Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Covid

Mumsnet doesn't verify the qualifications of users. If you have medical concerns, please consult a healthcare professional.

Original poster

Oxford vaccine - when?

163 replies

Florelei · 13/12/2020 15:32

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.

OP posts:
PaddyF0dder · 14/12/2020 08:09

@ChaBishkoot is basically correct.

Oxford fucked up their trial.

Maybe it’s a good vaccine. Maybe it’s not.

No excuse for shoddy science and dodgy stats.

notevenat20 · 14/12/2020 08:18

Also the US aka OWS has indeed funded the Oxford AZ vaccine. The only company not to take money was Pfizer (sort of).

This is an odd thing to write. The Pfizer vaccine is expensive and 100% to make money. The Oxford vaccine is not for profit and set up so they can vaccinate billions of people in poorer countries.

I do wonder if you have a financial interest in Pfizer or a personal grudge against Oxford.

notevenat20 · 14/12/2020 08:22

Oxford fucked up their trial. Maybe it’s a good vaccine. Maybe it’s not. No excuse for shoddy science and dodgy stats.

I don’t know if you a scientist yourself but this is not true. There is nothing fucked up. There was a mistake right at the start where a smaller group got a lower dosage. That’s it. If you want to claim any other problem can you point to the relevant line or section in their paper?

PaddyF0dder · 14/12/2020 08:29

I am a scientist.

And no, you can go read the paper yourself.

Fucking up a dosage is a fundamental error.

Passing off an amalgamated efficacy for essentially two separate trials (one with a tiny n) is more than a fuck up. It’s close to deliberately misleading. You simply CAN’T do that.

Don’t get me started on the timing inconsistency between doses.

It’ll get approved anyway, out of desperation. And it’s probably good enough for the population.

But good Lord the trial was shonky as hell.

PaddyF0dder · 14/12/2020 08:30

I should add that fucking up the dose is an honest mistake.

Cooking the data is dishonest and not a mistake.

Original poster
Florelei · 14/12/2020 08:35

@PaddyF0dder - genuine question (and not being goady) after all the things you’ve said, would you still take or recommend your vulnerable family members to take the Oxford vaccine?

OP posts:
PaddyF0dder · 14/12/2020 08:37

Yes. Definitely. It’s probably good enough.

That’s the problem with how these vaccines are being reported. Criticism of the science is taken as criticism of the vaccine.

I’ll be happy to receive the Oxford vaccine. It’s likely good enough to “de-fang” the pandemic.

I just hate shite scientific practices. It undermines trust in the process, and provides fuel to the antivaxxers.

ChaBishkoot · 14/12/2020 08:39

Yeah I would take it too. But if my student presented PhD data like this, the Dean would be having a quiet word with them.

I didn’t say Pfizer wasn’t there to make money. I was refuting the allegation that countries like the US want the Oxford vaccine to fail.

luckylavender · 14/12/2020 08:41

I thought it was Astra Zeneca who messed up

ChaBishkoot · 14/12/2020 08:44

There isn’t a safety signal from the data per se so I would be happy. Also I am under 50 and in pretty good health so I would say okay to the Oxford vaccine. And yes my main irritation is that at a moment when we need as much vaccine confidence as we can, ‘shonky science’ can have an adverse effect on confidence. The thing is if the UK was following the US lead it would ask Oxford for more data. But the Oxford vaccine has become both a political way for Boris out of this and some sort of patriotic marker so no one has the political guts to say ‘erm that data is dodgy go do another trial’ like the FDA did. Which would then keep us in lockdown/tiers for longer.

notevenat20 · 14/12/2020 09:10

I thought it was Astra Zeneca who messed up

Yes, you are right.

BlueBlancmange · 14/12/2020 09:14

@ChaBishkoot

There isn’t a safety signal from the data per se so I would be happy. Also I am under 50 and in pretty good health so I would say okay to the Oxford vaccine. And yes my main irritation is that at a moment when we need as much vaccine confidence as we can, ‘shonky science’ can have an adverse effect on confidence. The thing is if the UK was following the US lead it would ask Oxford for more data. But the Oxford vaccine has become both a political way for Boris out of this and some sort of patriotic marker so no one has the political guts to say ‘erm that data is dodgy go do another trial’ like the FDA did. Which would then keep us in lockdown/tiers for longer.
Ironically your posts are not contributing much to the confidence of any one who reads them.

I agree there are aspects of the Oxford vaccine that are disappointing, but at the end of the day, is it better to take it or not? It seems you believe it is.

