This does not say that the vaccine is actually <i>effective</i> in preventing infection. That is not the point of phase 1 trials, and there was no statement to that effect.<p>What they have demonstrated is preliminary <i>safety</i> of a possible vaccine through no severe adverse effects, and also that it did produce some type of immune system response.<p>Phase 2 trials will begin to determine the actual effectiveness of the vaccine.
Compared to the other vaccines in study, this one has a significant limitation: a lot of the population has antibodies against the Ad5 vector used to deliver the antigen, which significantly lowers the efficacy. High doses to contrast this effect were met with adverse events, so this means that Phase 2 and 3 protocols will need to be adjusted.
> Our findings suggest that the Ad5 vectored COVID-19 vaccine warrants further investigation.<p>It's good that they aren't expressing this like a "Eureka, we did it". At least we have one candidate. Let's see what else comes our way.
Is The Lancet considered a good/unbiased journal? As someone who is not a medical researcher, my awareness of it comes mainly from their various controversies (link between vaccines and autism, Iraq war deaths, letter for Gaza, etc).
Zero chance the American public are going to tolerate wide distribution of a vaccine from a Chinese company. And with the side effects, I can't imagine how it will be presented. Plus the study is only 18-60 which excludes the high risk population.