Oxford Vaccine phase three trial suggests it's highly effective with up to 90% protection

[MikeWM]

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.

But it seems a lot of us do have existing immunity. Maybe as much as 80% of us.

Though, yes, at the levels they used in this trial (about a billion viruses per injection, it seems) then I'm not sure if that helps - the usual immunity routes may have difficulty coping with that quantity of virus. Of course you wouldn't encounter anything like such amounts in a normal initial infection.

 

[MikeWM]

Equally, nobody seems to have reported coughing or breathing difficulties, which is where the real issues with COVID lie.

Yes, that is promising. Though oddly, they don't seem to mention it either way, or mention it in their graphs. Does that mean no-one had it or they weren't tracking it?

 

[Bayum]

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.

We’ve already been told that it would be frontline care staff and shielding patients who would get priority for vaccination.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But it seems a lot of us do have existing immunity. Maybe as much as 80% of us.

I have seen very, very little to suggest it is that high other than fanciful speculation, usually in support of herd immunity. Indeed, if 80% of us were immune that would be enough for that to be the case already and it would be decreasing, and it's not, it's now running at a very stable figure (i.e. R = 1, pretty much).

 

[MikeWM]

I have seen very, very little to suggest it is that high other than fanciful speculation, usually in support of herd immunity. Indeed, if 80% of us were immune that would be enough for that to be the case already and it would be decreasing, and it's not, it's now running at a very stable figure (i.e. R = 1, pretty much).

There are some papers around. Yes, they are rather speculative and use small sample sizes, but they don't seem any worse than any of the other studies that people seem to be using to further their arguments.

All the way back to the Diamond Princess a figure around 20% has been speculated.

When you consider how many of us will have had a common cold coronovirus, it doesn't seem unreasonable that many of us would have some degree of immunity.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There are some papers around. Yes, they are rather speculative and use small sample sizes, but they don't seem any worse than any of the other studies that people seem to be using to further their arguments.

All the way back to the Diamond Princess a figure around 20% has been speculated.

When you consider how many of us will have had a common cold coronovirus, it doesn't seem unreasonable that many of us would have some degree of immunity.

That's possible, but the thing is that 80% is the high end of the sort of figure that people think is needed for herd immunity (I've also heard it said 60% could be enough). So if 80% were immune, it wouldn't be spreading, it'd be dying off. It's not, it's now happily bimbling along at a static level give or take weekly variances.

It could be as high as say 40% but I very much doubt higher than that.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

In the UK, the Oxford Phase II trails began recruiting ages 56-69 ( and, I think, 70+ for some groups / centres ) back in May 22nd.

(See: https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2020-05-22-oxford-covid-19-vaccine-begin-phase-iiiii-human-trials )

Are there no similar opportunities in the US?

Yes and I did get a call asking clarifying questions and they said I am qualified and they would get back to
Me with an appointment date. It has now been 3 weeks and still not heard back.

 

[MattA7]

There is also the issue of how many people would take the vaccine if/when it Becomes available. Even those who are not normally anti-vaccine may be hesitant to take this due to the fact it has been rushed through trials that normally takes years (often more than a decade) and their will likely be people with medical conditions whom the vaccine is contraindicated.

the government could make vaccination compulsory but that would likely cause major opposition although I think smallpox vaccinations were compulsory for a period of time in the UK so I guess it could happen

 

[Scrotnig]

I'd have the Oxford one. I have utmost confidence in that.

Any others, not sure, would need to evaluate but I suspect I'd most likely have it.

 

[Chester1]

That's possible, but the thing is that 80% is the high end of the sort of figure that people think is needed for herd immunity (I've also heard it said 60% could be enough). So if 80% were immune, it wouldn't be spreading, it'd be dying off. It's not, it's now happily bimbling along at a static level give or take weekly variances.

It could be as high as say 40% but I very much doubt higher than that.

I think its really worth highlighting that immunity doesn't need to reach a certain level to have a significant effect. The more people who have immunity the slower the virus will spread. The tipping point when immunity becomes sufficiently high that the virus can't really spread at all does matter but its not everything.

There is also the issue of how many people would take the vaccine if/when it Becomes available. Even those who are not normally anti-vaccine may be hesitant to take this due to the fact it has been rushed through trials that normally takes years (often more than a decade) and their will likely be people with medical conditions whom the vaccine is contraindicated.

the government could make vaccination compulsory but that would likely cause major opposition although I think smallpox vaccinations were compulsory for a period of time in the UK so I guess it could happen

Its extremely unlikely the government will make it compulsory. It couldn't be practically enforced. Smallpox was in a different political age, it had a high death rate and there was a global eradication program. I think the intial uptake will be patchy and people will need to weigh up the risk of taking a very new vaccine against the risk of covid-19. The vast majority of people at high risk will be very keen on being vaccinated. Once its offered to everyone the uptake rate will drop. Having half the population vaccinated by end of next year would fall short of herd immunity but it would still be great compared to the situation today, with lower rates of both transmission and death.

