Originally published at: https://boingboing.net/2020/11/23/oxford-university-covid-vaccine-cheap-and-easy-to-store-is-70-90-effective.html
…
6 Likes
Given that we will need on the order of 17 billion doses, soonest, the more the merrier. And one that does not have so many logistical challenges will have a definite place.
14 Likes
Where’s the Swedish flag on this BBC graphic? It might be petty of me but I can’t help but see the talk of a “Oxford university vaccine” as a bit of post-Brexit jingoism. By all means be proud of it but don’t forget that AstraZeneca is a Swedish/British joint venture.
12 Likes
Why the fuck are there flags there in the first place?
20 Likes
I think I am correct in saying that Sputnik never did a phase 3 trial (prior to distribution of millions of doses, anyway) which is a huge but dangerous way to do it! Any claims as to effectiveness are very suspect. None of them have published results, but the others would face enormous backlash if they are bluffing. Sputnik, not so much. They may well never release their findings.
12 Likes
8 Likes
So you know not to get the Russian one.
14 Likes
It is, but they are headquartered here in Cambridge, England, and the vaccine was developed by the UK team.
3 Likes
So many credible candidates. Imagine if we put 10% of this kind of effort into dealing with health issues people face every day…
8 Likes
We put tons of effort into solving healthcare issues. There are definitely understudied diseases especially those that disproportionately affect minorities but that isn’t the main problem. We just don’t put the effort into actually getting those treatments to the people who need them.
2 Likes
I believe you are incorrect. The results that the Gamelaya Institute are reporting are preliminary Phase 3 results based on an in-Russia Phase 3 trial with ~40,000 participants. Essentially the same type of report as the other 3 vaccines reported in the table.
There are other Phase 3 trials in process in other countries but it is not clear to me if any of that data is included it this announcement. I doubt it.
What Sputnik 5 did do is get a very early equivalent of an EUA based on the Phase 2 trial and, I think, by extending their safety arguments based on very similar vaccines they have developed for Ebola and MERS. I believe the Ebola vaccine may be in general use. The MERS vaccine is in Phase 3 trials.
2 Likes
I’m looking forward to taking each and every of these vaccines. Belts & suspenders.
7 Likes
Something’s wrong. The sample size is too small. They’re claiming p<=0.0001 with no justification that I can see.
You have to dig down to get the actual numbers.
There were 2741 people in the 90% group that got a half dose followed by a full dose, and 8895 people in the 62% group that got two full doses.
Combining the two groups, there were 30 cases in vaccinated people and 101 in people who got the placebo (per an early BBC story).
They don’t tell us the raw numbers in each group, but doing the math: there were 2 infections in the smaller group and 28 infections in the larger.
2 infections is not a basis to claim 90% efficacy. If just one more person had gotten sick, it would be 88%; if two, 85%.
4 Likes
The vaccine was developed by the Jenner Institute and the Oxford Vaccine Group. AstraZeneca are manufacturing the vaccine.
2 Likes
I thought that was why the makers themselves advertised the 70% number. The people who keep going on about the 90% seem to be mostly patriotic British third parties.
1 Like
Looks like once more some people are saying “Oh look, this is less effective but cheaper. Perfect for the third world!”
I’m an evil capitalist and I think that’s a stupid idea.
Let’s find the one that works best and get the damn world involved getting it to everyone by whatever means it takes.
If that makes me some sort of socialist, I’ll live with it. When your house is on fire is not the time to worry about politics.
Anti-vaxxers can get stuffed, this is a world wide plague. We can indulge your bizarre fantasies when the danger is past.
What does tranpsorted mean?
Its in the summary.
Looks like once more some people are saying “Oh look, this is less effective but cheaper. Perfect for the third world!”
On the other hand that vaccine is less complex and potentially safer than its more refined competitors so maybe its better.
2 Likes
The WHO has said that it will accept vaccines that are at least 50% effective.
The vaccine that “works best” for a vaccination campaign is the one that doesn’t need to be deep frozen.
2 Likes
I’m a fan of the Oxford vaccine as I understand the technology (tried and true) behind it.
I will quite willingly take any and all vaccines that pass 3rd stage testing.
Assuming they use different ways to block the virus, I’m thinking a combination of vaccines would be most effective. So one with 90% effectiveness added to one that has 60% effectiveness would potentially mean a combined 96%, throw in another one and shave that number even smaller.
Is there a reason in the long-term not to use that kind of multiple dose? Assuming any potential side effects are minimal and/or that they don’t conflict. In the short term obviously we just need to get something that works into as many arms as possible as quick as possible.
