Oxford vaccine

[Thehairyqueenofscots]

Been told at work we will be getting this at next round of vaccinations. It always seems to be high regarded on here so I'm quite pleased about this. Would you have a preference or not bothered?

Not sure who in their right mind would choose Oxford (62% efficacy) over the mRNA which show mid 90’s efficacy. I’ll wait till they become available privately and will choose the better performing vaccine ie Pfizer or no doubt others by then. Oxford has been a total mess from the start, shoddy trial/results/reporting etc etc.

I am very pro the Oxford vaccine too. It's a little sad that big money people are pushing lines against it.. The Oxford vaccine is the one that will save the world. It is cheap, they got guarantees it would be made available in poorer countries and it can be handled easily, unlike the Pfizer vaccine.

Of course it has to be approved first :)

@Oaktree55

Not sure who in their right mind would choose Oxford (62% efficacy) over the mRNA which show mid 90’s efficacy. I’ll wait till they become available privately and will choose the better performing vaccine ie Pfizer or no doubt others by then. Oxford has been a total mess from the start, shoddy trial/results/reporting etc etc.

The Oxford vaccine probably only looks worse than Pfizer because they were bothering to regularly test for covid and so picked up a lot of asymptomatic cases that the Pfizer and Moderna trials would have missed because they were only testing people with symptoms (there are also potential issues there with unblinding as clinicians the were advised to assess patients and not test for covid if they thought potential covid symptoms were caused by the vaccine). Oxford don't cover themselves in glory with their trial fuckup but the others are not without major issues.

From what I’ve heard, you won’t get to choose which type you get, it’s based on what’s available in your area.

Plus, you’ll be waiting a bloody long time to be get it privately. Probably years.

Oh, don't worry about vaccines being available privately, they will be much much sooner than "years" as a PP says

Disagree read expert opinion on Oxford. Yes it has its advantages in storage etc but the product itself is poor relation to mRNA. Likely due to immunogenicity of adenovirus based part of the vaccine. I’d personally prefer the better ones thanks.

@Oaktree55

Not sure who in their right mind would choose Oxford (62% efficacy) over the mRNA which show mid 90’s efficacy. I’ll wait till they become available privately and will choose the better performing vaccine ie Pfizer or no doubt others by then. Oxford has been a total mess from the start, shoddy trial/results/reporting etc etc.

I don't think they will be available privately any time soon. And quite right too.

They’ll be available privately in the summer in all likelihood that’s what I’ve read anyway, especially as more get approved and come on stream, even if not licenced by U.K. they’ll be available for private purchase if licenced in other countries. The U.K. Gov won’t fork out for the decent ones so they’ll stick to their 100m plus doses of inferior Oxford for everyone, leaving those who read up to buy the better ones.

Would rather have the Oxford vaccine than an mRNA vaccine.
Anyway, I won't be allowed the Pfizer now as I have had 2 very serious reactions to antibiotics in the past.

If you actually bother to read up what U.K. are doing (as they realise a 62% efficacious vaccine won’t cut the mustard) is they’re trialling one dose Pfizer followed by one dose Oxford. You can all jump to Oxford’s defence but Gov realise that using it on its own just isn’t good enough to turn this Pandemic around hence they’re trying to boost its efficacy by “mixing” with the mRNA ones which are better. Google it.

I think the regulators are looking into which dose of the Oxford to approve, as the half/full dose gave around 90% efficacy so hopefully we will get that

OP, what is your job?

Dental services. Thanks for all your replies, probably confusing meore but there information the better so thanks.

There are no plans to make the Pfizer one available privately at the moment. I know someone who works there and that is what employees have (quite rightly) been told.

Firstly you can't chose & secondly it hasn't been approved yet

@luckylavender

Firstly you can't chose & secondly it hasn't been approved yet

That's what I thought!! But our managers told us this today. They are full of shit in fairness

The Oxford vaccine probably only looks worse than Pfizer because they were bothering to regularly test for covid and so picked up a lot of asymptomatic cases that the Pfizer and Moderna trials would have missed because they were only testing people with symptoms (there are also potential issues there with unblinding as clinicians the were advised to assess patients and not test for covid if they thought potential covid symptoms were caused by the vaccine). Oxford don't cover themselves in glory with their trial fuckup but the others are not without major issues.

