5 ms·

My perception of the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine is that their credibility is compromised. I take claims of its efficacy with a similar dose of salt to claims a

My perception of the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine is that their credibility is compromised. I take claims of its efficacy with a similar dose of salt to claims about the Russian and Chinese vaccines. Reason is that early on they were rushing data and approvals on grounds of national pride, in a very similar way to the Chinese and Russian authorities. Pfizer and Moderna seem to have been more thorough.

LawnGnome 6y ago
Interestingly, the interim Sputnik results were published in the Lancet today, and they're good: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)00234-8/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6... I don't disagree about the process, though.
orra 6y ago
This is nonsense. It's not about national pride. The UK authorised Pfizer first. We knew back in December how effective just one dose[1] of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine is, at stopping death. See figure 2 on page 28. [1] https://www.fda.gov/media/144434/download https://www.fda.gov/media/144434/download
- caffeine 6y ago
  The link you posted is about the Moderna vaccine, not AstraZeneca. I have no qualms with the Moderna vaccine, I consider it and the Pfizer to be the most effective and least questionable.
  - orra 6y ago
    Argh, you're right. I badly skimmed over the JCVI document.
neilsense 6y ago
What you're saying makes no sense. Comparing the UK to China/Russia based on what? We have some of the best research and industrial pharma in the world and we don't hold scientists hostage if they say the wrong things. What an absolutely ridiculous statement to make. I can only believe you are trolling in some way, or have you own nationalist pride over Pfizer/Moderna.
- caffeine 6y ago
  They never did a proper phase 3 trial. Instead they did two half-trials, with different doses. Initially they pretended this was done on purpose, and claimed 90% efficacy: https://www.bbc.com/news/health-55040635 https://www.bbc.com/news/health-55040635 Later it came out this was an accident and cover-up, spun as a lucky discovery: https://www.wired.com/story/the-astrazeneca-covid-vaccine-data-isnt-up-to-snuff/ https://www.wired.com/story/the-astrazeneca-covid-vaccine-da... https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-astrazeneca-dosing/dosing-error-turns-into-lucky-punch-for-astrazeneca-and-oxford-idUSKBN28327Q https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-astraz... Even now, the lower bound of 95% C.I. around efficacy with two doses is 63% which is quite low, relative to the headlines: https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2021-02-02-oxford-coronavirus-vaccine-shows-sustained-protection-76-during-3-month-interval https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2021-02-02-oxford-coronavirus-vacc... I'm not a troll, just a critic of a lab and a U.K. government that fudged some data because they needed a PR win. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-07-15/oxford-s-covid-19-vaccine-is-the-coronavirus-front-runner https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-07-15/oxford-s-... "I hope we can improve on those timelines and come to your rescue.” - Sarah Gilbert That kind of hubris made it hard to admit process errors and low efficacy rates.

LawnGnome 6y ago

Interestingly, the interim Sputnik results were published in the Lancet today, and they're good: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)00234-8/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6... I don't disagree about the process, though.

orra 6y ago

This is nonsense. It's not about national pride. The UK authorised Pfizer first. We knew back in December how effective just one dose[1] of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine is, at stopping death. See figure 2 on page 28. [1] https://www.fda.gov/media/144434/download https://www.fda.gov/media/144434/download

caffeine 6y ago
The link you posted is about the Moderna vaccine, not AstraZeneca. I have no qualms with the Moderna vaccine, I consider it and the Pfizer to be the most effective and least questionable.
- orra 6y ago
  Argh, you're right. I badly skimmed over the JCVI document.

neilsense 6y ago

What you're saying makes no sense. Comparing the UK to China/Russia based on what? We have some of the best research and industrial pharma in the world and we don't hold scientists hostage if they say the wrong things. What an absolutely ridiculous statement to make. I can only believe you are trolling in some way, or have you own nationalist pride over Pfizer/Moderna.

caffeine 6y ago
They never did a proper phase 3 trial. Instead they did two half-trials, with different doses. Initially they pretended this was done on purpose, and claimed 90% efficacy: https://www.bbc.com/news/health-55040635 https://www.bbc.com/news/health-55040635 Later it came out this was an accident and cover-up, spun as a lucky discovery: https://www.wired.com/story/the-astrazeneca-covid-vaccine-data-isnt-up-to-snuff/ https://www.wired.com/story/the-astrazeneca-covid-vaccine-da... https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-astrazeneca-dosing/dosing-error-turns-into-lucky-punch-for-astrazeneca-and-oxford-idUSKBN28327Q https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-astraz... Even now, the lower bound of 95% C.I. around efficacy with two doses is 63% which is quite low, relative to the headlines: https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2021-02-02-oxford-coronavirus-vaccine-shows-sustained-protection-76-during-3-month-interval https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2021-02-02-oxford-coronavirus-vacc... I'm not a troll, just a critic of a lab and a U.K. government that fudged some data because they needed a PR win. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-07-15/oxford-s-covid-19-vaccine-is-the-coronavirus-front-runner https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-07-15/oxford-s-... "I hope we can improve on those timelines and come to your rescue.” - Sarah Gilbert That kind of hubris made it hard to admit process errors and low efficacy rates.