COVID-19 — Coronavirus

[03 March 2002]

Which part of the language where they say explicitly its 90% in this format makes you think its not 90%?

From the press release:

Professor Andrew Pollard, Chief Investigator of the Oxford Vaccine Trial at Oxford, said: “These findings show that we have an effective vaccine that will save many lives. Excitingly, we’ve found that one of our dosing regimens may be around 90% effective and if this dosing regime is used, more people could be vaccinated with planned vaccine supply. Today’s announcement is only possible thanks to the many volunteers in our trial, and the hard working and talented team of researchers based around the world.”

may be around 90%. Like mentioned previously, if everyone involved felt this would be the end result for efficacy they'd be talking about this only.

There's a distinct lack of confidence in this number from the people I know who are extremely close to the project. This should not be misunderstood to be a lack of confidence in the product, it's just that these things are highly sensitive in the commercial space and you are taught to temper your excitement.

I hope it is 90% effective, I suspect it's about 70% effective and I'm more than fine with that.

 

[Manc in London]

Thought I read this morning it comes from chimpanzees?

That's hangin'

 

[nickmcfc1]

That's hangin'

Thats just bananas

 

[roubaixtuesday]

I prefer to give more credit to the people who created the vaccine, Oxford and BioNTech over the pharma companies who will mass produce it.

I think the scaleup promised by AstraZeneca here - 3bn doses within a year of approval - is truly groundbreaking.

And the speed the trials were mobilised at has been remarkable too.

Both sides deserve praise IMO.

 

[Cityfan]

The problem with these sort of treatments is they often attempt to kill the virus but end up killing everything else too resulting in side effects. Another problem is unless you can guarantee killing every single viral particle (impossible) then it's pointless because the key to all viruses is they can replicate within a host.

In effect a viral infection is a bucket filling with water (viral load) but as the bucket fills the rate at which it fills increases (replication). The only limiter on stopping the bucket filling is the bodies immune system but immune systems have never seen this virus before and so infections occur very easily and they hit people hard.

The Pfizer vaccine modifies the RNA of cells to make cell entry/replication more difficult by giving instructions on the protein spike of the virus. Less replication equals less viral load and the immune system deals with the rest meaning upon encountering the virus people are infected but the virus doesn't make them sick or infectious. The same thing happens with HIV treatments which target replication (and prevent eventual AIDS later down the line).

COVID-19 isn't dangerous to the vast majority of people but attacking infectivity is key in order to stop the spread to vulnerable people. Most healthy people below 60 have no need for a vaccine but they will need a vaccine if only to protect everyone else around them.

This is not how the Pfizer vaccine works.
It introduces mRNA into the cells, it does not modify RNA.
The RNA causes the cells to produce the spike protein which in turn is recognised as foreign thus inducing an immune response.
The form of immunity should be the same as other im vaccines.

 

[RobMCFC]

This is worth 10/15 mins of your time. It explains how the vaccine has been arrived at so fast, but in fact they've been preparing for this "disease X" moment for a decade.

It's also eye-opening that the usual "years to deploy a vaccine" is down to bureaucracy, filling in forms and twiddling your thumbs.

Oxford vaccine: How did they make it so quickly?

Good fortune and scientific brilliance were behind the Covid-19 vaccine being developed so quickly.

www.bbc.com

 

[artfuldodger]

This is worth 10/15 mins of your time. It explains how the vaccine has been arrived at so fast, but in fact they've been preparing for this "disease X" moment for a decade.

It's also eye-opening that the usual "years to deploy a vaccine" is down to bureaucracy, filling in forms and twiddling your thumbs.

Oxford vaccine: How did they make it so quickly?

Good fortune and scientific brilliance were behind the Covid-19 vaccine being developed so quickly.

www.bbc.com

Yes I read this article this morning. A very interesting read.

 

[Del_Bosque]

Strange that some seem to want to downplay the effectiveness of the vaccine developed here and that we have most access to.

 

[Tim of the Oak]

Strange that some seem to want to downplay the effectiveness of the vaccine developed here and that we have most access to.

That’s because lots of people on this thread know more than the scientists!

 

[MCFCTrick]

But it’s not ‘time’ as such that’s going to prove it. It’s other people going first. So those that’s say ‘I’m going to wait and see’ are really saying ‘I’ll let someone else take the risk’. And if we all say that, then what?

It very much is the case that time will prove it. If in say a year, or five or ten, no bad side effects come to light, then we will know for certain. Hopefully it won't happen, but that fear is in some people's minds all the same. Especially those old enough to remember what happened with thalidomide, which was likewise trialed, approved and 'safe'. (Though I fully understand the different aspects of that drug, and also the testing advancements since)

I expect that most all though, despite such fears will comply with having the vaccine. Not least because of guilt tripping, but the very likely scenario of not being able to travel, go to gigs, theatres, sports events, even pubs and shops without it, will ensure that they do.