Oxford vaccine - when?

[Florelei]

I need this to be approved. It feels like it has been a long time coming.

I can’t put up with much more of all this awfulness.

Oh FFS. I actually know the Oxford people well. Even they will tell you they ballsed up. And their data is as a PP said ‘a hot mess.’
As did GSK/Sanofi with their dosing.
Oxford should have said, we have lower efficacy, but we are cheaper and we can be used for mass vaccination because we are easier to store and transport.
I used the first two news reports on Google to be honest.
But actually enough scientists have been writing and tweeting about it.

Oxford really didn't claim 90% . I don't understand where all this negativity is coming from except where it is pushed by money people who don't like a not for profit vaccine. They reported the facts accurately. 62 percent for the main group. 90 percent for a smaller group which got a different dosage and 70 on average. I see nothing controversial or difficult about this at all.

Literally it was the news headlines the next morning after their data came out.
Before the actual paper had been published.

I am aware it’s not controversial but their data is badly presented and it is not a secret that the FDA has said they are not authorising them based on the current data. I am not making that up. AZ is having to fund another Phase 3 trial. Which is MUCH harder to do now that a vaccine has been rolled out. (As GSK/Sanofi are also discovering).

Never ever should these headlines have been published. It’s bad science to have claimed this.

The headline is bad media, not bad science.

“Oxford shouldn’t have tried to use the mistake in Brazil to claim 90% efficacy. It was stupid and unprofessional. The other similar vaccine the GSK/Sanofi one is apparently now delayed. “

Except (and I’m not a scientist so perhaps I’m missing something) it wasn’t a mistake in Brazil and the Sanofi/GSK one is not all that similar to Oxford/AZ. One is recombinant-protein based, the other is a viral vector. Do you mean they both encountered a semi similar problem, some people in the trial effectively receiving too little vaccine?

The Oxford team would have had to have signed off on this communication. As I said even they admit this is a mistake. I am not doubting the vaccine. I would happily take it. But is their data a hot mess compared to the nice NEJM paper from Pfizer? Yes.
(Full disclosure that I haven’t read the Moderna data as closely).

Sanofi/GSK has had a dosing issue in over 50s. So they are doing a Phase 2b trial I believe. And delaying their Phase 3.
By similar I mean in terms of storage/transportation. Much of the developing world is relying on the Oxford/AZ and GSK/Sanofi vaccine. The first world will get the bulk of the Pfizer/Moderna one.

No, their press release claimed that 90% figure. It should never have.
If a big pharma company claimed a cancer drug was 90% effective and then you found out it wasn’t true except in a tiny subset with a dosing error, that’s not an okay thing to claim.

I like Statnews and Helen Branswell. Here is their take on it.
www.statnews.com/2020/12/08/detailed-data-on-astrazeneca-oxford-covid-19-vaccine-show-it-has-moderate-efficacy/

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

Is there some weird patriotism on MN about this vaccine? All these vaccines are amazing scientific achievements anyway. No one needs to massage the data to look good. If the Oxford vaccine isn’t as good, that’s the way science rolls. It’s not a personal slur on British science.

I hope soon as can’t have the Pfizer one so hopefully with time this one will be approved for many.

I always read 70% in Spanish as well as British newspapers.

Yeah and that 70% figure is ALSO dodgy. See the wired link I posted for a good explanation for non scientists. You can’t patch together data from two trials with two different protocols and claim 70%.
In the standard trial (with no dosing error), the efficacy is 62%. Also they have very little data on over 55s.

Will the Oxford vaccine be more suitable for allergy sufferers? Gutted that I can't have the Pfizer one - I'm nhs and can book online, only I'm allergic to penicillin so can't.

I just don’t agree. The Oxford team don’t write the newspaper headlines. They clearly led with the 62% figure. I read what they wrote. It is true that they got 90% in a smaller group with a different dosage. What do you want them to do, hide that fact?

Oxford are also the only the group to actually publish their results in a peer reviewed venue.

@ChaBishkoot

What should we do about it at the end of the day though? If it is approved and that is the one we are offered, I assume the best thing to do is to accept.