 

[bramling]

There is also the issue of how many people would take the vaccine if/when it Becomes available. Even those who are not normally anti-vaccine may be hesitant to take this due to the fact it has been rushed through trials that normally takes years (often more than a decade) and their will likely be people with medical conditions whom the vaccine is contraindicated.

the government could make vaccination compulsory but that would likely cause major opposition although I think smallpox vaccinations were compulsory for a period of time in the UK so I guess it could happen

Have to say there’s quite a feeling of caution at my work towards receiving any vaccine, on the basis of who really wants to be amongst the first mass vaccinated people on the receiving end of a process which has been done in unusually quick time. Given how much else associated with this has turned into a shambles, who’s to say a vaccine won’t too.

 

[Chester1]

Have to say there’s quite a feeling of caution at my work towards receiving any vaccine, on the basis of who really wants to be amongst the first mass vaccinated people on the receiving end of a process which has been done in unusually quick time. Given how much else associated with this has turned into a shambles, who’s to say a vaccine won’t too.

Its an individual choice. Someone with heart disease, severe asthma, diabetes or over 80 really should take the small risk of being vaccinated. Its different for people who are at low risk from the virus. A chunk of the population is obbessed with getting the risk from Coronavirus down to zero at any cost and this reflects on attitudes towards vaccination. If most of those at high risk of dieing from covid-19 choose to be vaccinated then the death rate will drop a lot. Transmission rates amongst non vaccinated people will drop too because the virus will have slightly fewer potential hosts.

 

[PHILIPE]

We have had many sources saying "Not until a vaccine is available ". Are they likely to refuse it ?

 

[bramling]

We have had many sources saying "Not until a vaccine is available ". Are they likely to refuse it ?

I wouldn’t be surprised some would find a reason not to have it, with the real reason being that they want lockdown, furlough and a trip to the beach / theme park / national park every day to continue ad infinitum.

To be fair, there is some merit in the “I’m wary of a rushed vaccine” line of thought.

 

[Djgr]

I think its really worth highlighting that immunity doesn't need to reach a certain level to have a significant effect. The more people who have immunity the slower the virus will spread. The tipping point when immunity becomes sufficiently high that the virus can't really spread at all does matter but its not everything.



Its extremely unlikely the government will make it compulsory. It couldn't be practically enforced. Smallpox was in a different political age, it had a high death rate and there was a global eradication program. I think the intial uptake will be patchy and people will need to weigh up the risk of taking a very new vaccine against the risk of covid-19. The vast majority of people at high risk will be very keen on being vaccinated. Once its offered to everyone the uptake rate will drop. Having half the population vaccinated by end of next year would fall short of herd immunity but it would still be great compared to the situation today, with lower rates of both transmission and death.

I say make it voluntary, provided the antivax numpties waive away their right to hospital treatment if they get covid.

 

[Chester1]

I say make it voluntary, provided the antivax numpties waive away their right to hospital treatment if they get covid.

Its not antivax to want to wait a while before having it, for many people its commonsense. I would be extremely reluctant to be vaccinated this year in the unlikely event one is ready and rolled out to everyone this year. A lot of corners are being cut to develop a vaccine in months rather than years. Its absolutely the right thing to do and will hopefully save many lives. It doesn't follow that someone at very low risk is stupid or selfish for letting others get vaccinated first. Some people really need a vaccine to safely lead a normal life, others don't.

 

[Scrotnig]

Have to say there’s quite a feeling of caution at my work towards receiving any vaccine, on the basis of who really wants to be amongst the first mass vaccinated people on the receiving end of a process which has been done in unusually quick time. Given how much else associated with this has turned into a shambles, who’s to say a vaccine won’t too.

That's true, though the Oxford team have been a shining beacon of non-shambolicness throughout this so I have some confidence in them at least.

 

[js1000]

I don't understand the 100 million doses if I'm honest. I'd be more interested in who will be vaccinated?

If you strip away the hyperbole by the mainstream media, the reality is that we are not talking about TB, Polio or meningitis which ravages much of the population regardless of age.

90% of deaths are in the over 70s. Therefore I really can't see many under 50s taking this rushed vaccine when it is just a bad cold if they catch it.

 

[Yew]

I don't understand the 100 million doses if I'm honest. I'd be more interested in who will be vaccinated?

If you strip away the hyperbole by the mainstream media, the reality is that we are not talking about TB, Polio or meningitis which ravages much of the population regardless of age.

90% of deaths are in the over 70s. Therefore I really can't see many under 50s taking this rushed vaccine when it is just a bad cold if they catch it.

It doesn't cause death, but I do have a few friends who are struggling with lung damage because of it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It doesn't cause death, but I do have a few friends who are struggling with lung damage because of it.

Well, quite.

So we have now reached a position where people will quite happily catch a virus that has been proven to cause serious issues in some people (a bit Russian roulette) but won't allow themselves to, in effect, be infected by another virus which has been specifically designed to cause only mild flu symptoms to protect them against the former, with nobody knowing the long term effects of either?

Crikey. We'll never be out of lockdown if this pervades.

 

[AdamWW]

I don't understand the 100 million doses if I'm honest. I'd be more interested in who will be vaccinated?

If you strip away the hyperbole by the mainstream media, the reality is that we are not talking about TB, Polio or meningitis which ravages much of the population regardless of age.

