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

Oxford University breakthrough on global COVID-19 vaccine

ox.ac.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 569 posts

Re: Oxford University breakthrough on global COVID-19 vaccine

#191

Post by ageitgey »

bjoli wrote: post #77
ksec wrote: post #31

Incoming possible Silly, Stupid and Lazy Questions, 1. Are there any vaccine ( of any Disease ) that are 100% effective? Or do we operate ( as I would assume ) something like 5 Nines effective rate and call it 100%? 2. Across all type of Vaccine, what are the average or median effective rate? i.e Should we expect Vaccine to be 90%+ effective in the first place? Or is that a wrong expectation to make? 3. What happens…

Superficially regarding number 2: on a population scale a lot depends on how contagious the disease is. The measles vaccine is very efficient (over 95% after two doses), but still requires something like a 90% vaccination grade to prevent outbreaks. Measles is very very very contagious. Covid is not nearly as contagious, so to prevent outbreaks it doesn't have to be nearly as good at the same vaccination grade. For a…

> For an individual, however, 70% would not feel very reassuring, which is why we need a lot of people getting vaccinated.

Agreed, but keep in mind that no one in the Oxford trial who got the vaccine got a serious case of COVID or needed to go to the hospital. So it's only 70%-90% effective (depending on dose) at keeping you from getting infected, but so far 100% effective at reducing severity and keeping you from dying or going to the hospital. So that's a huge positive to keep in mind and yet another reason to get vaccinated.

Re: Oxford University breakthrough on global COVID-19 vaccine

#192

Post by sgt101 »

markvdb wrote: post #81

Why do they sabotaged their own messaging by using the 70% number? Reading further, it looks like the vaccine is 90% efficient. Also, "There were no hospitalised or severe cases in anyone who received the vaccine". Can we infer anything from that statement? They seem to be suggesting that the infection might be less serious in the vaccinated population...

I think they are being very careful because the press will pick every aspect of this to bits and put the worst possible light on any positive spin as in "the secret plot to fool you into taking the failed vaccine developed by Boris Johnson's old university". There will be active attempts to derail any intervention that mitigates the coronavirus crisis because it suits so many bad actors to do that and it suits a large part of the population who like a crisis.

Re: Oxford University breakthrough on global COVID-19 vaccine

#193

Post by PunchTornado »

evandijk70 wrote: post #168
alephu5 wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When things go the other way, society doesn't let them make a fair loss.

There are currently 54 vaccines being tested on humans. Getting the necessary data to obtain approval for human testing requires a lot of funding. Testing on humans requires a lot of funding. In the end, maybe 4 vaccines will be used. Do you think the companies that produced and tested the ~50 vaccines that will not be used will get their investment back?

yes, all of these vaccine research are funded by the taxpayer.

Re: Oxford University breakthrough on global COVID-19 vaccine

#194

Post by sgt101 »

ksec wrote: post #31

Incoming possible Silly, Stupid and Lazy Questions, 1. Are there any vaccine ( of any Disease ) that are 100% effective? Or do we operate ( as I would assume ) something like 5 Nines effective rate and call it 100%? 2. Across all type of Vaccine, what are the average or median effective rate? i.e Should we expect Vaccine to be 90%+ effective in the first place? Or is that a wrong expectation to make? 3. What happens…

On 1 : I think that measles vaccines have to be 95%+ effective, or basically you have no herd immunity to prevent an outbreak and protect (for example) infants not yet immunized. Because, measles is so amazingly transmissible. Other vaccines are much less effective (ie. yellow fever?) but because the diseases are harder to catch they can be suppressed in the population just as well.

Re: Oxford University breakthrough on global COVID-19 vaccine

#195

Post by flexie »

ddeck wrote: post #117
throwawayiionqz wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another huge differentiator is price. At $3 to $4, many countries will jump on board ASAP and stay away from the expensive vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna.

>At $3 to $4, many countries will jump on board ASAP and stay away from the expensive vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna. The price difference will likely remain substantial, but in case anyone is unaware, the difference is currently greater due to AstraZeneca pledging to the sell the vaccine at cost "during the pandemic", while Pfizer and Moderna have indicated that they fully intend to profit. [1] Once AstraZeneca de…

[flagged]

Re: Oxford University breakthrough on global COVID-19 vaccine

#196

Post by sgt101 »

robbiep wrote: post #159
bjoli wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't. It is comparable to the measles vaccine. Smallpox has a lot lower R-value which means the vaccine is very good at preventing outbreaks. A vaccinated individual will also have milder symptoms. Together with how rare adverse reactions are to the vaccination, the smallpox vaccine is really a wonder.

That’s not really true about smallpox - it’s R is somewhere between 5-8, SARS-CoV-2 is about 2.5. Higher R0 means you need a greater percentage vaccinated population to achieve herd immunity

I think that OP meant vs. measles - R =...14??

Re: Oxford University breakthrough on global COVID-19 vaccine

#197

Post by beagle3 »

Scandiravian wrote: post #172
aquadrop wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there somewhere any numbers on how much exactly does it cost? What portion is really "research" and what portion is marketing budget? How much trial phase 1/2/3 cost etc?

When I studied pharmaceutical sciences ten years ago, the rule-of-thumb was that it cost around 1 billion dollars from idea to the product being launched. That's only r&d costs and regulations have become stricter over the years, so I imagine the cost has risen since then

I’ve seen this number with some justification being the amortized cost of a successful product, which covers r&d and marketing but also the failed attempts that lead nowhere in between.

There are plenty of 50-100M pharma startups; they wouldn’t exist if your number was right.

Re: Oxford University breakthrough on global COVID-19 vaccine

#198

Post by foepys »

dragontamer wrote: post #40
wereHamster wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are the storage requirements for the other two?

-80C for Pfizer, and below 0 for the other one (I forget exactly). -80C is really close to dry-ice temperatures. So I wonder if its actually -80C or if the researchers were just saying "Dry Ice".

The BioNTech vaccine can also be stored for a week at -10°C IIRC. That's enough even for distribution to most remote places.

Re: Oxford University breakthrough on global COVID-19 vaccine

#199

Post by bb123 »

londons_explore wrote: post #118
agd wrote: post #10

I think I read (and I may be wrong) that the costs for the vaccines per dose were roughly as follows: Moderna: £45, Pfizer: £20, Oxford: £3, The Oxford one is also easier to store and transport.

Considering most economies are losing ~£100/person/day by having everything shut, the cost is fairly irrelevant.

Not for developing countries. And ultimately it is important for them to get vaccinated too, otherwise they will form a huge reservoir of COVID that will inevitably mutate and come back around to us.

Re: Oxford University breakthrough on global COVID-19 vaccine

#200

Post by headmelted »

ulfw wrote: post #146
dvfjsdhgfv wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they actually get to 90% or more, why would anyone bother with the more expensive and cumbersome vaccines? Except that the EU already signed a deal to buy the vaccines from AstraZeneca, Sanofi and Johnson & Johnson.

Because 95% efficacy is twice as good as 90%. And some people are willing to pay the $30 it costs to be 5% likelihood to have a non-functioning vaccine vs. a 10% likelihood the vaccine you just got won't work on you.

If we’re relying on solely getting immunity ourselves then we’re in really bad shape, although its not been well communicated.

We need the vaccine to remove the virus from circulation, not just keep us safe from it as individuals.

Post reply on HN