Jump to content

oxford vacinne easier to use than pfizer


Recommended Posts

Health

Oxford coronavirus vaccine expected to be easier to roll out than Pfizer jab

 

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/oxford-coronavirus-vaccine-expected-easier-175246355.html

 

The Oxford vaccine is expected to be easier to store and distribute throughout the UK than the Pfizer jab - if and when it is proved to be safe and effective.

No 10 has ordered millions of doses from the two leading candidates, with experts saying that the government will need a “toolbox” of vaccines to bring the pandemic under control, though concern has been raised over the logistical challenges of storing and transporting the Pfizer jab.

The vaccine needs to be kept at -70C up until the day it is used to maintain the integrity of the doses’ genetic material.

This is expected to complicate the rollout of doses to GP clinics and care homes, which do not have the refrigerator technology required to maintain such low temperatures.

Because of this, the Oxford vaccine - which can be stored at between 2C and 8C - is expected to be easier to administer in the community and therefore provider the bedrock of the UK’s vaccination programme.

Whereas Pfizer’s jab makes uses of cutting-edge RNA technology to provoke an immune response in humans, the Oxford vaccine utilises an engineered viral vector to train the body in neutralising any future infection from Sars-CoV-2 - the virus that causes Covid-19.

Edited by 3NUMBAS
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3NUMBAS changed the title to oxford vacinne easier to use than pfizer
  • Replies 91
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

6 hours ago, Lacessit said:

I'm in Chiang Rai, but it is very thoughtful of you.

The OP is an interesting topic, the logistics of keeping a vaccine at -70C probably means the Oxford vaccine will be favored for mass distribution.

However there is no data yet available on whether the Oxford vaccine is effective in preventing infection.

 

Obviously everyone hopes that the results will be positive, but this is not yet known.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, partington said:

However there is no data yet available on whether the Oxford vaccine is effective in preventing infection.

 

Obviously everyone hopes that the results will be positive, but this is not yet known.

Odds are the Pfizer vaccine is more effective, and could be reserved for people such as politicians and front-line health professionals. Feel free to state your preferred recipients.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, partington said:

However there is no data yet available on whether the Oxford vaccine is effective in preventing infection.

 

Obviously everyone hopes that the results will be positive, but this is not yet known.

There is data from the stage 1 & 2 trials. They have shown that it is effective and safe, however the stage 3 trials that is a massively larger one and is needed to check the effects on a more general and complete population profile is still a little time from publication.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, AlexRich said:

Hopefully it will be a game changer and help end this awful period in everyone’s lives. 

The vaccines will definitely do that.

 

2 hours ago, AlexRich said:

I hope never to see another pandemic in my lifetime.

Regrettably unless you are planning on a short life that maybe a futile wish.

 

2 hours ago, AlexRich said:

I’m fed up with it!

As are we all, BUT even if the vaccines were proved effective today it’s going to be many many months before there can be much change. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, sometimewoodworker said:

There is data from the stage 1 & 2 trials. They have shown that it is effective and safe, however the stage 3 trials that is a massively larger one and is needed to check the effects on a more general and complete population profile is still a little time from publication.

This data only shows immunogenicity- that the vaccine causes an immune response: the production of antibodies.

 

No data on its effectiveness in reducing infections and thus the disease has yet been released.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Lacessit said:

Odds are the Pfizer vaccine is more effective, and could be reserved for people such as politicians and front-line health professionals. Feel free to state your preferred recipients.

I'm interested-on what information are you basing your assessment of the comparative effectiveness of each vaccine?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, partington said:

This data only shows immunogenicity- that the vaccine causes an immune response: the production of antibodies.

Humm and your information and knowledge of stage 1 and 2 trial methodology is?

 

9 hours ago, partington said:

No data on its effectiveness in reducing infections and thus the disease has yet been released

The simple fact that the vaccine has progressed to stage 3 trials gives the fact that it is producing an immune response.
 