The headline numbers for the Oxford vaccine do not include asymptomatic cases. That was not the primary endpoint of their study, symptomatic infections were. If you include the asymptomatic cases that occurred in vaccine recipients the number was 55.7% efficacy. In the SD/SD dose (the one likely to licensed) efficacy was only 3.8% against asymptomatic infection. You can see this in table 2 at:

www.thelancet.com/action/showPdf?pii=S0140-6736%2820%2932661-1

Any thoughts on this? From BBC news..

"AstraZeneca has announced that will begin recruiting people aged 18 and over for trials combining the AstraZeneca and Oxford University vaccine with Russia's Sputnik V, produced by the Gamaleya Institute research facility in Moscow.

The aim is to see if this helps to boost people's immune response and improve protection from the virus.

The company told the BBC that the trials would be held in Russia, but it's not clear when they would start or how many people would be involved.

In a press release, AstraZeneca said: "Scientific collaboration with Gamaleya Research Institute is important to explore the potential of vaccine combinations unlocking synergies in protection and accessibility through a portfolio approach."

I thought that about the asymptomatic testing with the Oxford vaccine but the 62% efficacy (70% if you pool with the messed up dosing regime cohort) is based on symptomatic cases only. Looking at the paper in the Lancet it looks like it's only around 55% effective if you include asymptomatic cases (unless I've misinterpreted the tables).
I'd definitely prefer my parents to have the mRNA vaccine but I think I'll have to settle for Oxford as an under 50 year old. I imagine Oxford will probably prime sufficient immunity in most under 50s

I think jabs will only become available privately once COVAX obligations have been met

It’s an international agreement on fair vaccine access, stopping the rich buying up the global supply until the most vulnerable 20% in every nation have had the chance.

Whilst Oxford is also cheaper that is partly because it is currently being supplied at a "not for profit" price. I don't know what it's final price will be. Presumably still cheaper than Pfizer but not as cheap as it currently is.

@Oaktree55

Not sure who in their right mind would choose Oxford (62% efficacy) over the mRNA which show mid 90’s efficacy

Not going into the debate about how each company has determined efficacy.

But this is not the only parameter to consider. The components/ingredients of each vaccine, how they work and the technology are different. Not all Covid vaccines are going to be the same.

In an ideal world people should be allowed to choose, specially if vaccination is recommended because of the line of work you are in.

@iVampire

I think jabs will only become available privately once COVAX obligations have been met

It’s an international agreement on fair vaccine access, stopping the rich buying up the global supply until the most vulnerable 20% in every nation have had the chance.

Normally I’d be all for this, but the interesting thing about covid is that it’s presenting less of an issue in most developing nations as they have a far younger age profile (due to high birth rates and early mortality). IMO instead of a flat rate for each country they’d do best to target supplies of the vaccine where most actual deaths per capita are occurring, irrespective of whether that’s in the West or not.

Yes I agree people should be able to choose, particularly if that leads to increased uptake of vaccination in general. However, I assume for people with allergies and other health conditions they probably will be offered some choice in line with recommendations by their doctors. For everyone else, I don't think there will be a choice until we get sufficient supplies. Although I do envisage that once the vaccination programme is well established potentially you might be able to chose to travel to a large vaccination hub (likely to be pfizer) or go to your GP (likely to be Oxford vaccine)?

[quote ForBlueSkies] The Oxford vaccine probably only looks worse than Pfizer because they were bothering to regularly test for covid and so picked up a lot of asymptomatic cases that the Pfizer and Moderna trials would have missed because they were only testing people with symptoms (there are also potential issues there with unblinding as clinicians the were advised to assess patients and not test for covid if they thought potential covid symptoms were caused by the vaccine). Oxford don't cover themselves in glory with their trial fuckup but the others are not without major issues.

The headline numbers for the Oxford vaccine do not include asymptomatic cases. That was not the primary endpoint of their study, symptomatic infections were. If you include the asymptomatic cases that occurred in vaccine recipients the number was 55.7% efficacy. In the SD/SD dose (the one likely to licensed) efficacy was only 3.8% against asymptomatic infection. You can see this in table 2 at:

www.thelancet.com/action/showPdf?pii=S0140-6736%2820%2932661-1[/quote]
You're misreading that. The headline numbers of 90% for the half dose regimen, 62% for full dose and 70% for both regimens combined include asymptomatic cases. You really can't compare the results with Pfizer or Moderna as even the people listed as symptomatic might not have been tested under their trial procedure as they may not have been the classic symptoms.