It shows me that people just believe what they want and don’t care for the real releases. Pro COVID vaccine people wouldn’t care that the trial seems flawed, they’ve already been in here talking down to anyone who doubted it.
The vaccines | vaxxed boosted unvaxxed? New poll
- Thread starter Badunk
- Start date
I presume they’re working on the assumption the vaccine has already been assessed and licensed. Which won’t happen if the trial data is as flawed as it seems (re the Oxford vaccine, that is, I haven’t seen anyone talking about major red flags for the other two)
I don't think assuming approval had anything to do with it. Any criticism of the results from the first release was quickly shouted down, and not just on here. On the BBC website for the first few hours it was reported as '70% effective' before being changed to 'highly effective' and pushing the 90% result without mentioning they got that result by accident. There is definitely overtones of nationalism in the press as it's seen as the British vaccine.
I said this earlier in the thread, when you're working on creating a vaccine against the worst global pandemic in living memory, your share price doesn't crash over 10% if your news is good.
Fair enough. I was being charitable in my interpretation. It’s the nature of emotive discussions like this online. You get zealots from both extremes shouting people down. Which only adds to the polarisation.
I think/hope the vocal minority insulting each other online don’t reflect the feelings/opinions of the majority on this, or any other important issue.
This particular vaccine or the other vaccines which thus far seem ok?
As Pogue said there is a bit to go yet before any of them are approved.
I'll be more than happy to take a vaccine once it's passed all the approvals. If the Oxford trial is flawed then it won't get approved as is.
I haven't been following this thread, so apologies if I've missed something, but are there actual Pro vaccine zealots who don't care if a vaccine trial is flawed?
What on earth is a pro-vaccine person? All vaccines will be approved or not approved based on the data and not press releases.
Share prices are even worse than press releases for assessing science.
The Oxford vaccine is safe, cheap, and quickly manufactured.
The issue seems to be that with different administration regimes it is either 63% effective or 90% effective. The regime with the higher figure has far less data to support it which is the potential problem. Potential problem you note.
I suspect the worst case scenario is that the less effective regime gets approval and the more effective regime requires weeks or months more testing. Safety doesn't seem to be an issue either way.
And we also may just be a victim of science by press release. Lets see the actual data and how they have arrived at it before passing uninformed judgement.
From what I’ve seen you write in this thread I’d say you are a very pro vaccine person who has no time for anybody that has a question regarding it. Already these questions are proving worthwhile.
I’m sure I’ve seen you say you can’t doubt the vaccines and people are ignorant for basically questioning it re the speed of development, the percentages and the quick release etc and then they’re selfish for not taking it yet as the days pass and more info comes out and more actual experts question the press releases it shows it’s not as cut and dry as you like to make out. Apologies if I read you wrong
This Oxford vaccine that is now being questioned regards to its percentage and how the results arrived.
the rest of your post I agree with you, I just don’t like the attitude of some making out people are ignorant and dull when said person is just running around taking press releases as gospel at first look. It’s clear there’s a race to be the first or the best or the cheapest or the best county or whatever other involvement there is behind this vaccine aside from saving people’s lives
Because you called me ignorant and selfish because I am wary to get the vaccine until it is proven. I intend to wait because of this, and you or anyone else will not change my mind.
I do feel that I was jumped on for expressing my feelings on this matter. I am wary (same as thousands of others) of taking this vaccine until it is proven. I don't think I should be called ignorant and selfish because of this. I have been doing everything asked of me for the last 9 months and will continue to do this until I feel it is safe to get the vaccine.
I really do hope that everything works out to be fine, but I cannot help my feelings, and it is not Ignorance or Selfishness.
I understand where you're coming from. For me, the fact that this Oxford one is seemingly getting a lot of negative attention actually gives me hope that no corners are being cut on these vaccines i.e. once they're approved they've been through the same rigorous testing as the rest of our medication.
Anyway, at least your countries are at the front of the queue, some of us aren't even in a queue yet. So if people don't want to take, send them over
I think it is both ignorant and selfish to be fair.
Ignorance because even if the vaccine might have consequences, it is highly unlikely that the consequences are going to be as severe as the real virus.
Selfish because if most people act this way (let's wait a few years and see what happens), well, we have to live in isolation for the next few years cause normality won't return before people get vaccinated. And there won't be enough data to see long term effects and the efficiency of it, if most people decide to wait so the others do it. I think it is very rational to be worried about the vaccine, but at the same time it is very selfish to refuse to get it.
Yeah but not everyone thinks this way - they instead act based on the interests of their own health and the well being of their immediate family members.
I've no time for people who question vaccines in general. I've no time for people who invent reasons to try to undermine vaccines in this specific case (covid).
