OV9

Simon wrote: Thu Dec 31, 2020 7:50 pm The problem is that that hasn't been tested. It's guesswork.

Simon wrote: Thu Dec 31, 2020 5:56 pm Interesting. Do you know what the placebo was? Have you grown a third arm or anything weird?

Marv wrote: Fri Jan 01, 2021 12:00 am

Simon wrote: Thu Dec 31, 2020 5:56 pm Interesting. Do you know what the placebo was? Have you grown a third arm or anything weird?

Think they used a meningitis vaccine as the placebo control on the AZ/Oxford trial.

Explosive Newt wrote: Fri Jan 01, 2021 11:26 am The vaccine delay thing is contentious to say the least but I think I have seen enough evidence to be convinced.

1. Because of the way the Oxford trial was designed then redesigned, there is data showing that a longer duration is just as efficacious. Originally, it was set up as a single dose study before they realised a booster would most likely help and half the early cohort were given a booster at around the 8-12 week mark. From these guys we have actually proven that the antibody response seems stronger the longer you wait.

2. In fact, that is true of all the other vaccines out there. Most of the data points towards vaccines that need boosters having greater efficacy if boosted at 8-12 weeks. At 3 weeks, the B-cell (subset of white blood cells which produce antibodies) response to the first dose is not yet complete: i.e. they are still being produced and you haven’t reached peak numbers yet. You maximise the response by stimulating the maximal number of cells.

3. There is an epidemiological argument for having twice as many people with 80% immunity rather than a cohort with 95%.

The big bottleneck is going to be recruiting enough vaccinators, I fear.

Marv wrote: Fri Jan 01, 2021 2:54 pm Wonder if the first dose will be a full dose, or a half dose?...as the effectiveness of the AZ/Oxford vaccine was greater if the first dose was a half dose, right?

Unless they've tweaked the vaccine since then?

Explosive Newt wrote: Fri Jan 01, 2021 11:26 am The vaccine delay thing is contentious to say the least but I think I have seen enough evidence to be convinced.

1. Because of the way the Oxford trial was designed then redesigned, there is data showing that a longer duration is just as efficacious. Originally, it was set up as a single dose study before they realised a booster would most likely help and half the early cohort were given a booster at around the 8-12 week mark. From these guys we have actually proven that the antibody response seems stronger the longer you wait.

2. In fact, that is true of all the other vaccines out there. Most of the data points towards vaccines that need boosters having greater efficacy if boosted at 8-12 weeks. At 3 weeks, the B-cell (subset of white blood cells which produce antibodies) response to the first dose is not yet complete: i.e. they are still being produced and you haven’t reached peak numbers yet. You maximise the response by stimulating the maximal number of cells.

3. There is an epidemiological argument for having twice as many people with 80% immunity rather than a cohort with 95%.

The big bottleneck is going to be recruiting enough vaccinators, I fear.

duncs500 wrote: Mon Jan 04, 2021 8:37 am

Back to work today, I've been off for a month, but there has definitely been a noticeable jump in reported cases/quarantine around work in and around the Christmas break. That new strain must be kicking in, wouldn't be surprised if we have a full blown outbreak in a week or two.

Mito Man wrote: Mon Jan 04, 2021 2:36 pm Wonder how long before Boris follows. I’d rather he got on and gave us a date instead of saying “in due course” all the time.

duncs500 wrote: Mon Jan 04, 2021 2:38 pm

Mito Man wrote: Mon Jan 04, 2021 2:36 pm Wonder how long before Boris follows. I’d rather he got on and gave us a date instead of saying “in due course” all the time.

... but then he can't do it without any warning or time for anyone to prepare. He likes the theatre of "from midnight tonight".