Oxford vaccine and it's relative merits

[herecomesthsun]

FT article here

62% effective?

90% effective?

one or two doses?

would you take it?

What do you think?

If its approved then I would have it when I were eligible to.

I also would. However, as I am CEV, if it is 62%effective and there is no plan to give another shot for at least 3 months, it would be a dilemma as to whether to return to life as before.

One question is, does it make you less likely to be infected?

Another question is,how much less likely would you be to actually die, were you to be infected?

I'm not sure we have the answer to the latter, which I think would come with time.

That is the key question for me though - along with the issues about long term symptoms.

Me too.

I am likely to be at the end of the pile, so by then they might have worked out its efficacy.

Presumably they will come out with some more substantial numbers on Thursday?

@herecomesthsun

FT article here

62% effective?

90% effective?

one or two doses?

would you take it?

What do you think?

The article is behind a pay wall, but presumably the MHRA will base their decision on data which is not available to the FT?

They might . I don't subscribe to the FT and they have some free articles, i thought it might be one of them. Very happy to read good articles about it, if you can find better (or more accessible)

I will. I can’t have the Pfizer one so hoping I can have the Oxford one and then I hope they’re fast enough to vaccinate us

I am wondering whether anyone has worked out the implications of vaccinating say 2 million people a month with the Oxford vaccine, what effect would that have on hospitalisations/ deaths / our ability to restore more normality to daily life.

Based on numbers in hospital in the 1st wave, the median age was 72. Assuming we vaccinate the older ones first, just vaccinating all those over 72 would halve hospital admissions.

BBC did a great article on this - www.bbc.com/news/health-55280701

Basically the Oxford vaccine is very effective at stopping severe illness (along with all other vaccines), perhaps less effective at stopping transmission.

thanks. Very interesting re stopping severe illness- will take a look

@Walkintal

Based on numbers in hospital in the 1st wave, the median age was 72. Assuming we vaccinate the older ones first, just vaccinating all those over 72 would halve hospital admissions.

does that assume 100% efficacy though?

Someone posted this Lancet Article on another thread. Most of it goes over my head to be honest but table 2 has relevant statistics. Bear in mind it's old data by now and more will have been presented to MHRA.

Transmission has the largest overall impact on hospitalisation and deaths; lower efficacy could be an issue for those with lower immunity in shared environments such as care homes, but would be very unlikely to affect the majority. It's up to the MHRA to approve it and then the JCVI to say who gets which vaccine. I'd be very happy to get it. Even if it were a stop-gap because there was proven to be some waning immunity or lack of protection for certain groups, it would prevent deaths while allowing education and the economy to continue, awaiting other vaccines that have already been purchased and could be given later.

@Dobbyhasnomaster

BBC did a great article on this - www.bbc.com/news/health-55280701

Basically the Oxford vaccine is very effective at stopping severe illness (along with all other vaccines), perhaps less effective at stopping transmission.

Is it, though? If you read the Lancet article with the full results there were only 2 severe cases in the control arm (likely because most of the people in the trial were under 55 and health care professionals) so it’s hard to feel confident in its ability to stop severe illness.

There was a mistake in one cohort who received a half dose for their first dose - this group had 90%+ efficacy. Those who received the full dose had 62% efficacy. It's not clear yet which dosage MHRA will approve.

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/nov/23/oxford-covid-vaccine-hit-90-success-rate-thanks-to-dosing-error

So I remember that the Pfizer vaccine had something like 90% efficacy with one dose and 95% with 2.

I am wondering how the efficacy with one dose would turn out with the Oxford one, since current thinking seems to be that we might all be given the one dose and then let's see.

Reading the Lancet paper the efficacy depended on the dosage. The best result was up to 90% effective.

10 patients were hospitalised due to Covid, all in the control group (ie they did not receive the vaccine). One sadly died.

The first groups vaccinated (or control) were 55 or younger, subsequent groups included those over 70.

Volunteers included those with stable pre existing conditions.

The general view is it's effective. Thought to reduce chances of getting Covid or at least reducing its severity.

The more people are vaccinated, the better the herd immunity. The R rate should fall. Less people catching Covid, less people seriously ill.

The Lancet is the most recent published data but even more has been given to the MHrA regulator.
Main view is it’s effective plus stops severe disease and hospitalisation in anyone who does get Covid.
And yes, I’ll take any vaccine. If we get enough people vaccinated, we’re free!

We're not going to have a choice.

It's increasingly apparent that not very many people at all are going to get the Pfizer one. It's just too impractical. Deafening silence on the care home sector (round here at least) because the logistics don't work. That is a real scandal.

If it's Oxford or nothing (and it is) I'll take 60% effective. That was actually all anyone had really hoped for in any case it just looks bad compared to Pfizer which did better than anyone could have predicted.

We don't need 90+% effectiveness today get normal life back. Even if it just reduces serious illness that's all that really matters isn't it? If the vaccine meant it didn't kill or hospitalise anyone then it's basically just a cold.

@holidayoncorona

There was a mistake in one cohort who received a half dose for their first dose - this group had 90%+ efficacy. Those who received the full dose had 62% efficacy. It's not clear yet which dosage MHRA will approve.

Priming (giving a small first dose then a booster vaccination) is used with other vaccines to increase efficacy.

Something else that needs to be considered is that vaccines are often less effective in the elderly. The flu vaccine has 70-90% efficacy in children and adults but that drops to 30-50% efficacy over the age of 65.

It seems to me that until we know the efficacy of the vaccine in those over the age of 55 and whether giving a priming dose does increase efficacy to 90%, prioritising giving the Oxford vaccine to older individuals might not be a good strategy.

If a suggestion is give everyone one dose of Oxford, why d they not approve that for Pfizer? As that is significantly higher percentage than Oxford.

They don't have enough of the Pfizer (and the allocation was cut I believe)

They'll never have enough. Its very expensive and the Americans will want to keep it for themselves.
We can't base our strategy mainly on the Pfizer vaccine as we just will not achieve the coverage. I wish we could get it into care homes but it's not happening.

The minus 70 thing is not a small issue. It's leading to huge problems trying to get it to where it's needed and that can't be easily resolved.

A cheaper easier vaccine will be a greater good if we can achieve more coverage. There will then be herd immunity which means that people don't need 100% protection as the chances of getting it will be low.

I think I would want to see the full data set. They have only released parts of the data so far. I am suspicious of anything that appears cherry picked like this. The trial protocols were a mess.

And the FDA are going to be under less political pressure to approve, so I will await their verdict.