Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNBC)   AstraZeneca is basically building the Chrysler of Covid vaccines   (cnbc.com) divider line
    More: Followup  
•       •       •

3192 clicks; posted to Main » on 23 Nov 2020 at 11:50 AM (21 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



103 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2020-11-23 12:29:48 PM  
I'm taking it as 90%, because while they have to average the two groups for this trial, I assume they'll use the 90% one for the actual injections.
 
2020-11-23 12:30:07 PM  

tuxq: For a little perspective, the annual flu vaccine has a 40-70% efficacy. So.. being on the best-case-scenario side of the flu vaccine isn't awful.


The annual flu vaccine is an educated guess determined a year in advance, because there are dozens of strains of the flu. So it is an apples to oranges comparison.
 
2020-11-23 12:30:55 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: All the sensors will blow out at 50,000 miles?


After six years, your transmission will need replacing.
 
2020-11-23 12:32:07 PM  

kevlar51: Honestly, 70% would normally be viewed as pretty damn good, as far as vaccines go. Flu vaccines typically come in at 60%. It's just overshadowed by the 90-95 percenters.


Also, as the article states, it appears that when it is not 100% percent effective it still lessons the symptoms (it says that there were no hospitalizations in the vaccination arm). That is good enough as well.
 
2020-11-23 12:33:19 PM  

kevlar51: Honestly, 70% would normally be viewed as pretty damn good, as far as vaccines go. Flu vaccines typically come in at 60%. It's just overshadowed by the 90-95 percenters.


And according to the study, in the group they did a smaller first injection and then a full strength secondary did actually achieve 90%+ efficacy.
 
2020-11-23 12:33:42 PM  

QFarker: Does anyone know ... do they actually expose people to the virus after they get the vaccine?  Or are they just letting nature take it's course?

Because last I heard, only about 15% of the population has been infected, which could be taken to mean doing nothing so far has been 85% effective at not getting Covid.   ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


In most tests, no they don't expose you.  There are a few small scale experimental setups where they get permission to do that, but it's not common.

In the most recent tests, they split up 43.000 people into placebo and experimental groups and administered the shots.  After so many months, 170 of them had gotten Covid.  162 of them were in the placebo group.  That's pretty solid, and not resulting from random chance.
 
2020-11-23 12:34:10 PM  

poconojoe: as somebody who has owned his fair share of Chrysler products over the years... nice job subby


I have as well.  I have owned 0 Chrysler products over the years.

/Not a glutton for punishment
 
2020-11-23 12:34:14 PM  

ChiliBoots: Enigmamf: ChiliBoots: The Oxford vaccine is an adenovirus vectored vaccine as opposed to the mRNA vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna. The major issue with vectored vaccines is pre-existing immunity to the vector portion so that the payload bits can't gain access to the immunological machinery. I'd hypothesize that the higher prime dose induces too great of an immunity to the vector, so when it's time to introduce the booster, it's rebuffed by the immune response to the adenovirus portion.

mRNA vaccines don't have this issue.

They don't have that problem because of decades of prior research developing ways to avoid that problem, and get the mRNA into cells without over-stimulating (or under-stimulating) the immune system. 'Naked' mRNA does actually trigger a strong immune response.

/ See, I read about 20% of a review article, so I'm an expert on the topic
// https://www.nature.com/articles/nrd​.2017.243

So, in other words, state of the present art mRNA vaccines don't have that problem.


Yes - it's not an innate advantage but a developed advantage.
 
2020-11-23 12:36:23 PM  
One more point I haven't heard anyone mention - assuming that 70% isn't a statistical anomaly, then sure, that level of protection isn't as good as 90/95%.  But at this rate I'd like any protection so this bastage won't get me 'cause I spent too long next to someone while perusing the broccoli.

I'd take this one, happily, then get another brand later on when supplies are more accessible.
 
2020-11-23 12:37:07 PM  

QFarker: Does anyone know ... do they actually expose people to the virus after they get the vaccine?  Or are they just letting nature take it's course?

