Oxford vaccine may not be effective against South African variant

[Ninbus]

This is awful news. I really hope the government take this news seriously and does everything to keep this variant from spreading here. Sadly I don’t have much confidence they will have learnt this lesson

@TheAdventuresoftheWishingChair

I don't like this 'it's in major newspapers.'

Have you seen some of them over the last year? They've been appalling at scare-mongering and speculation. They've done that on purpose because frightening people gets you more sales/clicks. And that's even publications like the BBC/NYT/Guardian.

It's absolutely one thing to discuss these things but people do have a duty to post in a measured way. There are a lot of extremely vulnerable people hovering on this board who are already feeling frightened and desperate.

We can't not discuss things because people are frightened and desperate. If we think a paper is misleading we should challenge it.

[quote trulydelicious]**@Ninbus* and @IcedPurple*

It was also mentioned by Devi sridhar on Twitter- vaccine may not work - not definitely won’t

She's neither a virologist nor an immunologist, so her opinion isn't especially relevant

Sorry for the rant, and I don't have anything against this lady obviously, but I'm fed up of opinators cropping up all over twitter trying to gain a bit ot self-publicity and tooting their own horn when their credentials on the subject are questionable to say the least[/quote]
She is a scientist and holds a Chair in Public Health. It's not like she's completely ignorant on the subject but still spouting off about it unlike Kirsty Allsop

Anyone with a position in public health will want to demonstrate an interest and awareness in current reports, but will also look at the scientific data coming through. I’m not sure what Prof Sridhar has actually said on this subject?

It's interesting how many people would clearly like to see a clampdown on freedom of reporting and freedom of speech in the interests of keeping people 'calm' and amenable to working.

A quick re-read of 1984 might be beneficial, though admittedly not as beneficial as a working vaccine.

OP, this development is gravely concerning and newsworthy, you're quite within your rights to start a thread about it. Some posters seem to have lost their heads

OP, this development is gravely concerning and newsworthy

Is it though?

From what I've read, the likely worst case scenario is that the vaccine might (might!) have to be re-tweaked, but that this would likely take a month or two at most. So while it's not good, I'm not sure that it's 'gravely concerning'.

It is newsworthy, but irresponsible to blow the story out of context and proportion

I read that even if it isn't they think they can tweak it within weeks

We can't not discuss things because people are frightened and desperate. If we think a paper is misleading we should challenge it.

That's why I didn't say 'we shouldn't discuss this.' It's fair enough to do so. The OP just took the news at face value, unfortunately, and reported it as fact (easily done though, I'm sure I've done similar with other bits of news in the past). That's the thing I take issue with.

So while it's not good, I'm not sure that it's 'gravely concerning'.

Oh, it is. Why do you think the vaccine has been in manufacture for months?

Every day we wait for a vaccine is lives lost.

Tweaking the recipe is not the same as having something to inject.

Apparently the only virus able to be eradicated was SARS?

Shout me down if I'm wrong, but I thought that was smallpox?

And yes, I'm also of the view that in the end we'll just have to live with it. Science can certainly play a part, but for me restrictions are utterly pointless if they can't be enforced across the board and throughout all communities

Even if this was attempted it ignores the point that the virus will still be there waiting, so unless the vaccines solve everything - unlikely in my view - we're back with Plan B

@150camelot

So while it's not good, I'm not sure that it's 'gravely concerning'.

Oh, it is. Why do you think the vaccine has been in manufacture for months?

Every day we wait for a vaccine is lives lost.

Like I say, it's not good. But the thread headline gives the impression that the vaccine might not be effective at all, when in fact it seems that even if it needs to be 'tweaked' - and that itself is by no means certain - it is likely that this could be done in a matter of weeks. So while not good news, I don't believe - from what I have read - that it is 'gravely concerning'.

It is Smallpox. Sars and Mers still appear in pockets but can I think be controlled.

www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-04/south-african-covid-strain-raises-growing-alarm-in-the-u-k

Is a good read. I think its not that they DONT work. Its that they may not be as effective in the current form and may need some tweaking.

One would assume a good start would be to look at what tweaking is needed for when Africa get the go ahead.

I assume though they cant be as confident as they dont have as much data as they do for the UK variant (but I could be wrong there)

If we think a paper is misleading we should challenge it

Trouble is, if we challenged every inaccuracy the papers print - even just the important ones - we'd have time for little else, and does anyone really imagine they'd favour reasonable argument over the potential for extra clicks and revenue?

Unfortunately that ship has sailed, and while I'm very uncomfortable with the concept of media control I'm not especially keen on current situation either, with out of control hacks competing for the most lurid prose

But I said the vaccine “may” not be effective? So that is correct no? I could have added - “may not be effective but can be tweaked and this will delay the vaccination process” I suppose. But I expected people knew this already and some may come on to the thread to discuss the situation with me. I really wasn’t trying to scare anyone

Newspapers have a habit of having slightly misleading headlines to bring you in and then cherry pick bits of interviews

So the Mail has him saying

'I don't know about the South African strain - there's a big question mark about that.'

Which he did say but then he also said

He added it was "unlikely" the variant would "turn off the effect of vaccines entirely," and in any case it would be possible to tweak the vaccine in around 4-6 weeks.

For those that know about tweaking vaccines
What if there are 10 "SA variants" eg a SA one, an Italian one, a Nigerian one, a Singapore one etc, you get my drift.
How can a vaccine be tweaked in 10 different directions?

But I said the vaccine “may” not be effective?

I know you did, Ninbus, and personally I didn't read it as a "scare headline"
However as I've said on other threads, I'm convinced that some have invested such utter faith in the vaccines that they perhaps can't bear to hear any other narrative
It's a pity, I know, if folk have waited through the endless changes of story and all round incompetence in the hope that it'll all somehow come right, but for me this is why it's usually wise to have that Plan B in mind

It’s a good question lightand i don’t know the answer. Hopefully the most infectious one will become the most dominant worldwide as time goes on. Then it will just be one vaccine for one variant

I think the thread title could be tweaked to say 'may not be as effective'
The simple answer to lightand's question is yes - although depends on clinical relevance of the variation.
Also - there is a huge effort also ongoing to identify small molecules/drugs to improve treatment of clinical presentations, and ultimately something that will disable thie virus itself.

@lightand

For those that know about tweaking vaccines What if there are 10 "SA variants" eg a SA one, an Italian one, a Nigerian one, a Singapore one etc, you get my drift. How can a vaccine be tweaked in 10 different directions?

That's a good question. I kow that many souirces use the word "tweak" so as not to have to get into the science, even the BMJ uses simplified language about it!

www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4857

Ok, so my mistake was missing the word “as” in the title. And I should have used thetelegraph link instead. Then the thread may have been a whole different thread

Quite possibly

@Ninbus You're not responsible for how the media handle stories. It was worth while flagging this one for discussion - particularly if it worries you. It's not the first and won't be the last.

@DoubleTweenQueen

there is a huge effort also ongoing to identify small molecules/drugs to improve treatment of clinical presentations, and ultimately something that will disable thie virus itself

Yes, there should be more publicity in the media also around this.