Oxford initial news

[tobee]

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

Thanks Sasha that’s ok I reckon! We do it with flu vaccine, not a deal breaker.

(Confess others will know more)

@Covidfears

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

Bye then.

@MarshaBradyo not my area but from what I’ve read a possible explanation as to why the half dose first works better is because your body reacts to the chimp adenovirus and in lay terms becomes immune to it. So it’s possibly a one shot vaccine as to receive it again wouldn’t work as your body would recognise it. I’m sure someone can explain better.

I believe it’s a one time thing because the vaccine works by using another harmless virus, tagging a marker of the new corona virus to it, and showing it to the immune system. The body then makes antibodies to the Covid ‘tag’, but if the body is too effective at clearing the harmless host virus, not enough time is allowed to make the immune system antibodies to the Covid tag. If another dose is administered it won’t be effective because the immune system will clear the host virus increasingly efficiently. I assume a cost benefit analysis for the vaccines will be made and given on the nhs like all other treatments. The U.K. won’t necessarily use the most clinically effective.

The most efficacious dose for Oxford was a dosing error 🤣. Couldn’t make it up. Explains the small sample size.

@Oaktree55

The most efficacious dose for Oxford was a dosing error 🤣. Couldn’t make it up. Explains the small sample size.

Didn't Alexander Fleming discover penicillin because he accidentally contaminated a culture plate? What does it matter?

I was just coming on to say that ScribblingPixie! Many a brilliant discovery has come about because of a happy accident.

Sorry, that sounded snippy. I meant there are lots of routes to the right result.

Exactly, Cathyandclare!

@ScribblingPixie it matters because it’s not like making a normal work mistake!

A happy accident! As many good inventions/ discoveries are of course. Wasn’t viagra the result of a side effect from some other unrelated clinical trial

@Oaktree55

The most efficacious dose for Oxford was a dosing error 🤣. Couldn’t make it up. Explains the small sample size.

It wasn't an error, they tested 2 different doses deliberately.

@newstart1234 it was an error look it up!

mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN28327Q?__twitter_impression=true

[quote Oaktree55]@newstart1234 it was an error look it up![/quote]
While I can almost feel your absolute desperation for this vaccine to fail oozing through my screen, it wasn't an 'error' in the sense that those dumb scientists couldn't read a measuring jug.

From your hastily googled link:

^They soon noticed expected side effects such as fatigue, headaches or arm aches were milder than expected, he said.

"So we went back and checked ... and we found out that they had underpredicted the dose of the vaccine by half," said Pangalos.

He added the company decided to continue with the half dose and administer the full dose booster shot at the scheduled time.^

So they had simply miscalculated the amount of vaccine needed to achieve the desired results. Not that shocking given that this was a completely new drug.

Why are you so very eager for this vaccine not to be a success? It's weird.

@IcedPurple I’m very pro vaccine but I’d rather the U.K. population had access to the most efficacious ones. I don’t think that’s unreasonable. Many reasons. The higher efficacy is predicted to hopefully translate into the highest effect on transmission. I’d rather stick with one type of vaccine and Oxford is a one trick pony. Not unreasonable to want the best. We all pay enough tax.

But the best is just based on one factor - it is a whole mix depending on actually what your end goal is in all of this.

Its all moot though the UK Government was always going to mainly go with the Oxford Vaccine if it had an efficacy of over 50% and helped with the seriousness. Russia and China are doing it - at least this is properly tested and regulated.

I understand the logistics issues of temperature etc for developing countries but come on this is the U.K. and perfectly achievable. Why when the country has been so disrupted should we settle for a less efficacious vaccine to say Pfizer? I don’t think we should out of some misplaced British attachment to our “National Vaccine”

But oak tree your comments imply it is the only vaccine we have. It isn’t. We also have millions of doses of the two mRNA vaccines already announced plus we are currently developing our own mRNA at Imperial. That is pretty amazing all round and means it is likely we are one of the first countries in the world to start immunising it’s vulnerable population and everyone else before many other countries.
What’s not to like?
Why the negativity?

[quote Oaktree55]@IcedPurple I’m very pro vaccine but I’d rather the U.K. population had access to the most efficacious ones. I don’t think that’s unreasonable. Many reasons. The higher efficacy is predicted to hopefully translate into the highest effect on transmission. I’d rather stick with one type of vaccine and Oxford is a one trick pony. Not unreasonable to want the best. We all pay enough tax.[/quote]
Calling a vaccine a 'one trick pony' is kind of odd, since they really do only have one job to do.

A vaccine which has at least 70% efficacy, is safe, cheap and does not require super low temperatures is a remarkable achievement, your desperation to prove otherwise notwithstanding. At least it means there'll be one more dose available for someone else.

As I read it there’s enough for 20million of Pfizer 2.5 million of Moderna (Easter onwards) and rest Oxford? That’s not a choice for the majority.

And no country will or should “stick with one type of vaccine” that’s a silly thing to argue if that is your main complaint?

@IcedPurple what I mean by one trick is you likely won’t be able to have it again if it’s required in a year, 2years or 5years. mRNA you can.

Good balanced read on what we know so far on this vaccine:

www.vox.com/21590994/oxford-vaccine-results-covid-19-astrazeneca-trial-pfizer-moderna

[quote Oaktree55]@IcedPurple what I mean by one trick is you likely won’t be able to have it again if it’s required in a year, 2years or 5years. mRNA you can.[/quote]
Right.

But 1 year ago we didn't even know this virus existed. Now we already have 3 vaccines and more in the pipeline. 2 or 5 years ago there will likely be all sorts of vaccination and treatment options available.

You're just looking for a reason to talk this down because it's British, aren't you?