6 ms·

This will save lives. However I imagine most people will end up getting the Oxford vaccine, that doesn't have the storage requirements or need a second dose and

by Neil44 6y ago

This will save lives. However I imagine most people will end up getting the Oxford vaccine, that doesn't have the storage requirements or need a second dose and is a fraction of the cost.

lmilcin 6y ago
Well, I wouldn't be so happy. Think about it. Out of million people only small percentage would become infected with covid and of that, only small percentage would die. On the other hand, vaccine must be distributed to everybody. Alternatively to people who, by occupation, have to contact many other people, daily. We don't know yet if there are complications from the vaccine. It is not possible to judge long term effects of anything based on very short exposure. The value of vaccine is in preventing future infections, but for a given person now it is not yet know if the vaccine is actually a good deal or not. Only time will tell. Looking at this selfishly and from PoV of game theory, the best decision is to let vaccinate everybody else but don't take vaccine yourself. Obviously, not everybody can make same decision.
- aviraldg 6y ago
  Is there an example of a vaccine in history that produced no initial side effects but only very long term side effects (ie. several years later)?
  - tuna-piano 6y ago
    I haven't seen that, but I'd be careful to draw the meaningfulness of that metric, as there has also never been an mRNA vaccine deployed until this year. That said, the large size of these studies should be extremely comforting to people.
    - bamboozled 6y ago
      What I don’t find comforting is the fact that companies have not had approval (or even applied) for approval for a mRNA based vaccine until now. Even though they’ve had many years to do so. I know nothing about vaccines or medicine really, but I just find it hard to believe that it’s just luck that we’re all going to be taking one in under a year when there hasn’t been much push for approval before this ? Hopefully we’re not going to be pressured to be inoculated with something, anything that works, because of desperation and because managing the situation in an adult way was too hard for most world leaders. As others have said, if you’re not in a high risk group, maybe some skepticism is warranted?
  - White_Wolf 6y ago
    2009-2010 GSK H1N1 - settled by the gov of multiple EU countries https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/history/narcolepsy-flu.html https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/history/narcoleps...
    - aviraldg 6y ago
      > In 2018, a study team including CDC scientists analyzed and published vaccine safety data on adjuvanted pH1N1 vaccines (arenaprix-AS03, Focetria-MF59, and Pandemrix-AS03) from 10 global study sites. Researchers did not detect any associations between the vaccines and narcolepsy.
      - White_Wolf 6y ago
        tbh I had the vaccine back then and am still fine(or I'm dreaming right now). That doesn't mean I'm for or against this new vaccine. I'll draw my conclusion when I see enough data. At the end of the day it's my choice if I do it or not since if you take the jab you should be safe either way. That being said: shutting down discourse I'm always against. Dumb or not everyone should be able to have their say as long as they don't preach violence in any way.
        nkohari 6y ago
        With respect to the last paragraph, vaccination is a sticky topic, because the vaccine protects both you and those around you. Vaccines are not 100% effective, don't convey permanent immunity, and not everyone can be vaccinated due to various health restrictions. As a result, if you voluntarily choose not to be immunized when you could otherwise have been, you are voluntarily exposing some people you come into contact with to potential harm. It's up to you whether that falls within your definition of "violence", but some would say so.
- iakh 6y ago
  What a horribly uniformed and irresponsible comment spreading anti-vaxxer fud without any sources. These vaccines are going through the same standards of testing as all vaccines go through [0] 0. https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/covid-19-vaccine-safety https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/covid-19-vaccine-safety
  - lmilcin 6y ago
    Hey. I am not anti vaccine. Your comment is uninformed in that you did not read my comment with comprehension and that you don't understand what stupid stuff anti-vaxxers are serving. My kids are all vaccinated and so am I and I don't suggest to people to not vaccinate. I am just trying to cool down the too happy thinking that the vaccine is some magical tool that automatically causes problems to go away with no risk. In particular, we don't yet know how long the effects of vaccine will persist, we don't know of long term side effects (and even very small amount of side effects multiplied by 7B people is a problem) and we don't know WHEN it is going to be feasible to vaccinate everybody. Remember, it is going to be pricey and many people will choose not to vaccinate for financial or other reasons.
    - wonderwonder 6y ago
