4 ms·
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 nor
by 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 agoThere 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 agoAstraZeneca 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 agoDoesn'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 agoNo, 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 agoI'll take it that you are right, but even so, does 60% reduced risk change the economics of the virus, if there is still 40% of the risk? Does this give more than a couple of weeks grace on lockdown, if the critical limiting factor is ICU beds?
- jackweirdy 6y agoThe Oxford vaccine saw 95-100% efficacy when measuring specifically against serious cases requiring hospitalisation or death. 60% is the efficacy for symptomatically testing positive. You are more likely to get symptoms with the Oxford vaccine than an mRNA one, but no more likely to die or need hospital care https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/covid-vaccine-boost-for-millions-as-hospitals-near-breaking-point-vj7fpj2hr https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/covid-vaccine-boost-for-m...
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- Ntrails 6y agoIf you assume that R is currently 2 with 0% of the population able to be infected, is it reasonable to assume R would drop below 1 with 100% of the population having 60% probability of being immune?
- neves 6y agoThey also tested a lot more subjects for Covid and detected a lot of asymptomatic ones. Their success rate is probably nearer the other vaccines that didn't test asymptomatic subjects.
- jpster 6y agoCan you share more about this? Where have Oxford/AZ shared their testing protocol? Indeed, I was surprised to learn that the Pfizer and Moderna trials did not test participants unless they showed symptoms. Meaning: we don’t know if their vaccines prevent transmission of the virus. It specifically was not the measuring stick for their definition of efficacy. I believe Moderna is currently conducting a new trial to ascertain the transmission question. Until we know for sure, all the talk about herd immunity may be moot.
- neves 6y agoIt is a well known fact. Here is one in Portuguese. https://www.terra.com.br/noticias/brasil/corrida-pela-vacina-e-maratona-nao-100-metros-rasos,322cfe96f579b7d27f5b7ddfcdb7a325qdm7chx3.html https://www.terra.com.br/noticias/brasil/corrida-pela-vacina...
- anoncake 6y agoWhy is that a reason not to give under 55 year olds a half dose?
- happymellon 6y agoBecause there was only a small scale sampling that had this happen. There is a proper study into this happening now, to see if the improved numbers are a real thing, or just a demonstration of the demographic.