oxford vacinne easier to use than pfizer

[mommysboy]

1 hour ago, from the home of CC said:

safe and effective?

https://www.wired.com/story/the-astrazeneca-covid-vaccine-data-isnt-up-to-snuff/

 

Yes there is no suggestion that it is not safe and effective.  

 

This story is attempting to make mountains out of mole-hills.

 

 

[mommysboy]

1 hour ago, from the home of CC said:

couldn't pay me enough to put this in my arm..

https://www.wired.com/story/the-astrazeneca-covid-vaccine-data-isnt-up-to-snuff/

 

 

 

Well you won't have to will you?  

 

Why not give the Sputnik5 a whirl!

 

 

 

 

[from the home of CC]

1 minute ago, mommysboy said:

 

Well you won't have to will you?  

 

Why not give the Sputnik5 a whirl!

 

 

 

 

nah, like I said originally, I'll stick with the premium..

[mommysboy]

4 minutes ago, from the home of CC said:

nah, like I said originally, I'll stick with the premium..

 

Too late!  Your dose is going to the UK.  

 

Approval for the Pfizer vaccine is expected shortly, and the UK has 60 million doses on order (from memory), with the first few million due before Xmas.

 

Good grief! There'll be more dry ice than a Queen concert.

 

You don't seriously believe The Oxford jab is unsafe or ineffective, do you?  The dosing is uncertain that's all!

Edited November 26, 2020 by mommysboy

[from the home of CC]

4 hours ago, mommysboy said:

 

Too late!  Your dose is going to the UK.  

 

Approval for the Pfizer vaccine is expected shortly, and the UK has 60 million doses on order (from memory), with the first few million due before Xmas.

 

Good grief! There'll be more dry ice than a Queen concert.

 

You don't seriously believe The Oxford jab is unsafe or ineffective, do you?  The dosing is uncertain that's all!

I believe in all likelihood these issues will be eventually resolved but in these times especially they should have performed their due diligence during the processes. Clearly there was preventable failures of procedure that could have resulted in hurting innocent people performing the brave act of allowing injection for scientific study . When there are so many conspiracy theorists out there presently pushing the anti vax message  already we don't need companies presenting sloppy work and giving the nutters more ammunition for their ranting. Read the Canadian news article below, it certainly gives me pause....you first lol

https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/astrazeneca-oxford-vaccine-error-trial-results-1.5816852

[GroveHillWanderer]

19 hours ago, from the home of CC said:

nah, like I said originally, I'll stick with the premium..

In the Pfizer and Moderna vaccine trials, they didn't test the participants to see if they were infected or not - they simply relied on them to self-report if they experienced symptoms.

 

So just by the law of averages, they almost certainly missed some asymptomatic cases in the vaccinated group.

 

The Oxford-AstraZeneca trial on the other hand, PCR-tested their participants every week. So they detected everyone who was infected, whether symptomatic or not.

 

The true rate of infections in those receiving the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines is actually unknown, whereas in the Oxford-AstraZeneca trial we know all infections were reported.  There's every likelihood that the efficacy rate for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines would be lower if the unknown number of almost inevitable asymptomatic infections had been included.

Edited November 27, 2020 by GroveHillWanderer

[mommysboy]

14 hours ago, from the home of CC said:

I believe in all likelihood these issues will be eventually resolved but in these times especially they should have performed their due diligence during the processes. Clearly there was preventable failures of procedure that could have resulted in hurting innocent people performing the brave act of allowing injection for scientific study . When there are so many conspiracy theorists out there presently pushing the anti vax message  already we don't need companies presenting sloppy work and giving the nutters more ammunition for their ranting. Read the Canadian news article below, it certainly gives me pause....you first lol

https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/astrazeneca-oxford-vaccine-error-trial-results-1.5816852

 

It was really sloppy, and creates a terrible impression.  Also why on earth didn't they just state the results as they are!  They could have just said '62% proven with the possibility of better due to refined dosing'. It was stupid.

 

 

[mommysboy]

17 minutes ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

In the Pfizer and Moderna vaccine trials, they didn't test the participants to see if they were infected or not - they simply relied on them to self-report if they experienced symptoms.

 

So just by the law of averages, they almost certainly missed some asymptomatic cases in the vaccinated group.

 

The Oxford-AstraZeneca trial on the other hand, PCR-tested their participants every week. So they detected everyone who was infected, whether symptomatic or not.

 

The true rate of infections in those receiving the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines is actually unknown, whereas in the Oxford-AstraZeneca trial we know all infections were reported.  There's every likelihood that the efficacy rate for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines would be lower if the unknown number of almost inevitable asymptomatic infections had been included.