Because last I heard, only about 15% of the population has been infected, which could be taken to mean doing nothing so far has been 85% effective at not getting Covid.   ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


Only natural infections so far. There has been some talk of conducting "challenge trials" but I don't think any have been approved.

These are preliminary results from the various trials. They'll continue to collect data as more of the test subjects catch the virus over the coming months.
 
2020-11-23 12:37:53 PM  

Tr0mBoNe: One showed an effectiveness of 90% when trial participants received a half dose, followed by a full dose at least one month apart.
The other dosing regimen showed 62% efficacy when given as two full doses at least one month apart.

That's... interesting.


There's apparently some weird but known medical reason why less is apparently more in the case of this particular vaccine.  The solution is, of course, do the half then full dosage routine.
 
2020-11-23 12:38:03 PM  
It still beats taking the bus.
 
2020-11-23 12:40:09 PM  

goodncold: The downside to the mRNA vaccines is that these will be the first ones to be used massively on humans and are the first ones to basically operate at the genetic level.

So...you could be saved...or you could be turned into crab people.


They do not modify DNA. mRNAs typically last 1-24 hours before falling apart naturally, so there's a definite end date of the direct initial effect of the vaccine.

The future risk is no different with any other vaccine (or with life in general), that you might develop an immune response to something where the immune response is what causes you harm.
 
2020-11-23 12:40:48 PM  
Why in the farking Dodge wiring do they release information this way?  There is a large portion of the population that is too stupid to even take basic precautions, and who rely more on some Karen on social media over medical experts to make their decisions on how to deal with this pandemic. When they present efficacy of vaccines this way it just gives the Dumbs more stupid-bombs to lob out there..
 
2020-11-23 12:45:50 PM  

jack_o_the_hills: Why in the farking Dodge wiring do they release information this way?  There is a large portion of the population that is too stupid to even take basic precautions, and who rely more on some Karen on social media over medical experts to make their decisions on how to deal with this pandemic. When they present efficacy of vaccines this way it just gives the Dumbs more stupid-bombs to lob out there..


Transparency is a prerequisite for trust. Governments cannot require vaccines without people (even those who make a hobby of out-cynic-ing others) trusting that those requirements are imposed based on sound advise. In the end there are more reasonable than unreasonable people.
 
2020-11-23 12:46:19 PM  
"AstraZeneca says its vaccine can be stored, transported and handled at normal refrigerated conditions (36-46 degrees Fahrenheit) for at least six months and administered within existing health-care setting"

So it will be usable in most of the world.

It's also being reported as being around £3 per dose, as opposed to £15-25 for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines.

If it can provide 90% protection, that's pretty good stats.
 
2020-11-23 12:52:53 PM  

QFarker: Does anyone know ... do they actually expose people to the virus after they get the vaccine?  Or are they just letting nature take it's course?

Because last I heard, only about 15% of the population has been infected, which could be taken to mean doing nothing so far has been 85% effective at not getting Covid.   ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


The way I understood it, they have some people with the vaccine (in this case, 2 different dosages), some with a placebo.  They test until a certain number of people overall get infected.  They can figure out the numbers from that.
 
2020-11-23 12:52:55 PM  

QFarker: Does anyone know ... do they actually expose people to the virus after they get the vaccine?  Or are they just letting nature take it's course?

Because last I heard, only about 15% of the population has been infected, which could be taken to mean doing nothing so far has been 85% effective at not getting Covid.   ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


That's why the studies are large, e.g. 20,000 or 30,000 people.

With that many people, you can reasonably assume that by pure chance you would get a 50/50 split of infections in each half of the test population.

But if the placebo half gets 10 infections for every 1 infection in the vaccine half then you can assume your vaccine is blocking 90% of incidences.
 
2020-11-23 12:53:56 PM  

The_Homeless_Guy: kevlar51: Honestly, 70% would normally be viewed as pretty damn good, as far as vaccines go. Flu vaccines typically come in at 60%. It's just overshadowed by the 90-95 percenters.

Also, as the article states, it appears that when it is not 100% percent effective it still lessons the symptoms (it says that there were no hospitalizations in the vaccination arm). That is good enough as well.


