Oxford Vaccine phase one trial shows great promise

Yew

Established Member
Joined
12 Mar 2011
Messages
4,010
Location
Nottingham
The BBC have been reporting that the results of the phase one trials of the Oxford vaccine are due to be published today.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

MattA7

Member
Joined
27 Jan 2019
Messages
137
The BBC have been reporting that the results of the phase one trials of the Oxford vaccine are due to be published today.
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
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
22,376
Location
Redcar
The BBC have been reporting that the results of the phase one trials of the Oxford vaccine are due to be published today.
Indeed!

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.

Early days still but a very encouraging step towards having an effective vaccine.
 

Mag_seven

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
1 Sep 2014
Messages
6,783
Location
here to eternity
The BBC have been reporting that the results of the phase one trials of the Oxford vaccine are due to be published today.
More good news today with positive results from the first set of trials from the Oxford Vaccine study:


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.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
57,063
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
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 can always sell them! :)

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?
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
19,162
Location
Nottingham
They've also ordered 90 million doses of a different vaccine to be on the safe side. Neither (or any other vaccine) has yet been demonstrated to be effective.

I suggest that if we end up with spare does of an effective one, they should be given to some deserving country as part of overseas aid.
 

JonathanP

Member
Joined
1 Aug 2008
Messages
237
Location
Berlin, Germany
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 giving the required multiple doses to the over 70s because they are most at risk"(or vice versa).
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
57,063
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
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"?
I would be surprised if that was not the option taken, i.e. it'll be shielders first, then everyone who gets a flu vaccine normally, then others.
 

carlberry

Established Member
Joined
19 Dec 2014
Messages
2,534
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.
 

Mag_seven

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
1 Sep 2014
Messages
6,783
Location
here to eternity
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).
Matt Hancock has already announced (on 18th June) who will be prioritised:




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.
 

MikeWM

Established Member
Joined
26 Mar 2010
Messages
1,361
Location
Ely
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:

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?!)

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.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
57,063
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
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?!)
I don't know. However, the injection couldn't cause a long and ongoing illness, because the virus used in it is inactivated - it can't reproduce, the body is literally just reacting to the virus that was injected, it can't make copies of it like a real virus.

Plenty of vaccinations make you feel yuck afterwards.
 

carlberry

Established Member
Joined
19 Dec 2014
Messages
2,534
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.
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?
 

DavidB

Established Member
Joined
18 Nov 2009
Messages
2,019
Statistically a handful of them would have died of Covid-19 so the fact that none of them did is probably a plus!
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.
 

DavidB

Established Member
Joined
18 Nov 2009
Messages
2,019
Meanwhile:

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
.




If this proves to be the case, no vaccine is going to work!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
22,376
Location
Redcar
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.
Yes but they're not zero. Taking a thousand people aged between 18 and 55 and giving them Covid would, statistically have killed a few of them. Now if you actually it did it it might not actually kill any of them because the chances are very low. But they're not zero so you would expect to see some deaths.
 

Richard Scott

Member
Joined
13 Dec 2018
Messages
1,094
Meanwhile:

.




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?
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
50,010
Location
Yorkshire
If this proves to be the case, no vaccine is going to work!
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".


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?
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.
 

JB_B

Member
Joined
27 Dec 2013
Messages
926
Last edited:

DavidB

Established Member
Joined
18 Nov 2009
Messages
2,019
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".
That 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.
 

carlberry

Established Member
Joined
19 Dec 2014
Messages
2,534
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?
Yes the body has other defenses and yes antibodies always drop off (some more slowly than others).

The problem is, currently, nobody actually knows the answer to the real question which is; does having Covid antibodies actually save you getting reinfected and, if so, what level do you need to achieve this.
 

takno

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2016
Messages
2,211
That 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.
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
 

MikeWM

Established Member
Joined
26 Mar 2010
Messages
1,361
Location
Ely
Statistically a handful of them would have died of Covid-19 so the fact that none of them did is probably a plus!
No - they only gave it to 543 people.

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.

But if you infected 543 healthy, young people with Covid the chances of even one of them dying is almost zero.

That people think a handful of them would have died on average, unfortunately shows just how well 'project fear' has worked.
 

Yew

Established Member
Joined
12 Mar 2011
Messages
4,010
Location
Nottingham
Equally, nobody seems to have reported coughing or breathing difficulties, which is where the real issues with COVID lie.
 

MikeWM

Established Member
Joined
26 Mar 2010
Messages
1,361
Location
Ely
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.
Yes; this is apparently what the 'double protection' headlines were going on about. That's a lot more promising in my opinion, assuming they get it right.

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
Exactly. We're not going to eliminate this, we have to manage it in a sensible manner.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
57,063
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
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.
I would say if you injected COVID into people, very near 100% would become infected unless they had existing immunity. An injection of a pathogen at a viable level is much more likely to proceed to a viable infection than just being exposed to it i.e. being near someone who has it.
 

Top