      "the best decision is to let vaccinate everybody else but don't take vaccine yourself" This is unfortunately exactly what anti-vaxxers do, they enjoy the benefits of herd immunity thanks to the vast majority of people getting vaccinated but spread negativity & doubt about the vaccine at the same time. The current Covid vaccines have had a very large testing group and been put through the same strict regulations as any other vaccine. The only reason there is chatter about not taking it is due to the current political / media climate. "Remember, it is going to be pricey and many people will choose not to vaccinate for financial or other reasons" What do you base this on?
      - lmilcin 6y ago
        You understand that I mentioned game theory and HN crowd is a little bit different from other crowds? You understand that I also mentioned that this only works if EVERYBODY ELSE vaccinates? So it is not anti-vaccine by very definition.
- mannykannot 6y ago
  Putting aside the deplorable ethics of freeloading in this matter, I think your analysis of the situation is objectively problematical. It is not plausible that, absent a vaccine or other cure, only a small percentage will contract it. The evidence strongly suggests that a large fraction of the population will end up catching it at some point. We already have plenty of evidence how that goes, in the chicken-pox outbreaks in the communities that have chosen not vaccinate, presenting a threat both to themselves and others. This virus is known to be much more dangerous. You seem to weigh your hypothetical problems of a vaccine much more heavily than the actual problems of the virus.
- derwiki 6y ago
  Being a coder and not a biologist, I asked a friend who regularly works with drug companies on FDA approval. I asked what the risks could be of a vaccine that was “rushed” through. In his opinion, there was virtually no risk of the vaccine actively causing harm. The biggest risk is giving people a vaccine they think is effective but isn’t and they contract the virus.
  - tekstar 6y ago
    What was rushed through? The messaging from my government (not US) has been that approval process rules have not been changed.
    - ceejayoz 6y ago
      From the article: > for Emergency Use Authorization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_use_authorization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_use_authorization > authorizes FDA to facilitate availability of an unapproved product, or an unapproved use of an approved product, during a declared state of emergency from one of several agencies or of a "material threat" by the Secretary of Homeland Security Rushed, yes, but via an existing set of rules for this sort of scenario. It's an appropriate use of this sort of process, but it does come with some risks.
      - bamboozled 6y ago
        Wasn’t Remdesivir also given emergency approval and is now to be avoided ?
        ceejayoz 6y ago
        In the sense that it's not as helpful as initially thought, not that it's actively dangerous.
        jeromegv 6y ago
        It's to be avoided because it doesn't seem to help, but it hasn't been shown to be harmful. Important distinction. https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/coronavirus/who-recommends-against-using-remdesivir-to-treat-covid-19-1.5197337 https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/coronavirus/who-recommends-aga... But of course, FDA has been pressured by Trump so perhaps you can look at what other health agencies that don't have a despot screaming at them do with the vaccine.
- tzs 6y ago
  > We don't know yet if there are complications from the vaccine. It is not possible to judge long term effects of anything based on very short exposure ... > Looking at this selfishly and from PoV of game theory, the best decision is to let vaccinate everybody else but don't take vaccine yourself. Obviously, not everybody can make same decision There are two different ways a medicine might have long term unintended and currently unknown effects. 1. It does some kind of permanent damage to you fairly immediately after taking it that takes a long time to show noticeable effects, or 2. It does some some kind of damage that is not permanent and won't lead to any long term noticeable effects as long as the original damage is allowed to heal or at least not made worse. Category two is what you have to worry about with things you have to take regularly, because they can accumulate the damage or risk and it can take many years before it accumulates to the point that we might notice. Because this is a not a "take every year" kind of vaccine, I don't think there is much need to worry about category two. With "take it once" types of medicine (yes, I know some vaccines require more than one dose over a week or two, which counts as taking it once when considering long term effects), with wide deployment, I'd expect any unintended and unknown long term side effects to start being found within maybe a year of wide deployment.
  - cortic 6y ago
    3. It does something that is not immediately apparent but develops into a terrible illness/problem year/s later. If it caused cancer, or auto an autoimmune disease, its likely these wouldn't be apparent for months or years. This is unlikely, but possible, and we could not test for this thoroughly as we didn't have the time. I also remind you that these companies are immune from lawsuits due to the indemnity clause in their contracts.
  - jowsie 6y ago