Well what about the rest of the body?  What was the percentage then, huh?
 
2020-11-23 12:59:43 PM  
Ed Rooney's Car Gets Towed
Youtube DhhWFFXCMKI
 
2020-11-23 1:14:40 PM  

Izunbacol: It's the COVID vaccine for people with no degree and low credit scores?


Apparently its saving grace is ease of transport.

The other guys:  90 percent effective, IF you can keep it deep frozen from lab to clinic and the clinic has a deep freezer that can keep it until the day of use.

This:  Less effective but can be stored in a standard lab freezer.

Considering that poor or rural areas are the places that are unlikely to have full cryo containments therefore will have to pick the one they can actually transport... that's a yes.
 
2020-11-23 1:18:03 PM  

Enigmamf: ChiliBoots: The Oxford vaccine is an adenovirus vectored vaccine as opposed to the mRNA vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna. The major issue with vectored vaccines is pre-existing immunity to the vector portion so that the payload bits can't gain access to the immunological machinery. I'd hypothesize that the higher prime dose induces too great of an immunity to the vector, so when it's time to introduce the booster, it's rebuffed by the immune response to the adenovirus portion.

mRNA vaccines don't have this issue.

They don't have that problem because of decades of prior research developing ways to avoid that problem, and get the mRNA into cells without over-stimulating (or under-stimulating) the immune system. 'Naked' mRNA does actually trigger a strong immune response.

/ See, I read about 20% of a review article, so I'm an expert on the topic
// https://www.nature.com/articles/nrd​.2017.243


Thanks for the link, interesting!
 
2020-11-23 1:19:09 PM  

Khellendros: jayphat: tuxq: For a little perspective, the annual flu vaccine has a 40-70% efficacy. So.. being on the best-case-scenario side of the flu vaccine isn't awful.

It can vary even more than that. That's the average. In 2016(IIRC) the effective rate was 22% because they predicted the wrong prevailing strain.

The flu vaccine has the advantage of greatly reducing severity of the disease even if they select the wrong strains.  In those cases, even "ineffective" inoculation results in saved lives and costs.  I don't know if we have any data yet on whether these Covid vaccines have an effect on severity yet.  Hopefully it does.


I should have added that tidbit, thank you for doing it for me.
 
2020-11-23 1:23:09 PM  

poconojoe: as somebody who has owned his fair share of Chrysler products over the years... nice job subby


Well, you are going to have to show "your papers please" to go to certain places soon enough. Why do you want people to die because of your fear?
 
2020-11-23 1:24:23 PM  

grokca: A nice Reliant Vaccine.


More like The K-Vaccine.
 
2020-11-23 1:25:05 PM  

robodog: 90% effective is great because they can create 3B doses in 2021. If it takes 1.5 doses to reach that 90% then they can vaccinate 2B people at 90% efficacy. When combined with the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines that we are at enough capacity to vaccinate about half the world's population at 90+% efficacy by the end of 2021 which will be amazing.


That just leaves about 5 billion to go.
 
2020-11-23 1:25:29 PM  
"If you can find a better vaccine, take it".
 
2020-11-23 1:26:37 PM  
Hopefully everyone is doing their part to keep ICU occupancy down by getting a flu vaccine as well.
 
2020-11-23 1:26:53 PM  

StoPPeRmobile: grokca: A nice Reliant Vaccine.

More like The K-Vaccine.


It'll go well with our K-recovery, I hear.
 
2020-11-23 1:29:33 PM  
I'll talk all three and chase 'em with a shot of Jager.

/it's medicinal
 
2020-11-23 1:30:35 PM  

goodncold: ChiliBoots: I hereby demand that I be given a Fark account: Tr0mBoNe: One showed an effectiveness of 90% when trial participants received a half dose, followed by a full dose at least one month apart.
The other dosing regimen showed 62% efficacy when given as two full doses at least one month apart.

That's... interesting.

Interesting bordering on WTF?

I think we need to hold off on this particular vaccine until more data comes in and if this hold, a solid explanation of why the 1/2->1 dosing is so much more effective than 1->1 dosing.

