| NYT questioning the Oxford vaccine and supporting data 08:07 - Nov 26 with 694 views | homer_123 |
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/25/business/coronavirus-vaccine-astrazeneca-oxfo
I'm not surprised by this - said earlier in the week when the results were announced that they have data issues in their study that they still have not been able to explain.
This is not to say the vaccine is not effective or will not work but you've got to have confidence in this stuff. Quite right that this gets questioned and, hopefully, answered to everyone's satisfaction.
I also appreciate that it's the NYTs, in the US etc etc |  |
| |  |
| NYT questioning the Oxford vaccine and supporting data on 08:25 - Nov 26 with 643 views | blueislander |
There will be doubts about all new medicines. These vaccines have been produced in enormous haste which the situation demanded. The story will have been spun, as you suggest, to put the American produced ones in a more favorable light. I have no qualms in taking the Oxford one. My GP informed me last week that I would be vaccinated in January, and I am delighted. |  | | |
| NYT questioning the Oxford vaccine and supporting data on 08:28 - Nov 26 with 633 views | homer_123 |
| NYT questioning the Oxford vaccine and supporting data on 08:25 - Nov 26 by blueislander |
There will be doubts about all new medicines. These vaccines have been produced in enormous haste which the situation demanded. The story will have been spun, as you suggest, to put the American produced ones in a more favorable light. I have no qualms in taking the Oxford one. My GP informed me last week that I would be vaccinated in January, and I am delighted. |
Def not questioning the Oxford vaccine effectiveness.
More that they do have some explaining and further understanding to do.
Take an example scenario.
If the standard dosages offers 70% efficacy (which is great and we'd have bitten their hand off for that a while back) that last 12 months but the smaller dose offers 90% efficacy but only last 6 months, we'd need to know to make an informed decision about roll out etc.
Glad you've got yours lined up bud.....roll on the roll out! [Post edited 26 Nov 2020 8:35]
| |
| |
| NYT questioning the Oxford vaccine and supporting data on 09:00 - Nov 26 with 573 views | hype313 |
It doesn't undermine the vaccine, it just states that half the dose having a higher efficiency was found by accident.
Pretty much like the majority of scientific breakthroughs in history. |  |
| |
| NYT questioning the Oxford vaccine and supporting data on 09:01 - Nov 26 with 565 views | homer_123 |
| NYT questioning the Oxford vaccine and supporting data on 09:00 - Nov 26 by hype313 |
It doesn't undermine the vaccine, it just states that half the dose having a higher efficiency was found by accident.
Pretty much like the majority of scientific breakthroughs in history. |
Indeed - but it's right to question - as I noted below - there maybe implications and decisions to be made depending on differences between the doses. | |
| |
| NYT questioning the Oxford vaccine and supporting data on 09:02 - Nov 26 with 559 views | blueislander |
| NYT questioning the Oxford vaccine and supporting data on 08:28 - Nov 26 by homer_123 |
Def not questioning the Oxford vaccine effectiveness.
More that they do have some explaining and further understanding to do.
Take an example scenario.
If the standard dosages offers 70% efficacy (which is great and we'd have bitten their hand off for that a while back) that last 12 months but the smaller dose offers 90% efficacy but only last 6 months, we'd need to know to make an informed decision about roll out etc.
Glad you've got yours lined up bud.....roll on the roll out! [Post edited 26 Nov 2020 8:35]
|
Cheers. I suspect that the manufacturers are not yet certain on the dosages. Usually a new drug like this would be years in trials. This has only been months. A friend of mine was a guinea pig for the Oxford vaccine. They have not told him yet whether he got the drug or the placebo. | | | |
| NYT questioning the Oxford vaccine and supporting data on 09:03 - Nov 26 with 557 views | hype313 |
| NYT questioning the Oxford vaccine and supporting data on 08:25 - Nov 26 by blueislander |
There will be doubts about all new medicines. These vaccines have been produced in enormous haste which the situation demanded. The story will have been spun, as you suggest, to put the American produced ones in a more favorable light. I have no qualms in taking the Oxford one. My GP informed me last week that I would be vaccinated in January, and I am delighted. |
Indeed, American Pharma goes to the press to highlight this as a problem by a UK pharma who have committed to produce it, not for profit... [Post edited 26 Nov 2020 9:42]
| |
| |
| NYT questioning the Oxford vaccine and supporting data on 09:16 - Nov 26 with 518 views | StokieBlue |
| NYT questioning the Oxford vaccine and supporting data on 08:28 - Nov 26 by homer_123 |
Def not questioning the Oxford vaccine effectiveness.
More that they do have some explaining and further understanding to do.
Take an example scenario.
If the standard dosages offers 70% efficacy (which is great and we'd have bitten their hand off for that a while back) that last 12 months but the smaller dose offers 90% efficacy but only last 6 months, we'd need to know to make an informed decision about roll out etc.
Glad you've got yours lined up bud.....roll on the roll out! [Post edited 26 Nov 2020 8:35]
|
No vaccines have yet stated any longevity, why are you singling out the Oxford vaccine?
It's also not a smaller dose. It's a priming dose and then a full dose. It's possible this might work for a lot of vaccines but you are correct that some more research needs to be done around it.
SB |  |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| NYT questioning the Oxford vaccine and supporting data on 09:19 - Nov 26 with 502 views | homer_123 |
| NYT questioning the Oxford vaccine and supporting data on 09:16 - Nov 26 by StokieBlue |
No vaccines have yet stated any longevity, why are you singling out the Oxford vaccine?
