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

301–310 of 712 posts

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

#301

Post by RobertDeNiro »

aphextron wrote: post #212
MrAlex94 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. There is no evidence to prove the vaccine has caused any serious adverse effects so far. If that were the case, it is unlikely the Data Safety and Monitoring Board (DSMB) and U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) would recommend resuming the trial.…

>There is no evidence to prove the vaccine has caused any serious adverse effects so far. If that were the case, it is unlikely the Data Safety and Monitoring Board (DSMB) and U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) would recommend resuming the trial. There's also no evidence to prove that it wasn't. Furthermore, the AstraZeneca vaccine was halted for a case of transverse myelitis, a very common (and serious) adverse…

Transverse myelitis was also observed in some people infected by sars-cov-2, one case alone is not enough to lead to any meaningful conclusion.

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

#302

Post by gadders »

majewsky wrote: post #142
gadders wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given the low fatality rate for COVID, wouldn't you just want to concentrate vaccination on those most at risk? i.e. the elderly, people with underlying conditions etc. You don't need to eradicate the virus, just stop it affecting the most vulnerable. Everybody else can then carry on as normal (albeit with a slight chance of getting a nasty flu-like illness).

SARS-CoV-2 relies on superspreading much more than e.g. the common cold. When you hear, for example, that each patient in a given area infects 1.2 other people on average, this doesn't mean that everyone spreads it to one or two people. It means that out of 10 infectious patients, 9 patients don't spread it to anyone else and the tenth patient spreads it to a dozen people at once. Because of this high dispersion rate…

I'm not saying don't give it to them as well, just do the vulnerable people first.

At least then we stand a chance of getting the economy back on its feet.

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

#304

Post by geuis »

sanketskasar wrote: post #42
godelmachine wrote: post #16

Is this not the one they will launch in India first? Edit1: Just to throw in more info, Oxford plans to scale this up for mass production with Serum Institute of India and AstraZeneca.

It is the same. But you cannot expect a vaccine to work similarly in people of two different regions having major differences in their diet, climate and lifestyles. That's why many vaccine candidates are being tested in multiple countries( read potential markets). Also, I think the UK has preferential rights at least on the initial yield of the vaccine.

I don’t think you understand how the biology of vaccines work.

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

#305

Post by ebg13 »

eumenides1 wrote: post #170
apexalpha wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who cares. I'd gladly give this company a couple of billion if it means they can get us back to normal. Oxford develops the vaccine with public money. We also, god willing, need to manufacture billions of them and transport them around the globe. For that manufacturing, give me a solid existing multinational with a proven manufacturing record and base please, not some non-profit startup.

The point is that we should reconsider giving (temporary) monopolies to companies that are based public research. I suggest that we should give merek the for profit monopoly, but allow for non profit manufacturing. If another organization wants to make the vaccine but not derive profit from the process, let them. Manufacturing takes time and money to develop. Revenue should pay for those costs. The non-profit gains e…

> I suggest that we should give merek the for profit monopoly, but allow for non profit manufacturing. If another organization wants to make the vaccine but not derive profit from the process, let them.

Not-for-profit manufacturing would have to be done by the government itself, wouldn't it? Otherwise, what other entity would and could actually pay to set that up?

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

#306

Post by dougweltman »

ageitgey wrote: post #69

A quick summary of were the Oxford vaccine stands since it's hard to follow: - When will the vaccine be ready? After the Phase 3 efficacy data is reported, assuming that the data shows that the vaccine prevents COVID or reduces COVID severity. This happens after enough people in the trial get sick with COVID. Then they unblind the groups and see if the people who got sick were in the control group or the vaccinated g…

>Early on, one person got symptoms consistent with typical vaccine side effects, but it was determined that the person had a previously undiagnosed, unrelated disease. Second, there was the highly publicized case where a patient suffered temporary spinal inflammation and recovered shortly. It is unclear if this event is related to the vaccine, ...

This seems rather worrying as these Phase 1 and Phase 2 trials are pretty small, no? What are the odds these patients got this from the vaccine vs whatever else they had going on?

I just can't shake the fact that this particular vaccine seems to have some safety issues. We'll see in Phase 3 if this shakes out, but I would like to understand why governments feel safe about these developments.

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

#307

Post by irq11 »

ffdjjjffjj wrote: post #185
nradov wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The moving average of daily deaths in the US has been stable or declining for the past two months. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

That was true until last week. Deaths are now rising again, and daily new cases are approaching the level of the summer peak.

There has been a slight uptick in weekly deaths, roughly on par with what was observed in the last week of September. Given the trend of the line and the delayed reporting from most states, it’s more accurate to say that deaths have flattened:

https://covid-19.direct/US?tab=daily

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

#308

Post by just-juan-post »

apexalpha wrote: post #134
zoobab wrote: post #116

Good news for US BigPharma Merck holding the Oxford patents, while public funding has paid for its research: https://archive.is/aGUJd

Who cares. I'd gladly give this company a couple of billion if it means they can get us back to normal. Oxford develops the vaccine with public money. We also, god willing, need to manufacture billions of them and transport them around the globe. For that manufacturing, give me a solid existing multinational with a proven manufacturing record and base please, not some non-profit startup.

> I'd gladly give this company a couple of billion if it means they can get us back to normal.

The government did this. They are the ones who put the restrictions in place. They are the ones who choose not to remove them.

The government pulled a fast one on most people: They broke our leg, they handed us a crutch, and we thank them.

Don't pretend the vaccine is our savior. The government has the power to end the restrictions at any time but they choose not to.

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

#309

Post by skocznymroczny »

apexalpha wrote: post #134
zoobab wrote: post #116

Good news for US BigPharma Merck holding the Oxford patents, while public funding has paid for its research: https://archive.is/aGUJd

Who cares. I'd gladly give this company a couple of billion if it means they can get us back to normal. Oxford develops the vaccine with public money. We also, god willing, need to manufacture billions of them and transport them around the globe. For that manufacturing, give me a solid existing multinational with a proven manufacturing record and base please, not some non-profit startup.

"I'd gladly give this company a couple of billion if it means they can get us back to normal."

Sounds like the media panic is working.

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

#310

Post by teucris »

reegnz wrote: post #254
flyingfences wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's worth paying for And "we" are already paying for it. Let's not let them double-dip.

No, we're only paying for part of 'it'. The cure isn't just research, it's also logistics and there does not exist a capable non-profit to do the logistics part of it in such a short time. Also you underestimate how much it costs to build such a supply chain capable of producing and shipping that many vaccines around the world. Hint: the research costs are just a fraction of the logistics cost, you just don't see tha…

I think the key desire is that the intellectual property, built from publicly funded research, should not be owned by a single corporation. Production and distribution are of tremendous value and these companies should be rewarded for providing that value. But the vaccine itself? Why not let others invest capital and try to produce & distribute the vaccine?
Post reply on HN