Where is the Oxford vaccine????

[Crimples]

Anyone heard anything? Thought we were due to hear about it being okayed last week?

The rumour is the 28th I think.

Thanks @ATieLikeRichardGere.
I wonder what it is they are waiting for if they have given a date for approval?

Crumples. I agree with you. Lots of newspapers are quoting the 28th but why not now if they know it’s 28th?

Because they need to ensure it is safe and that means it has to be checked thoroughly by the right people and this can take time.

The vaccine itself is bottled and ready to go.

The approval is another thing, I think this week we will hear.

They might turn around on the 28th and say it hasn't passed.

But if they know it’s 28th then what further tests are needed unless of course they are not sure about 28th.

Was about to start the very same thread!

We need some good news. They just need to get on with it. Even if it’s only mildly safe I’ll take it!

So it is still being tested? If this doesn’t get approved then we are trashed. Where are the rest of the Pfizer vaccines?

“Crumples. I agree with you. Lots of newspapers are quoting the 28th but why not now if they know it’s 28th?“

Because they’re doing a through job, having only received more data today. The 28th is presumably a date when they think they’ll approve it if everything is as expected. Presumably you want them to actually look at this data and make sure whatever it is says whatever they expect it to before committing to injecting millions of people with a new vaccine?! I’d bet my house they are working every hour under the sun getting it done and that the vast majority of the population wouldn’t have the slightest ability to do what is hardly an easy job. I’d far rather they did the job properly than we added vaccines to the long list of other U.K. screw ups during this pandemic...

Exactly@Bathroom12345 I had read they are still debating the full-dose, half-dose effectiveness aspect.
They don’t seem to be questioning it safety- wise though so if they know it’s at least safe, why not just push it through and start giving something at least? Surely something is better than nothing? If it then transpired that full dose is better could they not just give top-ups.
Maybe I’m massively simplifying, I dunno 🤷‍♀️

www.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/19/oxford-vaccine-still-under-review-says-uk-medicine-agency

Yes @Theotherrudolph I absolutely agree they need to be diligent to ensure safety but from what I’ve read it doesn’t seem to be that side holding things up, it’s the debate over which dose works better. I say get it out there ASAP and then argue over the finer points.
Which is probably why I’m not a scientist in fairness 😂

Maybe 28th is the date of MHRA next official discussion/decision meeting.

Think of it like an exam result. The person who marked your paper knows your result. The exam board knows your result. The day before you pick them up your head teacher at school may even know your result. But they aren't allowed to tell you until Thursday.

[quote Crimples]Exactly@Bathroom12345 I had read they are still debating the full-dose, half-dose effectiveness aspect.
They don’t seem to be questioning it safety- wise though so if they know it’s at least safe, why not just push it through and start giving something at least? Surely something is better than nothing? If it then transpired that full dose is better could they not just give top-ups.
Maybe I’m massively simplifying, I dunno 🤷‍♀️[/quote]
Because it's likely the 'better' regime is a half dose to start, but there wasn't enough data provided to enable the MHRA to approve it. So what do they do - approve the full dose regime and ask for another stage 3 trial to get more data? In the meantime it's likely those most vulnerable would have received the poorer vaccine. Try and get other data so they can use that to approve the half dose regime - but that lengthens the process and still might not be enough to approve.

Good analogy @FeelingBIue.
Like a lot of things during this whole thing, just waiting to be told our fate 😬

I think they are waiting to announce it after Christmas. If they announce it on Christmas Eve then people might be more inclined to mix.
I could just be very cynical though!

Know someone who works for the government managing vaccine rollout and he says very close, just weeks

@titchy but that’s what I don’t get.
If they have the data they need on the full dose but the half dose worked better then why can’t they just go ahead and approve the half dose without extra data?
I’m thinking about it like a person taking an antibiotic for example, if they take two tablets and they are perfectly fine then what would be the problem with giving them one tablet?
Surely any adverse effects would be even more likely to appear with the higher and not the lower dose?

My fear is that vaccines takes years to approve by people who are not used to working quickly and efficiently. They just are not used to this sort of working..

I know we need to be very careful but I have years of experience working with people in government who run little cottage industries and that will be a difficult habit to break.

@sherrystrull

I think they are waiting to announce it after Christmas. If they announce it on Christmas Eve then people might be more inclined to mix. I could just be very cynical though!

🤔 Nothing would surprise me now but I’d really hope not!

Sounds like they don't think it works against the new strain

[quote Crimples]@titchy but that’s what I don’t get.
If they have the data they need on the full dose but the half dose worked better then why can’t they just go ahead and approve the half dose without extra data?
I’m thinking about it like a person taking an antibiotic for example, if they take two tablets and they are perfectly fine then what would be the problem with giving them one tablet?
Surely any adverse effects would be even more likely to appear with the higher and not the lower dose?[/quote]
I don't think it's adverse effects they will be concerned about but efficacy.

[quote Crimples]@titchy but that’s what I don’t get.
If they have the data they need on the full dose but the half dose worked better then why can’t they just go ahead and approve the half dose without extra data?
I’m thinking about it like a person taking an antibiotic for example, if they take two tablets and they are perfectly fine then what would be the problem with giving them one tablet?
Surely any adverse effects would be even more likely to appear with the higher and not the lower dose?[/quote]
As I understand it, part of the issue is that the half dose group was small, and mostly young healthy people.

So we don't know how well that dose works in old or ill people who, of course, are those who will receive the vaccine first.

This is a real concern: it's not uncommon for the elderly to need higher doses of vaccines, or vaccines with adjuvants to boost their effect, because their immune systems have become less responsive with age.

Much as I want them to approve it (I want it in my arm yesterday, dammit) I can understand why it's not as straightforward as the Pfizer vaccine, because the science was messier.

If they have the data they need on the full dose but the half dose worked better then why can’t they just go ahead and approve the half dose without extra data?

Because they don't have enough data to say for certain that the half dose works better! If they did they'd be assessing it and making an easy decision.

Its possible that the half dose regime (which is a half dose then a full dose) triggers a mini-cytokine storm - which maybe damaging to some groups of people. (Not that I know anything about cytokine storms or think this regime does that - its just an example.)

Would you take a drug that hasn't been tested properly, where the entire set of outcomes wasn't known? Would you agree to giving it to your 85 year old grandmother?