PaddyF0dder · 14/12/2020 09:16

@BlueBlancmange

And therein lies the problem. Criticism of the science is seen as criticism of the vaccine.

It’s not. We only really need a vaccine to be adequate. An adequate vaccine, administered to a willing population, will end the pandemic.

We need the underlying science to be perfect. Imperfect science will lessen the uptake of the vaccine.

ChaBishkoot · 14/12/2020 09:24

It’s not my JOB to inspire confidence. I am not running the Oxford trial. How is this MY fault? This is bordering on the absurd.

Chaotic45 · 14/12/2020 09:29

@luckylavender how did AZ mess up? I'm not being goady, just interested.

Chaotic45 · 14/12/2020 09:30

Sorry, ignore last post. I got my 'big companies' mixed up!

luckylavender · 14/12/2020 09:31

They were the people who presented the data as I understand it.

cathyandclare · 14/12/2020 09:31

We are not up to date with the data from Oxford, the MHRA have more. The initially released data was taken at on November 4th.

The trials in the UK, Brazil, USA and SA are ongoing. The head of the MHRA said ( 4 days ago) they have recently received a tranche of information. It won't sort out the dosing situation, but it could make the figures for standard dosing across ages and populations more clear.

62% is enough for the youngish and non vulnerable in conjunction with the MRNA already purchased to cover the more at risk.

cathyandclare · 14/12/2020 09:32

Up to November 4th

With higher levels of infection in the UK and USA, the end point number of cases could be reached more quickly.

BlueBlancmange · 14/12/2020 09:35

@ChaBishkoot

It’s not my JOB to inspire confidence. I am not running the Oxford trial. How is this MY fault? This is bordering on the absurd.
I'm just saying I feel less confident after reading them, than I did before, even though I already knew there were some issues with the Oxford results. It comes across as you wanting people to think the Oxford vaccine is no good at all, but then you say you would take it, and you want people to take it, so I don't know.
BlueBlancmange · 14/12/2020 09:36

@ChaBishkoot

I'm just not really sure what you are trying to achieve on these boards.

DougRossIsTheBoss · 14/12/2020 09:39

I'm really glad they made the dosing error
A serendipitous mistake like so many great discoveries in medicine
The lower dose seems likely to be better

Whether it's 90% or 62% it's better than bloody nothing. It is not dangerous and it works a bit.

When they all started no one knew if the mRNA vaccines would be safe or any good. It so happens it is. But it's good science not to have all our eggs in one basket. If this new tech does throw up some issues later we might be glad of our less efficacious home grown alternative

DougRossIsTheBoss · 14/12/2020 09:42

Adequate and safe
We don't need 90%. We really don't

If they get the dosing regime right it'll probably be better anyway

ChaBishkoot · 14/12/2020 09:46

I haven’t said the Oxford vaccine is no good at all. Please find where I have said that. I have said:

  • all of these vaccines are great scientific achievements
  • Oxford data was presented in a dodgy way as opposed to Pfizer
  • Oxford/AZ will now have to run another Phase 3 trial and even then their FDA approval is in doubt
  • this is a real blow for developing countries (where my family lives and whom I haven’t seen for over a year) which are desperate for these vaccines as they are easier to transport/store.

I am not sure what you would like me to say. I have also repeatedly said I don’t think the vaccine is unsafe just that the science in terms of running the trial and presenting the data from it was poor.
It’s like saying, in the GBBO the cake isn’t terrible but the kitchen is a mess and a few shortcuts were used that perhaps weren’t quite in the rules. Would I eat the cake? Hell yes. Did I raise an eyebrow at HOW the cake was made? Also yes.

Also trying to achieve nothing. Just putting the process of clinical trials in perspective.

ChaBishkoot · 14/12/2020 09:52

Let me give you another analogy. I make a car. It’s a good car. It’s safe.
Someone then, accidentally, takes it well over the approved speed limit. I find that my car then rises off the ground for a few seconds.

So having made this nice ‘perfectly adequate’ car when I am presenting what I have made I tell my investors ‘Ladies and Gentleman, this is not a car, this is actually an aeroplane...!’

Would that car be safe to ride at a normal speed under normal conditions? Yes. Is it half way to being an aeroplane? No.

So there is science. And then there is what you do with your results. How you interpret them, what conclusions you draw from them. Some would suggest that this is the hardest part of being an academic and what your reputation rides on. If anything I am hoping that people understand from this how academia works, how research works, why research is worthy of being funded and so on.

Swipe left for the next trending thread