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"?

Is Oxford one jab? If I was needle phobic that would sway things for me

I saw that story in the papers and I wondered if it was less to do with nationalism (as the dr seemed to suggest) and more to do with people worrying that if they have the Pfizer one, they might not get the correct second dose offered in the time it’s been recommended by.
Are they worried about getting it late/it running out/ U.K. concentrating more on the Oxford programme now or something?

Not saying either way if it’s valid but I just wondered if the news stories about people now having to wait over the recommendation time for jab 2 etc might make people think they’d rather wait for the Oxford one if they are for some reason believing it will be more organised.

there are plenty of non British people who want to give the Oxford Vaccine a damn good kicking for being a) cheap b) British.

It's not all a conspiracy against the poor little Brits.

The reservations about the oxford virus are perfectly valid. 1) it's less efficacious 2) the trials appear to have been a bit sloppier

I think for most people a vaccine with an efficacy of 94% vs one with an efficacy of 62% is a no brainer.

Based on that link 73% is still lower than 94% and the rest of the data is unpublished.
There is a reason neither the EU nor the US has given this vaccine a nod.
BUT it’s cheap and the developing world is desperate for it. I am trying to see if I can get my dad this vaccine because it’s the only one he can get in India and he’s very very clinically vulnerable.

No the Johnson and Johnson one (trial results coming out soon) will be one jab.

I’d love to have either!
Purely theoretically, if there was a choice, I’d go for Pfizer BUT at the recommended three week interval.
In real life I’ll take what I’m given and will be grateful.

@OchonAgusOchonO

there are plenty of non British people who want to give the Oxford Vaccine a damn good kicking for being a) cheap b) British.

It's not all a conspiracy against the poor little Brits.

The reservations about the oxford virus are perfectly valid. 1) it's less efficacious 2) the trials appear to have been a bit sloppier

I think for most people a vaccine with an efficacy of 94% vs one with an efficacy of 62% is a no brainer.

Yes but the vast majority of people dissing it are not from the U.K. Similarly, people preferring Oxford to Pfizer are British.
It's not just me that's saying this. For example The Times wrote about this just recently. Some sectors of the US are dissing it because Wall Street investors don't like that it's cheap. On the other hand, India are going great guns for the Oxford Vaccine because of its price.

I've also noticed that those dissing the Oxford Vaccine are unable to say what's good about it. Really, none of the 3 are perfect in every way. There have been plenty of commentators and scientists who have discussed vaccine nationalism. It's disappointing.

• Similarly, people preferring Oxford to Pfizer are British.

That should say some people

I've also noticed that those dissing the Oxford Vaccine are unable to say what's good about it.

I think you're exhibiting confirmation bias then because I have seen plenty of balanced coverage.

There's an example right there:

The Oxford Vaccine trials were sloppier

But a failure to mention that Pfizer relied on self reporting of symptoms, potentially missing the asymptotic. Where the Oxford Vaccine actively tested participants each week

The two aren't mutually exclusive. There has been balanced coverage. And biased coverage.

I'd imagine its the new type of vaccine fears with the RNA I'm not saying its right it's understandable.

@ChaBishkoot

The efficacy of the vaccines are obtainable through a quick Google search. The Pfizer vaccine has 94% efficacy after two doses. The Oxford vaccine in its current MHRA dosing schedule has 62%.

Do you have a link?

I read differently, namely that

• Pfizer has 94% efficacy if the dose is given 3 weeks apart (or up to 6 weeks if mitigating circumstances delay the second jab) - and that there is no research on the effectiveness at the 12-week apart schedule that the UK is performing (the reason they've spaced the doses apart is because the new strain poses such a threat that they'd rather give more people partial immunity than less people 95%)

• Oxford has 90% efficacy if the first injection is half a dose, and the second injection is a full dose, as long as they're given within 12 weeks of eachother.

• Oxford had 64% efficacy when they used a different dosing regimen where they administered two full doses 12 weeks apart. But it has been licensed in the UK for the half dose followed by full dose regimen which has 90% efficacy.

• Across both trials (the half dose then full dose, and the 2 full doses) the average efficacy for the Oxford vaccine was 70% (not really relevant but mentioning it as this number is quoted sometimes)

@ekidmxcl

If people are refusing Pfizer in any significant numbers, the govt should let anyone who wants it have it.