With the Oxford vaccine there are questions about the effectiveness of the more effective regime but not the safety of the vaccine. And not long ago we would have leapt upon a 63% effective vaccine.
And this is a press release and not actual.peer reviewed findings. If the actual data anslysis is adequate and doesn't pass peer review the vaccine won't be approved or the more effective regime won't be approved without further phase 3 trials.
Non-perfect results are in a way good news in that it means the process is working.
Maybe the finger should point the other way if you don't respect others feelings, and only your own. Goodbye sir.
No the pro vaccine people are the ones who want the regulators to approve the vaccines based on the methods they outlined in their guidelines for vaccine development. And if one vaccine is rejected while the others are accepted, while being held to the same standards they were supposed to be judged on from the outset, then the pro vaccine people will be happy. That's the process they value.
The people who were talking up the Astra Zeneca vaccine before the results had been assessed to an even minor degree, despite some curiosities with how they were reported, were disproportionately British people happy we had a British vaccine. Pfizer and Moderna vaccines were judged by a different standard. But any judgement that comes through from the pro vaccine people will be led by what the regulators say, the experts say, and the data says. Everything in between that time is just idle talk, not an indication of an entrenched position.
The only people who have taken a firm position on the Astra Zeneca vaccine are the people who have said they won't take it, before they've seen enough evidence to make a good judgement. Everyone else is hopeful the early positive signs bring with it much more positive confirmation, and the queries can be answered. But if questions remain then the regulators and experts will express caution and ask for more information. As they're doing now. That's not the same as saying I'll wait a year until it happens because I don't trust the science. It's quite close to the opposite of that.
Last edited:
I'm calling bullshit.
Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean you can avoid engaging in debate by inventing a threat that was simply an invention of your imagination.
Yes but feelings
I don't want to waste my time.
So you invent threats that don't exist to avoid justifying you 'feelings"? That must be a bit time consuming.
I said pro COVID vaccine in the quote of mine you quoted. We are not talking about general vaccines.
mans the rest of your post I agree, there are question about the effectiveness of the Oxford vaccine and also it’s just a press release, hence why people are hesitant of just saying they’re wary and don’t want to be first in line for it. No need to beat down on them for that.
Once there has been clear information released and it is deemed safe and effectively worthwhile by the correct procedure and people, Then people may go past the point of being wary and into ignorance of not reading reviews for themselves
I can't wait for the vaccine. Jab me now Chris Whitty, you part toad, part real life muppet, human hybrid you.
I don't want to get involved with you as I would only get thrown off. I will say No More but never get involved with you again. Yes, I would love to, face to face.
Last edited:
That’s fair, it was a huge generalisation of ‘pro COVID vaccine people’(that’s also a stupid phrase I used) that I shouldn’t have done in the post you quoted as I am actually all for the vaccine once it’s all okayd and ready to go. I’m just not in a huge rush to believe everything released straight away
Indeed.
Last edited:
Yeah I think that where almost all of us are, we just frame things differently. People on either side jump on the slightly different framing while ignoring the core shared belief - we want to take the vaccine if it is proven safe - and then those distinctions get pulled apart to the nth degree until we lose sight of what the original discussion was! The extremes of the conversation really don't represent the general beliefs among most people. I suspect it doesn't particularly represent the views of the people that said them either. We're all tired of this and it's an emotive issue - not a good recipe for saying what we really mean!
Last edited:
Exactly, I fully agree.
It’s nice to have a relaxed conversation, as you say it’s an emotive subject and being online I don’t think helps that relaxed way of talking about it, it all extremes and I’m just as guilty for it.
Ive taken an interest in this thread as there seems to a be a few people who seem to know what they’re on about and explain it well for people who are not usually or at all clued up on vaccines and how they work, I’ve learned a lot just from this thread alone and various links.
When they say a vaccine is 90% or 70% or whatever does this mean that that percentage of people vaccinated won`t catch covid or that that percentage may still catch covid but won`t become seriously ill.
Same! You get a perspective on things through a slightly skewed lens with the way people share their views differently online, but if that lens points you at some useful info, it is useful.
In this case it's primarily looking at whether people get the covid disease (i.e. symptoms) rather than covid infection (could be asymptomatic or barely noticeable symptoms). So it catches people with a mild dose of it too, and the primary goal was preventing severe cases, but they've not got much data on whether it stops people getting it altogether.
We have almost no idea whether it limits asymptomatic cases yet but that is something they'll be looking for as it goes on, mostly to identify its impact on virus transmission. It was just a case of prioritisation for maximum effect.
The Oxford trial (for all its sins) did serial PCR tests on all its participants. So of the three vaccines in the headlines recently it’s the only one that will generate data on any potential reduction in asymptomatic carriers.
