Live data from Hacker News

Oxford University breakthrough on global COVID-19 vaccine

ox.ac.uk

401–410 of 569 posts

Re: Oxford University breakthrough on global COVID-19 vaccine

#401
post #294

I find it a bit weird that there are fewer asymptomatic cases with this vaccine? Is it somehow increasing the immune response to COVID-19?

That's exactly what a vaccine, any vaccine, does. A vaccine is something that primes the immune system, so that when the real virus enters the body it is attacked and destroyed quickly. This means that the virus can never start multiplying in the body and shedding to other people. I don't believe there is any modern vaccine that doesn't reduce or eliminate asymptomatic spreading of the disease.

Whooping cough. That vaccine causes suppressed symptoms and people can unknowingly spread the bacteria

Re: Oxford University breakthrough on global COVID-19 vaccine

#402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good summary of problems with challenge trials for Covid: https://www.statnews.com/2020/06/23/challenge-trials-live-co...

The point that challenge trials don't determine safety is accurate, but most of the article is again arguing about the ethics rather than the efficacy. Imagine if volunteers were not permitted by ethicists to storm the beaches of Normandy because their safety could not be guaranteed. Our current testing protocol requires letting the virus rampage through the population before the trials will achieve statistical signi…

I tend to agree in the case of Covid, but I'll play devil's advocate...

Suppose we replace Covid with "car crashes" and vaccine with "seatbelts". This is a good analogy because crashes are rare and we can't cure trauma (like on Star Trek). It would be absurd to deliberately cause car crashes in order to study the effect of seatbelts. For the experimental group, there will still be some minor injuries. For the control group, many will die.

Re: Oxford University breakthrough on global COVID-19 vaccine

#403

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…

No, the cutter incidence was worse than the disease, because the activated virus was injected into a population, whereas naturally only a tiny part would be exposed at the same level, and the rest would be exposed at a much lower level - that would give them immunity but not disease.

Cutter was, most definitely, much worse than the disease if you look at it from a population perspective.

The 1976 Guilian barre was at least comparable to the flu it was supposed to stop, if not worse. According to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_swine_flu_outbreak, the disease caused one death and 13 hospitalizations, and an uptick of Giullan barre reports - a disease that more often than not requires hospitalization and sometimes death. I can assure you it caused more than 13 hospitalizations, and - having known two GBS people who made a full recovery - a very long and painful months long process. So, at 50,000,000 immunized - a 1 in 1,000,000 would still be worse than the flu.

I am not anti vax even if HN constantly seems to interpret my comments as such.

I am vaccinated, so are my kids. But whenever I mention that immunizations have risks, I’m treated like a heretic.

Everyone is assuming something like cutter cannot happen again. This is a religious assumption, not a scientific one.

Re: Oxford University breakthrough on global COVID-19 vaccine

#404
post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For me it's a simple risk proposition, how much at risk do I feel my children or I are from covid. For my children it's a slam dunk; their risk from covid is statistical non existent and weigh that against vaccines that may or may not have long term negative impact on them.

For me, it's not quite so simple as that. I will vaccinate my children, partly to protect them (though the risk to them is low, as you say), but mostly to protect me and my wife, and more importantly our elderly parents. None of the vaccines are 100% effective, and if I can reduce the chances of my kids bringing Covid into the family, I will. By the time the vaccine is available for my kids, hundreds of millions of p…

The timescale is still so short, "very extensive" it will not be compared to previous vaccines tested over many years, a decade.

Re: Oxford University breakthrough on global COVID-19 vaccine

#405
post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing. Timelines for Covid-19 vaccine are already compressed. Even this data is just preliminary from Phase III. Limiting factor is safety and testing for safety. They started trials with two people, one gets vaccine one gets placebo. They look for side effects then add more and more people while constantly observing those vaccinated for side effects. Vaccines are not inherently safe, they are safe because they hav…

I strongly disagree with this. I cannot think of a valid utilitarian argument allowing willing people from getting a vaccine. First, vaccines have an extremely high success rate, 33% of vaccines make it through all trials to approval. 50% after phase 1 is complete. The worst vaccine side effect ever is widely considered to be the swine flu vaccine from 60 years ago, where 1 in 100,000 got GBS (a bad disease). If we k…

>I cannot think of a valid utilitarian argument allowing willing people from getting a vaccine.

