Live data from Hacker News

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

ox.ac.uk

141–150 of 187 posts

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

#141

Even more consequential than the fact from the headline is the preliminary result that a spacing of 12 weeks does not seem to reduce efficiency. I wish my country and others would take note and give priority to handing out as many first doses as possible, but my hope for such quick adoption of scientific findings has been rather diminished by the whole event.

The first dose prevents hospitalization. Right now, for every second dose we give, that's a decision to deny someone a life-saving dose in favor of someone already protected. What a strange prioritization to make. The bright side is that, if the rate of vaccination continues to increase, those denied the first dose now should still get the first dose soon after. Let's hope we don't hit some manufacturing bottleneck.

> The first dose prevents hospitalization. Right now, for every second dose we give, that's a decision to deny someone a life-saving dose in favor of someone already protected. What a strange prioritization to make.

Does 1 dose prevent the spread of COVID19?

If it requires 2-doses to get a true "efficacy" (lower spread), then it might be more worthwhile to push 2-doses, rather than 1-dose (where everyone gets "less sick", but the virus continues to spread exponentially).

Real problem: 1-dose wasn't really tested on a large "phase 3" style 10,000+ person test. Its impossible to answer this question (yet). It will take further testing to know.

----------

I think there's something to be respected about sticking with what was tested, even if the scientific theory argues for a different approach.

Just because the theory says so, doesn't mean that the theory is true (at least, not until the theory is well tested).

Doing something different and hoping for the best just because its kinda correct theoretically is... overly optimistic. I wouldn't necessarily be against it, but it makes sense to stick with what was formally tested.

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

#142
post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's another way of framing it: Having messed this up so very badly doing idiotically risky things from the start the latest big risk taken by the UK government didn't actually backfire as badly as the previous ones. Others have pointed at the current per-capita deaths. This completely ignores the long-term effects to survivors accross the population. It can be a challenge to see how the UK government could have de…

> "It's a highly educated population that has put the brakes on the most destructive policies from the very start." Anecdote : I live near a busy high street in London and went out for my daily lockdown exercise at around 6pm today. About 10% of the "highly educated population", as you say, was wearing a mask. Even more worrying, if you looked through the windows of estate agencies and other such ""essential"" shops,…

WHAT!?!?! Seriously?

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

#143
post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, some vaccines wear off relatively quickly: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/04/how-long-do-vaccines... So it's very important to follow the protocol here as much as possible until we know otherwise.

Immunity wearing off doesn't mean a booster won't work. The memory cells will still hang around at some level, so when you apply the booster, you'll get longer lasting immunity at that point. In fact if anything, providing the booster within 3-4 weeks is likely to hamper the durability of the booster-induced immunity.

I’m confused by what you are trying to prove. The issue isn’t whether people believe what you are arguing. As far as I can tell, most experts seem to believe something along these lines is most likely.

The question is whether or not they have verified it in this context.

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

#144
post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, some vaccines wear off relatively quickly: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/04/how-long-do-vaccines... So it's very important to follow the protocol here as much as possible until we know otherwise.

Immunity wearing off doesn't mean a booster won't work. The memory cells will still hang around at some level, so when you apply the booster, you'll get longer lasting immunity at that point. In fact if anything, providing the booster within 3-4 weeks is likely to hamper the durability of the booster-induced immunity.

The point is that the booster is moot if you're walking around unprotected until you get it because the first dose has worn off. No one here is arguing that a second shot wouldn't bring your immunity back up. The problem isn't the efficacy of the second shot. It's the delay during which you are much less.protected.

As for 3-4 weeks being too short, I'm not aware of any specific research there. But I'll assume you're right, and also tell you it's irrelevant: If a booster in 3-4 weeks improves efficacy, but doing it later would work even better, that does not mean we should wait longer: We still need the boost now. All your point means is that we should also do a second booster at some optimal time further down the road.

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

#145
post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NZ is easy mode though. They are not a nexus of international travel and commerce, and their border is quite hard (an ocean). They did well, for sure, but the UK or any other European country could not have followed the exact same strategy - except maybe Iceland or Far Oer.

It's not like Great Britain is an island, after all. :)

There are no tunnels between NZ and anywhere which can’t be said for Britain where the Channel Tunnel carried >10 million passengers per year in 2019. UK airports have traffic numbers 7 or 8 times as high as NZ airports. Sea transport and shipping into UK ports is far greater and easier than to NZ.

