Oxford vaccine shows 70% success rate rising to 90%

Good news, in fact we now have an escape route from this situation.
Interesting results as well - did you see that in a sub study giving half of the dose first time and the same level at booster gave 90% effectiveness. Maybe this is what will be used, it uses less vaccine as well which is an advantage.
70% sounds poor in comparison to the other results but is in the same ball park as the annual flu vaccinations.
Great news - we may finally be getting out of this mess
 
What is also important are the following questions...

"If you have the vaccine and still get it are the symptoms weaker and how long does it last?"
 
So only 70% effective and that doesn’t take account of asymptomatic infection. I’m not sure whether that will just make the problem worse than it already is, depending on how the protection pans out.

Essentially you could have 30% of people vulnerable, with loads of asymptomatic people not knowing or showing any signs of having it.

Im not sure we can particularly change our current lifestyle based on that can we?
 
With manufacturing already underway and a capacity of 3bn then this is globally massive news. The temperature range for storage makes it a much more readily usable vaccine.
The 70% is not to get too hung up about: the kick given by the low dose/high dose combo matches the impressive 90%. And interestingly the few who still caught the virus were not showing serious symptoms requiring hospitalisation.
 
So only 70% effective and that doesn’t take account of asymptomatic infection. I’m not sure whether that will just make the problem worse than it already is, depending on how the protection pans out.

Essentially you could have 30% of people vulnerable, with loads of asymptomatic people not knowing or showing any signs of having it.

Im not sure we can particularly change our current lifestyle based on that can we?
Noone who had the vaccine and got covid required hospital treatment (only 30 cases out of 131), so it seems to offer some protection from more serious symptoms
 
So only 70% effective and that doesn’t take account of asymptomatic infection. I’m not sure whether that will just make the problem worse than it already is, depending on how the protection pans out.

Essentially you could have 30% of people vulnerable, with loads of asymptomatic people not knowing or showing any signs of having it.

Im not sure we can particularly change our current lifestyle based on that can we?
Can I ask how you know that the 70% 'doesn't take account of asyptomatic infection'?
 
Noone who had the vaccine and got covid required hospital treatment (only 30 cases out of 131), so it seems to offer some protection from more serious symptoms
It’s difficult to say when you are dealing with such a small number I suppose.

We need to understand more about what protection actually means (in all the vaccines) not just this one.

If the vaccine only offers protection from the worst symptoms, rather than sterilising, then I’m not convinced that 70% is that good..... In fact I’d go as far as to say that if other vaccines are safe and 90-95% effective then you may as well Chuck the Oxford one in the dumpster....
 
There were also lower levels of asymptomatic infection in the low followed by high dose group which "means we might be able to halt the virus in its tracks," Prof Pollard said.
To me that statement implies that asymptomatic infections were included in the 30% reported figure of those who were infected.
So can I ask you again how you know that asymptomatic infections were not included in the reported results?
 
The other 2 vaccines that have reported results of 95 % efficacy where based on having 2 doses so not a great difference from the Oxford result though they were claiming 90 % efficacy with 1 dose.
 
To me that statement implies that asymptomatic infections were included in the 30% reported figure of those who were infected.
So can I ask you again how you know that asymptomatic infections were not included in the reported results?
That's the way I read it also.
 
There were also lower levels of asymptomatic infection in the low followed by high dose group which "means we might be able to halt the virus in its tracks," Prof Pollard said.

That's the way I read it also.

If you read this press release it talks about 'observed asymptomatic cases' decreasing with the vaccine, so it looks like they have been included. I would find it amazing if they were not TBH.


Is Bifster going to provide some evidence that supports his claim or is it just unfounded speculation presented as fact once again?
 
To me that statement implies that asymptomatic infections were included in the 30% reported figure of those who were infected.
So can I ask you again how you know that asymptomatic infections were not included in the reported results?
That’s not the way I read it. It read to me like ‘Asymptomatic’ were being treated as an addition ‘also’.