As far as I know they're trying to offer them, but to those in the priority groups where possible. I've been told by a GP that due to storage issues (it can't be stored easily due to the low temperature requirement), some GP clinics who have ended up with leftovers have offered last minute (same day or next day I think) appointments to frontline NHS staff or others within the first few priority groups.

It's mostly the Americans dissing the Oxford vaccine most likely because it hurts their profits; so American criticism shouldn't be a surprise.
No profit will be made on Oxford vaccines given to developing nations whereas Pfizer has made no such pledge.
Also the Pfizer jab must be “deep frozen” and used within five days of leaving the dry-ice containers it is shipped in, the Oxford jab can be kept in a fridge, between 2 and 8C for up to six months. This makes the Pfizer vaccine a logistical nightmare in the United Kingdom; just imagine what it will be in the developing countries. So all the developing nations are rooting for the Oxford vaccine and looking forward to it.

OP the UK has approved Oxford vaccine as two full doses, 12 weeks apart - not the half dose/full dose combo. They say it’s effective based on an unpublished cut of the data.

But a failure to mention that Pfizer relied on self reporting of symptoms

That doesn't make the trial sloppy. The sloppiness is in relation to the way it was conducted wrt its defined parameters and procedures.

I think people are more concerned about having the second jab outside of the 12 week schedule than which one they have. If people are turning injections down they may want to rethink going against manufacturers instructions....

I've heard comments from some of the older generation that they don't want any foreign jabs

I wont get one for some time and whilst I may ask what one getting I don't think it will bother me either way.

@tobee

There's an example right there:

The Oxford Vaccine trials were sloppier

But a failure to mention that Pfizer relied on self reporting of symptoms, potentially missing the asymptotic. Where the Oxford Vaccine actively tested participants each week

Agree. Self reporting of symptoms was one of the biggest drawbacks of Pfizer testing. Testing of participants was way more thorough in the Oxford trials. This may also have driven distrust towards the Pfizer vaccine.

It is not that it can’t be stored, it can’t be kept. It has 5 days from being taken out of the deep freeze until it has to be discarded. 6 hours from being mixed

There were 5 doses approved for usage but on 18th Dec they approved using the 6th in the vial, and you can get 7 out of some of them

They also only delivered 975 doses and warned everyone there would be wastage
If you draw incorrectly, shake it or drop it you have to discard it.

You also get sometimes less than 1 weeks notice of delivery

Hence not enough patients had been invited from the initial plans. Vast majority of over 80’s do not have mobile phones and around Christmas, the post was horrendous. This involved hundreds of hours of phone calls to try to fill slots

In the end a lot of GP’s ran out of time to invite patients, they all have a lot of staff isolating themselves or sick

Also the rules changed and all the second doses, already planned, all had to be cancelled and new patients booked (also all over 80)

The protocol states you must complete a cohort before moving onto the next. So the over 80’s and front line staff (and care home staff) are the only cohorts you can vaccinate. You can also vaccinate care home residents with the AZ

I have to tell you that I am in awe of how we have all managed to pull this off (myself included) to manage to vaccinate this many so far, many of us have not slept much, worked weeks in a row with no break (all of Xmas and NY) it is exhausting

My clinically vulnerable aunt was told by her consultant that she should wait for the Oxford vaccine rather than the Pfizer one. Have got friends who are also clinically vulnerable and they have been told the same by their doctors.

Oxford has 90% efficacy if the first injection is half a dose, and the second injection is a full dose, as long as they're given within 12 weeks of each other.

The group that got that regime was demographically narrower than the other group. Older adults are likely to have a weaker response to a vaccine so a younger group will be likely to show a more efficacious result.

The national protocol has changed for Pfizer and it’s unlikely that consultants will all have read it it was only changed on 6th Jan. It was very cautious to begin with. So they have given advice that’s now changed and maybe not relevant, and this is going to delay people’s vaccinations longer.
They need AZ to vaccinate care homes and housebound because it can be moved, so a long backlog of people waiting for AZ on dubious advice is a concern

@marshmallowfluffy

Is Oxford one jab? If I was needle phobic that would sway things for me

No, it is two - same as Pfizer and same as the Moderna one as well which I think was approved today