Doubly so when none of the other candidates has shown a pattern like this so far.

The Oxford vaccine is an adenovirus vectored vaccine as opposed to the mRNA vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna. The major issue with vectored vaccines is pre-existing immunity to the vector portion so that the payload bits can't gain access to the immunological machinery. I'd hypothesize that the higher prime dose induces too great of an immunity to the vector, so when it's time to introduce the booster, it's rebuffed by the immune response to the adenovirus portion.

mRNA vaccines don't have this issue.

The downside to the mRNA vaccines is that these will be the first ones to be used massively on humans and are the first ones to basically operate at the genetic level.

So...you could be saved...or you could be turned into crab people.


Did-a-chak, did-a-chum
 
2020-11-23 1:36:15 PM  
Seventy percent of the time works every time?
 
2020-11-23 1:54:30 PM  

QFarker: Does anyone know ... do they actually expose people to the virus after they get the vaccine?  Or are they just letting nature take it's course?

Because last I heard, only about 15% of the population has been infected, which could be taken to mean doing nothing so far has been 85% effective at not getting Covid.   ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


If you can do elementary level math, you can understand how they calculate vaccine efficacy.

Take 20,000 people who are all of roughly equal likelihood to catch the virus (same masking, isolating, hygiene practices, living and work conditions, etc). Vaccinate half of them, give the other half a placebo. Check back a while later. If the 10,000 people you vaccinated have 10 cases of the disease while your control (unvaccinated) group has 100 cases, your vaccine stopped 90% of cases.
 
2020-11-23 2:04:56 PM  

Tr0mBoNe: One showed an effectiveness of 90% when trial participants received a half dose, followed by a full dose at least one month apart.
The other dosing regimen showed 62% efficacy when given as two full doses at least one month apart.

That's... interesting.


A bit of a puzzle and the developers recognize this.  At the very least, it increases the number of people who can be inoculated by 1/3 for a given quantity of vaccine.

It would be interesting if this applied to other vaccines.
 
2020-11-23 2:08:30 PM  
Already got the AstraZeneca vaccine, and am bummed at these results. Still better than no vaccine.
 
2020-11-23 2:19:13 PM  
Sounds more like a Yugo.
 
2020-11-23 3:09:33 PM  
From the "are you farking kidding me?" department...

Dosing error turns into lucky punch for AstraZeneca and Oxford
 
2020-11-23 3:45:00 PM  

Ishidan: Izunbacol: It's the COVID vaccine for people with no degree and low credit scores?

Apparently its saving grace is ease of transport.

The other guys:  90 percent effective, IF you can keep it deep frozen from lab to clinic and the clinic has a deep freezer that can keep it until the day of use.

This:  Less effective but can be stored in a standard lab freezer.

Considering that poor or rural areas are the places that are unlikely to have full cryo containments therefore will have to pick the one they can actually transport... that's a yes.


This is 90% effective at one of the two dosing schedules, obviously based on the results they will use that schedule for the widescale vaccination, that is why they do Phase 3 trials, to gather data.
The other two are 95% effective based on preliminary data, but based on the non-placebo group being spit in two for this test it could also be 95% effective but there's a much smaller sample size and so the data could only provide 90% effective with much larger margin of error bars than the two mRNA vaccines. It will be interesting to see what data comes when they unblind the study and give the 1/2-1 combination to the placebo group.

Also don't forget that accessibility will be important across large swaths of the world, $2/dose ($3/patient) represents a very real cost to much of the world, not to mention the people, transportation, and other distributions costs. For those in the bottom 50% of the global income scale $64 is a significant percentage of their annual wage, there's no way they can afford that so unless someone comes up with ~$400B to give away and distribute the vaccine to the poorest people there is a solid need for an inexpensive vaccine even if it's a few percentage points lower in effectiveness.
 
2020-11-23 3:51:19 PM  

BourbonOnIce9: Already got the AstraZeneca vaccine, and am bummed at these results. Still better than no vaccine.


