What's new
Pinball info

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Oxford Vaccine 70.4% Effective - 90% With Modified Dosing

James

James

Site Supporter
Joined
Dec 29, 2017
Messages
5,101
Location
Norwich
Alias
James
Just been reading the announcement by the Oxford group after large scale trials, showing 70.4% effectiveness with a high proportion (29.6%) potentially demonstrating symptoms still.

The U.K. has access to 100 million doses, it is far cheaper than other solutions and doesn’t need to be stored at -81oC.

1) Is this a win?
2) No news on its reduction in mortality, if any, for those vaccinated who go on to contract. Surely if 0% then contracted and went on to die, this would be a huge win, but without this. See 1.
 
70% is good enough for it to have a major impact on the virus. But with there already being two that are above 90% I don’t know why we would waste any money on the 70% solution!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
With the amount of money riding on both, i wouldn't beleive jack ****. I suspect they both provide mediocre protection and, like you say, better than nothing...
 
Neil McRae said:
70% is good enough for it to have a major impact on the virus. But with there already being two that are above 90% I don’t know why we would waste any money on the 70% solution!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Click to expand...
You're thinking as a consumer there. It's surely going to be very lucrative for UK economy and British research if this roles out worldwide
 
strobey said:
You're thinking as a consumer there. It's surely going to be very lucrative for UK economy and British research if this roles out worldwide
Click to expand...

I’m thinking as a statistician. Not sure it will be that lucrative but helpful.

One of the 95% ones is easy to manage.

But how many of you are buying that 70% effective lower cost parachute? 🪂 [emoji1787]

Neil.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
The Oxford team mentioned that the effectiveness was higher and around 90% when they gave two differing sized doses, from the BBC news....

'When volunteers were given two "high" doses the protection was 62%, but this rose to 90% when people were given a "low" dose followed by a high one. It's not clear why there is a difference.'

Either way, reduce the R rate significantly and the virus dies out, it seems we need a vaccine to do this as in our country peoples actions/behaviour allow the virus to flourish!
 
Apparently when they sorted the dosage schedule out, going from a high high dose, to a low high dose, it rocketed to nearly 90%?

Weird that wasn't the headline though, perhaps they can only report on the actual findings over the course of the entire programme?
 
James said:
Apparently when they sorted the dosage schedule out, going from a high high dose, to a low high dose, it rocketed to nearly 90%?

Weird that wasn't the headline though, perhaps they can only report on the actual findings over the course of the entire programme?
Click to expand...

What! You want the press to put a positive spin or even factual side to their 'headline' 😂 😂 😂 They are pretty much all low life doom mongers, that's just not going to happen! Piers Morgan? :mad: I'll stop there with my opinions before I get banned!

Chris.
 
Big money to be made so who do you trust? ^^^^^ Piers Morgan can’t stand that knob.
 
70% national immunisation would drop the R number so low that life would be able to return to normal. The highest risk groups should get the 90% version and the rest of us the easy to administer vaccine.

My step father is a tester and will be used to roll out the vaccine. He said that it's two shots 3 weeks apart that need very specialist cooling units. Logistically it's going to be tough to administer 10m doses 3 weeks apart to the vulnerable.

Mrs Gonzo is a midwife and is now tested twice per week and that testing will be rolled out to the wider public relatively shortly.

All things being equal I would hope that we can look forward to summer without too many restrictions.
 
This is definitely good news, while the headline 70% effectiveness doesn't sound as good as the other two, with the right dosage it can be as high as 90% effective but with two big benefits.....

Its much easier and cheaper to produce

Transportation and storage is easier

Both of these things are very important for poorer countries.
 
Neil McRae said:
70% is good enough for it to have a major impact on the virus. But with there already being two that are above 90% I don’t know why we would waste any money on the 70% solution!
Click to expand...
Firstly that 70% figure and the 94% and 95% are aggregate figures for the trials. Each vaccine has differerent characteristics across age ranges and states of the immune system, so one may be more suitable or more efficacious for one type of person, and another for an older, or sicker, or younger, or pregnant person.

