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.

I didn't say that you had specially said it's not good, just that that is the impression readers of your posts might get.

Anyway I suppose we have to remember that we are less than a year in, as you say the vaccine should still do good, and hopefully it can be improved upon over coming months.

@ChaBishkoot

I certainly understand your concern for an effective, affordable and easily distributable vaccine for developing countries.

I dont think that analogy works though because the efficacy of a vaccine doesnt change it from being what it is - a car and an aeroplane are two very different things.

I can see what you are trying to say but it isnt the same. Oxford have the efficacy at 70% in the press release (presumably averaging out the 62/90 on a ratioed basis). They dont claim 90% - that was the media.

Because if you do hold your analogy to be true what actually would be true is this

Oxford release a press release saying under certain circumstances the car can be used as an aeroplane

Media come along and change that to - this is actually an aeroplane.

The distinction I think is important.

The hard part just isnt how your interpret your results - its how everyone else (without the expertise) interprets them and that I think it what has happened here.

Thankfully the next stage isnt an interpretation by the media or by people who havent seen the data. It is by those who have seen all the data and know what the data is saying

Yea but even saying that 70% is not good science. And the media didn’t make up that 90%. It was there in the press release that Oxford put out. It should never have even been mentioned unless it could be backed up more robustly. I think if Oxford is trying to say the media got it wrong, there would be a number of scientists raising their eyebrows. See the Wired link I posted above for an easy explanation of why scientists raised an eyebrow at the data (and not just the media presentation of it).

No I agree but the 90% is if you take your analogy changing it from acting like an aeroplane to being an aeroplane.

Is the 70% because in effect different trials were held though and it is common practice (not sure if it is) to take the efficacy from both and create a number based on that (because it is certainly proportioned to the number in each trial). Its just normally the difference is within an expected range? Not saying it is by the way but it would make sense that is why it was given like that because you have to give an overall Phase 3 trial number. And the dosing mistake (which was in the smaller UK figure) made it

It is a shame actually because the Brazilian data of 63% is good enough. The fact that it could be better depending on dosage it actually I think caused problems

"And it’s probably good enough for the population."

That's what my Consultant more or less said to me. The Oxford vaccine is good enough, combined with the usage of the other vaccines. It will stop Covid circulating to a dangerous level. As for third world countries, they are fighting to keep 80 year olds, or disabled people alive, in general. So in that sense, the vaccines will do enough. Covid will become another flu and thankfully it doesn't kill well children. Children who a ECV in the western world don't survive in the third world. So you can't look at it equally. My Father was from SA and I have friends and family from across Africa and India and death is looked upon and accepted (possibly through lack of choice) very differently.

[quote ChaBishkoot]AZ/Oxford is testing WITH the Russian vaccine now. www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-55270942[/quote]
Yes I know that @ChaBishkoot! Somewhat ironic that Russia (as in the country) were publishing British vaccine recipients turning into monkeys just recently.

*publishing cartoons

Re any of the trials of any of the vaccines, as I've repeatedly said, I trust different countries regulators to approve good vaccines only.

This is the second thread I’ve seen where an over invested poster has pushed a particular perspective very hard. I don’t know what to make of it really.

Eih?! And what pray is my ‘perspective’ and how does that differ from reality?! There were a bunch of other academics on the thread who gave up a while ago...

Panorama might be an interesting watch. On now.

@ATieLikeRichardGere

This is the second thread I’ve seen where an over invested poster has pushed a particular perspective very hard. I don’t know what to make of it really.

That some people do their research and think critically and most people don’t?

Personally, I’m gobsmacked by the “you must be a Russian or Pfizer shill” crowd on here who attack posters for simply restating the views of reputable Western scientists.

Not every vaccine was going to be slam dunk amazeballs. In fact, a few months back many people assumed we’d be lucky to get one viable vaccine. To me it feels like a lot of people bought the PR fed to us about the Oxford vaccine early on and are unwilling to accept the design was flawed and it’s just scraped over the efficacy line (maybe) and is now presenting a dilemma for the MHRA.