If you got the 1/2-1 schedule there's nothing to be bummed about, 90% efficacy with a large confidence bar isn't significantly worse than 95% efficacy with somewhat tighter confidence bars. Now if you find out you were in the 1:1 group you're still way ahead of the general population but you might want to pick up a different vaccine or perhaps even a booster of the AstraZeneca vaccine.
 
2020-11-23 3:56:11 PM  
Oh, yeah, right, third best....
https://www.theguardian.com/world/202​0​/nov/23/coronavirus-scientists-develop​ed-oxford-vaccine-at-breakneck-speed

Notice the chart down a page, and now many tests on the vaccines in phase 3.....
 
2020-11-23 4:01:24 PM  

Ivo Shandor: From the "are you farking kidding me?" department...

Dosing error turns into lucky punch for AstraZeneca and Oxford


That is very interesting, I assumed it was intentional...
 
2020-11-23 4:09:48 PM  

Ivo Shandor: From the "are you farking kidding me?" department...

Dosing error turns into lucky punch for AstraZeneca and Oxford


Wow. This can only be the work of time travelers who want to provide a gentle guiding hand without it being totally obvious someone's farking with the timeline.
 
2020-11-23 4:45:29 PM  

kevlar51: Honestly, 70% would normally be viewed as pretty damn good, as far as vaccines go. Flu vaccines typically come in at 60%. It's just overshadowed by the 90-95 percenters.


AstraZeneca vaccine is much cheaper and can be kept in a fridge. It will be the better option for remoter locations.
 
2020-11-23 5:12:43 PM  

Archy Medes: kevlar51: Honestly, 70% would normally be viewed as pretty damn good, as far as vaccines go. Flu vaccines typically come in at 60%. It's just overshadowed by the 90-95 percenters.

AstraZeneca vaccine is much cheaper and can be kept in a fridge. It will be the better option for remoter locations.


Heck, if it's available it will be the best for wherever you can get it. Even with all 3 approved vaccines in full production there's still only enough capacity to vaccinate about half the world's population by the end of 2021. Based on these results I'll take whichever of the 3 is available to me first since they'll be sure to to use the 90% effective dosing strategy.
 
2020-11-23 7:29:00 PM  
It gets a government bail out?
 
2020-11-23 7:37:18 PM  

I hereby demand that I be given a Fark account: How they're getting an average of 70% out of 90% and 62% is unknown, it may be the overall average and there were more candidates in one dosing regime than the other, but a straight average is 76%.


The number reported on UK radio this morning was 76% - I think this article is rounding too much.
 
2020-11-23 7:40:27 PM  

Khellendros: I don't know if we have any data yet on whether these Covid vaccines have an effect on severity yet.


The new vaccine reduced severity in all cases (there were no serious cases or hospitalisations) even when it didn't prevent infection. It is a pretty effective "no one dies" vaccine.
 
2020-11-23 7:45:31 PM  

Archy Medes: AstraZeneca vaccine is much cheaper and can be kept in a fridge. It will be the better option for remoter locations.


Anyone who is wondering what "much cheaper" means - the AstraZeneca vaccine is 10% of the cost of the others, running at $3 per dose (I guess $4.50 if you have an initial half-dose) compared with $32+ for the others.

That said, the US hospital system will probably charge you $500 a dose anyway, so maybe not an issue to be concerned about.
 
2020-11-23 8:04:53 PM  

BarryJV: I hereby demand that I be given a Fark account: How they're getting an average of 70% out of 90% and 62% is unknown, it may be the overall average and there were more candidates in one dosing regime than the other, but a straight average is 76%.

The number reported on UK radio this morning was 76% - I think this article is rounding too much


And rounding incorrectly, 76% would round to 80%.
 
2020-11-23 9:21:28 PM  

BarryJV: That said, the US hospital system will probably charge you $500 a dose anyway, so maybe not an issue to be concerned about.


Yeah but it's okay because as long as you've got good health insurance, they'll cover it.  After a $100 copay, $100 out-of-network upcharge, $5000 deductible...
 
Displayed 50 of 103 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.