Of course, that would also tie in with the Oxford interpretation of ‘success’, from both initial trials on primates and in humans, where efficacy was determined by the elimination of lower respiratory tract infection only....
 
In truth though its only 70% until you get the second vaccine which is soon after then it increases to 90%.
I would imagine anyone who still has concerns simply stays at home until the second vaccine simple.
 
It’s difficult to say when you are dealing with such a small number I suppose.

We need to understand more about what protection actually means (in all the vaccines) not just this one.

If the vaccine only offers protection from the worst symptoms, rather than sterilising, then I’m not convinced that 70% is that good..... In fact I’d go as far as to say that if other vaccines are safe and 90-95% effective then you may as well Chuck the Oxford one in the dumpster....
Its 90% with a half dose followed by a full, pretty much the same as the others.

We're not really in a position to go throwing perfectly viable vaccines in the bin, even if it was only 70% effective, you could reopen with 50% upwards really.
 
Its 90% with a half dose followed by a full, pretty much the same as the others.

We're not really in a position to go throwing perfectly viable vaccines in the bin, even if it was only 70% effective, you could reopen with 50% upwards really.
Hopefully once the trial is complete, the 90% will be proven and also what it actually means in terms of protection.

My understanding with the Oxford vaccine is that it is also a ‘one off’ (I.e. you can’t have a further injection or booster further down the line)...

Just to add... a 50% effective vaccine (assuming, which is extremely likely, that it creates more asymptomatic transmission, by shifting symptomatic cases into the asymptomatic category) is a potential problem in itself.

I doubt 50% of the population are vulnerable naturally!!
 
Isn't the Flu vaccine they give out have a success rate of less than 50% year on year?
So even 70% is fantastic news but raising to 90 with a second dose.
 
I'm certain as part of the trial ALL volunteers will be tested for Covid at intervals so asymptomatic cases will be picked up.
I do think the small number of infections across the 20,000 makes it difficult to predict efficacy with any degree of accuracy.
Those with symptons didn't need hospitalisation.
I'm part of the Novavax trial.
The good thing about this vaccine is the suggestion that it might reduce passing on the virus.
(That's not me in the picture)
I had a Covid test before we started along with a blood test.
I got a jab and the computer decided if it was live or a placebo.
I've had no side effects.
I get another jab on Day 21 and a third visit is needed on Day 35.
I then go back after 3 months, 6 months and 12 months and will have blood tests each time.
If I become eligible for an approved vaccine over the period of the trial I won't be prevented from having it.
 
Good news, in fact we now have an escape route from this situation.
Interesting results as well - did you see that in a sub study giving half of the dose first time and the same level at booster gave 90% effectiveness. Maybe this is what will be used, it uses less vaccine as well which is an advantage.
70% sounds poor in comparison to the other results but is in the same ball park as the annual flu vaccinations.
Great news - we may finally be getting out of this mess
I read that too and thought it was a curious way to present the findings, why would you say its 70% effective given one way but 90% if given in a different way - unless there is some logical reason for the first way that outweighs the second method.

Still, we would have bitten their hand off at 70% a couple of months ago! But does this mean some kind of tiered pricing structure might become a possibility - a 70% drug as a free for all with higher probability vaccines being priced at an effectiveness rate?
 
I read that too and thought it was a curious way to present the findings, why would you say its 70% effective given one way but 90% if given in a different way - unless there is some logical reason for the first way that outweighs the second method.

Still, we would have bitten their hand off at 70% a couple of months ago! But does this mean some kind of tiered pricing structure might become a possibility - a 70% drug as a free for all with higher probability vaccines being priced at an effectiveness rate?
The reason it’s 70% effective statistically is as follows....

circa 2700 took the half dose followed by full dose and they were 90% covered

circa 8800 took the full dose followed by another full dose and they were 62% covered

When you add both together the whole trial is circa 70% efficient.
 
What I'm wondering is if we're seeing a timescale effect here.

If the Pfizer vaccine's results come from 1 - 2 months might that be why it's 90%+ effective.

