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

521–530 of 569 posts

Re: Oxford University breakthrough on global COVID-19 vaccine

#521

Post by standardUser »

strombofulous wrote: post #443
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....

3m worth of working vaccines would do a lot of good, the problem is we aren't sure it works (or even that it doesn't harm you or make you more susceptible)

Except that literally all of the data so far says "it works and is safe".

Re: Oxford University breakthrough on global COVID-19 vaccine

#522

Post by standardUser »

ggm wrote: post #171
pja wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They also tried 2 different dose regimens, one of which had 90% efficacy. The 70% figure is the weighted mean of the two I think.

I would far rather we report 70% and find its more effective than we report is up to 90% effective but in field deployment find its less. A 70% vaccine at wide scale release can keep R under 1.0 1/5th the price, and no need for freezers. This vaccine is huge. I pray for more like this.

"I would far rather we report 70%"

That makes no sense since there are no tested regimes with 70% effectiveness. The reporting should say there is a vaccine regime with 90% effectiveness, and add a footnote that another regime that will not be used had a far lower rate of effectiveness.

Re: Oxford University breakthrough on global COVID-19 vaccine

#523

Post by jason0597 »

bumby wrote: post #472
fjdjsmsm wrote: post #468

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Europe, Canada, Australia, etc everyone has access. Why doesn’t access drive up their cost? Clearly access isn’t what is driving up the costs in the USA.

Because it's not as simple a model as "access vs. cost". It's access vs. quality vs. cost. Canada's HAQ index in 2015 was 87.6 vs. 81.3 for the US. However, Canada spent about $27B US on R&D vs. $495B for the US. On a per capita basis, the US outspends most the world on medical R&D. That drives the US total healthcare costs up while helping to drive down the healthcare quality costs elsewhere. To a certain extent, th…

Yes, the US spends much more per-capita on medical R&D than other countries. But how do we know all this money is going into real R&D? How do we know most of it is not going into e.g. me-too drugs?

Re: Oxford University breakthrough on global COVID-19 vaccine

#524

Post by ska »

ssully wrote: post #449
jonplackett wrote: post #417

We (Britain) may have totally screwed up our general response to COVID. But at least we’re still pretty good at science. Thanks Oxford for saving the day.

Not to downplay Oxford or Britain's work, but I think it's safe to argue that the poor general response to COVID is also an indicator of your skill at science. And I say this as American, who's response was just as bad or worse. People are going to look back at this pandemic with amazement at the work the world scientists did to create a vaccine in record time, but with shame and embarrassment at the loss of life in…

> but I think it's safe to argue that the poor general response to COVID is also an indicator of your skill at science.

That's not logical at all. It's a reasonable argument that poor general response to COVID is an indicator that you aren't currently doing a good job of governance, but that's a whole different kettle of fish.

Re: Oxford University breakthrough on global COVID-19 vaccine

#525

Post by standardUser »

ggm wrote: post #132
thomond wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"gild the lily" = try to improve what is already beautiful or excellent.

70% efficacy at 2c-8c storage for $4 is indeed excellent but many comments here go to "but modena is 95% efficacy whyyyy" and "they're underselling it"

There is nothing on offer here with 70% effectiveness. There is a vaccine regime with 90% effectiveness. That's more than sufficient to be effective at ending the pandemic.

Thee's another regime that we can all just forget about because it uses the same vaccine but with a different method of delivery that will be discarded in favor of the method proven far more effective. Averaging the two makes no sense.

Re: Oxford University breakthrough on global COVID-19 vaccine

#526

Post by strombofulous »

standardUser wrote: post #521
strombofulous wrote: post #443

Earlier quoted context omitted.

3m worth of working vaccines would do a lot of good, the problem is we aren't sure it works (or even that it doesn't harm you or make you more susceptible)

Except that literally all of the data so far says "it works and is safe".

