Oxford vaccine

[Squat]

Hard to believe it could be much worse.

it could spread rapidly like covid but have the mortality rate of ebola

 

[SurreyMackem]

It could be 100 times worse.

That would be an extinction event.

 

[Medulla]

This is a good piece which describes what we know and what we don't, and what it might mean:

Why the Oxford vaccine is different - UnHerd

 

[FootballFan]

So they messed up the samples. How on earth can they be trusted with a vaccine.

I will stick with the US vaccine.

America is the greatest nation in the world.

 

[Harry Angstrom]

That would be an extinction event.

Depends on the criteria.

 

[FootballFan]

It's 90% and this is just an interim result in a subset of the trial population. People need to be patient and hang fire for the final data, where more reliable conclusions can be made based on a larger sample size, and something about its safety can be understood.

Correct, in fact the mess up with the samples was only in 1,700 samples we hear now, so its a bit early to be jumping to any conclusions.

 

[42]

So they messed up the samples. How on earth can they be trusted with a vaccine.

I will stick with the US vaccine.

America is the greatest nation in the world.

You won't get a choice, you'll get what you're given. And given that we've got more doses of Oxford one than any other one, chances are, that's what you'll get.

How on earth can someone go from supporting Corbyn, to supporting Trump. Its like you just get roped into whatever cult is on the go.

 

[James]

You won't get a choice, you'll get what you're given. And given that we've got more doses of Oxford one than any other one, chances are, that's what you'll get.

How on earth can someone go from supporting Corbyn, to supporting Trump. Its like you just get roped into whatever cult is on the go.

This is clearly an alter ego from a regular on here, they've been posting this tedious shite for years now. My money is on Lardy.

 

[Sir Lancelot]

It's 90% and this is just an interim result in a subset of the trial population. People need to be patient and hang fire for the final data, where more reliable conclusions can be made based on a larger sample size, and something about its safety can be understood.

Without wanting to start World War III the news report said up to 94% effective. It didn’t go into any further detail other than that.

Just for the record, I didn’t notice you disputing the effectiveness of the other two vaccines. Is it cos they aren’t made in the U.K. therefore they have to be better?

 

[Medulla]

Without wanting to start World War III the news report said up to 94% effective. It didn’t go into any further detail other than that.

Just for the record, I didn’t notice you disputing the effectiveness of the other two vaccines. Is it cos they aren’t made in the U.K. therefore they have to be better?

I'm not disputing anything other than your dodgy figures. I've spent quite a bit of time on here discussing the whys and wherefores of the data released for all of the three vaccines, so you might find something other than unqualified tubthumping if you actually looked.

 

[The Cheat]

Hang on, so the Oxford lot were actually checking people for infection, but the yanks were allowed to just rely on self reporting, then quote 90%+ as fact? The more I hear, the more I like the sound of the Oxford one.

 

[Rob]

This is a good piece which describes what we know and what we don't, and what it might mean:

Why the Oxford vaccine is different - UnHerd

Cracking article marra, thanks for sharing, answers a lot of the questions I had thought of. Put an extra spring in my step !

 

[thehighground]

Most the criticism of the Oxford vaccine is coming from US big pharama because they are pissed off that they are not going to make a killing on their own vaccines which cost between 15 and 25 dollars a shot. The Oxford one is 3 dollars. The agreement the Jenner Institute has with Zeneca is that they produce the first lot for 3 dollars a shot for everyone in the world, then later they keep it at 3 dollars for low income countries and they can charge what they like in rich countries.

Oxford is a not for profit outfit. No US company were interested in taking up the manufacture unless they had world distribution rights which the Jenner Institute was not willing to do.

There is an interesting back story about Dr Adrian Hill, Director of the Jenner Institute who has made it his life's work to work on vaccines for third world countries, inspired so by a visit to Africa when he was a medical student. From that work he did, all his research was based on developing vaccines that were cheap and didn't need special control conditions so that they could be easily distributed in countries that had little or no infrastructure to do so.

 

[Chalks]

for vaccine to be effective they need to inoculate significantly more than 50% of population so yes under 50’s will be vaccinated

Last in the queue and by choice , like it or not

A high uptake is the only way to protect the vulnerable. It’s the group that can’t take the vaccine that will be most at risk and reliant on herd immunity through vaccination. Vaccination for over 60’s might be enough to protect the NHS but it would signal an absolutely political/ economic decision to accept avoidable deaths in the general public and absolutely throw people that are immunity compromised under the bus.

But the vaccine is not being mandated so it will be what it will be. If people choose not to have it for whatever reason then the vulnerable have to accept that

 

[Slim999]

Most the criticism of the Oxford vaccine is coming from US big pharama because they are pissed off that they are not going to make a killing on their own vaccines which cost between 15 and 25 dollars a shot. The Oxford one is 3 dollars. The agreement the Jenner Institute has with Zeneca is that they produce the first lot for 3 dollars a shot for everyone in the world, then later they keep it at 3 dollars for low income countries and they can charge what they like in rich countries.

Oxford is a not for profit outfit. No US company were interested in taking up the manufacture unless they had world distribution rights which the Jenner Institute was not willing to do.

There is an interesting back story about Dr Adrian Hill, Director of the Jenner Institute who has made it his life's work to work on vaccines for third world countries, inspired so by a visit to Africa when he was a medical student. From that work he did, all his research was based on developing vaccines that were cheap and didn't need special control conditions so that they could be easily distributed in countries that had little or no infrastructure to do so.

Thanks for the back story.

It's nice to hear of someone doing the right thing for all the right reasons

 

[42]

This is clearly an alter ego from a regular on here, they've been posting this tedious shite for years now. My money is on Lardy.

I think that as he never replies to anything suggests it's a likely WUM

 

[Medulla]

There's an article that's just been published on Wired that's quite damning on how the AstraZeneca vaccine studies have been conducted.

Shows the importance of transparency and not drawing any firm conclusions from press releases and waiting for peer review and regulatory scrutiny to do a thorough job.

 

[Gaggoears]

There's an article that's just been published on Wired that's quite damning on how the AstraZeneca vaccine studies have been conducted.

Shows the importance of transparency and not drawing any firm conclusions from press releases and waiting for peer review and regulatory scrutiny to do a thorough job.

Interesting.

 

[bahtat]

There's an article that's just been published on Wired that's quite damning on how the AstraZeneca vaccine studies have been conducted.

Shows the importance of transparency and not drawing any firm conclusions from press releases and waiting for peer review and regulatory scrutiny to do a thorough job.

not Like America to knock something that puts Their ability to make money at risk is it!

 

[pavarotti1980]

There's an article that's just been published on Wired that's quite damning on how the AstraZeneca vaccine studies have been conducted.

Shows the importance of transparency and not drawing any firm conclusions from press releases and waiting for peer review and regulatory scrutiny to do a thorough job.

there seems to be an awful of comments beginning with "presumably" and "perhaps". I reckon this person hasnt seen any Oxford data to actually substantiate their hypothesis