I think you should check your math. Because covid-19 infection fatality rate is "relatively low", only 10 times seasonal influenza (3X for people in their 30's 15X for people in their 70s) the limit where utility turns negative is quite low.

One purpose of approval is to move responsibility from drug companies to the government. They can just pay small fee for National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program or something similar. If you allow volunteers but they have to pay the insurance from free markets, vaccines become too expensive. Drug companies are not willing to give them.

Biopharma leaders unite to stand with science http://www.news.sanofi.us/2020-09-08-Biopharma-leaders-unite...

>The worst vaccine side effect ever is widely considered to be the swine flu vaccine from 60 years ago, where 1 in 100,000 got GBS (a bad disease).

During the 2009 A(H1N1) influenza pandemic Finnish health system used vaccine called Pandemrix, It was almost exactly the same as Focetria used elsewhere in the Europe but it was manufactured using slightly different method. It caused Narcolepsy for 200 kids in Finland and 100 in Sweden before withdrawn.

Re: Oxford University breakthrough on global COVID-19 vaccine

#406
post #219
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.

This is the information we have on the BioNTech/Pfizer vaccine regarding severe cases: “There were 10 severe cases of COVID-19 observed in the trial, with nine of the cases occurring in the placebo group and one in the BNT162b2 vaccinated group.” Just as a reminder, that vaccine had more than 40k people in each group, with 170 cases of COVID-19 being observed, 162 in the placebo group, 8 in the vaccine group. As you…

It's about 43k people total, not per group. And I think this was a multi-arm study, they're testing two variables across two population groups - here's the study paperwork:

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04368728

Everybody in all arms (groups) gets a jab, twice, but what exactly what is in the needle varies. The study paperwork doesn't say which placebo was used in this trial (the participants would definitely have been told), sometimes vaccine studies use a vaccine for something else that you didn't need but is presumably harmless (e.g. think of vaccines you take when going somewhere a bit dubious on holiday). Other times they just use saline. Some other groups got higher doses of vaccine.

Anyway, since everybody got stabbed, nobody (as much as possible not even the people giving you a jab) know what's in the needle - everybody gets assessed for side effects. One of the very revealing things about all these studies is how many side effects you get for injecting people with saline. Sore arm makes some sense at least, somebody stuck a tiny needle in your arm - but you'll get headaches, dizziness, flu symptoms even. The mind is powerful.

Re: Oxford University breakthrough on global COVID-19 vaccine

#407
post #301
post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pre…

BiondVax recently finished their phase 3 trial of a universal flu vaccine. It was 15 years in the making. Science was (still is solid). Phase 3 took two years to account for ADE and other safety issues.

At the 1-year mark, everything looked perfect. At the towo years mark (original endpoint) the conclusion was that while it was safe, it offered statistically insignificant protection.

Properly designed tests need those 2 years, at the very least. The “SAFE” confidence axis was compromised. Whether or nit it is justified is what we’re discussing here.

Re: Oxford University breakthrough on global COVID-19 vaccine

#408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

-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".

-80C is just a pretty standard cold storage temperature in science. I'd imagine they tested stability at 4C, -20C and liquid nitrogen as well.

My understanding is that they actually haven't tested at anything but -80C, and that it is potentially possible that it could be stored at higher temperatures, but it hasn't been examined yet.

Re: Oxford University breakthrough on global COVID-19 vaccine

#409
post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> someone is subsidizing Pfizer's expenses through Pfizer's revenue stream Companies taking a portion of what they earn from their existing products and investing this money to create new products is beneficial, and we should have more of it. Additionally, while this is probably not the case for Pfizer, another possibility is that a company can take outside investment to fund development of a new product.

Not the OP, but what she/he is probably hinting at is that the majority of Western Governments (i.e. both the US and the EU) have poured trillions of dollars/euros into the market as the pandemic started, money that has helped the capital markets stay afloat (and even more than that). Without those trillions of dollars/euros most probably the capital markets would have been down by at least 50% (my guesstimate, or at…

Just because Pfizer's stock drops doesn't mean they can't fund their R&D. Pfizer has $10B in cash.[1]

[1]https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/PFE/balance-sheet/

Post reply on HN