I like this bit

Zhu Fengcai, one of the paper's authors, said the results - which are based on 144 participants in the phase 1 trial and 600 in the phase 2 trial - meant the vaccine was "suitable for emergency use".

That doesn't seem very many people does it? Or is it that the (small number of) people referred to are those that became ill, and then, of those people, they compared numbers of vaccinated and of non-vaccinated, making the assumption that those numbers would be equal were it not for the vaccine?

Posted By: paulg, Nov 18, 11:16:11