90% of deaths are in the over 70s. Therefore I really can't see many under 50s taking this rushed vaccine when it is just a bad cold if they catch it.

OK so a "rushed vaccine" is an unknown risk.

But so are the long term effects of getting Covid-19 and not dying of it.

It's certainly not "just a bad cold" for some people who catch it regardless of age. Some people are certainly surviving it but not (yet) making a full recovery. I don't know how common this is because I haven't seen any statistics but I wouldn't just assume that the risks of the vaccine outweigh the risks of infection.

 

[furlong]

Remember the rush for lots of ventilators that turned out to be the wrong answer? The way out of this "crisis" isn't going to be one thing on its own (like a one-size-fits-all vaccine), but a whole range of different things in proportion. Yes, vaccines may be part of the armoury for some sections of the population, but don't discount the significance of the improvements we're already seeing on the treatment side that reduce the severity, and the effect of an improved understanding of risk amongst the public (which will eventually overcome the government's 'project fear') together with faster and more accurate tests and contact tracing. The answer won't be one magic bullet, but rather a combination of all these things and more.

 

[87electric]

It is a wise move before anyone gets vaccinated is to thoroughly seek out information on vaccines throughout history. There are dangers.
On February 24th 2020, a Federal regulation was passed in the USA giving full immunity from liability to all coronavirus vaccine makers.

https://www.phe.gov/Preparedness/legal/prepact/Pages/COVID19.aspx

I know since the 1980's vaccine companies have had indemnity because of all the lawsuits that were filed to them, so if you want to sue anyone, you sue the Government's Department of Justice. In effect, you sue taxpayers.
There is no accountability towards these companies.

 

[Chester1]

I don't understand the 100 million doses if I'm honest. I'd be more interested in who will be vaccinated?

If you strip away the hyperbole by the mainstream media, the reality is that we are not talking about TB, Polio or meningitis which ravages much of the population regardless of age.

90% of deaths are in the over 70s. Therefore I really can't see many under 50s taking this rushed vaccine when it is just a bad cold if they catch it.

Early indications are that older people and those with weak immune systems may need two doses of the Oxford vaccine (a second jab after a few weeks or months). With 65 million people in UK, 100 million doses would allow this with some flexibility.

 

[Bantamzen]

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.

Absolutely, our immune systems don't slavishly produce antibodies for every type of virus and bacteria we are exposed to, that would be inefficient and probably totally impracticable. What the immune system does is store the genetic memory of the antibody in B cells (I think that's what they are called), and when the virus (in this case) is no long detected by the system production of antibodies often ramps down. However should the virus re-emerge and the immune system detects it, production can be restarted if needed.

There are some papers around. Yes, they are rather speculative and use small sample sizes, but they don't seem any worse than any of the other studies that people seem to be using to further their arguments.

All the way back to the Diamond Princess a figure around 20% has been speculated.

When you consider how many of us will have had a common cold coronovirus, it doesn't seem unreasonable that many of us would have some degree of immunity.

And its these other coronaviruses that might be the key, many of them use our cells to produce various proteins, fragments of which will be presented at the cell's surface, and it is these fragments of proteins that the immune can detect. So if these current strains produce similar proteins to previous ones people have been exposed to, then it is entirely possible that the immune system would be able to react and shut down the infected cells even without producing antibodies, in effect the person could be immune without ever knowing it.

 

[Pete_uk]

This is being rushed because the government want to get the tracking micro RFID tags into us before 5G is rolled out.

I hope so much these vaccines work and work well. BUT I'm not sure if I would want myself or my 66ish year old mother taking the first wave of them. Just hold out a little bit to make sure.

 

[Pete_uk]

Just say a vaccine come out in October and is successful, what kind of percentage of population would have needed to have had it for restrictions to be lifted?

There surely will be those who still insist on distancing and masks.

 

[Scrotnig]

Just say a vaccine come out in October and is successful, what kind of percentage of population would have needed to have had it for restrictions to be lifted?

There surely will be those who still insist on distancing and masks.

I suspect we will be told restrictions have to stay in place for a year or two while everyone gets the vaccine.

Even then, we are likely to be told that there are huge benefits to retaining the restrictions, such as lower flu numbers or some such nonsense.

I really don't think there will be an end to this - the government have seized almost all our civil liberties and now have complete control over our lives. They can, and are, granting and withdrawing freedoms on whim. The public are lapping it up and demanding more of it. The government are not going to let this go any time soon, no matter what the outcome.

 

[edwin_m]

Just say a vaccine come out in October and is successful, what kind of percentage of population would have needed to have had it for restrictions to be lifted?

There surely will be those who still insist on distancing and masks.

They reckon about 60% for herd immunity. Some people are probably immune already but it may be easier to do everyone than to work out who doesn't need it. There's also the issue that immunity may not last very long, so we could be needing to repeat the process.

 

[Scrotnig]

I actually think only mass unemployment, poverty and homelessness would shock the public out of their current stupor.

Even then you'd STILL have people on social media shrieking "you can't go to work, you're killing people, lives before money, murderer".