It's also not a smaller dose. It's a priming dose and then a full dose. It's possible this might work for a lot of vaccines but you are correct that some more research needs to be done around it.
SB |
Singling out the Oxford vaccine as, of the three currently there, they are the one with the data issue, by their own admission.
I think I made it clear in my post that it was a 'scenario' that I used to illustrate why further understanding of the data is important. At the moment, they don't know why there is a difference and what the implications are.
Eminently sensible to sense check. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| NYT questioning the Oxford vaccine and supporting data on 09:27 - Nov 26 with 483 views | StokieBlue |
| NYT questioning the Oxford vaccine and supporting data on 09:19 - Nov 26 by homer_123 |
Singling out the Oxford vaccine as, of the three currently there, they are the one with the data issue, by their own admission.
I think I made it clear in my post that it was a 'scenario' that I used to illustrate why further understanding of the data is important. At the moment, they don't know why there is a difference and what the implications are.
Eminently sensible to sense check. |
The only way to check longevity is to actually wait for 6 months or a year.
As I said, none of the vaccines know the longevity of the protection yet.
SB | |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| NYT questioning the Oxford vaccine and supporting data on 09:30 - Nov 26 with 478 views | homer_123 |
| NYT questioning the Oxford vaccine and supporting data on 09:27 - Nov 26 by StokieBlue |
The only way to check longevity is to actually wait for 6 months or a year.
As I said, none of the vaccines know the longevity of the protection yet.
SB |
No - entirely true.
And of course, under normal circumstances, such outcomes would mean a delay to understand why. | |
| |
| NYT questioning the Oxford vaccine and supporting data on 09:31 - Nov 26 with 473 views | StokieBlue |
| NYT questioning the Oxford vaccine and supporting data on 09:30 - Nov 26 by homer_123 |
No - entirely true.
And of course, under normal circumstances, such outcomes would mean a delay to understand why. |
Sorry, I might be slow this morning but:
Delay to understand what?
Are we talking about longevity? The fact that a different dosage means different results?
SB | |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| NYT questioning the Oxford vaccine and supporting data on 09:53 - Nov 26 with 413 views | homer_123 |
| NYT questioning the Oxford vaccine and supporting data on 09:31 - Nov 26 by StokieBlue |
Sorry, I might be slow this morning but:
Delay to understand what?
Are we talking about longevity? The fact that a different dosage means different results?
SB |
At the moment, you have three vaccines offering excellent efficacy rates.
However, the Oxford one has an anomaly that they hadn't planned. tested for during the trials. On the face of it (from a small and not representative cohort because it wasn't planned) it's a positive happenstance in that efficacy is higher.
Now, under normal trials and approval that anomaly would need to be sense checked, researched and understood, my sense is under normal circumstances this would delay approval and roll out of the vaccine. We are not under normal circumstances so a decision maybe made to roll out based on the 70% efficacy and supporting data.
It still needs to be understood though - because there maybe implications of the differing approaches that means one is better/ more effective from a health/ cost perspective.
So, it's right to question and argue for understanding.
Whether that delays approval I don't know but as I posted when the findings were announced, normally, it probably would delay the roll out. | |
| |
| NYT questioning the Oxford vaccine and supporting data on 09:57 - Nov 26 with 407 views | StokieBlue |
| NYT questioning the Oxford vaccine and supporting data on 09:53 - Nov 26 by homer_123 |
At the moment, you have three vaccines offering excellent efficacy rates.
However, the Oxford one has an anomaly that they hadn't planned. tested for during the trials. On the face of it (from a small and not representative cohort because it wasn't planned) it's a positive happenstance in that efficacy is higher.
Now, under normal trials and approval that anomaly would need to be sense checked, researched and understood, my sense is under normal circumstances this would delay approval and roll out of the vaccine. We are not under normal circumstances so a decision maybe made to roll out based on the 70% efficacy and supporting data.
It still needs to be understood though - because there maybe implications of the differing approaches that means one is better/ more effective from a health/ cost perspective.
So, it's right to question and argue for understanding.
Whether that delays approval I don't know but as I posted when the findings were announced, normally, it probably would delay the roll out. |
OK - so we aren't discussing longevity - that is confusing from your initial post or perhaps it was just too early for my pre-coffee brain to understand.
But as you've said, if they aren't sure then go with the two full doses at 70% efficacy and that buys you time to investigate whether a primer dose then a full dose is better for this vaccine (and possibly others). The data around the 70% number is sound I believe.
70% is still far above the minimum level the government required for a vaccine to roll it out.
SB | |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| NYT questioning the Oxford vaccine and supporting data on 10:01 - Nov 26 with 401 views | factual_blue |
..and you can't therefore rule out the possibility that Pfizer are behind these 'doubts'... |  |
| |
| NYT questioning the Oxford vaccine and supporting data on 10:02 - Nov 26 with 391 views | homer_123 |
| NYT questioning the Oxford vaccine and supporting data on 09:57 - Nov 26 by StokieBlue |
OK - so we aren't discussing longevity - that is confusing from your initial post or perhaps it was just too early for my pre-coffee brain to understand.
But as you've said, if they aren't sure then go with the two full doses at 70% efficacy and that buys you time to investigate whether a primer dose then a full dose is better for this vaccine (and possibly others). The data around the 70% number is sound I believe.
70% is still far above the minimum level the government required for a vaccine to roll it out.
SB |
Oh yes, as I said, not questioning the vaccines overall efficacy. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
