Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Vaccine hopes rise as Oxford jab prompts immune response among old and young

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 712 posts

Re: Vaccine hopes rise as Oxford jab prompts immune response among old and young

#11

Post by henearkr »

marketingPro wrote: post #2

This article reinforces that herd immunity between young healthy people would have been the best solution. Our old are going to get sick from vaccines, so the young are going to get it anyway. Next year under 50 year olds will line up for their vaccine. Meanwhile 1.5 years worth of old, obese, and sick people will have died from coronavirus. Wouldn't it have been better if healthy kids and adults caught it in q2 2020…

This is a virus with bad long-term effects on the body.

Not a good idea to catch it just to get immune.

Re: Vaccine hopes rise as Oxford jab prompts immune response among old and young

#12

Post by singemonkey »

henearkr wrote: post #5
dbetteridge wrote: post #3

OK, someone tell me why this isn't the good news it sounds like

This IS good news. Now (soon, hopefully) people can acquire immunity through a vaccine, instead of through a virus that leaves long-lasting damage to the body (in particular, but not limited to, the brain).

As well as acquiring immunity without being infectious.

However, the efficacy of this vaccine (and all the other candidates) still needs to be clarified - ie is it like a measles vaccination (~90% efficacy) or the flu vaccines (~ 25% - 50% I believe).

Re: Vaccine hopes rise as Oxford jab prompts immune response among old and young

#13

Post by karma_fountain »

dbetteridge wrote: post #3

OK, someone tell me why this isn't the good news it sounds like

It is good news if true, but we are rushing the trials of a new vaccine and then potentially going to give it to a large number of people. What if the vaccine has long term negative effects?

Re: Vaccine hopes rise as Oxford jab prompts immune response among old and young

#14

Post by aphextron »

dbetteridge wrote: post #3

OK, someone tell me why this isn't the good news it sounds like

>OK, someone tell me why this isn't the good news it sounds like

The AstraZeneca vaccine is based on an adenovirus vector, which has never been approved for use in humans. It uses a weakened live virus that can (and apparently has, in the case of the J&J vaccine, which is using very similar tech) cause serious adverse systemic reactions. From what we've seen so far, the safety profile for these vaccines is far worse than the mRNA/lipid nanoparticle based vaccines coming from Moderna and Pfizer/Biontech.

It's also not really news. We know that a vaccine will prompt an immune response. Dozens of others in progress have already shown this with phase 1 and phase 2 data. The question is how strong, how long lasting, and how safe is it, along with the question of real world efficacy data from placebo controlled trials.

Re: Vaccine hopes rise as Oxford jab prompts immune response among old and young

#15

Post by viraptor »

dbetteridge wrote: post #3

OK, someone tell me why this isn't the good news it sounds like

Likely long-term results are not known yet. We've already had one vaccine potentially causing side effects that stopped the human trials for a while. (I think it was the Russian one. Please correct me if not)

Re: Vaccine hopes rise as Oxford jab prompts immune response among old and young

#17

Post by School-Cotton »

henearkr wrote: post #5
dbetteridge wrote: post #3

OK, someone tell me why this isn't the good news it sounds like

This IS good news. Now (soon, hopefully) people can acquire immunity through a vaccine, instead of through a virus that leaves long-lasting damage to the body (in particular, but not limited to, the brain).

Do you have a source on how common severe long-term effects from Covid are? All I’ve seen are anecdotes.

Re: Vaccine hopes rise as Oxford jab prompts immune response among old and young

#18

Post by jlokier »

arethuza wrote: post #9
fierarul wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AstraZeneca has agreements with all governments whereby they don't claim any responsibility for the vaccine. It's the national governments that will deal with any side effects.

That seems fair if they are being expected to rush the development of the vaccine?

It's fair if the degree of disclaiming is proportionate to the need and the pace.

They shouldn't be off the hook completely. They should still have to show they have conducted a responsible level of testing and checking for the circumstances, that they are continuing to refine that verification even after widespread deployment, and to motivate that to be done all levels requires some degree of moral hazard remains in place for them. In other words there should be some sharing of risk. Imho.

Re: Vaccine hopes rise as Oxford jab prompts immune response among old and young

#19

Post by lbeltrame »

dbetteridge wrote: post #3

OK, someone tell me why this isn't the good news it sounds like

Glass half full: We can measure an immune response also in populations where it's more difficult to get a decent one. An immune response means that the immune system actually is taking action against the viral antigen.

Glass half empty: We don't know how the immune response measured relates to protection from or lessening of the infection. This is what the ongoing trial is trying to find out.

This is, IIRC, the second report of successful immunogenicity in older people. There was a (small) cohort of > 65 year old people tested with Pfizer / BioNTech's vaccine in the Phase 1 trial, and even there immune responses were found and measured.

Re: Vaccine hopes rise as Oxford jab prompts immune response among old and young

#20

Post by viraptor »

singemonkey wrote: post #12
henearkr wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This IS good news. Now (soon, hopefully) people can acquire immunity through a vaccine, instead of through a virus that leaves long-lasting damage to the body (in particular, but not limited to, the brain).

As well as acquiring immunity without being infectious. However, the efficacy of this vaccine (and all the other candidates) still needs to be clarified - ie is it like a measles vaccination (~90% efficacy) or the flu vaccines (~ 25% - 50% I believe).

Sounds right for the flu. I was curious about the details - here's a good starting point. https://www.cdc.gov/flu/vaccines-work/vaccineeffect.htm?CDC_...
Post reply on HN