Oxford vaccine is only 70% effective
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-55040635
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-55040635
The vaccines | vaxxed boosted unvaxxed? New poll
- Thread starter Badunk
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik and Imran hold a long overdue conversation about United's awful league form with 1 win in 7. They discuss a disappointing draw at Bournemouth, a not so disappointing draw against Liverpool and a crushing defeat at Chelsea - Is time nearly over for Erik Ten Hag?
Then in a special second half of the pod, Nik welcomes Natalie ( https://twitter.com/natalie_17) to discuss the fortunes of Manchester United Women as they booked a place in the FA Cup Final after a historic first ever win vs. Chelsea.
cant wait to digest the data. But given the logistics - price, storage, more effective than flu, already ordered 100 million doses should make a significant difference for early mass roll out
edit - https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2020-11-2...w0b5H1wxUmYWyivg87c-gYD9-xuMP0h9jmumMLnAxihO8
Two full doses is 62% effective. A half dose followed by a full dose 1 month later is 90% effective.
Last edited:
But it doesn't have the storage hurdles the other vaccines do it seems.
@Pogue Mahone called it 
I feel that these announcements focussing on percentages will hurt the actual vaccination process. People in a lot of western countries like UK are already hesitant about getting the vaccine & now this public announcement of 70-90-95 will just add to the panic especially considering most countries will use the Oxford vaccine
it really it. But then it’s a good target to go for.
it will be interesting to see the attitude of some people “I’m all right Jack” to the vaccinations. I can’t see any way you can have a mandatory vaccination, but wouldn’t be surprised if huh are restricted to what you can do if you don’t have one. The most obvious being international travel.
Considering it seems like this Oxford vaccine will be the most widely used one, how good is a 70% effectiveness in theory in vaccine development? Is it considered a bit 'meh', or is this actually also still a great result, slightly hampered by the 90-95% by the other two?
I’ve already seen things on far right Facebook pages along the lines the virus 97/8% safe while the vaccine is only 95%, there is no cure for stupid unfortunately.
Would love to know the numbers in the two dosing regimens and the statistical significance of the results. Can’t really understand why they gave differing doses anyway. Usually the dose is decided before Phase III.
Last edited:
Do we know what % of participants/positives had the half/full regimen?
70% seems pretty good, especially when you factor in the cost per shot of the other to, (around £40) whereas the Oxford one, whilst less efficient only costs around £3.
Far cheaper as well which to me says it's also far more scalable. If you're say India, you'd rather have 30% of your population vaccinated at 60% efficacy rather than 10% at 90%.
They're also saying none of the people who got the jab got severe covid so it seems it still gives some protection.
Sounds like 70% is a mean of those who had half (90% efficacy) and those who had full (62% efficacy). I think we can work it out from that it was like a 25-75 split?
In the FDA's guidelines for this vaccine they said:
And here's what was said about that soon after by Peter Marks, director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research:
So 70% is definitely not meh, especially in this timescale. It's right on target. It's just the others were pretty exceptional, in part because they prioritised efficacy over cost of production, ease of distribution and sticking with a tried and trusted method. This one is more effective than most flu vaccines. Although I tend to agree that the focus on these numbers in the media will put some people off because they think 70 sounds a bit low, and never paid much attention to the flu vaccine efficacy other than "I got the flu vaccine before and got the flu anyway, so these things don't always work".
You'll never be able to convince everybody, phase IV will yield more definitive results
But its a vaccine from existing vaccine technology unlikely the relatively more novel mRNA one.
There's the bits about nobody vaccinated was hospitalised, safety profile.
Flu vaccines are around 40-50% and yet this year we've been swamped with requests. I saw it on my facebook feed this morning, with the usual tongue-in-cheek types, skeptics etc and that was on a Guardian article! If it wasn't for the fact that I know they don't represent vast majority of more sensible people who I've vaccinated in the flu clinics in the populace (in the vulnerable groups) I'd be worried regarding uptake
I do agree though on broader point regarding the sport-ification regarding vaccine comparability focusing solely on percentages and thats how you lose scientific nuance
I wonder how much swing either way is the error for determining a 70% efficacy total for the vaccine. Maybe it's just a coincidence they found more cases in the higher dosage group. The total efficacy might change to a higher total later on I think. Either way, it's extremely good news!
Oh yeah, of course. Assuming those are the only 2 dose regimens, which is my interpretation.
On that basis I make it a 30:70 split. I wonder how long it will be before the half/full results mature enough to have the same confidence level.
this is great news
Now we know why the Oxford/AstraZeneca scientists were out talking their vaccine up last week. Trying to play catch up and keep the share price fall to a minimum this morning. 70% is good but not great in context.
So, Pfizer/Moderna for targeted vaccines to the elderly/high risk, and AZ for the masses. That seems like a good set of tools.