And then there's the fact that 100m doses of the 70% one may be available very soon, while the 95% one may not be available til the late spring at the earliest, and even then only in limited numbers. There's no reason why a country can't start with one vaccine which is available sooner and easier to store and distribute and then switch to another as it becomes available and the infrastructure is put in place to store and distribute it later if it is more effective.
 
Last edited:
It's also important to remember that the 70% figure is not from any dosage. What AstraZeneca actually said is that with a half dose and then a full dose one month apart they found vaccine efficacy of 90% , and two full doses showed 62% efficacy when given at least one month apart.

The combined analysis from both dosing regimens resulted in an average efficacy of 70%, but the newspaper reporters who probably have degrees in art history or English literature or flower arranging probably didn't actually read the AstraZeneca release and don't understand numbers. So lots of them just went with the 70% figure. Really they should have gone with 62% and 90%. The 90% figure with that dosing regime is likely (but not certain) to be very close to the truth as it has a high statistical significance (p<=0.0001). To put that in a very general context a p<= 0.05 is generally thought of as statistically significant as a broad generalisation.
 
Last edited:
Which
Mfresh said:
It's also important to remember that the 70% figure is not from any dosage. What AstraZeneca actually said is that with a half dose and then a full dose one month apart they found vaccine efficacy of 90% , and two full doses showed 62% efficacy when given at least one month apart.

The combined analysis from both dosing regimens resulted in an average efficacy of 70%, but the newspaper reporters who probably have degrees in art history or English literature or flower arranging probably didn't actually read the AstraZeneca release and don't understand numbers. So lots of them just went with the 70% figure. Really they should have gone with 62% and 90%. The 90% figure with that dosing regime is likely (but not certain) to be very close to the truth as it has a high statistical significance (p<=0.0001). To put that in a very general context a p<= 0.05 is generally thought of as statistically significant as a broad generalisation.
Click to expand...


Don't be coming on here with all your reasoned arguments, statistics and percentages. 😡

Stick to the important questions. Is it the Illuminati or the New World Order?

Does this spell the end of Marks & Spencer?
 
One of the things specifically said regarding the Oxford vaccine is that although it is the figures of 70% & 90% being quoted depending on differing dosages, meaning that 70 & 90% of people didn't catch Covid. There where 0 deaths, or even hospital admissions. To me that is 100% effective.
Are the other 2 vaccines using the same benchmarks to report their figures of 95%??

On a separate note.
Let's say the 3 vaccines are 70%, 90% and 95% effective, would taking all 3 produce an effectiveness of 99.85%? :)
 
I have a family member who is a Dr working on this one.
The process is easy to manufacture, there are 10 organisations lined up to manufacture it worldwide in some of the deprived areas of the world. It is relatively easy to store compared to others and cheaper so has the opportunity to be a worldwide vaccine.

If they do get to roll this out worldwide, 62% to 90% or whatever, it stops the virus spreading so it dies out.
That sounds like a result.
 
They say the Oxford one is the price of a coffee and stored easily in refrigerator so seems we on to a win winner
 
Boris Johnson was backed by his chief medical adviser last night in setting an Easter “end goal” for coronavirus restrictions after trials showed that the Oxford vaccine was highly effective.


Chris Whitty agreed that it would be possible to “pull back” from social-distancing rules from the spring, with increasing hope in government that life would return to normal in the summer.
 
Not wanting to dampen anyone's high hopes but have i read this right: they took two groups of people of the same size, in the first group 100 people got sick and the second one 30 people got sick. So that's how they decided that it was 70% efficient. I am no statistician but wouldn't you need the groups to be much larger in numbers to be able to confidently declare an efficiency level?
 
There are two results from the trial of more than 20,000 volunteers in the UK and Brazil.

Overall, there were 30 cases of Covid in people who had two doses of the vaccine and 101 cases in people who received a dummy injection. The researchers said it worked out at 70% protection, which is better than the seasonal flu jab.
 
Prof Peter Horby, from the University of Oxford but not involved in the trial, said: "This is very welcome news, we can clearly see the end of tunnel now. There were no Covid hospitalisations or deaths in people who got the Oxford vaccine."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom