The BBC have been reporting that the results of the phase one trials of the Oxford vaccine are due to be published today.
Indeed!The BBC have been reporting that the results of the phase one trials of the Oxford vaccine are due to be published today.
Coronavirus: Oxford vaccine can train immune system
A coronavirus vaccine developed by the University of Oxford appears safe and trains the immune system.
Trials involving around 1,077 people showed the injection led to them making antibodies and white blood cells that can fight coronavirus.
The findings are hugely promising, but it is still too soon to know if this is enough to offer protection and larger trials are under way.
The UK has already ordered 100 million doses of the vaccine.
The BBC have been reporting that the results of the phase one trials of the Oxford vaccine are due to be published today.
A coronavirus vaccine developed by the University of Oxford appears safe and trains the immune system.
Trials involving around 1,077 people showed the injection led to them making antibodies and white blood cells that can fight coronavirus.
The findings are hugely promising, but it is still too soon to know if this is enough to offer protection and larger trials are under way.
The UK has already ordered 100 million doses of the vaccine.
The UK government apparently ordered 100 million doses of the vaccine which seems a bit of a overkill given that the UK population is only 65 million and not everyone will be vaccinated
It could also be that two doses are required? On the basis that not everyone will be able to be vaccinated, 50 million people would be about right?
Apparently the older you get the more doses you need for immunity, because your immune system doesn't work so well.
It seems like an interesting moral conundrum to me - what would the reaction be if the government says "We could use the expected supply over the 6 months to innoculate everyone under 40 and let them get on with their lives, but actually we're going to use it all on the over 70s because they are most at risk"?
Assuming that the high risk groups are offered them first (shielders then over 70) then the general population risk becomes lower than Flu so everybody else should be able to return to normal whilst awaiting a vaccine if they choose to get one.Apparently the older you get the more doses you need for immunity, because your immune system doesn't work so well.
It seems like an interesting moral conundrum to me - what would the reaction be if the government says "We could use the expected supply over the 6 months to innoculate everyone under 40 and let them get on with their lives, but actually we're going to use it all on the over 70s because they are most at risk"?
Apparently the older you get the more doses you need for immunity, because your immune system doesn't work so well.
It seems like an interesting moral conundrum to me - what would the reaction be if the government says "We could use the expected supply over the 6 months to innoculate everyone under 40 and let them get on with their lives, but actually we're going to use it giving the required multiple doses to the over 70s because they are most at risk"(or vice versa).
I am very grateful to the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, which has published its interim advice today.
They recommend priority vaccination for 2 groups: frontline health and social care workers, and those at increased risk of serious disease and death from coronavirus, including, for example, adults over the age of 50 and those with heart and kidney disease.
As we learn more about the virus, we will continue to take into account which groups may be particularly vulnerable, including for example those from ethnic minority backgrounds.
So we can protect the most at risk first should a vaccine become available and get this country back on her feet as soon as we possibly can.
Fatigue and headache were the most commonly reported systemic reactions. Fatigue was reported in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group by 340 (70%) participants without paracetamol and 40 (71%) with paracetamol... whereas headaches were reported in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group by 331 (68%) participants without paracetamol and 34 (61%) with paracetamol. Other systemic adverse reactions were common in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group: muscle ache (294 [60%] participants without paracetamol and 27 [48%] with paracetamol), malaise (296 [61%] and 27 [48%]), chills (272 [56%] and 15 [27%]); and feeling feverish (250 [51%] and 20 [36%])... 87 (18%) participants without paracetamol and nine (16%) participants with paracetamol reported a temperature of at least 38°C, and eight (2%) patients without paracetamol had a temperature of at least 39°C.
and remember this is on young, healthy people. (I wonder what the results would have been like if they'd just injected them with Covid?!)
This isnt surprising for a first generation vaccine for anything, it's got to produce a reaction to get the body to react. As long as it dosent cause the rest of the Covid issues (especially the over reaction of the immune system) then it's passed it's present test. It's real test is, does producing antibodies, actually achieve anything useful?So, taking a look at the actual paper - can be found here
- The study was done on healthy 18-55 year olds (ie. people already at minimal risk of a bad case of the virus)
- The side-effects sound remarkably like a mild case of covid:
and remember this is on young, healthy people. (I wonder what the results would have been like if they'd just injected them with Covid?!)
It is promising that no-one got very ill as a result, but given the level of side-effects in otherwise healthy people, it seems a little premature to assume this is going to be suitable for those most in need of a vaccine.
(I wonder what the results would have been like if they'd just injected them with Covid?!)
Statistically a handful of them would have died of Covid-19 so the fact that none of them did is probably a plus!
.People who have recovered from Covid-19 may lose their immunity to the disease within months, according to research suggesting the virus could reinfect people year after year, like common colds.
In the first longitudinal study of its kind, scientists analysed the immune response of more than 90 patients and healthcare workers at Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS foundation trust and found levels of antibodies that can destroy the virus peaked about three weeks after the onset of symptoms then swiftly declined
Really? If they were all low-risk (as seems to be the case) it's quite likely that none of them would have died from Covid anyway - statistically the risks of dying for anyone in a low-risk category is very low.
If this proves to be the case, no vaccine is going to work!
Antibodies aren't the only defense mechanism though. I'm no immunologist but I believe you'd expect antibodies to drop off anyway - doesn't mean body won't react quickly if reinfection occurs. Maybe someone can clarify who knows more?Meanwhile:
Immunity to Covid-19 could be lost in months, UK study suggests
Exclusive: King’s College London team found steep drops in antibody levels three months after infectionwww.theguardian.com
.
If this proves to be the case, no vaccine is going to work!
This is scaremongering.If this proves to be the case, no vaccine is going to work!
Quite! The pro-lockdown camp are desperately trying to perpetuate the myth that the only people with any immunity to this virus are people who have detectable antibody levels. This is clearly false.Antibodies aren't the only defense mechanism though. I'm no immunologist but I believe you'd expect antibodies to drop off anyway - doesn't mean body won't react quickly if reinfection occurs. Maybe someone can clarify who knows more?
I am over 60 so presumably would not be allowed. However, I would love to volunteer for a trial like this.
This is scaremongering.
It "may", but even if we have to have a yearly jab, like we do with 'flu, that does not mean a vaccine "won't work".
Yes the body has other defenses and yes antibodies always drop off (some more slowly than others).Antibodies aren't the only defense mechanism though. I'm no immunologist but I believe you'd expect antibodies to drop off anyway - doesn't mean body won't react quickly if reinfection occurs. Maybe someone can clarify who knows more?
Several of the vaccines are taking approaches which are designed to enhance T-cell immunity as well as antibody immunity, so you might expect a slightly longer-lived effect than a pure antibody solution. At the end of the day an immunisation that got us through winter every year combined with relatively small improvements in treatment would almost certainly reduce the seriousness of Covid to less than that of the flu. For the purposes of getting back to normal that's all we really needThat rather depends on how long immunity does actually last! If it's only a few months, then a vaccine is of very limited use.
It may be scaremongering, but if so then it's no worse than the constant 'second-wave' doom-mongering.
Statistically a handful of them would have died of Covid-19 so the fact that none of them did is probably a plus!
Several of the vaccines are taking approaches which are designed to enhance T-cell immunity as well as antibody immunity, so you might expect a slightly longer-lived effect than a pure antibody solution.
At the end of the day an immunisation that got us through winter every year combined with relatively small improvements in treatment would almost certainly reduce the seriousness of Covid to less than that of the flu. For the purposes of getting back to normal that's all we really need
The IFR appears around 0.2%, largely skewed towards the elderly and those with pre-existing conditions. So if you gave 543 randomly selected members of the public an injection of Covid, and assume that 50% will get infected (which is probably far too high; looks more like 20% on the data now emerging), then there's about a 50% chance that *one* of them will die.