    Isn't it a bit early to say it's not a take once a year vaccine? Afaik we don't even know if getting covid makes you immune to covid longterm, we definitely don't have the long term info on these vaccines yet.
    - tzs 6y ago
      There is some recent research indicating it produces the kind of immune response that provides long term protection [1], at least if you get a strong initial response. Here's an article about that research [2]. There have been some people who have been reinfected with it, but I saw another recent article about this latest research that talked a bit about those cases. It said that they are believe to be people who did not have a strong immune response the first time. The vaccines should produce a strong response. [1] https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2020/10/27/science.abd7728 https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2020/10/27/scie... [2] https://www.darkdaily.com/mount-sinai-researchers-find-that-antibodies-produced-in-response-to-covid-19-may-provide-long-term-immunity-against-the-coronavirus/ https://www.darkdaily.com/mount-sinai-researchers-find-that-...
- fairity 6y ago
  Others have pointed out the misinformation in your comment, but even if you believed this, why talk about it? This is the type of idea you should probably keep to yourself (as it’s in your own best interest for it to not spread).
  - woofie11 6y ago
    As much as OP's comment is wacko crazy, it's in everyone's best interest if people speak honestly. This whole white-lie-in-the-public-interest never turns out well. If there was one reason attributable to the USSR's downfall, it's this attitude. Because socialism was better, it was okay to lie in its defense, and this lead to the equivalent of hyperinflation on both the corruption and the truthiness fronts. The rapid growth of racism in blue states comes back to this attitude. If people can't speak freely, when they have false beliefs, they keep them to themselves, and you can't address them. The sorts of blue state beliefs about minorities are just wacko at this point. People should be free to speak. No, I don't agree with OP, but this whole "why talk about it?" thing is an issue. You talk about things together, critically to come to a common understanding of the truth. That has a lot of value in itself. It's not all about impact of words, and how you can politick the change you want in the world. Society works better when people speak openly, even when those words are false and harmful, and when people can be confronted on that, not with cancel culture, but critically, logically, and civilly. We've worked ourselves into a corner where we can't do that anymore.
    - fairity 6y ago
      Agree that it's best for society if we don't shame people for voicing their beliefs, and that wasn't my intent. I actually think OC made a valid point - that is, there is an extremely small chance this vaccination causes long term effects, and therefore, if every individual were to act independetly according to their own self-interest, they would avoid the vaccine. This is true for all vaccines, and reminds me of the tragedy of the commons. I'm actually curious, though, why the OC wants to discuss this. There is truth to his comment, but if you aren't willing to be a team player, there's no good in recruiting others to your way of thinking.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- fairity 6y ago
  There is truth to your comment, but don't expect people to validate your idea. It's in our best collective interest for everyone to take this vaccine even if there's a 0.01% chance it has negative side effects. Even on an individual level, the cost-benefit of taking the vaccine is a no-brainer. Even if there's a 0.01% chance of negative side effects, the individual benefit of re-opening society far outweighs that risk. It's true you can freeload and reap the benefits without the small risk, but if everyone thinks this way, there are no benefits to go around. Can't you just be a team player? To put things in perspective, a 0.01% risk is like going skydiving once, or getting out of bed and doing your usual routine for a week. It goes without saying that if the general public doesn't get vaccinated, you should definitely get vaccinated because the risk of catching COVID is worse than the risk of this vaccine.
- bxrxdx 6y ago
  I take issue with this assumption "Think about it. Out of million people only small percentage would become infected with covid and of that, only small percentage would die." The virus is very contagions eventually most people will get infected, not a small percentage. The death rate is nominally low, but a 1% chance of dying is still a lot to me. Also the chances of getting long term side effects or just having a very bad illness are much higher.
zwily 6y ago
I believe the Oxford vaccine does require a booster. It’s the J&J that is single shot.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- thinkingemote 6y ago
  Doesn't the Oxford one also has a few medium side effects? Headaches etc?
- abacadaba 6y ago
  Wondering how they determine which need a booster and which don't. Is this based on phase one data or more of an educated guess?
  - SAI_Peregrinus 6y ago
    Phase 1 &2 data. 1 is mostly safety checks, but it involves several dosing profiles (typically starting low) to get a safety profile. 2 tests dose response and more detailed safety. 3 tests efficacy using the dose profile determined by phase 2.