If Oxfords results come from 4 - 6 months and are 70% effective might that be because protection wanes over time.

In other words are the Oxford results a better reflection of the real world protection offered by all vaccines rather than this particular vaccine being "not as good" as others.

I think Oxford have been more rigourous in their approach and aren't as driven by commercial pressures so there's a strong chance this is the case.
 
There's an anomaly in the Oxford trials that nobody has explained. The 70% rate applied to two full doses of the vaccine, but when the half dose was given first followed by the full dose, the success rate went up to 90%.
 
There's an anomaly in the Oxford trials that nobody has explained. The 70% rate applied to two full doses of the vaccine, but when the half dose was given first followed by the full dose, the success rate went up to 90%.
They have just had some guy on Sky who has been at a press conference with the Oxford team.

The explanation (they think) is a smaller dose wakes the immune system better than a larger dose and prepares it better for the big dose coming.

It is also the ONLY vaccine that slows down the spread of the virus and will cost about the price of a coffee, unlike the other two which will be at 15 and 30 quid ish.

This is VERY VERY good news 😎

My analogy is of beer, you have a little and the body is fine, you have too much and we all know how downhill it can go 😂👍
 
There were also lower levels of asymptomatic infection in the low followed by high dose group which "means we might be able to halt the virus in its tracks," Prof Pollard said.
Quote from a virologist -' In this trial they have evidence of reduced assymptomatic infection in vaccinees, suggestive of less transmission. This is something that we don’t know for the other vaccines thus far.'
 
To me that statement implies that asymptomatic infections were included in the 30% reported figure of those who were infected.
So can I ask you again how you know that asymptomatic infections were not included in the reported results?

That's the way I read it also.

"The coronavirus vaccine developed by the University of Oxford stops 70% of people developing Covid symptoms, a large-scale trial shows"

Carefully crafted words, it seems, rather than an clear and honest reflection of the results, that the public can understand. No doubt the others are playing the same game...
 
What concerns me with these stats is we all know how they can be used to suit your agenda. Plus there’s millions to be made out of this. I really don’t know if the trials show us enough information or are totally unbiased. Rightly or wrongly I’m always suspicious of Americans who profess to save the world. Time is against us in this pandemic & however they dress it up this has been rushed through (rightly I hasten to add) I guess we’ll just have to trust the regulatory bodies in ensuring it’s safe ish & effective as in any other vaccine. All in all good news.
 
Quote from a virologist -' In this trial they have evidence of reduced assymptomatic infection in vaccinees, suggestive of less transmission. This is something that we don’t know for the other vaccines thus far.'
According to Sky the other vaccines do not slow down transmission - so who knows!
 
This is what worries me '..The vaccine is a genetically modified common cold virus that used to infect chimpanzees..'

I've seen Planet of the Apes.
 
Bfc x3 , I think you are a very dangerous individual. It is people like you with an agenda who try to pass off your interpretations of facts as scientific,
when it is just opinion based on your obvious preconceptions. Even if the vaccine is only 70% effective(and it could be better but we don't have the facts to say otherwise) then it a huge advance as billions of people in the world will need vaccinating as quick as possible.
How many doses do you think, Pfizer/Moderna can make in say 1 year. the answer is nowhere near enough. This vaccine could save 100,000 of lives worldwide and you claim in earlier posts that it might make the situation worse than it is already or that we should bin it!!
 
Bfc x3 , I think you are a very dangerous individual. It is people like you with an agenda who try to pass off your interpretations of facts as scientific,
when it is just opinion based on your obvious preconceptions. Even if the vaccine is only 70% effective(and it could be better but we don't have the facts to say otherwise) then it a huge advance as billions of people in the world will need vaccinating as quick as possible.
How many doses do you think, Pfizer/Moderna can make in say 1 year. the answer is nowhere near enough. This vaccine could save 100,000 of lives worldwide and you claim in earlier posts that it might make the situation worse than it is already or that we should bin it!!
I really don't think I'm "A dangerous individual" really... Frankly that's a totally ridiculous comment
 
He already controls you. It’s just that when he’s finished “having his way” he says “and now you shall forget”. And you can’t remember what he made you do.
We were having a chat about getting our phone contracts renewed yesterday afternoon. No online research.

