x manju od stvarno vakcinisane i lepo dobili efikasnost vakcine u toj starosnoj grupi od 91,8%.

Edited February 2, 20214 yr by vememah

10 minutes ago, Dankan Ajdaho said:

Je li ovo prvi puta da se o Sputnjiku objavljuje rad u Lancetu?

 

Ne.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31866-3/fulltext

 

EMA datumi:

Biontek-Fajzer: 6.10. kontinuirano praćenje / 1.12. zahtev / 22.12. preporuka za odobrenje
Moderna: 16.11. kontinuirano praćenje / 1.12. zahtev / 6.1. preporuka za odobrenje
Oksford-AstraZeneka: 1.10. kontinuirano praćenje / 12.1. zahtev / 29.1. preporuka za odobrenje
Sputnjik: ništa od navedenog

Dakle, od početka kontinuiranog praćenja (rolling review) do preporuke za ove tri vakcine trebalo je između 2,5 (Biontek-Fajzer) i bezmalo 4 meseca (Oksford-AstraZeneka).

Minimalne su šanse da Sputnjik V bude odobren pre aprila, a ako bude gličeva postupak će se možda prolongirati do maja ili čak juna.
 

Quote

On 20 January a tweet by the Sputnik V Twitter account said “Sputnik V and European Medical Agency teams held the Scientific Review of Sputnik V on Jan 19.”

It added that the Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF), which is funding development of the vaccine, had “filed for Sputnik V registration in the EU and expects it to be reviewed in February. Based on these reviews EMA will decide on the authorization of Sputnik V for the EU.”

The same day the RDIF circulated an email confirming that a “Scientific Review was held yesterday between Sputnik V and EMA scientific teams. Over 20 top international experts and scientists took part in the review.”

Recommendations "based on the results of the Scientific Review are expected to be sent to the Sputnik V team in 7-10 days," the RDIF said, adding that it had “filed a registration application and expects the first Rolling Review to be held in February.”

It would be highly unusual for a registration application to be filed at the point where the developer has asked for scientific advice, a process that is designed to establish the requirements for a future marketing authorization application (MAA). Moreover, the head of the RDIF, Kirill Dmitriev, said last week that a formal MAA would be filed with the EMA in February. (Also see "Coronavirus Notebook: EMA Data Hack Aimed At 'Undermining Trust' In Vaccines, Russia Plans EU Sputnik V Filing Next Month" - Pink Sheet, 18 Jan, 2021.)

Asked to clarify the situation, the EMA told the Pink Sheet said that “at this stage, the developer has submitted a request for scientific advice to the Agency. The scientific advice process is a well-established process at EMA, which is available to all companies to facilitate the preparation of their development program.”

Under the process, the EMA “will provide advice to companies taking into account the latest regulatory and scientific guidance,” a spokesperson for the agency said. “As a next step the application for a marketing authorization could then be prepared by the company.”

The spokesperson added that “a meeting with the developer took place yesterday to discuss their development plan and their further engagement with the Agency. However, we cannot disclose the details of such conversations or other pre-submission activities because this information is confidential.”

Any scientific advice provided on a product under development will be included on the EMA’s list of COVID-19 medicines and vaccines that have received such advice.

The EMA spokesperson stressed that at this point “Sputnik V is not undergoing a rolling review. EMA will communicate at the start of a rolling review procedure.” The RDIF did not immediately reply to a request for comment.

https://pink.pharmaintelligence.informa.com/PS143634/Sputnik-V-COVID-19-Vaccine-Team-Discusses-EU-Development-Plan-With-EMA

E, moja EU...da smo clanica, mislim se, djoku bi sad vakcinisali...ono moje predvidjanje za neke doze za zdravstvene radnike u Martu bi ispale wishful thinking..

Edited February 2, 20214 yr by Misko

jel ima negde na netu detaljan graficki prikaz po danima od vakcinacije do full imuniteta sta se desava u organizmu? ono, prvi, drugi, treci dan, kad pocinje da se stvara imunitet, i tako za svaku od ovih pet vakcina

1 hour ago, Tsai said:

, i tako za svaku od ovih pet vakcina

E sad ga pretera