by Neil44 6y ago

This will save lives. However I imagine most people will end up getting the Oxford vaccine, that doesn't have the storage requirements or need a second dose and is a fraction of the cost.

lmilcin 6y ago

Well, I wouldn't be so happy. Think about it. Out of million people only small percentage would become infected with covid and of that, only small percentage would die. On the other hand, vaccine must be distributed to everybody. Alternatively to people who, by occupation, have to contact many other people, daily. We don't know yet if there are complications from the vaccine. It is not possible to judge long term effects of anything based on very short exposure. The value of vaccine is in preventing future infections, but for a given person now it is not yet know if the vaccine is actually a good deal or not. Only time will tell. Looking at this selfishly and from PoV of game theory, the best decision is to let vaccinate everybody else but don't take vaccine yourself. Obviously, not everybody can make same decision.

aviraldg 6y ago
Is there an example of a vaccine in history that produced no initial side effects but only very long term side effects (ie. several years later)?
- tuna-piano 6y ago
  I haven't seen that, but I'd be careful to draw the meaningfulness of that metric, as there has also never been an mRNA vaccine deployed until this year. That said, the large size of these studies should be extremely comforting to people.
  - bamboozled 6y ago
    What I don’t find comforting is the fact that companies have not had approval (or even applied) for approval for a mRNA based vaccine until now. Even though they’ve had many years to do so. I know nothing about vaccines or medicine really, but I just find it hard to believe that it’s just luck that we’re all going to be taking one in under a year when there hasn’t been much push for approval before this ? Hopefully we’re not going to be pressured to be inoculated with something, anything that works, because of desperation and because managing the situation in an adult way was too hard for most world leaders. As others have said, if you’re not in a high risk group, maybe some skepticism is warranted?
- White_Wolf 6y ago
  2009-2010 GSK H1N1 - settled by the gov of multiple EU countries https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/history/narcolepsy-flu.html https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/history/narcoleps...
  - aviraldg 6y ago
    > In 2018, a study team including CDC scientists analyzed and published vaccine safety data on adjuvanted pH1N1 vaccines (arenaprix-AS03, Focetria-MF59, and Pandemrix-AS03) from 10 global study sites. Researchers did not detect any associations between the vaccines and narcolepsy.
    - White_Wolf 6y ago
      tbh I had the vaccine back then and am still fine(or I'm dreaming right now). That doesn't mean I'm for or against this new vaccine. I'll draw my conclusion when I see enough data. At the end of the day it's my choice if I do it or not since if you take the jab you should be safe either way. That being said: shutting down discourse I'm always against. Dumb or not everyone should be able to have their say as long as they don't preach violence in any way.
      - nkohari 6y ago
        With respect to the last paragraph, vaccination is a sticky topic, because the vaccine protects both you and those around you. Vaccines are not 100% effective, don't convey permanent immunity, and not everyone can be vaccinated due to various health restrictions. As a result, if you voluntarily choose not to be immunized when you could otherwise have been, you are voluntarily exposing some people you come into contact with to potential harm. It's up to you whether that falls within your definition of "violence", but some would say so.
iakh 6y ago
What a horribly uniformed and irresponsible comment spreading anti-vaxxer fud without any sources. These vaccines are going through the same standards of testing as all vaccines go through [0] 0. https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/covid-19-vaccine-safety https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/covid-19-vaccine-safety
- lmilcin 6y ago
  Hey. I am not anti vaccine. Your comment is uninformed in that you did not read my comment with comprehension and that you don't understand what stupid stuff anti-vaxxers are serving. My kids are all vaccinated and so am I and I don't suggest to people to not vaccinate. I am just trying to cool down the too happy thinking that the vaccine is some magical tool that automatically causes problems to go away with no risk. In particular, we don't yet know how long the effects of vaccine will persist, we don't know of long term side effects (and even very small amount of side effects multiplied by 7B people is a problem) and we don't know WHEN it is going to be feasible to vaccinate everybody. Remember, it is going to be pricey and many people will choose not to vaccinate for financial or other reasons.
  - wonderwonder 6y ago
