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

301–310 of 569 posts

Re: Oxford University breakthrough on global COVID-19 vaccine

#301

Post by taejo »

roenxi wrote: post #275
i_cannot_hack wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Historically, two cases of rushed vaccines (cutter polio and Gullah barre) were worse than the disease - and these were for diseases worse than covid. This is just patently untrue. The Cutter Incidence gave patients Polio due to an improperly activated virus. While this is bad, it could not be worse than the disease itself - since it is the disease itself, no worse, no less. Regarding risk of Gullain-Barre syndrome…

On the one hand I tend to agree, and all my expectations for this vaccine are positive. The medical industry tends to be paranoid to a level that exceeds rationality and even if they dropped their standards for this that should only get them down to "conservative and rather safe" levels of caution. On the other, a cursory search says the current record for fastest developed vaccine was mumps at 4 years. So this is a…

I'm not an expert by any means, but I do know that a lot of the speed comes from moving along the CHEAP-FAST side of the CHEAP-FAST-SAFE triangle, without necessarily changing anything on the FAST-SAFE axis. In particular, governments paid for the companies to start producing enough vaccines for phase 3 trials before phase 1 was complete, while normally drug companies would wait for phase 1 to be completed before preparing for phase 2 for economic reasons.

Re: Oxford University breakthrough on global COVID-19 vaccine

#302

Post by ufo »

te_chris wrote: post #121
brutus1213 wrote: post #115

Does anyone have a pointer on how the mrna vaccine actually works? I understand basic genetics mechanisms and how mrna works inside cells. In shot form, I assume the modified mrna strands are floating through the blood stream. What happens after the injection? Btw .. I think public health needs to start educating people on how these things work in order to get high coverage. I am alarmed at the number of highly educa…

I liked this as a background https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/nov/22/mrna-vaccines-... . This vaccine isn't mRNA though.

I kind of is, if you squint. The payload of the adenovirus vector is DNA.

Re: Oxford University breakthrough on global COVID-19 vaccine

#303

Post by fergal_reid »

i_cannot_hack wrote: post #243
beagle3 wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The safety concerns cannot be resolved yet. Effective - yes. Safe? We won’t know for a while. Pandemrix, a flu vaccine, caused a notable uptick in narcolepsy in Sweden, Finland and likely the UK. This was not (and could not) be seen in smaller trial populations. It is not a given that any of the covid vaccines is safe enough. Historically, two cases of rushed vaccines (cutter polio and Gullah barre) were worse than t…

> Historically, two cases of rushed vaccines (cutter polio and Gullah barre) were worse than the disease - and these were for diseases worse than covid. This is just patently untrue. The Cutter Incidence gave patients Polio due to an improperly activated virus. While this is bad, it could not be worse than the disease itself - since it is the disease itself, no worse, no less. Regarding risk of Gullain-Barre syndrome…

I'm very pro-vaccine, and not disagreeing with your conclusions, but your logic leaves out the consideration that the natural risk also depends on catching the disease, whereas the vaccine is administered systematically.

Re: Oxford University breakthrough on global COVID-19 vaccine

#304

Post by yodelshady »

beagle3 wrote: post #197
Scandiravian wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>which covers r&d and marketing but also the failed attempts that lead nowhere in between.

How do you account for the failed attempts?

As yomly alludes to, pharma startups exist because they don't own the risk - their investors bought it when they were funded. Big pharma does own the risk.

Re: Oxford University breakthrough on global COVID-19 vaccine

#305

Post by newsbinator »

camkego wrote: post #16

This statement seems a big deal: "There were no hospitalised or severe cases in anyone who received the vaccine" Is that also true of the Pfizer and Moderna trials? Are the various trials measuring 'effectiveness' in the same way? Is there a standard for 'effectiveness' in these Covid-19 trials? It will take some digging and real effort to compare the risks and benefits of the various vaccines coming to market.

I’d like to know if the vaccine stops a person from getting infected, or only prevents the onset of severe symptoms.

Re: Oxford University breakthrough on global COVID-19 vaccine

#306

Post by taejo »

flexie wrote: post #228
ddeck wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, Johnson & Johnson (a US company) also made a similar pledge to AstraZeneca. These two companies have collectively received more than $1.5 billion from the US government [1]. As I understand it, Pfizer have not taken any federal funding. They do have government purchase agreements, but they are dependent on Pfizer delivering a viable vaccine. Their partner BioNTech received German government funding: Berli…

[flagged]

BioNTech is not a German/Turkish company. It's a German company, two of whose founders are of Turkish descent.

Re: Oxford University breakthrough on global COVID-19 vaccine

#307

Post by bluGill »

aquadrop wrote: post #108
jpxw wrote: post #12

From AstraZeneca: > One dosing regimen (n=2,741) showed vaccine efficacy of 90% when AZD1222 was given as a half dose, followed by a full dose at least one month apart, and another dosing regimen (n=8,895) showed 62% efficacy when given as two full doses at least one month apart. The combined analysis from both dosing regimens (n=11,636) resulted in an average efficacy of 70%. All results were statistically significa…

Is there possible explanation why would first half dose have much better results than full dose?

Statistical factors: the sample size is so small that it could be less effective and still show up this much more effective.

I hope not, but sadly it is a real possibility that needs further study.

Re: Oxford University breakthrough on global COVID-19 vaccine

#308

Post by sgt101 »

anoncake wrote: post #226
sgt101 wrote: post #189

An important fact that I haven't seen mentioned in this thread is that 3m doses have been manufactured already and are available in the UK supply chain today. "All" that's required is the approval from the regulator - but I guess that is still a little way off. 3m would do a lot of good though - frontline staff, the most vulnerable, hotspots....

Were any doses produced yet of the other two vaccines?

I am not sure : I know the other vaccines must be stored at a very low temperature, but does anyone know how long they can be stored for at all?

Re: Oxford University breakthrough on global COVID-19 vaccine

#309

Post by jjk166 »

fergal_reid wrote: post #303
i_cannot_hack wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Historically, two cases of rushed vaccines (cutter polio and Gullah barre) were worse than the disease - and these were for diseases worse than covid. This is just patently untrue. The Cutter Incidence gave patients Polio due to an improperly activated virus. While this is bad, it could not be worse than the disease itself - since it is the disease itself, no worse, no less. Regarding risk of Gullain-Barre syndrome…

I'm very pro-vaccine, and not disagreeing with your conclusions, but your logic leaves out the consideration that the natural risk also depends on catching the disease, whereas the vaccine is administered systematically.

Well the odds of people getting the flu are pretty high

Re: Oxford University breakthrough on global COVID-19 vaccine

#310

Post by mensetmanusman »

beagle3 wrote: post #197
Scandiravian wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

90% of start ups fail, so the numbers in that case would be about correct.
Post reply on HN