"Literally all the data" that's been collected on the impact of me not picking my nose shows that it prevents covid

This does not mean that by not picking your nose you can prevent covid

We would need more data to show that conclusively

Simiarly, we need more data to show that these vaccines are effective and don't have negative long-term effects

Re: Oxford University breakthrough on global COVID-19 vaccine

#527

Post by jeromegv »

gumby wrote: post #520
mcdowall wrote: post #5

The key differentiator here is the storage requirements (2-8c ‘normal refrigerator’). That’s much more accessible to developing / low GDP countries as opposed the cumbersome and expensive storage requirements of the other two.

The key differentiator is the mechanism of action, not the storage system. The other two current candidates are mRNA vaccines, an approach which hasn't been used in humans before -- looks like the harbinger of a revolution but we have no past experience. This O/AZ uses the actual spike protein embedded in a simian virus (that does not affect humans and has its own DNA removed). It's possible to generate antibodies to…

The storage system is important and a key differentiator, tons of countries cannot effectively distribute a virus at -70° to population in the most vulnerable spots. I don't know why you felt the need to be so dismissive.

Re: Oxford University breakthrough on global COVID-19 vaccine

#528

Post by stingraycharles »

gumby wrote: post #520
mcdowall wrote: post #5

The key differentiator here is the storage requirements (2-8c ‘normal refrigerator’). That’s much more accessible to developing / low GDP countries as opposed the cumbersome and expensive storage requirements of the other two.

The key differentiator is the mechanism of action, not the storage system. The other two current candidates are mRNA vaccines, an approach which hasn't been used in humans before -- looks like the harbinger of a revolution but we have no past experience. This O/AZ uses the actual spike protein embedded in a simian virus (that does not affect humans and has its own DNA removed). It's possible to generate antibodies to…

What does this imply? Is the approach by Oxford worse, or just more well known / less surprises? Does this mean that dosing the vaccination is somehow more difficult?

Sorry I’m a total noob in this area.

Re: Oxford University breakthrough on global COVID-19 vaccine

#529

Post by standardUser »

strombofulous wrote: post #526
standardUser wrote: post #521

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except that literally all of the data so far says "it works and is safe".

"Literally all the data" that's been collected on the impact of me not picking my nose shows that it prevents covid This does not mean that by not picking your nose you can prevent covid We would need more data to show that conclusively Simiarly, we need more data to show that these vaccines are effective and don't have negative long-term effects

Efficacy has been proven to a high enough degree of certainty that these vaccines are now being submitted for approval. Safety was largely proven in Phase 1/2 trials (before tens of thousands of people were injected with the stuff for Phase 3 trials). And all signs continue to show the vaccine to be safe (and data will continue to be collected for at least a year or two for the various Phase 3 trials).

Maybe "you" need more data for whatever concept you have in your head of how this should work. However, within the scientific community involved with developing and approving these vaccines, the data we have is sufficient (pending review of course).

Re: Oxford University breakthrough on global COVID-19 vaccine

#530

Post by bumby »

jason0597 wrote: post #523
bumby wrote: post #472

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it's not as simple a model as "access vs. cost". It's access vs. quality vs. cost. Canada's HAQ index in 2015 was 87.6 vs. 81.3 for the US. However, Canada spent about $27B US on R&D vs. $495B for the US. On a per capita basis, the US outspends most the world on medical R&D. That drives the US total healthcare costs up while helping to drive down the healthcare quality costs elsewhere. To a certain extent, th…

Yes, the US spends much more per-capita on medical R&D than other countries. But how do we know all this money is going into real R&D? How do we know most of it is not going into e.g. me-too drugs?

That's a potential real problem, but the concern should be across the board (i.e., how do we know other countries aren't funding me-too drugs) so it doesn't really help illuminate any disparity between countries (which is the context of this discussion).

I'm not trying to be dismissive, I just don't know how it's germane to the discussion unless we view all the other data through the same lens. The data I linked is per country in absolute and per capita basis that tries to put it in unbiased terms.

Are you claiming the US is disproportionately funding non-useful research? If so, how do we measure "useful" research funding?

Post reply on HN