    "the best decision is to let vaccinate everybody else but don't take vaccine yourself" This is unfortunately exactly what anti-vaxxers do, they enjoy the benefits of herd immunity thanks to the vast majority of people getting vaccinated but spread negativity & doubt about the vaccine at the same time. The current Covid vaccines have had a very large testing group and been put through the same strict regulations as any other vaccine. The only reason there is chatter about not taking it is due to the current political / media climate. "Remember, it is going to be pricey and many people will choose not to vaccinate for financial or other reasons" What do you base this on?
    - lmilcin 6y ago
      You understand that I mentioned game theory and HN crowd is a little bit different from other crowds? You understand that I also mentioned that this only works if EVERYBODY ELSE vaccinates? So it is not anti-vaccine by very definition.
mannykannot 6y ago
Putting aside the deplorable ethics of freeloading in this matter, I think your analysis of the situation is objectively problematical. It is not plausible that, absent a vaccine or other cure, only a small percentage will contract it. The evidence strongly suggests that a large fraction of the population will end up catching it at some point. We already have plenty of evidence how that goes, in the chicken-pox outbreaks in the communities that have chosen not vaccinate, presenting a threat both to themselves and others. This virus is known to be much more dangerous. You seem to weigh your hypothetical problems of a vaccine much more heavily than the actual problems of the virus.
derwiki 6y ago
Being a coder and not a biologist, I asked a friend who regularly works with drug companies on FDA approval. I asked what the risks could be of a vaccine that was “rushed” through. In his opinion, there was virtually no risk of the vaccine actively causing harm. The biggest risk is giving people a vaccine they think is effective but isn’t and they contract the virus.
- tekstar 6y ago
  What was rushed through? The messaging from my government (not US) has been that approval process rules have not been changed.
  - ceejayoz 6y ago
    From the article: > for Emergency Use Authorization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_use_authorization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_use_authorization > authorizes FDA to facilitate availability of an unapproved product, or an unapproved use of an approved product, during a declared state of emergency from one of several agencies or of a "material threat" by the Secretary of Homeland Security Rushed, yes, but via an existing set of rules for this sort of scenario. It's an appropriate use of this sort of process, but it does come with some risks.
    - bamboozled 6y ago
      Wasn’t Remdesivir also given emergency approval and is now to be avoided ?
      - ceejayoz 6y ago
        In the sense that it's not as helpful as initially thought, not that it's actively dangerous.
      - jeromegv 6y ago
        It's to be avoided because it doesn't seem to help, but it hasn't been shown to be harmful. Important distinction. https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/coronavirus/who-recommends-against-using-remdesivir-to-treat-covid-19-1.5197337 https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/coronavirus/who-recommends-aga... But of course, FDA has been pressured by Trump so perhaps you can look at what other health agencies that don't have a despot screaming at them do with the vaccine.
tzs 6y ago
> We don't know yet if there are complications from the vaccine. It is not possible to judge long term effects of anything based on very short exposure ... > Looking at this selfishly and from PoV of game theory, the best decision is to let vaccinate everybody else but don't take vaccine yourself. Obviously, not everybody can make same decision There are two different ways a medicine might have long term unintended and currently unknown effects. 1. It does some kind of permanent damage to you fairly immediately after taking it that takes a long time to show noticeable effects, or 2. It does some some kind of damage that is not permanent and won't lead to any long term noticeable effects as long as the original damage is allowed to heal or at least not made worse. Category two is what you have to worry about with things you have to take regularly, because they can accumulate the damage or risk and it can take many years before it accumulates to the point that we might notice. Because this is a not a "take every year" kind of vaccine, I don't think there is much need to worry about category two. With "take it once" types of medicine (yes, I know some vaccines require more than one dose over a week or two, which counts as taking it once when considering long term effects), with wide deployment, I'd expect any unintended and unknown long term side effects to start being found within maybe a year of wide deployment.
- cortic 6y ago
  3. It does something that is not immediately apparent but develops into a terrible illness/problem year/s later. If it caused cancer, or auto an autoimmune disease, its likely these wouldn't be apparent for months or years. This is unlikely, but possible, and we could not test for this thoroughly as we didn't have the time. I also remind you that these companies are immune from lawsuits due to the indemnity clause in their contracts.
- jowsie 6y ago
  Isn't it a bit early to say it's not a take once a year vaccine? Afaik we don't even know if getting covid makes you immune to covid longterm, we definitely don't have the long term info on these vaccines yet.
