Oxford vs. Pfizer - why are people waiting to get the Oxford Vaccine?

[Raccooons]

Apologies if this has been done already, I had a quick look and couldn't see that it had previously been discussed (if it has, please feel free to direct me to the existing thread).

I'm frontline NHS and my trust has received their delvery of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine. It should be offered to me in the coming weeks and I'm very excited about this. I am slightly vulnerable due to being overweight, but otherwise healthy with no allergies or sensitivities to medicines.

I have read about the scientific differences - Pfizer/BioNTech has slightly higher overall efficacy (95 vs 90% when given in the dosages they are licensed for)... Oxford/AstraZeneca can be stored more easily whereas Pfizer is no good if not stored at minus 70 degrees C... Pfizer uses mRna whereas Oxford uses weakened virus.

But I haven't seen anything that places one in favour of the other, clinically. As far as I have read, it seems they haven't been tested "head to head" - so why are there people declining the Pfizer vaccine and choosing to wait for the Oxford vaccine? Are there unpleasant or serious side effects of the Pfizer one that I don't know about?

Is it just people being nationalistic - one Doctor quoted that people were saying "We want to wait for the English one"?

The Pfizer vaccine has 94% efficacy after two doses. The Oxford vaccine in its current MHRA dosing schedule has 62%.

This appears not to be true. The number you are quoting is from before they got more data and decided that a larger gap between doses would improve efficacy. If you remember when they thought that a half dose followed by a full dose might be better? This turned out to be because they had had a larger gap for those patients in the trial.

@Iheartmysmart

I’ve got multiple allergies including a history of anaphylaxis with childhood vaccinations. I’d prefer to have the one that will put me a minimum risk if possible.

A family member of mine has been told to get the Oxford vaccine for this reason. Hopefully that's the one he'd be offered anyway so won't cause delay to him getting a vaccine, which he's very keen to do.

A couple I know refused their Covid jab appointment because they have autoimmunity and don't want to risk the Pfizer vaccine (rightly or wrongly). They asked if they could be put on a waiting list for the Oxford vaccine, and were told the surgery didn't know whether they'd get it and no, they couldn't go on a list.

Yes but that’s not what the MHRA approved. The MHRA approved it based on the original dosing and originally based on the original timetable. A decision was then made to increase the gap. Has the data on the longer gap giving more immunity been published in a peer reviewed journal?

Pfizer/BioNTech has slightly higher overall efficacy (95 vs 90% when given in the dosages they are licensed for)...

The Oxford one is nowhere near 90%. The reporting on this was, to say the least, disingenuous. The trial that included all age cohorts was 62% efficacy. The second "trial" where the gave the half dose initially reported 90%. However, this was a much younger cohort and as older people are likely to have a less robust response to a vaccine, the regime needed to be tested with a broader sample. They reported the overall efficacy as an average of 70% which was fudging the results.

Oxford/AstraZeneca can be stored more easily whereas Pfizer is no good if not stored at minus 70 degrees C...

This is one of the huge advantages of the Oxford one.

Pfizer uses mRna whereas Oxford uses weakened virus.

The fact the Oxford one uses a more established approach may make people more comfortable with it.

However, given the differences in efficacy (94% vs 62%), plus the fact the testing appears to have been more robust on Pfizer meaning I trust the data from that more, if I was given a choice and had no health conditions that precluded it, I would definitely prefer Pfizer.

@ChaBishkoot

Yes but that’s not what the MHRA approved. The MHRA approved it based on the original dosing and originally based on the original timetable. A decision was then made to increase the gap. Has the data on the longer gap giving more immunity been published in a peer reviewed journal?

The data has been reviewed by the MHRA, JCVI and CSM.

The Oxford approach is not traditional. It uses a chimpanzee adenovirus as a vector. No human vaccine has used this before. It's as experimental as the Pfizer mRNA vaccine.

Personally I'd go with Pfizer: higher efficacy, more data, no evidence of transverse myelitis.

Not that I need either given my risk profile. I'm hardly likely to get very sick given my age & health status.

