podgeandrodge wrote: » It's still possible that the other vaccines, if they catch up, that don't have as much temperature storage issues, could overtake Pfizer if they get approval in the near future no? Could Pfizer end up with a great vaccine that isn't needed, or only needed short term until others arrive?
hmmm wrote: » A week or two of a delay will be better than listening to endless anti-vax youtube videos about how it was not properly reviewed by regulators It's important to be able to say all the safety and regulatory steps were taken to give people confidence.
Spanish Eyes wrote: » Reckon it could be a year or so before the so called "non vulnerable" will have access to the vaccine. Should be enough time to evaluate the efficacy and side effects. But hey, the vulnerable will be protected so the rest of us can just do what we want in the meantime, correct?
Spanish Eyes wrote: » Reckon it could be a year or so before the so called "non vulnerable" will have access to the vaccine.
hmmm wrote: » "Trust but verify" as we say. They trust the data they've been given is correct, but their job is to double-check. Apparently applications like this can run into thousands of pages so it takes time even to read it all.
ACitizenErased wrote: » News circulating that the UK may approve Pfizer's vaccine by Friday. Massive news.
El Sueño wrote: » ....and our taskforce haven't even met. Jokeshop. We need to be ready to go the second it's approved for use.
Mark1916 wrote: » https://www.bbc.com/news/health-55040635 Covid-19 vaccine developed by the University of Oxford is 70% effective, large scale trial shows. Add this into Pfizer and Moderna and we’re seriously getting there. Some people may be disappointed by the 70% but it’s a truly an amazing feat in that timeframe Intriguingly, the effectiveness rose to 90% in a group of volunteers who were given an initial half dose, followed by a full dose. It's not clear why there is a difference.
Hardyn wrote: » The 70% is figure is an average based off two dosing regimens. The two full dose model only yielded 62%. The half dose followed by a full dose model yielded 90%. Think its a no brainer which will be the preferred option.
CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: » Very promising news that they have something. Even if it's rejected in europe and sold off to India and Africa it's still a positive step.
Westernworld. wrote: » I wouldn't call that positive if it transpired
funnydoggy wrote: » Absolute breakthrough for science. Three vaccines a year after it was declared a pandemic. F*ck yes. Absolutely amazing.
Russman wrote: » Good news indeed ! From an administering point of view, does a half dose/full dose regimen make it logistically harder ? I’m just wondering if it’s up to the person giving the jab to withdraw X amount into the syringe or if vaccines come in disposable “one and done” vials ? If AZ have millions of doses already made would they be in ready to jab vials and they might need to source smaller vials or would it matter ?
CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: » Considering that many people have spoken about the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines as being too expensive for some countries the fact that something cheap is showing some level of success is a good thing. Moderna and Pfizer obviously have the advantages of having 90%+ success with the main dosage tried. Oxford have a sub group with 90% success but would need a lot more testing at that dosage level. It will take a lot of time more for approval.
Thierry12 wrote: » Do we need to relax on these percentages? 70%,90%, 94% Less than 100 infected people in those trials Blind trials as well, none of them deliberately infected with the virus in a challenge trial, most statistically never encountered the virus in day to day life. How can we accurately say those small non challenge trials will scale up linerally to 7.5 billion people and remain 90% efficacious?
seamie78 wrote: » Forgive y ignorance if I am completely wrong. with oxford on board will it make sense to give the pfzier and moderna ones to at risk through vaccination hubs and with it easier to store the oxford one maybe pharmacies could administer the oxford ones to groups less at risk.
WoollyRedHat wrote: » Would they not dispatch in same size vials with different measurements and label accordingly?