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'm fairly comfortable that the mRNA vaccines have been "around" and being worked on to try to improve the rather large storage and transport issue. Without a pandemic they would not be commercially viable - because you need serious logistics, probably of the military variety to deal with maintaining something that cold. Apparently some stem cells are transported at about that temperature but a real world vaccine needs to be able to be stored in (ideally) a fridge or possibly a freezer. Having decent stability at just above fridge range (say 8 degrees) would be handy - basic refrigerated lorry transport would make life a lot easier...

Would be interested to see transport and usage protocols and studies of the efficacy of the mRNA vaccines following real world transport and storage (how easy is it to transport ultra cold stuff internationally?- I have a picture in my mind from a James Bond/Mission Impossible movie with a large nearly person sized canister with a few tiny vials surrounded by dry ice...) as well as trials where it's all controlled by the manufacturer who will very much understand the requirements.

Does anyone know how the mistake with the half dose happened?

This is copy and pasted from the update letter that was sent out:

'There are several different ways of measuring the dose of the vaccine at the end of the manufacturing
process. The dose was measured using a laboratory test that indicated it was similar to the first COV001
study. Alternative testing shows that the dose is lower than this measurement, but still in the normal
range of doses that are used in clinical trials'

I assumed they were going to go with the half dose, as I saw Sarah Gilbert on the news saying that they now had double the amount of 1st doses than they thought they would (due to the 1st dose being half) and they they would then have time to create enough more in time for the 2nd dose 4 weeks later?

@raviolidreaming

Does anyone know how the mistake with the half dose happened?

This is copy and pasted from the update letter that was sent out:

'There are several different ways of measuring the dose of the vaccine at the end of the manufacturing
process. The dose was measured using a laboratory test that indicated it was similar to the first COV001
study. Alternative testing shows that the dose is lower than this measurement, but still in the normal
range of doses that are used in clinical trials'

What does that even mean?

Are they talking about confusing metric and imperial measuring implements?

That statement is utter bollocks. They would have had to specify the dose in the clinical trial protocol of this specific trial. It's a very worrying massive cock up.

Mistakes like that can happen, remember this Mars mission?

In September of 1999, after almost 10 months of travel to Mars, the Mars Climate Orbiter burned and broke into pieces. On a day when NASA engineers were expecting to celebrate, the ground reality turned out to be completely different, all because someone failed to use the right units, i.e., the metric units!

I don't have the knowledge of specialist lab equipment and technologies that some of you obviously do.

This 'mistake' violates the entire premise of why an RCT is supposed to produce very rigorous findings. In other words, the finding isn't trustworthy.