  - tzs 6y ago
    There is some recent research indicating it produces the kind of immune response that provides long term protection [1], at least if you get a strong initial response. Here's an article about that research [2]. There have been some people who have been reinfected with it, but I saw another recent article about this latest research that talked a bit about those cases. It said that they are believe to be people who did not have a strong immune response the first time. The vaccines should produce a strong response. [1] https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2020/10/27/science.abd7728 https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2020/10/27/scie... [2] https://www.darkdaily.com/mount-sinai-researchers-find-that-antibodies-produced-in-response-to-covid-19-may-provide-long-term-immunity-against-the-coronavirus/ https://www.darkdaily.com/mount-sinai-researchers-find-that-...
fairity 6y ago
Others have pointed out the misinformation in your comment, but even if you believed this, why talk about it? This is the type of idea you should probably keep to yourself (as it’s in your own best interest for it to not spread).
- woofie11 6y ago
  As much as OP's comment is wacko crazy, it's in everyone's best interest if people speak honestly. This whole white-lie-in-the-public-interest never turns out well. If there was one reason attributable to the USSR's downfall, it's this attitude. Because socialism was better, it was okay to lie in its defense, and this lead to the equivalent of hyperinflation on both the corruption and the truthiness fronts. The rapid growth of racism in blue states comes back to this attitude. If people can't speak freely, when they have false beliefs, they keep them to themselves, and you can't address them. The sorts of blue state beliefs about minorities are just wacko at this point. People should be free to speak. No, I don't agree with OP, but this whole "why talk about it?" thing is an issue. You talk about things together, critically to come to a common understanding of the truth. That has a lot of value in itself. It's not all about impact of words, and how you can politick the change you want in the world. Society works better when people speak openly, even when those words are false and harmful, and when people can be confronted on that, not with cancel culture, but critically, logically, and civilly. We've worked ourselves into a corner where we can't do that anymore.
  - fairity 6y ago
    Agree that it's best for society if we don't shame people for voicing their beliefs, and that wasn't my intent. I actually think OC made a valid point - that is, there is an extremely small chance this vaccination causes long term effects, and therefore, if every individual were to act independetly according to their own self-interest, they would avoid the vaccine. This is true for all vaccines, and reminds me of the tragedy of the commons. I'm actually curious, though, why the OC wants to discuss this. There is truth to his comment, but if you aren't willing to be a team player, there's no good in recruiting others to your way of thinking.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
fairity 6y ago
There is truth to your comment, but don't expect people to validate your idea. It's in our best collective interest for everyone to take this vaccine even if there's a 0.01% chance it has negative side effects. Even on an individual level, the cost-benefit of taking the vaccine is a no-brainer. Even if there's a 0.01% chance of negative side effects, the individual benefit of re-opening society far outweighs that risk. It's true you can freeload and reap the benefits without the small risk, but if everyone thinks this way, there are no benefits to go around. Can't you just be a team player? To put things in perspective, a 0.01% risk is like going skydiving once, or getting out of bed and doing your usual routine for a week. It goes without saying that if the general public doesn't get vaccinated, you should definitely get vaccinated because the risk of catching COVID is worse than the risk of this vaccine.
bxrxdx 6y ago
I take issue with this assumption "Think about it. Out of million people only small percentage would become infected with covid and of that, only small percentage would die." The virus is very contagions eventually most people will get infected, not a small percentage. The death rate is nominally low, but a 1% chance of dying is still a lot to me. Also the chances of getting long term side effects or just having a very bad illness are much higher.

zwily 6y ago

I believe the Oxford vaccine does require a booster. It’s the J&J that is single shot.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
thinkingemote 6y ago
Doesn't the Oxford one also has a few medium side effects? Headaches etc?
abacadaba 6y ago
Wondering how they determine which need a booster and which don't. Is this based on phase one data or more of an educated guess?
- SAI_Peregrinus 6y ago
  Phase 1 &2 data. 1 is mostly safety checks, but it involves several dosing profiles (typically starting low) to get a safety profile. 2 tests dose response and more detailed safety. 3 tests efficacy using the dose profile determined by phase 2.