Sorry to lean on everyone here for updates but can anyone summarise why I'm hearing a bit of controversy over the Oxford vaccine's results?
Still a lot to learn by the sounds of it.
Yeah definitely a bonus for them! Shame they've not released the specific results on that yet, like all the rest of it. You'd think if they were positive they might've slipped out some findings on that by now! How much asymptomatic transmission actually takes place anyway? I thought it was fairly low.
It's a combination of communicating the results poorly, giving out 1 1/2 doses instead of 2 doses accidentally (which the CEO called "serendipity") and upon discovering that their accidental dosage worked better, not having a good explanation for why that is. And upon further investigation, it was noted that their two sets of results - one 90% effective, one 62% effective - were not only done in different countries among different groups of people, but it excluded those over 55 - and it was the head of Operation Warp Speed that had to point that out, rather than AZ themselves.
Sort of. Ultimately they have learned the most important part - if their analysis holds true.
This was the FDA's guidelines about efficacy:
It's not that unusual for a vaccine to be better at preventing severe vs. mild symptoms, and if the covid vaccines that are developed were only successful at preventing severe symptoms, doing that 90% of the time would still be a big win. What we know so far suggests Pfizer and Moderna's are also successful at preventing mild symptoms, so we might go one step futher. If it was able to limit infection altogether it would be a home run really. We shouldn't be expecting that. So any more news we're expecting is just the cherry on top, if the FDA reviews the data and verifies it is effective at preventing severe symptoms.
There’s nothing in the press release but they’ve alluded to evidence of reduced transmission in a few interviews. Good summary here. I’m sure if the evidence was statistically significant it would have made the press release!
Worth mentioning that the weekly swabs were only done in the UK sites. It wasn’t done in Brazil (another reason why combining to the two different data sets doesn’t make much sense)
And yes, there’s a major doubt about whether asymptomatic carriers are a big transmission risk. Certainly much less likely to shed virus without a cough.
Hull, after the vaccine allows travel.
Astra Zeneca announcing that the half/full dose regime will be subject to another clinical trial covering wider age groups etc. No details but I'd certainly expect UK and US regulators to be keeping a close eye on whatever they propose.
https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19...ine-developed-with-oxford-university-12143150
Still a good chance that the full/full pattern will be approved for use in the UK as it passes the 60% efficacy threshhold. That's assuming that the safety appraisal is successful, and that there are no more gremlins hiding under the press release blanket.
https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19...ine-developed-with-oxford-university-12143150
Still a good chance that the full/full pattern will be approved for use in the UK as it passes the 60% efficacy threshhold. That's assuming that the safety appraisal is successful, and that there are no more gremlins hiding under the press release blanket.
A lot of the UK's recovery/speed of it relies on this working right? Spent the most money and ordered the most from them?
Also is there a chance that if this vaccine does a 'decent' job but not as good as all the others, that some countries who used the other ones may turn away people with this one? So for example the Quantas guy saying that people with vaccines can travel in the future, what if they say "that's a shit one so no flight for you"
The fastest rollout would certainly be for the AstraZeneca version (if approved). Relatively easy to make, capacity could be ramped up quickly. Easy to distribute/use because it has no special cold chain requirements. Plus it can be made in the UK and Europe from Day 1 in relatively conventional plant - ready for use in volume, starting in December, and big quantities soon after.
The UK also has a 40m dose order for the Pfizer vaccine, but that vaccine has got a bigger set of high volume manufacturing/distribution unknowns before we know how quickly the Belgium plant can ramp up capacity. So, while we might get "some" in December, the chances are we won't be seeing millions of doses until sometime in Q1, with the meaning of sometime an open question at the moment.
On the other question, it's an anyone's guess right now. The early data looks better from Pfizer but two great unknowns remain about all the vaccines - do they stop/reduce transmission and for how long do they remain effective. Until we've got that kind of information, classifying vaccines to create an international bio-passport would be premature. It could be many months before we can start to look at that kind of differentiation.
By then of course another vaccine may have jumped into the safety/efficacy/cost lead. #TeamNovavax
That's literally what's happening. The Pfizer share price (and other pharma) had a big jump after their results came out. Then when Moderna released even better results Pfizer dropped and Moderna went up. AZ released less stellar results and their price immediately tanked whilst Moderna as the current 'leader' continues to climb. It's a race.By then of course another vaccine may have jumped into the safety/efficacy/cost lead. #TeamNovavax
It doesn't look great for the UK's vaccination programme if the half/full dose has to go through a new Phase 3 trial. I posted this earlier:
The Oxford vaccine falling short is exactly what is happening and they're all of a sudden looking a bit short on options. Are they going to give everybody the 60% dose regimen and then have to give everybody a second round of a better one later on?