Do you think we’ll get the half dose (90%) or the full dose? (62%)

[131days]

The 70% figure for the Oxford vaccine is a bit misleading really. The two regimes were 62% and 90% effective.

The error which led to the ‘half dose first’ regime being found, was only administered to a tiny group and so the results are barely statistically relevant.

So I think it is far more likely they will go ahead with giving us the two full doses option. This regime is 62% effective.

Is 62% enough to protect us and vastly reduce the numbers of cases? Can 62% be justified when there are other vaccines out there which are 95% effective?

I would take the non-profit traditional vaccine above an experimental mRNA vaccine that’s never been used before and has a financial incentive to push it through.

I think it’ll be the full dose to start with as the half hasn’t been tested on enough people. Although the studies have shown it stopped 62% getting it, no one in the trial had to be hospitalised and they also think it may stop transmission in a percentage too. So that is very, very good news and more than adequate given that it can be rolled out quickly and more easily than the others and we have stocks already being distributed. The flu injection is usually around that effective for comparison.

If enough people had it then 62% ought to be enough but it must be very tempting to go for the half dose first option which presumably would mean more of it to go round.

I think it makes sense to give the expensive Pfizer/Moderna vaccines to the most at risk and everyone else to have the cheaper stuff. It won’t just be AZ though, I am involved in the Novavax trial which should have good news very early next year. Like the AZ it is cheap and more practical-
UK gov has pre-ordered 60million. The word on the block is that it might be the best of all but I’m a bit biased. It already appears to be safe (tens of thousands vaccinated and zero serious side effects)

@PucePanther
What does that mean? Can you explain which vaccine has a financial incentive?

@PucePanther agreed.

@MrsJamTart

The Oxford/AstraZeneca is a not for profit collaboration, the others are drug companies who are making a profit. Results are only interim currently so we need to look at everything, nobody is suggesting the for profit vaccines are being falsely presented but they do have an incentive to be used and what of the per dose price is going to shareholders?

The 70% figure is completely misleading. The site that couldn't even manage to follow the protocol is reporting the 90%. All those patients are protocol deviations and there data isn't bloody usable. It's disgraceful they're even reporting on that insignificant number of of patients thats reportedly had the the 90% rate that ALL hail from the site that fucked it up. That data isn't remotely usable. The number is 62%.

Pfizer and Moderna are making a profit from their vaccine so they have an incentive to cut corners in order to rush it out and get it on the market. In contrast the Oxford vaccine is non profit so I trust it more because they have nothing to gain from rushing it out before it’s safe and ready.

I’m also concerned that mRNA vaccines have never been approved before. I think companies have taken advantage of this crisis to get an mRNA vaccine on the market while everyone is desperate. In normal times a drastically new product would need a lot more testing.

So even if the Oxford vaccine is less effective I’d feel safer taking it. It doesn’t need ridiculously cold temperatures either, so it’s easier to roll out in the third world and places with insufficient refrigeration facilities.

They cannot approve the half dose regime without another proper full trial. No one is getting the half dose regime anytime soon nor should they.

The data on all these vaccines is still early. The figures of 62% and 90% are estimates, and likely to change as more data comes in. The half dose was only given to 2,700 ish of the 12,000 that didn't get a placebo. It's possible that due to the smaller numbers it's a statistical glitch, though hard to tell without a breakdown of the data.

I wouldn't worry about mRNA vs chimp virus. Both involve the human body producing the spike protein that then trains the immune system.

If we don't get the full dose, there are going to be many people that still can't relax and live their lives - they either don't want to risk getting it or are worried about passing it on to others.

I'm not in a high risk category, but have had pneumonia twice - for me I was very ill for two weeks and it took about six weeks to get over. It's debililating, I was very weak and slept for hours. Didn't have the energy to wash/shower, no appetite. I don't want to risk anything similar.

But even within the 62 percent group none was seriously unwell or hospitalised. They are doing further trials on the half dose now so will have more data soon.

@ifonly4

If we don't get the full dose, there are going to be many people that still can't relax and live their lives - they either don't want to risk getting it or are worried about passing it on to others.

I'm not in a high risk category, but have had pneumonia twice - for me I was very ill for two weeks and it took about six weeks to get over. It's debililating, I was very weak and slept for hours. Didn't have the energy to wash/shower, no appetite. I don't want to risk anything similar.

The full dose is the one that is 62%. That’s still pretty good. It’s likely that this is what will be given to the majority of the population as it’s cheap and easy to roll out, plus we have decent stocks of it. If that’s not good enough for some people then they are free to continue to shield but there will be many more people who will be celebrating and going out living their lives once this is rolled out.

I wouldn't trust that 90% data one bit. It came from a site that was so incompetent they couldn't follow the protocol. The chances that they followed up the patients correctly is almost nil. The Oxford trial has not been well run and nothing like as robust as the other two. The cold storage issue for the other two is a big issue but I can't see anyone being happy with 62% vs 90-95%. We aren't a developing nation. We can manage training and deep freeze storage. The UK needs to pull its damn socks up. The levels of incompetence and oh that's too tricky are shocking.

They definitely said on the news just yesterday, that ‘most’ people will be getting the full dose - 62% rate vaccine.

Is 62% enough to protect us and vastly reduce the numbers of cases? That's comparable to flu vaccine, is it not? And that significantly reduces the number of cases even though only a minority of the population is vaccinated.

Isn’t there an argument here that those who are most at risk should get the higher performing vaccines & those who are low risk get the Oxford one? It’s still good, no-one on the Oxford trial got serious Covid or needed to go to hospital, which is amazing! That’s surely all we need?!

Also read the attached - the US teams potentially missed asymptomatic cases 🤷🏼‍♀️

@MoirasRoses

Isn’t there an argument here that those who are most at risk should get the higher performing vaccines & those who are low risk get the Oxford one? It’s still good, no-one on the Oxford trial got serious Covid or needed to go to hospital, which is amazing! That’s surely all we need?!

Also read the attached - the US teams potentially missed asymptomatic cases 🤷🏼‍♀️

That’s interesting, thanks for sharing

I wondered this, I see it’s stated as full dose by pp.

Also the weekly testing, did the other two not do this? What impact has this

62% effective doesn’t mean 38% of people will catch it. It means 38% of those exposed will catch it. Which is good once you realise that fewer people will be exposed because the virus is circulating less. If we can reduce the R number it will burn itself out.

The chances that they followed up the patients correctly is almost nil

I am in the subgroup who got the half dose first and have been followed up just fine, thanks.

I expect they will do more work to assess if the half dose followed by full dose is generally effective, and then proceed depending on the results. They think it could work by the half dose priming the immune system, so then the full dose gives a better immune response.

It is obviously worth exploring - for one thing, you can vaccinate a load more people if each person only needs 1.5 doses instead of 2. And if it is more effective as well, then it is a no-brainer - they will need to do a further study though, I'm sure.

It's a fantastic achievement, in any event.

@raviolidreaming

The chances that they followed up the patients correctly is almost nil

I am in the subgroup who got the half dose first and have been followed up just fine, thanks.

I am sure you did.

So interesting how they stumbled across this finding.

Does anyone know how the mistake with the half dose happened? Was it a research site or two or was it packaged wrong?

If we can reduce the R number it will burn itself out.

Of course it will. Just like flu has. Or not.

There is no scientific justification for that statement. It may or may not burn out - few viruses do, but some have. There is no correlation between those viruses that we know have burned out and reducing R values or discovering vaccines. In fact, quite the opposite in some cases.