91.6% is a good efficacy. Do they have plans to test it against other variants (E501Y mutation)?
Ideally this + the adenovirus based AZD122 seems to be the best combination of (efficacy, affordablility, and logistically feasibility) end for the pandemic.
<a href="https://www.gavi.org/vaccineswork/coronavirus-why-combining-oxford-vaccine-russias-sputnik-v-vaccine-could-make-it" rel="nofollow">https://www.gavi.org/vaccineswork/coronavirus-why-combining-...</a> is another such article which talks about it.
The Russian Sputnik V vaccine [1] distinguishes itself from other two-dose Adenovirus vector vaccines [2] (Oxford–AstraZeneca and Chinese CanSino) by using different vectors (Ad26 and Ad5) for each dose. The Johnson & Johnson vaccine [3] is an Ad26 single-vector single-dose vaccine.<p>In my opinion, the outstanding question is production capacity. Given the supply chains and geopolitics involved, I think the rational choice is to get whatever approved vaccine is available to you as soon as possible.<p>[1] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sputnik_V_COVID-19_vaccine" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sputnik_V_COVID-19_vaccine</a><p>[2] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_vaccine#Adenovirus_vector_vaccines" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_vaccine#Adenovirus_ve...</a><p>[3] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad26.COV2.S" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad26.COV2.S</a>
91.6% seems like a very good result for this vaccine and a big confidence boost to the companies that bought it.<p>I'm waiting for the J&J results after two-dose immunisation given this vaccine takes a similar (non mRNA) approach and appears to be very effective.<p>(Not ignoring that 66% efficiency is still significant but much less so than 91.6%)
Does the funding source have some bias impacts in this kind of thing? (i.e.: Moscow City Health Department, Russian Direct Investment Fund, Sberbank, and RUSAL.)
I wonder how much the heterologous approach (different viral vectors for first and second doses) contributed to its high efficiency compared to a similar Astra Zeneca vaccine. Conversely, why did Astra Zeneca opted not to do it this way.
I have been asking this the last week, only to receive downvotes and no proper answers: Why EU/UK/USA did not even consider the Russian and Chinese vaccines?<p>They all can go "realpolitik" but have their economies crushed and citizens lost for the sake of political rivalry then fight with each other who gets the Western vaccines first?<p>I'm sorry for asking it, I get that you don't like the question but I feel like it is a fair question. I'm not deleting this.
I doubt the US will see much of this, but this is now one of at least 4 high quality vaccines with great, public data banned from use in the US:<p>Astrazeneca, J&J, Novavax, and Sputnik V.
It's all nice and good, but Putin made this vaccine's effectiveness a political issue. If it's significantly less effective than its western counterparts it would result in a severe loss of face for Putin's propagandists and the regime in general. Considering the historical record of Putin's regime love for truth and integrity, it wouldn't be surprising if many people would choose to take these results with a grain of salt.