Yup. Which for many countries will eventually be far more important than the efficiency. 95% efficiency is great, but not every country will have the capabilities to buy and distribute it, while this vaccine can be kept in a normal fridge and won’t cost more than 3 pounds.
From the beginning it was clear that Moderna will be the leader at making the best vaccine, considering that them (like Pfilzer are using more modern technology), but there is more than enough space for an easier to make, easier to distribute and much cheaper vaccine.
That would be the way to go. I think though that Germany and the US might be tempted to go for Pfizer/Moderna entirely.
It is great IMO. Cheap, easy to distribute, can be scaled easier. Maybe not great for the UK, but there are countries who cannot afford to buy vaccines that cost dozens of dollars for a jab, that must be kept in very cold temperatures etc.
*trump hand gestures* We are going to build the best fridges the world has ever seen...believe me. They will be big, beautiful.....and some people have said they will be the coldest fridges ever built, i don't know if that is true, but people are saying it. *trump hand gestures*
First shot- AZ
Second Shot- Pzifer
160% Efficacy
Come at me rona
Second Shot- Pzifer
160% Efficacy
Come at me rona
Would love to see these studies! May well be a combined vaccine is best but not sure we will find out.
all this talk about %, you just know morons are going to demand nothing but "that 95% vaccine from the news" and the lag time for coverage will extend out. Fantastic news from Oxford, inject me now!!
feck knows what would happen if someone does this. Probably not good things though (as far as I know Oxford’s uses a live common cold virus of chimpanzees but modified, while Moderna/Pfizer is RNA based and doesn’t use the virus at all. In fact, I think that Moderna built the vaccine in only 3-4 weeks).
It's great in the context of it's hopefully another large scale vaccine better suited for poorer countries. I'm not sure it's great when your two competitors come out with 95%+ though and AZ is one of the biggest losers on the stock market open this morning. It's a bit of a kick for the UK too who have put almost all their eggs in this basket.
its great news. Cant ignore the dosing regimen that leads to 90% in addition to possible preventing hospital admission, severe disease, the storage with implications of worldwide distribution and uptake.
Proof of concept is what we needed and we have it.
Don’t think that it will be a problem for the UK who have already ordered 100m doses of Oxford’s one. The awesome thing of the vaccine is that it is so cheap and scalable, that if everyone gets it (which is doable if mandated) you reach full herd immunity despite its 70% efficiency.
need to see more data before we know it’s good for the poorer countries, don’t we? If the efficacy is much lower for higher age cohorts, then you’re reliant on the virus not being in circulation(meaning a lot of people have to be vaccinated) vs a high efficacy in older people vaccine like Pfizer where you prevent most of the problems by vaccinating just the elderly. So you’re not just trading off cost of the vaccines.
Context matters though. It is very likely that they can produce more vaccines that Moderna and Pfizer combined, while costing a dozen of times less.
I would rather get the 70% efficient shot in 2 months than the 95% one in 1-2 years.
The UK who have put all their eggs in this basket (not sure if this is true) might well end as the fastest immunized country.
And for the third world countries, very likely this vaccine will be the vaccine. Stock market does not matter in short term. When they sell 2-3 billions vaccines in the next 18 months, the stock market is gonna reflect that.
Poorer countries tend to have a significantly younger average age. Isn’t the average age in Africa something like 20 years or so. So it might well end with a higher efficiency there. And if 3 pounds/vaccine is true, then everyone can afford it which is amazing news.
The 70% efficacy headline is a shame, makes this seem like a negative. But this is great news; more easily distributed, cheaper, possibility of 90+ efficacy with correct dosing.
Hopefully we get some papers with real data in them soon.
Hopefully we get some papers with real data in them soon.
But Why put it on their death cert, if they didn't die from Covid. When a friend of mine asked this question after her mother had died with another ailment. The answer she got was " We are only doing what we have been told".
70% efficacy is fine..
But isn't the sample size too small? 95% with a small sample size means it'll be very useable even if the small sample size skewed the results a bit ..
130 cases with 70% just feels like too not enough info... I might be completely wrong though..
But isn't the sample size too small? 95% with a small sample size means it'll be very useable even if the small sample size skewed the results a bit ..
130 cases with 70% just feels like too not enough info... I might be completely wrong though..
Yea - but time to vaccinate is enormous. Take India -- the CEO of the company in charge of producing vaccines thinks it'll be till 2024 before everyone here can be vaccinated.
Given that, it's not just a cost thing. You want your first 10-20% of the vaccine to be high efficacy.
The devil will be in the detail for all these vaccines. Would you rather take a vaccine that has a 70% reduction in symptomatic cases but a 100% reduction in severe disease/hospitalisations or one with 95% and 60% efficacy respectively?
One thing’s for sure. Trying to understand all the important details about a new medicine based on the scanty information in a press release is a mug’s game.
One thing’s for sure. Trying to understand all the important details about a new medicine based on the scanty information in a press release is a mug’s game.