No drugs will go through to stage 3 that don’t do that due to the immense costs of stage 3. The data from stage 3 is being collected and analysed (not for the fact that it works, that is proven) for the degree of effectiveness in the different groups of subjects that have received it and the comparison of that to the placebo recipients. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/14/2020 at 12:30 AM, sometimewoodworker said:

Humm and your information and knowledge of stage 1 and 2 trial methodology is?

 

The simple fact that the vaccine has progressed to stage 3 trials gives the fact that it is producing an immune response.
 

No drugs will go through to stage 3 that don’t do that due to the immense costs of stage 3. The data from stage 3 is being collected and analysed (not for the fact that it works, that is proven) for the degree of effectiveness in the different groups of subjects that have received it and the comparison of that to the placebo recipients. 

 I have already stated clearly that the Oxford vaccine has been shown to produce an immune response but not yet  to protect against the disease.  I'm not sure whether you didn't read this properly or don't understand it.

 

You are simply wrong if you think that an immune response automatically guarantees efficacy in protecting against the disease.

 

This is confirmed by all the summaries at the time when the generation of the immune response was first reported. For example https://www.tropicalmedicine.ox.ac.uk/news/new-study-reveals-oxford-coronavirus-vaccine-produces-strong-immune-response

 

 

"The results of the Phase I/II trial published in the scientific journal, The Lancet, indicate no early safety concerns and induces strong immune responses in both parts of the immune system.

The vaccine provoked a T cell response within 14 days of vaccination (white blood cells that can attack cells infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus), and an antibody response within 28 days (antibodies are able to neutralise the virus so that it cannot infect cells when initially contracted).

During the study participants who received the vaccine had detectable neutralising antibodies, which have been suggested by researchers as important for protection, and these responses were strongest after a booster dose, with 100% of participants' blood having neutralising activity against the coronavirus. The next step in studying the vaccine is to confirm that it can effectively protect against SARS-CoV-2 infection."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also this (sorry can't use edit function for some reason or would have added to previous post)

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/27/covid-vaccine-uk-oxford-university-astrazeneca-works-in-all-ages-trials-suggest

 

"Stephen Evans, a professor of pharmacoepidemiology at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, cautioned that no conclusions about the efficacy of the vaccine should be drawn until the data had been published.

 

 
Read more

“In order to comment properly on this we need to see the data,” he said. “It is encouraging that the investigators suggest that the immune responses measured in the blood seem to show efficacy both above, as well as below, age 70. The later phase trials are needed to see if the immune responses translate into clinical efficacy in preventing infection. These will involve much larger numbers and it is wise to not be too optimistic until those trials have completed.”

Raised antibody levels in the blood indicated but did not guarantee protection from the virus multiplying in the body, he said."

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, partington said:

I have already stated clearly that the Oxford vaccine has been shown to produce an immune response but not yet  to protect against the disease.  I'm not sure whether you didn't read this properly or don't understand it.

You seem not to understand the quoted material. I’ve retired from teaching so can’t be bothered with those who can’t understand and proceed to the logical conclusions from the information presented.

 

Suffice to say that it’s been shown to reduce infection (provide a degree of protection). Stage 3 will provide evidence of it safety in a large population and the degrees of reduction in infection etc.
 

Several vaccine candidates have had the stage 3 trials stopped due to unacceptable side affects. 

Edited by sometimewoodworker
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, sometimewoodworker said:

You seem not to understand the quoted material. I’ve retired from teaching so can’t be bothered with those who can’t understand and proceed to the logical conclusions from the information presented.

 

Suffice to say that it’s been shown to reduce infection. Stage 3 will provide evidence of it safety in a large population and the degrees of reduction in infection etc.
 

Several vaccine candidates have had the stage 3 trials stopped due to unacceptable side affects. 

 

1 minute ago, partington said:

You are just wrong.

 

The Oxford vaccine has NOT been shown to reduce infection, and these are the results that are so eagerly awaited.

BS you clearly can’t understand academic language and the extremely careful use of language in it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My "inability to understand academic language" did not seem to get in the way of being awarded a Ph.D in Cell Biology, nor a 30 year career as a research biologist.

 

I'll leave it to objective readers to look at the quotes and links I have supplied, and your statements, and decide who is the one deficient in understanding what's being said!

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...