 

Are you sure?  Self reporting is totally unreliable.  I think you may be confused with daily swab tests to check asymptomatic transmission.

[GroveHillWanderer]

2 hours ago, mommysboy said:

 

Are you sure?  Self reporting is totally unreliable.  I think you may be confused with daily swab tests to check asymptomatic transmission.

Pretty sure - I've seen it reported in a number of different articles. Here's an extract from just one:

 

Quote

On the other hand, it is also possible that people who received the vaccine may have been infected with the virus but had only mild or no symptoms, so they might not have been captured in the number of confirmed Covid-19 cases so far.

 

Oxford-AstraZeneca conducted weekly swab tests of volunteers as part of its trial, which may have detected mild infections. But the Moderna trial and the Pfizer-BioNTech trial only reported people who experienced symptoms and were later confirmed to be infected.

Oxford, Moderna, Pfizer vaccine trials

 

So obviously, if they only tested people who experienced symptoms, they would not pick up any asymptomatic cases.

 

In another article I read, a Pfizer representative said they didn't do regular testing of the participants as it would have been logistically difficult and financially burdensome to test 30,000 people every week.

 

Edited November 27, 2020 by GroveHillWanderer

[from the home of CC]

5 hours ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

In the Pfizer and Moderna vaccine trials, they didn't test the participants to see if they were infected or not - they simply relied on them to self-report if they experienced symptoms.

 

So just by the law of averages, they almost certainly missed some asymptomatic cases in the vaccinated group.

 

The Oxford-AstraZeneca trial on the other hand, PCR-tested their participants every week. So they detected everyone who was infected, whether symptomatic or not.

 

The true rate of infections in those receiving the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines is actually unknown, whereas in the Oxford-AstraZeneca trial we know all infections were reported.  There's every likelihood that the efficacy rate for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines would be lower if the unknown number of almost inevitable asymptomatic infections had been included.

in the Oxford tests they gave half the folks saline as a placebo and then used a meningitis vaccine as a placebo on another group -  too many questions about this whole procedure for too many scientists world wide. Like the saying goes, sometimes haste makes waste..

[from the home of CC]

5 hours ago, mommysboy said:

 

It was really sloppy, and creates a terrible impression.  Also why on earth didn't they just state the results as they are!  They could have just said '62% proven with the possibility of better due to refined dosing'. It was stupid.

 

 

and couldn't have worse timing considering the state of health in the world today. There's lots of discussion about another trial, unfortunately the delay will cost lives..

[polpott]

On 11/12/2020 at 10:59 PM, Lacessit said:

Odds are the Pfizer vaccine is more effective, and could be reserved for people such as politicians and front-line health professionals. Feel free to state your preferred recipients.

Not the case. AZ vaccine is 70% effective after one dose, 90+% effective after 1 1/2 doses. AZ vaccine will be given as 1/2 dose first followed by 1 dose a couple of weeks later. And, as the OP states, much easier and safer to store.

 

The other advantage is that the AZ vaccine will be distributed at cost whereas Pfizer hope to make a fortune out of their vaccine.

 

 

Edited November 27, 2020 by polpott

[mommysboy]

47 minutes ago, from the home of CC said:

and couldn't have worse timing considering the state of health in the world today. There's lots of discussion about another trial, unfortunately the delay will cost lives..

 

In the USA yes, it will cost thousands of lives needlessly.  But that's your and the USA's choice really.  USA is in a heck of a mess and really needs to get going with its own vaccines very soon and with a Herculean effort.  It really needed the Oxford vaccine or similar.

 

It won't happen in the USA that's for sure, but will in the UK.  And I suppose what happens there is the acid test.

 

Whichever way it cuts it will get UK approval since it is 62% effective and has no safety issues.

[mommysboy]

3 hours ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

Pretty sure - I've seen it reported in a number of different articles. Here's an extract from just one:

 

Oxford, Moderna, Pfizer vaccine trials

 

So obviously, if they only tested people who experienced symptoms, they would not pick up any asymptomatic cases.

 

In another article I read, a Pfizer representative said they didn't do regular testing of the participants as it would have been logistically difficult and financially burdensome to test 30,000 people every week.

 

 

That's startling, so in effect the 95% is likely very inaccurate, if true. But there has been no mention of this in the press really, so I wonder if it is either true or relevant.

[from the home of CC]

57 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

 

In the USA yes, it will cost thousands of lives needlessly.  But that's your and the USA's choice really.  USA is in a heck of a mess and really needs to get going with its own vaccines very soon and with a Herculean effort.  It really needed the Oxford vaccine or similar.

