Oxford initial news

[tobee]

Covid-19: Oxford University vaccine shows 70% protection www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55040635

just a point that I keep reading that the body will react to the chimp adenovirus, IT WONT, it has been inactivated, it is just used as a vehicle to deliver the payload, do people not read up on stuff anymore

That’s incorrect. Primarily they used chimp because they needed a virus most humans had never really seen before. The body will build up immunity against the adenovirus as well after it’s used. On booster shot the body mainly reacts to the adenovirus domains and not the spike of the sars2. Possibly why the lower dose might be more effective and also why the Oxford Vaccine can’t be repeated.

Operation Warp Speed's Moncef Slaoui notes that there was an age difference in AstraZeneca's trial between the groups receiving the half-full dose regimen vs. two full doses.

The half-full dose, which showed 90% efficacy, had a cap at the age of 55, Slaoui says

"There are a number of variables we need to understand," Slaoui says.

Notes these variables could explain any difference between these two efficacy results. Also remarks the confidence intervals are wide enough where there may be no actual difference between these regimens.

Learning more on this will be key in figuring out if AstraZeneca's vaccine is 60%, 70%, 80%, or 90% effective. Bottom line is we really don't have a good idea still.

twitter.com/andrewe_dunn/status/1331279131695263744?s=21

This is looking more and more concerning. The “happy accident” successful arm excluded over 55s and seems to have been geographically and temporally discrete.

The authorities will have all the data to make their decision and we will see it in a published and peer reviewed paper, so maybe worth waiting for that.

@cathyandclare

The authorities will have all the data to make their decision and we will see it in a published and peer reviewed paper, so maybe worth waiting for that.

The data is coming out now because US authorities are beginning to examine the trial.

As I posted in the other Oxford vaccine thread, it also turns out there were zero severe cases in the control arm, so even the “it suppresses severe illness” claim is unproven.

@Covidfears

Anyway, I’m leaving this thread now so you can get back to your backslapping and fist bumping

Bye bye!

Until there is a full picture and data available I don't understand what is to be gained by hypothetical problem creation to be honest.

The rolling review is underway by the regulator and they are continuing to gather data. I'm sure there will be much more clarity in the coming weeks.

Gavi seem to think it's ok:-

apple.news/Ayc3edEJbSA2ZJg6JYnbzbA

@ForBlueSkies

Operation Warp Speed's Moncef Slaoui notes that there was an age difference in AstraZeneca's trial between the groups receiving the half-full dose regimen vs. two full doses.

The half-full dose, which showed 90% efficacy, had a cap at the age of 55, Slaoui says

"There are a number of variables we need to understand," Slaoui says.

Notes these variables could explain any difference between these two efficacy results. Also remarks the confidence intervals are wide enough where there may be no actual difference between these regimens.

Learning more on this will be key in figuring out if AstraZeneca's vaccine is 60%, 70%, 80%, or 90% effective. Bottom line is we really don't have a good idea still.

twitter.com/andrewe_dunn/status/1331279131695263744?s=21

This is looking more and more concerning. The “happy accident” successful arm excluded over 55s and seems to have been geographically and temporally discrete.

Seeing as the most obvious solution was already to give Pfizer/moderna shots to elderly/most vulnerable and distribute Oxford to the wider healthy younger population I’m not sure that’s a huge problem even if it does turn out to be a contributing factor?

That might work for the U.K., not sure it’s the plan in the developing countries that have ordered this one because of its affordability.

@ForBlueSkies
www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/fda-s-cutoff-covid-19-vaccine-effectiveness-50-percent-what-n1245506

These are the first 3 vaccines of many. It doesn’t have to be perfect. Even if it ends up being 70% rather than 90% then out of 10 people who are going to get infected only 3 will actually do so and may well have a milder disease than if not vaccinated. Doesn’t seem like a bad result to me.

Is it worth remembering the mumps part of the MMR is only 78% effective?

Also, as I've said on these boards before, people were talking about we'd be expecting 45% efficacy not too many weeks ago.

[quote MarcelineMissouri]@ForBlueSkies
www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/fda-s-cutoff-covid-19-vaccine-effectiveness-50-percent-what-n1245506

These are the first 3 vaccines of many. It doesn’t have to be perfect. Even if it ends up being 70% rather than 90% then out of 10 people who are going to get infected only 3 will actually do so and may well have a milder disease than if not vaccinated. Doesn’t seem like a bad result to me.[/quote]
The efficacy could well be 60% if that small arm study is as flawed as some scientists are suggesting. I’ll be more reassured when we get data on severe cases in the placebo pool. There’s a press quote from one of the Oxford people saying there were zero severe cases in the placebo group. I find that very hard to believe, but if it’s true the vaccine is unproven to prevent serious disease.

The efficacy could also be 90% with the half dose - full dose regimen. Maybe read more sources?

Just rechecked the Twitter of Andrew Dunn who is from Business Insider. Which makes sense.

@tobee

The efficacy could also be 90% with the half dose - full dose regimen. Maybe read more sources?

I’ve read an enormous amount about this over the past 48 hours from many, many different sources. I suggest you take your own advice.

And yet you only post the negative stuff? I read plenty thanks!

And read stuff since March.

@tobee

And yet you only post the negative stuff? I read plenty thanks!

I want it to succeed (very much, because it’s almost certainly the vaccine I’ll take) but I’m not going to be a vacuous cheerleader, no. I have a critical mind. There are some very well qualified people questioning the 90% result for what read as compelling reasons.

Yep I don’t understand the negativity here from @ForBlueSkies

Sure it would have been amazing if Oxford had also got a clear 90% + efficacy result but they didn’t. What they do have is a safe, easily produced, easily transported and cheap vaccine that worst case scenario should prevent 60% of cases and could prevent up to 90%. It’s not like this is the last vaccine, there are loads more in development. It seems like it’s a pretty good start to me.

Yes there are. I'm sure people will be scrupulously checking all the vaccine results over here and around the world. Thank goodness. But my comment still stands. I'm neither a mindless cheerleader or relentlessly negative.

@MarcelineMissouri

Yep I don’t understand the negativity here from *@ForBlueSkies*

Sure it would have been amazing if Oxford had also got a clear 90% + efficacy result but they didn’t. What they do have is a safe, easily produced, easily transported and cheap vaccine that worst case scenario should prevent 60% of cases and could prevent up to 90%. It’s not like this is the last vaccine, there are loads more in development. It seems like it’s a pretty good start to me.

Wish I could be as succinct as this!

I'm pretty sure we'll be ok if we get Oxford or the others.

I'm not especially pro the U.K. vaccines. But like to keep everything in perspective.