While I share your concerns about the government, and was suspicious of the numbers (heck, more than suspicious, I dismissed them out of hand), the more data that we see the more reasonable they seem. Using two different adenoviruses was, in retrospect, a pretty brilliant choice to increase the boost give by the second dose. I think it's entirely reasonable that this would give an additional 10-20% efficacy over other adenovirus vaccines.
I don't pretend to know how involved the Russian government was in the process, but it's a shame the scientists who designed this vaccine are tainted by the corrupt government of the country they live in.
No question that Russia has some of the best minds in the world, still. But a big headline product like this would be incredibly tempting for the regime to exaggerate the efficacy of for propaganda reasons. That’s not to say the vaccine is not brilliant. It’s just that I’d say we still have insufficient evidence to assert that it is.
The good money is on it being an exemplary vaccine.
The Sputnik name and the glowing data we’ve heard about it.
Besides, it’s not like you can trust big pharma only if has a Western brand slapped on it. Some of the worst drugs, possibly all of them (that I’m aware of), came from us.
> The good money is on it being an exemplary vaccine.
What do you mean by "the good money?" When I think of supposedly savvy investors backing biotech, I think Theranos.
> The Sputnik name and the glowing data we’ve heard about it.
Your justification is the name itself, and the data that OP is questioning. I don't know if it's a good vaccine or not, but I don't find this convincing. And after the Russian government went to such ridiculous lengths to cheat during the Olympics, I think it's fair to question their data.
I was genuinely asking. What is "the good money" because I truly have no idea what you mean.
I also don't understand why the name is relevant. At least in the US, things with patriotic names - aka the Patriot Act - are almost always obvious propaganda attempts.
It was a turn of phrase. The good money is a good bet, i.e. I think a tenable and wise position would be to believe what I do, but understand if you do not and recognize my own propensity to be wrong.
As for the name, I felt immediately that it was significant because I knew Russia wouldn’t stake so much national pride on it if it was a dud. Indeed, the evidence coming in seems to suggest that it isn’t, so I feel doubly confident in that assessment.
I don't pretend to know how involved the Russian government was in the process, but it's a shame the scientists who designed this vaccine are tainted by the corrupt government of the country they live in.