I don’t think anyone is a shill, but bias and emotions are showing through the science and I’m wondering what it is about this scenario that brings that out in people.

@ATieLikeRichardGere

I don’t think anyone is a shill, but bias and emotions are showing through the science and I’m wondering what it is about this scenario that brings that out in people.

Speaking personally, I know some of my posting has been informed by frustration. The government went all in on Oxford, it is by far and away our biggest order, and the one that could be delivered in large numbers quickly. In the press it was built up as our saviour. But it turns out they made a dog’s breakfast of the actual trial process. Remarkably small numbers despite the earlier start, too many arms, random mistakes in dosing, dodgy PR.

In short, I think you’ll find a lot of the overly critical posts stem from disappointment. Not a desire to see the vaccine fail, but the opposite. A desperate need for it to have been more clearly successful. It may still be our saviour, but there have been missteps.

I had understood that once the dosing error was made it was agreed ( possibly with regulators?) that the data efficacy from both subject sets would be combined - I suspect at the time they thought it likely the lower dose error would bring down the overall efficacy figure as opposed to raising it as it did.

Are you saying the decision to combine the two data sets was made after the greater efficacy figure was known - which implies a deliberate decision to improve the efficacy figure? Or just that the combining of trial data was never a good idea ( I have some sympathy with that).

Panarama seemed to imply the former that it was noted and agreed

Quite emotive language and super patronising tone which is undermining what could be very good arguments.

But that's been all over Mumsnet recently.

I thought scientists and analysts like to fairly consider all sides of the argument, rather than go off on one?

Also choosing to respond only to questions and points made by other posters that suit them. Misreading and misrepresenting other poster's comments.

They definitely thought the half dose full dose would be less good.

I had either full dose/ full dose or placebo (let's hope it was placebo cos I have COVID right now!) and I definitely thought and was told I was getting the best regime.
Therefore they did agree it could be combined a priori expecting it to be worse not better.

It was a fuck up
Who knows how it happened but these trials were hugely rushed through. I am not super surprised about a mistake and it has turned out to be a serendipitous one as it has suggested a better dosing regime.

I can't get too upset about it. It is safe and it works a bit. We might know a few ways we can make it work better. Of course more data are needed but we don't have time for that right now.

I'm not in the team or linked to it or anything BTW (or I'd not have been allowed to have it). I would have participated in whatever vaccine trial was offered to me as I feel it is so important so I am not especially biased.

My view is that just because Pfizer turned out to be better doesn't mean the U.K. shouldn't have invested in this trial. No-one knew If Pfizer would work or be safe. We need a few different options and if Pfizer had not worked out so miraculously well we would be bloody overjoyed to have the Oxford one warts and all. We should still be pleased. It's good enough.

Presumably the Oxford vaccine is now being retested in order to pull together some more organised data?

Does anyone have any idea how long this would take to do?

It's not exactly being re-tested it's just ongoing. The trial didn't stop. It's only interim data that was presented. They are still collecting data and with cases rising that's a good thing for the trial. If the MHRA want more data they'll get more data but sadly on the less effective dose regime.

My current Covid infection is a data point one way or another (I have no idea which). That is a slight consolation to me in my throbbing -headache- ruined-Christmas-misery.

The main threat right now is the availability of the Pfizer vaccine. People will need to be unblinded from the Oxford trial in order to be offered the Pfizer vaccine and obviously people are going to want to get an effective vaccine if it's being offered and they've had placebo.

Too late for me sadly :(

Logically they need to do another properly powered trial of the half dose/ full dose regime

And/ or collaborate with Sputnik who have the same idea but a different adenovirus vector. One dose Sputnik one dose Oxford could make a lot of sense.

But they need to get approved for and recruit to new trials for that and if everyone in the U.K. has got vaccinated and the infection rate goes down there won't be the opportunity to study it. They'll probably need to go abroad again.