Doubts about Oxford Vaccine Data

[IslandGyal]

• NOT AN ANTI VAXXER

www.nytimes.com/2020/11/25/business/coronavirus-vaccine-astrazeneca-oxford.html

This article is concerning that there are several flaws with the Oxford vaccine research and data.

I think media need to look at this, ignoring the vaccine nationalism about this being a ‘British’ vaccine. It’s obviously effective to some extent but it seems that Pfizer and Moderna data is more robust and solid.

I should add this is still an amazing achievement. But I’m sceptical of the 90% figure.

If it’s 90% in under 55s but less effective in older people than we should give older people the other vaccines and younger people the AstraZeneca one.

The Pfizer vaccine is already planned to roll out to the vulnerable elderly and care workers first.

This critical article also made me sit and take notice (retweeted by lots of reputable scientists):

www.wired.com/story/the-astrazeneca-covid-vaccine-data-isnt-up-to-snuff/

It’s frustrating that the Oxford vaccine was a frontrunner but has been plagued by so many cockups.

It will be very interesting to see if the FDA in the US will even approve it.

We haven't seen the detailed data from any of them. In particular, it's notable that, unlike AZ, Pfizer and Moderna didn't swab regularly, so will not have picked up asymptomatic spread.

It's important to wait for the release of peer reviewed papers.

There are also flaws with the other vaccines. Oxford swabbed volunteers weekly but the other two didn’t. They only swabbed symptomatic cases. So potentially missing a lot of asymptomatic cases..

I think the main takeaway from Oxford is that no-one got covid bad enough to need hospitalisation. That is all we need! We can all cope with minor illness!

Beware of covid vaccine results by press release. Let the MHrA do their job and look at the detailed scientific papers etc

Phizer and Moderna are impractical in most of the real world. Logistically...

How effective are they in real world conditions with storage glitches, transport glitches given how sensitive they are.

Oxford vaccine sounds useful for worldwide mass rollout to locations convenient for people, other 2 will be more complicated logistically.

Complementary for different needs - most vulnerable get the most effective vaccine, herd immunity cover based on more coverage more quickly from the less temperamental Oxford vaccine.

@MoirasRoses

There are also flaws with the other vaccines. Oxford swabbed volunteers weekly but the other two didn’t. They only swabbed symptomatic cases. So potentially missing a lot of asymptomatic cases..

I think the main takeaway from Oxford is that no-one got covid bad enough to need hospitalisation. That is all we need! We can all cope with minor illness!

The asymptomatic cases were not included in Oxford’s primary endpoint, though, they’re just observational and the data on them has not been released. The 90% and 62% figures were derived from symptomatic cases of C19 only.

The main issue with the small 90% efficacy arm (that was the result of an error) is that the recipients were all under 55, from the U.K. and were given the shot over a few weeks. So temporally and geographically discrete from the rest of the study. Even without those red flags the sample was small enough to potentially be statistical noise.

For now, until further trials are completed on the half/full dose regime it’s safest to assume 62% is the actual efficacy of this vaccine.

There are also questions around how many cases were severe in the pooled controls. This number has not been formally released. Without that number we don’t know if it prevents serious illness.

I think the main takeaway from Oxford is that no-one got covid bad enough to need hospitalisation. That is all we need! We can all cope with minor illness!

This.....Surely it is a fantastic thing, even if it's 'only' 62% effective!

This is really interesting, I think these companies should do the upmost to avoid this.

A lot of people (not rabid anti Vaxxers) are concerned about the speed of development. It is undermining trust in the vaccine (probably unfairly).

I wouldn't assume anything on any vaccine until we have the full picture.

I thought I read that nobody in the placebo group for Oxford needed hospitalisation either, so you can’t draw any conclusions on that. Please correct me if incorrect.

My understanding that these are just press releases of initial findings? Not a full analysis. So I think it’s too early to be concerned.

I think they have to release information as soon as they know it to comply with trade rules.

@TheCatsPjammas

Beware of covid vaccine results by press release. Let the MHrA do their job and look at the detailed scientific papers etc

Yes agree. The press release invited lots of speculation but the right people will review / approve it

@LizzieSiddal

I think the main takeaway from Oxford is that no-one got covid bad enough to need hospitalisation. That is all we need! We can all cope with minor illness!

This.....Surely it is a fantastic thing, even if it's 'only' 62% effective!

I have always been optimistic about vaccines and continue to be so. However something has occurred to me that I have not seen addressed anywhere. Even with mild, or even asymptomatic disease, there have been reports of internal organ damage occurring. Also we know that mild disease can lead to Long Covid. I assume this must have been looked into as part of the trials (although I'm not sure to what extent Long Covid could so far have been measured).

Blue yes of course, hadn't thought of all those possibilities.

@LizzieSiddal

I think the main takeaway from Oxford is that no-one got covid bad enough to need hospitalisation. That is all we need! We can all cope with minor illness!

This.....Surely it is a fantastic thing, even if it's 'only' 62% effective!

But we don’t know if anybody got severe illness in the placebo group, either, until they release the data. There was one report of 16, another of zero.

The vaccine results that have been released are pure nonsense - the data they're citing is correct but the conclusions they're drawing are wildly reaching.
But
It doesn't matter how effective it is. At this point a 'vaccine' is needed to convince people to get back to their lives, even if it does absolutely nothing. The psychological contagion is far worse than any virus could ever be and the vaccine, even if it's just water, will help to cure that - that will save lives in the long run.

I am slightly concerned that the trial discovered the higher efficacy rate by making a mistake in dosing - that is staggering, the kind of thing that never happens and would in normal times be a serious safety issue for the trial and its participants.
How did they make a huge mistake in dosing?
I guess we should be grateful if it means we know a more effective administration regimen, but still...

There were widespread reports (unconfirmed for privacy) that a doctor from Brazil in the placebo group died from Covid.

@cathyandclare

There were widespread reports (unconfirmed for privacy) that a doctor from Brazil in the placebo group died from Covid.

What is the relevance of this though if he was in the placebo group?

@cathyandclare

There were widespread reports (unconfirmed for privacy) that a doctor from Brazil in the placebo group died from Covid.

He committed suicide, though, so irrelevant.

^ Apologies, I’m wrong, that was a doctor in Brazil who took one of the Chinese vaccines.

What is the relevance of this though if he was in the placebo group?

I was responding to the comments that there were no serious infections in the placebo group. I am very firmly in the stop obsessing over twitter comments and wait for the published paper team!!

It's worth bearing in mind that a lot of money is riding on these vaccines, not just health. Be wary of putting too much store by some of these sensationalist articles, because they are telling a story rather than giving scientific facts (referring to "buried" information that's been publicly released is one of the more ludicrous statements). Wait for scientific papers and scientific review from reputable sources.