4 ms·

The article says more than that: "Some experts say the dosing discrepancy raises doubts about the robustness of the study’s findings. And they worry about anot

The article says more than that: "Some experts say the dosing discrepancy raises doubts about the robustness of the study’s findings. And they worry about another acknowledged peculiarity of the study: The half-dose regimen wasn’t tested on anyone over 55 - the group considered at high risk from COVID-19."

randcraw 6y ago
Exactly. When you remove the patient group that experiences 90% of the severe cases, voila, your efficacy rate skyrockets. Until SOMEONE ELSE completes trials on that missing age 55+ cohort, this vaccine should be accepted ONLY for ages 0 to 54. And given its likely low efficacy (62%), NOT for anyone with co-morbidities.
- happymellon 6y ago
  This statement is moronic. The vaccine has been tested on 55+. We are not doing a half initial dose because that hasn't been studied in detail.
- DanBC 6y ago
  > patient group that experiences 90% of the severe cases, 43% of the patients going into ICUs in the UK[1] are under 60 years old. Most of the patients going into ICUs (including the older people) needed no assistance in their day to day lives before going into ICU.
  - Engineering-MD 6y ago
    But that is also a selection bias. The very elderly or those who need lots of assistance in day to day lives or those with multiple comorbidities are much less likely to benefit from an ICU stay (ie they will likely die with or without support) so don’t get admitted at all.
happymellon 6y ago
Which is why we are not going to use the half dose. 60% efficiency which has been peer reviewed, is still as good as the flu vaccine, it can be stored in a normal fridge so will work better for distribution outside of major cities, and costs significantly less. There are very few downsides, apart from not generating American news.
- addicted 6y ago
  There aren’t many downsides at the moment because the safety is probably pretty ok and the efficacy is probably pretty decent, but the reality is that AstraZeneca completely botched their study and if this was not basically an emergency situation, the vaccine would not have been approved.
  - MrAlex94 6y ago
    AstraZeneca did not conduct the study, Oxford did from the looks of it in relation to the half dose. The independent regulator was aware at every stage and recommended they continue with trying the half dose trial. [1](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55308216 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55308216).
- throwaway2245 6y ago
  Doesn't 50% efficacy, by this measure, mean it has no effect at all? By my understanding, the quoted figure is what percentage of infection occurred in the control group. 60% efficacy is not going to get you to herd immunity, nor even any kind of immunity for the majority of people taking the vaccine.
  - FuckButtons 6y ago
    No, it means that you reduce risk by 60%, the threshold for efficacy that government agencies were looking at was around 30% so it’s definitely effective, just less so than the rna vaccines.
    - throwaway2245 6y ago

randcraw 6y ago

Exactly. When you remove the patient group that experiences 90% of the severe cases, voila, your efficacy rate skyrockets. Until SOMEONE ELSE completes trials on that missing age 55+ cohort, this vaccine should be accepted ONLY for ages 0 to 54. And given its likely low efficacy (62%), NOT for anyone with co-morbidities.

happymellon 6y ago
This statement is moronic. The vaccine has been tested on 55+. We are not doing a half initial dose because that hasn't been studied in detail.
DanBC 6y ago
> patient group that experiences 90% of the severe cases, 43% of the patients going into ICUs in the UK[1] are under 60 years old. Most of the patients going into ICUs (including the older people) needed no assistance in their day to day lives before going into ICU.
- Engineering-MD 6y ago
  But that is also a selection bias. The very elderly or those who need lots of assistance in day to day lives or those with multiple comorbidities are much less likely to benefit from an ICU stay (ie they will likely die with or without support) so don’t get admitted at all.

happymellon 6y ago

Which is why we are not going to use the half dose. 60% efficiency which has been peer reviewed, is still as good as the flu vaccine, it can be stored in a normal fridge so will work better for distribution outside of major cities, and costs significantly less. There are very few downsides, apart from not generating American news.

addicted 6y ago
There aren’t many downsides at the moment because the safety is probably pretty ok and the efficacy is probably pretty decent, but the reality is that AstraZeneca completely botched their study and if this was not basically an emergency situation, the vaccine would not have been approved.
- MrAlex94 6y ago
  AstraZeneca did not conduct the study, Oxford did from the looks of it in relation to the half dose. The independent regulator was aware at every stage and recommended they continue with trying the half dose trial. [1](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55308216 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55308216).
throwaway2245 6y ago
Doesn't 50% efficacy, by this measure, mean it has no effect at all? By my understanding, the quoted figure is what percentage of infection occurred in the control group. 60% efficacy is not going to get you to herd immunity, nor even any kind of immunity for the majority of people taking the vaccine.
- FuckButtons 6y ago
  No, it means that you reduce risk by 60%, the threshold for efficacy that government agencies were looking at was around 30% so it’s definitely effective, just less so than the rna vaccines.
  - throwaway2245 6y ago