Sky News Breaking

 

@SkyNewsBreak

·

28m

 

 

The UK medicine regulator has approved the Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine for use in the UK

 

 

Health Secretary Matt Hancock tells Sky News the rollout of the Oxford/Astrazeneca vaccine will begin on 4 January

 

Health Secretary Matt Hancock says "we are confident we can get out of the pandemic by the spring" after the UK medicine regulator approved the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine for use in the UK

BBC Report

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-55280671

 

Covid-19: Oxford-AstraZeneca coronavirus vaccine approved for use in UK

By James Gallagher
Health and science correspondent

Published

11 minutes ago

IMAGE COPYRIGHTREUTERS

The coronavirus vaccine designed by scientists at the University of Oxford has been approved for use in the UK.

It marks a major turning point and will lead to a massive expansion in the UK's immunisation campaign, which is aimed at getting life back to normal.

The UK has ordered 100 million doses from the manufacturer AstraZeneca - enough to vaccinate 50 million people.

The approval, by the medicines regulator, means the vaccine is both safe and effective.

 

It would be a good idea for all MP's to have the vaccination so they can't keep giving themselves time off...(whilst telling teachers and school kids it's fine ...get back to school)

Great news.  This really is the game changer imo as it's far cheaper and easier to use than the others.  

 

Astrazeneca also claims a new dosing strategy will make it even more effective.

 

A one dose strategy also appears to provide significant protection (though the second shot is necessary for best protection).

 

Note: all 3 vaccines provided almost total protection against serious infections in trial subjects.

And the EU still thinking.

Do like in Thailand.

No tinking to mut.

Excellent, Let's hope that us stuck in the UK can be in a Thai non quarantine bubble and get back to our families before the summer

3 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

Astrazeneca also claims a new dosing strategy will make it even more effective.

not sure 72 days apart will help a lot of us trying to get beck to our families that quickly  ! But better than nothing

1 minute ago, RichardColeman said:

not sure 72 days apart will help a lot of us trying to get beck to our families that quickly  ! But better than nothing

 

I don't think having a vaccine or not will make any sort of difference in all honesty. 

 

Basically, the vaccines stop a person from becoming very ill.  (Sterilising vs neutralising).

 

I think the main difference will come when most of Thai people receive a vaccination.

Well done to all involved in getting this game changer approved now bang it into millions a week Boris get your pants on a boil wash ???? 

26 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

 

I don't think having a vaccine or not will make any sort of difference in all honesty. 

 

Basically, the vaccines stop a person from becoming very ill.  (Sterilising vs neutralising).

 

I think the main difference will come when most of Thai people receive a vaccination.

Quite. The good news is that with approval in the UK, approval in Thailand shouldn't be a problem and may be available in the not too distant future.

The question then would be how long to reach a significant part of the population.

2 hours ago, mommysboy said:

A one dose strategy also appears to provide significant protection (though the second shot is necessary for best protection).

 

People maybe remember all the fuzz about the half dose-full dose regime. It turns out that the the people who accidently received a half dose were in a trial that was supposed to test the feasibility of a single (full) shot rather than two. When it was realized they had only received half a dose they were given a second (full) shot but by then eight to twelve weeks had passed. Analysis of the data suggested that the half shot resulted in relatively good protection. So in the UK there are now suggestions that a single (full dose) is given and a second after three months as this would allow more people to get vaccinated (Oh and as a 'side-note' this was not tested in the reported trials. A new publication with further data is supposed to appear soon).. 

5 hours ago, cormanr7 said:

People maybe remember all the fuzz about the half dose-full dose regime. It turns out that the the people who accidently received a half dose were in a trial that was supposed to test the feasibility of a single (full) shot rather than two. When it was realized they had only received half a dose they were given a second (full) shot but by then eight to twelve weeks had passed. Analysis of the data suggested that the half shot resulted in relatively good protection. So in the UK there are now suggestions that a single (full dose) is given and a second after three months as this would allow more people to get vaccinated (Oh and as a 'side-note' this was not tested in the reported trials. A new publication with further data is supposed to appear soon).. 

 

Does it really matter anyway?   'Form' is surely less important than result?

 

Obviously, we're all beginning to understand that the wrong metric was really chosen for efficacy with these vaccines: the most important thing being prevention of serious illness. 

 

The one dose strategy is clever imo.  So far, AZ has been the only vaccine maker to publish peer reviewed findings, so there's no reason to believe that they won't do so again.