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

Oxford vaccine shows sustained protection of 76% in 3-month gap til second dose

ox.ac.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 187 posts

Re: Oxford vaccine shows sustained protection of 76% in 3-month gap til second dose

#11

Post by CodeGlitch »

mchusma wrote: post #10

Hopefully this additional data will get the US to act the way they should have in November. Lift the ban on Astrazeneca. It's been given safely to millions now, with zero deaths from covid in the vaccinated (+14 days). The FDAs failure to approve Astrazeneca is the most horrifying government agency failure I have ever seen.

I was thinking the other day whether whether the world-wide effort to vaccinate as many people as possible will be a major blow to the anti-vax movement - in that once it is shown that there's no negative consequences of so many people taking a vaccine. E.g. no increase in autism rates.

Fingers crossed.

Re: Oxford vaccine shows sustained protection of 76% in 3-month gap til second dose

#12

Post by lawl »

dhbradshaw wrote: post #4

What exactly does "percent protection" mean in these announcements? Can we use the definition to derive a percent protection associated with having been through the virus? Is there a percent protection associated with your age / gender / race profile? It feels like the number doesn't mean much without having a similar number for the null cases.

Afaik it means that if you have a control group that isn't vaccinated vs this group (both should be drawn randomly of course), you will see 76% less infections in this group.

Re: Oxford vaccine shows sustained protection of 76% in 3-month gap til second dose

#13

Post by CodeGlitch »

CodeGlitch wrote: post #5
simonswords82 wrote: post #3

It just gets better and better for the UK - which is a relief because early January had some grim sickness and death numbers. Check out the data on the UK Gov dashboard if you've not seen it: https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/ Also - we are all in lockdown, which helps.

Not sure why you're being down voted. It's not like you said anything incorrect or controversial. Anyway I agree with you.

Now I'm being downvoted? Wtf HN

Re: Oxford vaccine shows sustained protection of 76% in 3-month gap til second dose

#14

Post by pb7 »

CodeGlitch wrote: post #11
mchusma wrote: post #10

Hopefully this additional data will get the US to act the way they should have in November. Lift the ban on Astrazeneca. It's been given safely to millions now, with zero deaths from covid in the vaccinated (+14 days). The FDAs failure to approve Astrazeneca is the most horrifying government agency failure I have ever seen.

I was thinking the other day whether whether the world-wide effort to vaccinate as many people as possible will be a major blow to the anti-vax movement - in that once it is shown that there's no negative consequences of so many people taking a vaccine. E.g. no increase in autism rates. Fingers crossed.

I think you'll find that data or lack thereof wasn't what was driving anti-vaxxers. :)

Re: Oxford vaccine shows sustained protection of 76% in 3-month gap til second dose

#15

Post by fweespeech »

CodeGlitch wrote: post #11
mchusma wrote: post #10

Hopefully this additional data will get the US to act the way they should have in November. Lift the ban on Astrazeneca. It's been given safely to millions now, with zero deaths from covid in the vaccinated (+14 days). The FDAs failure to approve Astrazeneca is the most horrifying government agency failure I have ever seen.

I was thinking the other day whether whether the world-wide effort to vaccinate as many people as possible will be a major blow to the anti-vax movement - in that once it is shown that there's no negative consequences of so many people taking a vaccine. E.g. no increase in autism rates. Fingers crossed.

You cannot reason people out of a position they did not reason themselves into. These people are not thinking logically and reacting to facts, they are reacting to what influencers in their sphere say and accepting that appeal to authority as fact.

Re: Oxford vaccine shows sustained protection of 76% in 3-month gap til second dose

#16

Post by nmca »

lbeltrame wrote: post #9
dhbradshaw wrote: post #4

What exactly does "percent protection" mean in these announcements? Can we use the definition to derive a percent protection associated with having been through the virus? Is there a percent protection associated with your age / gender / race profile? It feels like the number doesn't mean much without having a similar number for the null cases.

It is a reduction of the risk of symptomatic disease by 76% once vaccinated. But more importantly, there were no hospitalizations or deaths in the vaccinated people. This is a point the media often overlooks.

Because the "no hospitalisations or deaths" claim from the first Oxford paper was comparing n=2 to n=0 and thus was miles from significance. If the new paper has updated data on this happy to be corrected.

Re: Oxford vaccine shows sustained protection of 76% in 3-month gap til second dose

#17

Post by simonswords82 »

CodeGlitch wrote: post #5
simonswords82 wrote: post #3

It just gets better and better for the UK - which is a relief because early January had some grim sickness and death numbers. Check out the data on the UK Gov dashboard if you've not seen it: https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/ Also - we are all in lockdown, which helps.

Not sure why you're being down voted. It's not like you said anything incorrect or controversial. Anyway I agree with you.

Yeah I keep meaning to ask dang why I get pummeled with down votes whenever I comment on something.

Re: Oxford vaccine shows sustained protection of 76% in 3-month gap til second dose

#18

Post by reportingsjr »

lawl wrote: post #12
dhbradshaw wrote: post #4

What exactly does "percent protection" mean in these announcements? Can we use the definition to derive a percent protection associated with having been through the virus? Is there a percent protection associated with your age / gender / race profile? It feels like the number doesn't mean much without having a similar number for the null cases.

Afaik it means that if you have a control group that isn't vaccinated vs this group (both should be drawn randomly of course), you will see 76% less infections in this group.

That is not what any of the vaccine studies have said so far. I haven't read this one, but I bet it also doesn't say this.

The stated efficacy/protection percentages that have been presented so far have been for the reduction of _symptoms_.

There haven't been any studies on vaccines preventing infections, probably due to lack of resources for testing everyone in a trial multiple times.

Re: Oxford vaccine shows sustained protection of 76% in 3-month gap til second dose

#19

Post by adamc »

lbeltrame wrote: post #9
dhbradshaw wrote: post #4

What exactly does "percent protection" mean in these announcements? Can we use the definition to derive a percent protection associated with having been through the virus? Is there a percent protection associated with your age / gender / race profile? It feels like the number doesn't mean much without having a similar number for the null cases.

It is a reduction of the risk of symptomatic disease by 76% once vaccinated. But more importantly, there were no hospitalizations or deaths in the vaccinated people. This is a point the media often overlooks.

It's huge. On the whole, avoiding hospitalizations is far more important than whether people had mild cases.

Re: Oxford vaccine shows sustained protection of 76% in 3-month gap til second dose

#20

Post by throwaway2245 »

simonswords82 wrote: post #3

It just gets better and better for the UK - which is a relief because early January had some grim sickness and death numbers. Check out the data on the UK Gov dashboard if you've not seen it: https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/ Also - we are all in lockdown, which helps.

"Better" is doing a lot of work here.

The UK (in particular, England) is currently reporting the second highest new death rate per capita in the world, still higher than it was at any point in 2020. It continues to report 1000+ unnecessary deaths per day.

And, is it still the case that the UK has 50% more excess deaths than it is reporting in the daily coronavirus figures? A mystery...

Post reply on HN