Oxford vaccine 70-90% effective

No. You've spotted the flaw in my (not too serious) argument. People who need medical help will get it, and be entitled to it, under our superb NHS.

Obviously the NHS remains totally safe under the Tories :) , but should it fall into private hands I'm guessing those seeking help for self-inflicted wounds would be charged a premium.
Has the NHS been ‘superb’ this year though?
 
Oxford fans: 'It's so annoying when when people keep associating us with the university.'
Also Oxford fans: 'ah, well obviously our vaccine is the best.'
Aaaaaaaaand you have won the internet for the day! (FWIW I am a college ponce so there's that)
 
No matter what happens with these vaccines, it is extremely important the normal steps of regulatory diligence are not overlooked. There is a reason why vaccines require such high safety profiles and take so long to develop; that reason being that they are unique in that they are largely given to healthy individuals for prophylactic use.
There is a reasonable argument to provide these current "first generation" vaccines to vulnerable/high risk groups under an "emergency" use basis, even though the efficacy and safety profiles are frankly very thin.
However, before we start doing mass vaccinations of the population, rigorous age specific risk-benefit profiles must be established, and we simply need much more data to be able to do that. 36 months of long term safety data, in every representative population, is generally considered the regulatory minimum in the industry before a vaccine can be considered as prophylactic in mass public health vaccination schemes. These frivolous suggestion by government to vaccinate "everyone" by spring, and any compulsion or coercion to take such vaccines is quite simply unethical.
Vaccines are one of the greatest medical inventions in history, but lets not misuse them and destroy that reputation further (thus fuelling anti-vaxxer sentiment against all vaccines) in a moment of madness.
 
This is disappointing as the other two are 95%. But our one is cheaper and easier to store. But this is after I've dose, 90% after the second? As what rate is the current flu vaccine?

Did we go about it the right way, or should we have made a more expensive one with better results.

To me, I would rather have the others! 30% chance of won't work.

I feel a bit embarrassed, but this was years of work drivei in months.
The effectiveness of the flu vaccine varies but is somewhere between 40 and 60% depending on the virulence of the disease in any given year, That means it prevents illness 40-60% of the time. The suggestion is, although not confirmed yet, that the Oxford Covid vaccine could be up to 90% effective when a half dose is given initially and the other half later. This actually means that twice as many people can be vaccinated immediately if it's approved for use. I hardly think this is anything to be disappointed about, on the contrary we should all be elated that the City many of us call home has worked a miracle in getting something so effective to combat this virus in such short order. I hope they get the Nobel Prize for their achievement.
 
Last edited:
No matter what happens with these vaccines, it is extremely important the normal steps of regulatory diligence are not overlooked. There is a reason why vaccines require such high safety profiles and take so long to develop; that reason being that they are unique in that they are largely given to healthy individuals for prophylactic use.
There is a reasonable argument to provide these current "first generation" vaccines to vulnerable/high risk groups under an "emergency" use basis, even though the efficacy and safety profiles are frankly very thin.
However, before we start doing mass vaccinations of the population, rigorous age specific risk-benefit profiles must be established, and we simply need much more data to be able to do that. 36 months of long term safety data, in every representative population, is generally considered the regulatory minimum in the industry before a vaccine can be considered as prophylactic in mass public health vaccination schemes. These frivolous suggestion by government to vaccinate "everyone" by spring, and any compulsion or coercion to take such vaccines is quite simply unethical.
Vaccines are one of the greatest medical inventions in history, but lets not misuse them and destroy that reputation further (thus fuelling anti-en developed vaxxer sentiment against all vaccines) in a moment of madness.
The fact that apparently effective vaccines for this virus have been developed in months rather than years is testament to the supreme effort; co-operation and dedication of scientists and pharmaceutical companies acting in a global emergency unprecedented in our life time. Regulatory diligence is of course important. However we cannot wait 36 months for this process to be completed. Regulators have to step up to the mark too.
 
One for the scientists amounts you...

Given that without a vaccine only a small percentage of people are badly affected by covid what is the 70-90 % a measurement of?
 
I understand it is the %age of vaccinated people that do not go on to contract the disease when it is in general circulation - but I'm willing to be corrected!
 
One for the scientists amounts you...

Given that without a vaccine only a small percentage of people are badly affected by covid what is the 70-90 % a measurement of?

Its a vaccine. It gives you immunity. This is not a new thing.
 
Its a vaccine. It gives you immunity. This is not a new thing.
I asked because when discussing one of the other vaccines the press were saying they were unsure if it gave immunity or simply blocked the symptoms. Why be so aggressive?
 
I asked because when discussing one of the other vaccines the press were saying they were unsure if it gave immunity or simply blocked the symptoms. Why be so aggressive?
An observation:
I think that’s because much of your content appears to be quick fire, often 2 or 3 line responses, which ask a question, but can give the impression that you already know the answer.
In this case, that was not so.
One thing for sure, today’s vaccine news is a god send and at last there is light at the end of the tunnel and pray it can be delivered.
Still a way to go for all of us.
Keep following the “ rules “.
Roll on the Spring.
 
An absolutely incredible achievement. Just mind boggling whats been achieved collectively when everyone is forced to work together for the greater good. Really makes you wonder what could be possible.
 
1 example.

Sending thousands of elderly patients back to care homes to clear the wards back in the spring? Without testing?

I wouldn’t call this ‘superb.’


Odd and arbitrary to blame the NHS.

Why not blame the government dept which sets the KPIs or even the care homes for accepting the untested patients?

Better still, why not accept that it was a massive systemic failure, the likes of which must never be allowed to happen again?
 
1 example.

Sending thousands of elderly patients back to care homes to clear the wards back in the spring? Without testing?

I wouldn’t call this ‘superb.’

When there was no test, except a blood test that takes time and was only being used for symptomatic patients at the time, novel virus and all that ... you can`t just flick a switch.

We weren`t "clearing wards" they were routine transactions, as there are every day between care homes and hospitals.

So Doris is asymptomatic in hospital, so doesn`t get tested, she is returned to care home and becomes symptomatic. Too late to shut the door then.

It will never happen again.
 
Back
Top Bottom