4 ms·

> 60% didn't get it at all and 40% got it with significantly less negative effects We don't know that. As with the Pfizer and Moderna trials, the endpoint was

> 60% didn't get it at all and 40% got it with significantly less negative effects We don't know that. As with the Pfizer and Moderna trials, the endpoint was incidence of disease, and only people with disease symptoms were tested. 60% fewer people experienced symptoms in the treatment group than the control group, but some of those may well still have "gotten it." There were very likely asymptomatic infected people in both groups, and we have no idea how many there were, or how the numbers different between groups. For all we know, just as many people in the treatment group were infected as in the control group, they were capable of spreading infection the whole time, and all the vaccine did was suppress their symptoms. (Again: possibly true of any of the vaccine candidates.)

Exmoor 6y ago
When the broadest studies indicate that symptomatic cases are ~25x more likely to transmit the virus to people in their household[0] I would say that converting a lot of symptomatic cases to asymptomatic cases is likely pretty consequential. [0]https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2774102 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle...
btbuilder 6y ago
Are you sure Oxford and AstraZeneca did not test for asymptomatic participants? My understanding is they tested a proportion weekly. Edit: Nature mentions they did: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03504-w https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03504-w
- Exmoor 6y ago
  My understanding is that they did test a subset of participants, but that the 62% figure doesn't figure in the asymptomatic cases. They've made it very confusing though, much like how they've explained the half-full dose results.
- Closi 6y ago
  Relevant section: The Oxford–AstraZeneca team is the only one of the three leading vaccine developers that monitored for asymptomatic infections, by collecting weekly swabs from some participants to determine whether they had the coronavirus but did not become ill.

Exmoor 6y ago

When the broadest studies indicate that symptomatic cases are ~25x more likely to transmit the virus to people in their household[0] I would say that converting a lot of symptomatic cases to asymptomatic cases is likely pretty consequential. [0]https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2774102 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle...

btbuilder 6y ago

Are you sure Oxford and AstraZeneca did not test for asymptomatic participants? My understanding is they tested a proportion weekly. Edit: Nature mentions they did: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03504-w https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03504-w

Exmoor 6y ago
My understanding is that they did test a subset of participants, but that the 62% figure doesn't figure in the asymptomatic cases. They've made it very confusing though, much like how they've explained the half-full dose results.
Closi 6y ago
Relevant section: The Oxford–AstraZeneca team is the only one of the three leading vaccine developers that monitored for asymptomatic infections, by collecting weekly swabs from some participants to determine whether they had the coronavirus but did not become ill.