 

It won't happen in the USA that's for sure, but will in the UK.  And I suppose what happens there is the acid test.

 

Whichever way it cuts it will get UK approval since it is 62% effective and has no safety issues.

no data pointing to protection of those over 55, which mainly is the whole point of it no? Anyways you're correct, the UK will probably go ahead regardless..

[Jingthing]

4 minutes ago, from the home of CC said:

no data pointing to protection of those over 55, which mainly is the whole point of it no? Anyways you're correct, the UK will probably go ahead regardless..

No. That's not the main point of it. The point of it is to greatly block mass infections. If enough people are not spreading it, it stops being a pandemic.

[rabas]

51 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

 

That's startling, so in effect the 95% is likely very inaccurate, if true. But there has been no mention of this in the press really, so I wonder if it is either true or relevant.

From what I read, Moderna and presumably Pfizer will later perform full antibody testing which in essence will eventually yield the same information. These trials are still in their early stages and have not published data. What we have so far are mostly announcements and press releases targeting media, investors, and regulators. 

 

OTH, I'm not sure one would expect (seemingly) more effective mRNA vaccines to do a worse job on asymptomatic infections. Though the biochemical systems are very complex, both vaccine types use the spike proteins to train the  immune system..

 

Sam Scarpino, director of the Emergent Epidemics Lab at Northeastern University, who has modelled asymptomatic infections in other diseases says:  “We don’t have any reason to think the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines won’t block transmission..."

 

From WIRED Does the AstraZeneca Vaccine Also Stop Covid Transmission

 

[AmySeeker]

14 hours ago, Jingthing said:

No. That's not the main point of it. The point of it is to greatly block mass infections. If enough people are not spreading it, it stops being a pandemic.

 

Does the Vaccine stop you actually getting the virus though or does it reduce the effects of the virus ?

[GroveHillWanderer]

16 hours ago, mommysboy said:

 

That's startling, so in effect the 95% is likely very inaccurate, if true. But there has been no mention of this in the press really, so I wonder if it is either true or relevant.

It's definitely been mentioned. As I said, I've read about it in several articles and the one I linked to is only one example - there are others.

[GroveHillWanderer]

15 hours ago, from the home of CC said:

no data pointing to protection of those over 55, which mainly is the whole point of it no? Anyways you're correct, the UK will probably go ahead regardless..

If you're talking about the Oxford vaccine, that's not the case. It has shown really promising efficacy in older people. The low-dose/high-dose regimen may only have been tested on younger people but the full dose regimen was trialled on older people as well and had equally good results with younger and older people.

 

The BBC article on this states as follows:

Quote

These trial results from the University of Oxford, peer-reviewed in the Lancet, suggest that may not be a problem.

 

They show that older adults aged 56-69 and over 70 had a similar immune response to younger adults aged 18-55.

 

Oxford vaccine shows 'encouraging' immune response in older adults

[mommysboy]

15 hours ago, rabas said:

From what I read, Moderna and presumably Pfizer will later perform full antibody testing which in essence will eventually yield the same information. These trials are still in their early stages and have not published data. What we have so far are mostly announcements and press releases targeting media, investors, and regulators. 

 

OTH, I'm not sure one would expect (seemingly) more effective mRNA vaccines to do a worse job on asymptomatic infections. Though the biochemical systems are very complex, both vaccine types use the spike proteins to train the  immune system..

 

Sam Scarpino, director of the Emergent Epidemics Lab at Northeastern University, who has modelled asymptomatic infections in other diseases says:  “We don’t have any reason to think the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines won’t block transmission..."

 

From WIRED Does the AstraZeneca Vaccine Also Stop Covid Transmission

 

 

Ok, but when AstraZeneca publish the same unfinished data, with similar assumptions they get ripped apart by the US press!

 

I do think the Pfizer vaccine is far superior to vector vaccines, but I hope other people on this forum get my point.

[mommysboy]

50 minutes ago, AmySeeker said:

 

Does the Vaccine stop you actually getting the virus though or does it reduce the effects of the virus ?

 

Both in the case of vector vaccines, though this can not definitively be stated with the trials since there is insufficient data.  But this is the case with the flu jab.

[polpott]

37 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

 

Ok, but when AstraZeneca publish the same unfinished data, with similar assumptions they get ripped apart by the US press!

 

I do think the Pfizer vaccine is far superior to vector vaccines, but I hope other people on this forum get my point.

AZ are verifying the vaccine by the book. Conduct trials, stage 1,2 and 3. Correlate the results. Publish in The Lancet, at which point it will be peer reviewed. Submit to the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), UK equivalent to the FDA, who will approve it for widescale use, or not.