Within 10 minutes of that conversation, all my ads on AVFTT were phone deals.

Go figure.
 
I really don't think I'm "A dangerous individual" really... Frankly that's a totally ridiculous comment

I certainly get the impression that you have an agenda against vaccines of a sort.
I would guess that you are generally against them and don't really want to have a CV vaccine (but also realise that morally and logically you should have one). Therefore everytime some positive news is released about vaccine progress you try to either downplay it or undermine it, often without an evidential base. If I were an amateur psychologist, I would guess that this is your rationality trying to justify your gut instinct not to be vaccinated. The post that you made that really made me laugh was when you implied that the average AVFTTer needed a vaccine because, unlike your good self who is a fine specimen, he / she is morbidly obese and in one of the vulnerable groups (I am paraphrasing but you did say that).
Anyway I will oppose your posts because as Poolcat has noticed, you often undermine scientific messages with nothing more than idle speculation. It is good to be cynical, in fact it is perhaps healthy, but when you stray into speculation stated as fact you do need to be challenged. Science by it's method is and will be open to scrutiny. The truth is that mass vaccination is the only feasible way out of the situation without thousands of extra deaths and this path relies on public confidence. And all you do in your small way is erode that confidence with the steady drip feed of misinformation.
 
This is really great news.The big pluses about this Oxford vaccine appear to be:

1) It is 70% effective but on a smaller sample 90% effective with a half dose followed by a subsequent full dose.
2) Of all those vaccinated there was not a single case requiring hospital treatment so only a mild infection for the few who contracted the infection.
3) It can be stored at normal fridge temperatures ,a big advantage over the others it would seem.
4)It is much cheaper than the others ,is being produced on a non profit basis(which makes me proud to be British) and can be produced quite quickly so huge advantages not only for this country but also for third world countries.
5) It is British and makes me proud not only on its likely efficacy but that it may well solve a huge world problem.

I am disappointed by the wet blanket responses of some miseries on here.WE have to remain careful until the vaccinations are actually available and applied but if we`re sensible now we can look forward to a much healthier happier future.Rejoice.
 
Last edited:
This is really great news.The big pluses about this Oxford vaccine appear to be:

1) It is 70% effective but on a smaller sample 90% effective with a half dose followed by a subsequent full dose.
2) Of all those vaccinated there was not a single case requiring hospital treatment so only a mild infection for the few who contracted the infection.
3) It can be stored at normal fridge temperatures ,a big advantage over the others it would seem.
4)It is much cheaper than the others ,is being produced on a non profit basis(which makes me proud to be British) and can be produced quite quickly so huge advantages not only for this country but also for third world countries.
5) It is British and makes me proud not only on its likely efficacy but that it may well solve a huge world problem.

I am disappointed by the wet blanket responses of some miseries on here.WE have to remain careful until the vaccinations are actually available and applied but if we`re sensible now we can now look forward to a much healthier happier future.Rejoice.
Totally agree and given the choice would take this ahead of the other options.
 
The reason it’s 70% effective statistically is as follows....

circa 2700 took the half dose followed by full dose and they were 90% covered

circa 8800 took the full dose followed by another full dose and they were 62% covered

When you add both together the whole trial is circa 70% efficient.
Now that is a sensible clear explanation. It would have been far better to announce this rather than the headline 70% and thus prompt the nervousness about it.
 
