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 (19 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

 
2020-11-23 11:20:07 AM  
22 votes:
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.
 
2020-11-23 11:55:32 AM  
20 votes:
It really must suck to poor millions\billions into research, to accomplish a task most were saying was impossible (6 months ago, saying that you would make a 70% effective vaccine before December would have been met with standing ovations), only to get a 'Well, at least you tried' ribbon.
 
2020-11-23 11:03:15 AM  
16 votes:
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.
 
2020-11-23 12:05:47 PM  
13 votes:

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.


So it's 90% effective with the correct dosage.  Averting the two numbers is just stupid.

Misleading headline is misleading.
 
2020-11-23 12:00:15 PM  
13 votes:
The key property of the Oxford vaccine is that it just needs normal refrigeration rather than super-freezing, so will be much better in Africa and other less developed nations.
 
2020-11-23 12:19:45 PM  
11 votes:

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.
 
2020-11-23 10:12:19 AM  
10 votes:
All the sensors will blow out at 50,000 miles?
 
2020-11-23 12:01:56 PM  
7 votes:
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-11-23 12:03:49 PM  
6 votes:
70% percent isn't bad, as vaccines go... honestly those 95% numbers probably aren't gonna hold, but you should still get vaccinated (I will too!) even if you see numbers in that 70-80% range.

Additionally, transportability and lack of ultra-cold strorage are going to be issues for the other vaccines, so in some places, the tradeoff may be a slightly lower efficacy rate, but the ability to actually deliver the vaccine... in parts of the world where they don't have electricity, 94 degree below zero freezers aren't going to be a thing... hell, they're not exactly common in the rest of the world either.

The key is remembering vaccines are just one *layer* of your defense strategy... they're super good, but you still need to wear a mask (over your nose and mouth!), stay at home as much as possible, avoid gatherings with people from multiple homes, wash your farking hands! We can get through this, but only if we're patient, persistent, and clean until there's sufficient immunity out there, and good vaccination rates overall.
 
2020-11-23 12:46:19 PM  
5 votes:
"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 12:13:20 PM  
5 votes:

GoodHomer: 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.

Headline is misleading.

A one-stage use of it is 70% effective. But when you do the first-second stages it's 90%, so pretty good.


Nope. Both were two dose courses.

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

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%.
 
2020-11-23 11:59:29 AM  
5 votes:

taintbaggins: [Fark user image 425x253]


Fark user imageView Full Size


An American Trabant!


/ shiny metal boxes, etc.
 
2020-11-23 12:26:04 PM  
4 votes:

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/nr​d.20​17.243
 
2020-11-23 12:05:11 PM  
4 votes:

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.


The last gen Shingles vaccine was 55% effective. What was considered acceptable. The Shingrix vaccine is 97% effective. That is considered a god damned miracle. No wonder every carrier under the sun wants to pay for it. It's stupid effective and far cheaper than paying for a shingles outbreak.
 
2020-11-23 12:00:21 PM  
4 votes:
A nice Reliant Vaccine.
 
2020-11-23 11:51:51 AM  
4 votes:
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.
 
2020-11-23 10:02:19 AM  
4 votes:
...it's filled with soft Corinthian leather and delivered by Ricardo Montalban?
 
2020-11-23 12:33:42 PM  
3 votes:

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 12:21:51 PM  
3 votes:

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.


It's actually not all that surprising, and there are good biological reasons why they even tested that: They use a weak virus to spread the DNA that will produce the coronavirus antigens - but your body also develops immunity to that virus. People who develop too strong of an immunity to that virus "fight off" the second dose of the vaccine before it can have its desired effects.
 
2020-11-23 12:16:18 PM  
3 votes:

SwiftFox: FirstNationalBastard: ...it's filled with soft Corinthian leather and delivered by Ricardo Montalban?

Rich Corinthian leather.  Which there was no such thing as.


Sometimes he said "Soft Corinthian Leather."  Othertimes, "Fine Corinthian Leather"

Famous Chrysler Cordoba Commercial with Ricardo Montalban!!
Youtube tfKHBB4vt4c


/it came from Newark, NJ
 
2020-11-23 12:09:29 PM  
3 votes:

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.


Headline is misleading.

A one-stage use of it is 70% effective. But when you do the first-second stages it's 90%, so pretty good.
 
2020-11-23 12:04:53 PM  
3 votes:

Billy69: The key property of the Oxford vaccine is that it just needs normal refrigeration rather than super-freezing, so will be much better in Africa and other less developed nations.


Super useful for developed nations too as the existing vaccination infrastructure in hospitals and gp surgeries is suitable for transportation and storage. No requirement to make, distribute and install additional storage. Massive win.
 
2020-11-23 12:02:37 PM  
3 votes:
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.
 
2020-11-23 11:55:28 AM  
3 votes:

FirstNationalBastard: ...it's filled with soft Corinthian leather and delivered by Ricardo Montalban?


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


No, no. It will be "The Best You Can Get".
 
2020-11-23 4:09:48 PM  
2 votes:

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 12:38:03 PM  
2 votes:
It still beats taking the bus.
 
2020-11-23 12:34:10 PM  
2 votes:

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 12:32:07 PM  
2 votes:

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 12:29:06 PM  
2 votes:

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.
 
2020-11-23 12:10:22 PM  
2 votes:

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.
 
2020-11-23 11:58:36 AM  
2 votes:

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.


This sounds like the way to go, plus.... more people can be treated.
 
2020-11-23 11:57:08 AM  
2 votes:
as somebody who has owned his fair share of Chrysler products over the years... nice job subby
 
2020-11-23 7:40:27 PM  
1 vote:

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 7:29:00 PM  
1 vote:
It gets a government bail out?
 
2020-11-23 4:45:29 PM  
1 vote:

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 3:09:33 PM  
1 vote:
From the "are you farking kidding me?" department...

Dosing error turns into lucky punch for AstraZeneca and Oxford
 
2020-11-23 2:04:56 PM  
1 vote:

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 1:36:15 PM  
1 vote:
Seventy percent of the time works every time?
 
2020-11-23 1:24:23 PM  
1 vote:

grokca: A nice Reliant Vaccine.


More like The K-Vaccine.
 
2020-11-23 12:52:55 PM  
1 vote:

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 12:45:50 PM  
1 vote:

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 12:40:09 PM  
1 vote:

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 12:36:23 PM  
1 vote:
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 12:30:55 PM  
1 vote:

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


After six years, your transmission will need replacing.
 
2020-11-23 12:29:48 PM  
1 vote:
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 12:14:11 PM  
1 vote:

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.


The 70% number is still very preliminary. It could increase as the data are further reviewed.
 
2020-11-23 12:11:18 PM  
1 vote:

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.
 
2020-11-23 12:10:44 PM  
1 vote:

SwiftFox: FirstNationalBastard: ...it's filled with soft Corinthian leather and delivered by Ricardo Montalban?

Rich Corinthian leather.  Which there was no such thing as.


Nope.

He never speaks the words "Rich Corinthian leather".

https://www.libertyleathergoods.com/c​o​rinthian-leather/
 
2020-11-23 12:02:39 PM  
1 vote:
Bench seating in the front to more easily get road head?
 
2020-11-23 12:01:29 PM  
1 vote:
They make awesome minivans...
 
2020-11-23 11:56:46 AM  
1 vote:
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-11-23 11:55:08 AM  
1 vote:
Appealing only to a few people?
 
Displayed 52 of 52 comments

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.