唉，原文多处可都是用的 “likely“ 哦。关键在最后1段。

These findings suggest that antibodies elicited by primary infection and by the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine are likely to maintain protective efficacy against B.1.1.7 and most other variants but that the partial resistance of virus with the B.1.351 spike protein could render some individuals less well protected,  supporting a rationale for the development of modified vaccines containing E484K.

老兄啊，你这标题 跟原文的原意可有不小差距哦。还是得对现有疫苗进行改进开发啊。

 

 

 

所有跟帖： 

• 看不懂吧 -吃与活- ♂ (239 bytes) () 02/08/2021 postreply 18:00:33

• 还嘴硬，1 这仅限血清样本对比测试，2 “likely” 是 “可以” 的意思吗？ -pickshell- ♀ (650 bytes) () 02/08/2021 postreply 18:48:31

• 有原文上来就很好啦，各人可以得出不同的结论，越辩越明 -Blue_Snow- ♀ (0 bytes) () 02/08/2021 postreply 20:37:14

• 对原文，读者可发表各自不同看法。吃与活问题是转述把原文里关键词给改了。对不看英文的人就是误导 -pickshell- ♀ (47 bytes) () 02/09/2021 postreply 12:11:59

• 不懂的人不知道看数据 -吃与活- ♂ (38 bytes) () 02/09/2021 postreply 05:12:10

• 数据与结论都得看。7，都到这份上你居然还能死犟耍赖，这可真没劲。 -pickshell- ♀ (0 bytes) () 02/09/2021 postreply 05:39:42

• 懂不懂都是相对的，咱中国不是还有不耻下问一说吗 -Blue_Snow- ♀ (0 bytes) () 02/09/2021 postreply 06:07:17