I certainly get the impression that you have an agenda against vaccines of a sort.
I would guess that you are generally against them and don't really want to have a CV vaccine (but also realise that morally and logically you should have one). Therefore everytime some positive news is released about vaccine progress you try to either downplay it or undermine it, often without an evidential base. If I were an amateur psychologist, I would guess that this is your rationality trying to justify your gut instinct not to be vaccinated. The post that you made that really made me laugh was when you implied that the average AVFTTer needed a vaccine because, unlike your good self who is a fine specimen, he / she is morbidly obese and in one of the vulnerable groups (I am paraphrasing but you did say that).
Anyway I will oppose your posts because as Poolcat has noticed, you often undermine scientific messages with nothing more than idle speculation. It is good to be cynical, in fact it is perhaps healthy, but when you stray into speculation stated as fact you do need to be challenged. Science by it's method is and will be open to scrutiny. The truth is that mass vaccination is the only feasible way out of the situation without thousands of extra deaths and this path relies on public confidence. And all you do in your small way is erode that confidence with the steady drip feed of misinformation.
I have absolutely no agenda against vaccines whatsoever!!

I do object to misleading and innacurante information, particularly where the general public are concerned and particulary where public confidence is vital.

I reacted positively to the other vaccine results, whilst cautioning that much depended on what 'immunity' actually meant.

There's no question in my mind that my first instinct is to be vaccinated, though I'm obviously keen to understand the efficacy and potential side effects first...

My point in this instance was not at all unreasonable...

If the vaccine is 70% effective at limiting the symptoms only, then this could present an issue... (i.e. we turn previously symptomatic and identifyable cases into asymptomatic cases), with a vaccine that is only 70% effective... If you then take that further and consider the possibility / likelihood that the 30% may well be the most vulnerable... Then it does raise some serious questions
 
I love these medical symposiums. I’m always amazed by how many scientists we have amongst our 2000 avftt’ers

must be somewhere between 62 and 95 percent at a guess
 
I have absolutely no agenda against vaccines whatsoever!!

I do object to misleading and innacurante information, particularly where the general public are concerned and particulary where public confidence is vital.

I reacted positively to the other vaccine results, whilst cautioning that much depended on what 'immunity' actually meant.

There's no question in my mind that my first instinct is to be vaccinated, though I'm obviously keen to understand the efficacy and potential side effects first...

My point in this instance was not at all unreasonable...

If the vaccine is 70% effective at limiting the symptoms only, then this could present an issue... (i.e. we turn previously symptomatic and identifyable cases into asymptomatic cases), with a vaccine that is only 70% effective... If you then take that further and consider the possibility / likelihood that the 30% may well be the most vulnerable... Then it does raise some serious questions
If 30% still get it and most dont know it, and the balance aren't hospitalised.....sounds pretty good to me.
 
I have absolutely no agenda against vaccines whatsoever!!

I do object to misleading and innacurante information, particularly where the general public are concerned and particulary where public confidence is vital.

I reacted positively to the other vaccine results, whilst cautioning that much depended on what 'immunity' actually meant.

There's no question in my mind that my first instinct is to be vaccinated, though I'm obviously keen to understand the efficacy and potential side effects first...

My point in this instance was not at all unreasonable...

If the vaccine is 70% effective at limiting the symptoms only, then this could present an issue... (i.e. we turn previously symptomatic and identifyable cases into asymptomatic cases), with a vaccine that is only 70% effective... If you then take that further and consider the possibility / likelihood that the 30% may well be the most vulnerable... Then it does raise some serious questions
But the press release doesn't say that at all.


In the article linked above which is on the OU website released today it says (the fourth bullet point);

  • Early indication that vaccine could reduce virus transmission from an observed reduction in asymptomatic infections

Futher down in the article it says;

'These data also suggest that this half dose and full dose regimen could help to prevent transmission of the virus, evidenced by lower rates of asymptomatic infection in the vaccinees, with further information to become available when trial data are next evaluated.'

So they think that the vaccine actually reduces transmission based on the EVIDENCE of their own results. They do not overstate this finding but it looks very promising.

The doomsday scenario that you have outlined above is based on what evidence?
 
Last edited:
Sky have just had a very senior bloke on from AZ....

He was asked

‘How long will immunity last for?’

His reply....

‘We don’t know, but nobody is seeing a reduction in immunity over the time we have had’

THAT COULD BE MASSIVE NEWS!!!
 
Back
Top