And...due to the hurry we are all in all these decisions are being made faster than usual. Take the Pfizer vaccine , the FDA (in the US) advisory committee voted 17 to 4, with one abstention, to recommend the vaccine, made by Pfizer. Well there were 4 with doubts it seems.

And... There were four cases of Bell’s palsy — a condition that temporarily weakens some muscles in the face — among those who received the vaccine, compared with none among those who received the placebo.

In the end everyone has to weigh up the risks and benefits. In my view there is no more reason to doubt the Oxford vaccine than the Pfizer one.

I don't think vaccine nationalism is confined to Oxford. Or to Mumsnet.

It's not about nationalism for me. It's about trusting that the regulators will approve good vaccines. In the U.K. and other places.

But it's not true to say that there haven't been people (usually US and financiers) haven't been dissing the Oxford Vaccine for months. And there efficacy would have been regarded as good if Moderna and Pfizer hadn't come out first. And it's cheaper and easier to store. However, that doesn't mean AZ have done everything perfectly. They still have more to show through further trials. Etc. They are now committed to doing further trials and working with Sputnik.

I'm most bothered about half the information being presented as all the information from anyone. Disappointed that countries aren't coming together. Working collaboratively. And very keen that vaccine uptake is good.

Plus, hopefully, there's plenty more to come from wherever. We will likely need them in the months and years to come.

Of course they are not the only people to publish it in a peer review journal. Pfizer published it in the NEJM.

I don’t expect anyone to do anything. They don’t have to ‘hide’ the 90% fact. But they can’t claim it without proper scientific evidence that would stand scrutiny. Oh it was a dosing error in 2000 people none of whom were over 55 would meet any trial protocol. Don’t claim it AT ALL till you have more robust evidence.

Also the US aka OWS has indeed funded the Oxford AZ vaccine. The only company not to take money was Pfizer (sort of).
www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/05/21/coronavirus-us-gives-astrazenena-1-billion-for-oxford-vaccine.html

Countries aren’t working together? The US has funded most of this research. Regulatory boards and scientists around the world have been staying up at all hours to make this possible. This is a REMARKABLE international effort.

The data from the Pfizer vaccine was dodgy as well. How anyone is praising a team of scientists that didn't even bother to collect essential information as to the impact of the virus (by neglecting to test asymptomatic participants) they have put the health of thousands of the most vulnerable at risk. If as many suspect the true effect of the Pfizer jab is simply to reduce the symptoms experienced rather than the infection rate the decision to prioritise care and NHS staff will have been a terrible one that costs lives but as they didn't bother to collect such data the political pressure has led to this happening.

I didn't say countries weren't working together. I said they weren't coming together which has an entirely different meaning. I'm talking about the non scientists commenting, the Wall Street financiers and the Russian's initially implying the Oxford Vaccine was going turn people into chimps. The reaction to the Russian vaccine etc etc.

This is what Sarah Gilbert has said about the vaccines today:-

Professor Gilbert dismissed concerns over the efficacy of her vaccine, preferring to take a wider view: “What’s important is vaccinating populations, not vaccinating people and thinking about efficacy on an individual level.”
“And if we don’t have enough doses of the Pfizer vaccine to vaccinate everybody then we’ll be much worse off than being able to vaccinate large numbers of people with other vaccines.”

I'm sure some will say "well she would say that" but if you're honest, it's hard to argue against.

AZ/Oxford is testing WITH the Russian vaccine now. www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-55270942

@StatisticalSense

The data from the Pfizer vaccine was dodgy as well. How anyone is praising a team of scientists that didn't even bother to collect essential information as to the impact of the virus (by neglecting to test asymptomatic participants) they have put the health of thousands of the most vulnerable at risk. If as many suspect the true effect of the Pfizer jab is simply to reduce the symptoms experienced rather than the infection rate the decision to prioritise care and NHS staff will have been a terrible one that costs lives but as they didn't bother to collect such data the political pressure has led to this happening.

Yep. Pfizer (and Moderna) will have a very good idea if their vaccine prevents transmission from the primate trials so not even attempting to collect that data on humans suggests they don't think it will look good. Vaccinating frontline NHS like this risks ramping up asymptomatic spread in hospitals and GP surgery. I think history is likely to look upon this as one of the bigger fuck ups of the pandemic.