Nonsensical.
First, 80%? Anyone who takes a 1:5 chance against their lives is a fool.
Second, with all the crapping on Hydroxychloroquine which has proven itself as safe over 60 years of use, anyone who promotes a new drug that hasn’t been proven equally safe with decades of use has an agenda. Especially if it is only 80% which is far below the FDA’s own standards of 95%+ (or 2-sided 95% which is more like 97.5% effective and safe)
Given what we know now, at this time, hydroxychloroquine + azythromycin (depending on CV diseae) + Zinc/Copper elements, seems like an effective treatment to keep the virus in check while the immune system builds its own antibody response. That is how we humans will develop a herd immunity. HQC may be a good prophylactic, but at the very least it seems safe and effective for those who test positive and/or have symptoms and/or have underlying conditions (with some exceptions based on meds and pre-existing disease states).
RE: Second, with all the crapping on Hydroxychloroquine which has proven itself as safe over 60 years of use, anyone who promotes a new drug that hasn’t been proven equally safe with decades of use has an agenda.
OK, I don’t want to argue with you. But Hydroxychloroquine AT THIS TIME, is not being used to prevent Covid-19. It is used to TREAT Covid-19.
A vaccine is designed to PREVENT one from getting the disease.
I will grant that there are studies right now to see if Hydroxychloroquine can be used to prevent Covid-19 as well, but we don’t yet know.
If it is eventually known that Hydroxychloroquine can prevent Covid-19 the way it helps prevent malaria, then a vaccine will be all but moot.
Compare that 80% effectiveness (if that’s what he meant — the article is not clear to me on that) with the 40% to 60% effectiveness typical for seasonal flu vaccines.
Also, consider the likelihood of dying, if you’re in the wrong demographic, or have conditions. The vaccine won’t add to that risk — but, at 80% effectiveness, you’re only 20% as likely to catch the Wuhan Virus. IOW, it could save the lives of 80% of those who take it. There would be no downside and plenty of potential upside to taking it.
If we were discussing a vaccine that had a 20% chance of actually killing you — then, we’d be discussing a vaccine that has no chance of getting approval.
I think you're misinterpreting what she is saying. She is saying that at this point in the development and testing she is 80% confident that it will be a viable vaccine. She is not saying it will work only 80% of the time.