The safety data will show all that when published (which is required for even emergency approval) - but in short, yes. Looking at the Pfizer participants, there's a VERY wide range of ages, specifically people with pre-existing conditions such as diabetes, hypertension, asthma, high BMI etc. There's probably more than you would usually find due to the larger than normal size of the trial group.Bimbowomxn wrote: Tue Nov 17, 2020 2:07 pmSaint wrote: Tue Nov 17, 2020 12:12 pm The biggest difference between this vaccine development schedule and a typical vaccine has been the very initial stages - precisely because new tech, whether the mRNA approach or the OXxford type - have enabled us to accurately produce a highly targeted functioning vaccine without the years of trial and error that has gone into the more traditional vaccine development programmes. After that, consolidating the Phase I/II and II/III has helped a lot, as has SCALE - a typical phase III programme would maybe have only 3,000 candidates, and therefore would take much longer for sufficient evidence of effectiveness to appear (it helps also that there's a LOT of Coronavirus around, so there's a high baseline to compare against)
Phase IV will continue post approval, but that's typical for most vaccines, as that involves long term study of immunity.
So, we short circuited the initial development cycle by years, but that merely got us to candidates. We've collapsed the testing programme by a year or 2 by running different phases at the same time, but the cumulative amount of time spent in testing is pretty much in line with other vaccines.
Is there confidence that a wide enough variance of testing participants has been found? Old, young, fat, active, cross reactions with other drugs etc ?
The AstraZeneca trial is probably even more broad covering a large number of different countries as well