JCVI statement:

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/950113/jcvi-advice-on-priority-groups-for-covid-19-vaccination-30-dec-2020-revised.pdf

I’ve had the Pfizer one and I’ve not heard of anyone saying this in my hospital - grateful for whatever they can get. The efficacy of one jab is 89% (almost 90) so that’s good enough for me.

But that statement says nothing about efficacy!

If there are people refusing to have the vaccine when offered, I think the numbers who are should be published. Not individual names of course, but if there is an issue of refusal by large numbers given the propaganda of anti-vaxxers or those who think Covid 19 is a hoax, then campaigns to counteract this can take place.

@Br1ll1ant

I think the Oxford one has been produced in the same way as the annual flue vaccines, so people are more confident of its safety.

No it hasn't been!

There has never been a human vaccine using this tech, though there is a vet one.

Personally, I'd rather have Pfizer, but know I dint have a choice and will have whatever's given in the day

I had the Oxford one today, however I’ve spent all day wishing I had had the Pfizer one as it’s numbers are better so this is interesting! Grateful to have had one obviously.
From vaccinator training today:
Both ok with anticoagulants, just put 2 minutes pressure on if on them.
Both ok if breastfeeding.
Pregnancy- benefits should outweigh risks so only if you are in a high risk role.
Anaphylaxis- probably better with Oxford if you carry an epipen or have had previous anaphylaxis. Official position is only a problem if allergic to ingredients but why risk it?

I've been offered Pfizer and appointment booked next week, but I'm starting to panic about spending 15 mins in a room with several people (vaccinations, admins, other patients) with no ventilation.
Just heard this morning that there's no need to wait around for 15 mins with Oxford, so I'm wondering if I ought to cancel it even though it'd probably mean me waiting months.
I'm pretty low risk so likely to fight it off, but scared of catching it at the clinic then passing it on to my husband (male, 40s) - stats for his age/gender far worse than mine.

MIL has been advised to get the oxford one by her doctor. No specific reason, but they definitly said that ones best for her. So yeah, not entitled or arrogant or whatever..really annoying how differing even slightly on any aspect of this topic basically gets you branded a dickhead, even if valid reasons for difference in opinion.

If it was up to me people that refuse the vaccine because they only want a British one can go to the very back of the queue.

Given a choice I'd prefer the most effective which I think is probably the pfizer. I live miles from anywhere though so will almost certainly get the Oxford one.
Grateful for either really.

*I had the Oxford one today,

You are the first person on MN I have heard who has had it! Whereabouts?

I’ve had Pfizer and the multiple pharmacists/doctors I work with, said they would all prefer to have the Pfizer, with what they know about its efficacy.
Not many people over 80 are declining it

Oxford was rolled out in wave 2 this week, mainly to care homes in the community but it was delivered

@HeadIsFucked - really annoying how differing even slightly on any aspect of this topic basically gets you branded a dickhead, even if valid reasons for difference in opinion.

I don't think anyone has suggested someone with valid reasons for a preference is a dickhead.

@ChaBishkoot

But that statement says nothing about efficacy!

Sorry! Wrong link.

www.cas.mhra.gov.uk/ViewandAcknowledgment/ViewAttachment.aspx?Attachment_id=103741

I had the Pfizer one two weeks ago and was so grateful to get it. Desperate for my parents to get it too. Working as a doctor in London I am literally astounded that there are people who would rather take their chances with this potentially horrific virus than have a rigorously tested vaccine.

I think for every little englander supposedly only wanting the Oxford Vaccine there are plenty of non British people who want to give the Oxford Vaccine a damn good kicking for being a) cheap b) British. Funny that a lot of press dissing Oxford are business journalists.

But in the sane and rational world their are, funnily enough, pros and cons with all 3.

Give me any vaccine you have. But give it to cev Dh ASAP please.

@ChaBishkoot Pfizer have objected to the change in schedule purely because they haven't tested with a longer gap. That is perfectly proper but the Moderna vaccine uses the same technology and, apparently, has been tested with the longer interval. That and advice from virologists and epidemiologists has led the MHRA to its advice of being OK to extend it