I’m very glad NZ is COVID free but they got lucky by not having much community spread before the first lockdown and closing the border, and they are lucky by geography in this case.

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

#146
post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My perception of the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine is that their credibility is compromised. I take claims of its efficacy with a similar dose of salt to claims about the Russian and Chinese vaccines. Reason is that early on they were rushing data and approvals on grounds of national pride, in a very similar way to the Chinese and Russian authorities. Pfizer and Moderna seem to have been more thorough.

This is nonsense. It's not about national pride. The UK authorised Pfizer first. We knew back in December how effective just one dose[1] of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine is, at stopping death. See figure 2 on page 28. [1] https://www.fda.gov/media/144434/download

The link you posted is about the Moderna vaccine, not AstraZeneca.

I have no qualms with the Moderna vaccine, I consider it and the Pfizer to be the most effective and least questionable.

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

#147
post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Immunity wearing off doesn't mean a booster won't work. The memory cells will still hang around at some level, so when you apply the booster, you'll get longer lasting immunity at that point. In fact if anything, providing the booster within 3-4 weeks is likely to hamper the durability of the booster-induced immunity.

The point is that the booster is moot if you're walking around unprotected until you get it because the first dose has worn off. No one here is arguing that a second shot wouldn't bring your immunity back up. The problem isn't the efficacy of the second shot. It's the delay during which you are much less.protected. As for 3-4 weeks being too short, I'm not aware of any specific research there. But I'll assume you're…

But it's not a choice between vaccinating one person with one dose and vaccinating one person with two doses. It's a choice between vaccinating one person with two doses and vaccinating two people with one dose apiece.

If you try to give the person a second dose, that means you're causing another person to be walking around completely unprotected.

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

#148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The EU’s current behavior is very sad to see, when up to now they had seemed much more sensible than the UK government. AZ had production problems in the EU -- perfectly understandable as it’s a complex operation and they started somewhat later than in the UK. The EU Commission responded by threatening legal action (??) and almost bypassing the hard-won Northern Ireland border agreement (!!??!!) before backtracking.…

I've found UK media coverage of this row disturbingly one-sided (even amongst pro-EU journalists) You may want to read this for a more balanced view : https://www.irishtimes.com/business/health-pharma/dragging-a... It was really AZ's screw up. The fact is that the EU had a contract with AZ that explicitly required the use of UK plants for fulfilling the EU's orders if need be. But the problem is that AZ had also prom…

I’ll take a look, thanks!

The threat to invoke the border protocol was absolutely shocking to me, so I’m very interested to learn more of the background.

Edit to add: for others reading this thread, here’s an article from the same site about that border protocol dispute: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/shellshock-in-bruss...

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

#149
post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Out of curiosity, why would you not want to sign up? All the vaccine results have been amazingly positive.

What’s the probability that today’s scientists look as ridiculous in a few decades as the ones from a few decades ago look like today? Asbestos was considered a great building material. While science had improved in absolute terms, there is a chance to screw up in new ways.

Sounds like you’re not concerned about all scientific advances, you just want to give them enough to time to be sure there are no adverse side-effects.

Vaccines have been around for a very long time and have proven to be incredibly effective and safe. Nobody is embarrassed about how the vaccines for smallpox, polio and measles have worked out (apart from some misinformation in recent years -- you’ll have to do your own research on that one. If you come to it with an open mind I think you’ll come to agree those vaccines are safe.)

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

#150
post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's another way of framing it: Having messed this up so very badly doing idiotically risky things from the start the latest big risk taken by the UK government didn't actually backfire as badly as the previous ones. Others have pointed at the current per-capita deaths. This completely ignores the long-term effects to survivors accross the population. It can be a challenge to see how the UK government could have de…

> "It's a highly educated population that has put the brakes on the most destructive policies from the very start." Anecdote : I live near a busy high street in London and went out for my daily lockdown exercise at around 6pm today. About 10% of the "highly educated population", as you say, was wearing a mask. Even more worrying, if you looked through the windows of estate agencies and other such ""essential"" shops,…

I don't know why London was so bad for compliance. I've seen videos from before Christmas that looked like normal, bustling restaurants, etc.

In my area (near Oxford) I haven't seen a maskless person in a supermarket since masks became compulsory.

Post reply on HN