Hmmzis wrote: » This is fantastic news from AZ/Oxford! I think there is no way they will go with the high-high dosage regimen, it's less effective and outright wasteful. The low-high dose regimen is a very obvious approach to take. My 0.02$ speculation on this dosage effect is that the high initial dose creates too many antibodies and T cells against the vector, diminishing the effect of the second dose. The low dose initially primes the immune system just enough for the second dose to have a substantial boost effect. Bring on the jabs and sore arms.
mountgomery burns wrote: » Anyone know what the EU have agreed to purchase from AZ for 2021?
Russman wrote: » Possibly they could. I just had no idea what way they were packed/used etc. and was thinking if each dose was a single use unit and AZ have several hundred million already made, would these now become "Dose No.2" and would they need to now start making their "Dose No.1" batches.
conor_mc wrote: » Statistically it’s the same for both vaccine and placebo groups, most (29,900-odd) did not contract Covid, only 100-odd did. That’s why you have big trial populations and it’s why you have a placebo group.
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?
hmmm wrote: » Pfizer & Moderna for the high-risk groups, Astra Zeneca and hopefully J&J for everyone else. Job done. I'm hopeful that AZ have a big vault full of this pre-manufactured - from their press release "it will be affordable and globally available, supplying hundreds of millions of doses on approval.”". And 3 billion doses promised next year.
CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: » It's worth noting that when the Pfizer vaccine study went from 94 infections to 164 the efficacy increased free from 90% to 95%. Heres hoping they all fail to scale like the Pfizer vaccine.
WoollyRedHat wrote: » Is this common phenomenon with other vaccination programmes?
hmmm wrote: » https://twitter.com/kakape/status/1330804166537699330
lbj666 wrote: » Off course our beloved media spear headed by RTE are taking the fatalism disguised as caution approach as usual.. 70% in their headlines, 90% plugged in the UK
Marhay70 wrote: » It's making me smile this morning, the people disappointed with the 70% efficacy of the AZ vaccine. I remember Anthony Fauci a few months ago saying they were hoping for 50-60% and would be delighted with 70% It's amazing how peoples' expectations can be raised, it's like your team barely avoiding relegation last season and being disappointed when they finish third this season.
plodder wrote: » Would they not have to repeat the whole phase 3 again with this dosage?
tobefrank321 wrote: » Amazing to think 70% efficacy is considered disappointing, and I include myself in that bracket. You'd wonder who will take up the Oxford vaccine now. Obviously the higher the efficacy the more normality can return. Leaving 30% at risk without knowing which 30% is at risk is the problem. Hopefully more data will follow. If it turns out the 30% not protected are elderly or with poor immune systems, then the other vaccines should cover them.
CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: » Well they have 90% with a different dosing regimen. The numbers involved there are probably too low to consider worthwhile. Are going to extend their trial or will they be able to get approval for the promising dose off of this?
"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."
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w5.vanillicon.com/v2/5117ec177439400b1e5944f4d30acdda.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wc.vanillicon.com/v2/c35e2064eebb340babc88df28d447168.svg)