[from the home of CC]

6 hours ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

If you're talking about the Oxford vaccine, that's not the case. It has shown really promising efficacy in older people. The low-dose/high-dose regimen may only have been tested on younger people but the full dose regimen was trialled on older people as well and had equally good results with younger and older people.

 

The BBC article on this states as follows:

 

Oxford vaccine shows 'encouraging' immune response in older adults

https://time.com/5915804/astra-zeneca-error-vaccine-study-coronavirus/

 

perhaps the BBC's view but few others. No one over 55 yrs old received the mistake of the lower dose. Running another trial is their only real option, and maybe trying to be a little more scientific about it all (less guestimates would be helpful)..

[mommysboy]

54 minutes ago, from the home of CC said:

https://time.com/5915804/astra-zeneca-error-vaccine-study-coronavirus/

 

perhaps the BBC's view but few others. No one over 55 yrs old received the mistake of the lower dose. Running another trial is their only real option, and maybe trying to be a little more scientific about it all (less guestimates would be helpful)..

 

Perhaps adopting the same reporting protocol as Pfizer would nudge the percentages up a point or 30 too????.

 

I suspect all these vaccines will average out at 50-70% in real life situations, and will significantly reduce serious illness.

 

The practice of declaring trial results by press release should be outlawed imo.  It could be the company involved should be the last one to comment.

 

 

[rabas]

23 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

Perhaps adopting the same reporting protocol as Pfizer would nudge the percentages up a point or 30 too????.

 

I suspect all these vaccines will average out at 50-70% in real life situations, and will significantly reduce serious illness.

 

The practice of declaring trial results by press release should be outlawed imo.  It could be the company involved should be the last one to comment.

 

I would guess mRNA vaccines can outperform in principle because they have no viral particle to interact with the immune system. There can be no pre-existing or induced resistance to the delivery system. The Russians use two different virus to minimize this effect.

[rabas]

Certainly all these vaccines will make great contributions.

 

However, from a personal viewpoint as an older person, I would prefer the 95% vaccine over a 70% vaccine even if a bit more expensive. Why? It gives me a 1/20 chance of getting the COVID beast versus a 6/20.  I would sleep better at night.

 

Edited November 28, 2020 by rabas

[mommysboy]

1 hour ago, rabas said:

Certainly all these vaccines will make great contributions.

 

However, from a personal viewpoint as an older person, I would prefer the 95% vaccine over a 70% vaccine even if a bit more expensive. Why? It gives me a 1/20 chance of getting the COVID beast versus a 6/20.  I would sleep better at night.

 

 

In truth I reckon 65% is going to be tops with vector vaccines, but it's very likely the severity of infection will be greatly reduced.  Ultimately, it's about that more than anything- I mean we can all live with colds.

 

Yes, The Pfizer vaccine is ground breaking stuff.  It's surely everyone's first choice. It's the roll out which is the major challenge. In the UK, for instance, our politicians, leaders, experts, etc, have developed an incredible knack for ruining everything, even simple things.  I hope they don't spurn this great opportunity.

[GroveHillWanderer]

14 hours ago, from the home of CC said:

perhaps the BBC's view but few others. No one over 55 yrs old received the mistake of the lower dose.

That's not the BBC's view, it's the finding of the peer-reviewed paper with a scientific analysis of the actual data, published in the Lancet (which was merely being reported on by the BBC).

 

And as I pointed out, although there were indeed no people over 55 in the small group receiving the low-dose/high dose, there were plenty of older people, (including some over 70) in the much larger group receiving the two equal  doses.

 

The results from that larger trial with the dosage given as originally intended are inherently more reliable than the results of the smaller trial with the mistaken dosing regimen and show efficacy in older people at exactly the same level as in the younger participants.

[rabas]

1 hour ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

That's not the BBC's view, it's the finding of the peer-reviewed paper with a scientific analysis of the actual data, published in the Lancet (which was merely being reported on by the BBC).

 

And as I pointed out, although there were indeed no people over 55 in the small group receiving the low-dose/high dose, there were plenty of older people, (including some over 70) in the much larger group receiving the two equal  doses.

 

The results from that larger trial with the dosage given as originally intended are inherently more reliable than the results of the smaller trial with the mistaken dosing regimen and show efficacy in older people at exactly the same level as in the younger participants.

 

"...and show efficacy in older people at exactly the same level as in the younger participants."

 

Do you have a reference to the Lancet article with efficacy data showing this? Or are you referring to this November 18, 2020 paper, which only gives results for immunogenicity (which is good).

 

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)32466-1/fulltext

 

Just wondering if you have any efficacy data with age breakdown. That would be interesting.