11 ms·

Coronavirus: Oxford vaccine triggers immune response

415 points by ceocoder 6y ago

ceocoder 6y ago
” Levels of T cells peaked 14 days after vaccination and antibody levels peaked after 28 days. The study has not run for long enough to understand what long-term immunity may look like.” ”Is it safe? Yes, but there are side-effects. There were no dangerous side-effects from taking the vaccine, however, 70% of people on the trial developed either fever or headache. The researchers say this could be managed with paracetamol.” This sounds like really good news, anyone with medical background disseminate this further? Edit: here is the lancet article posted on /r/COVID19 sub and extract https://www.thelancet.com/lancet/article/s0140-6736(20)31604-4 https://www.thelancet.com/lancet/article/s0140-6736(20)31604... Background: The pandemic of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) might be curtailed by vaccination. We assessed the safety, reactogenicity, and immunogenicity of a viral vectored coronavirus vaccine that expresses the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2. Methods We did a phase 1/2, single-blind, randomised controlled trial in five trial sites in the UK of a chimpanzee adenovirus-vectored vaccine (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19) expressing the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein compared with a meningococcal conjugate vaccine (MenACWY) as control. Healthy adults aged 18–55 years with no history of laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection or of COVID-19-like symptoms were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 at a dose of 5×10¹⁰ viral particles or MenACWY as a single intramuscular injection. A protocol amendment in two of the five sites allowed prophylactic paracetamol to be administered before vaccination. Ten participants assigned to a non-randomised, unblinded ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 prime-boost group received a two-dose schedule, with the booster vaccine administered 28 days after the first dose. Humoral responses at baseline and following vaccination were assessed using a standardised total IgG ELISA against trimeric SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, a muliplexed immunoassay, three live SARS-CoV-2 neutralisation assays (a 50% plaque reduction neutralisation assay [PRNT50]; a microneutralisation assay [MNA50, MNA80, and MNA90]; and Marburg VN), and a pseudovirus neutralisation assay. Cellular responses were assessed using an ex-vivo interferon-γ enzyme-linked immunospot assay. The co-primary outcomes are to assess efficacy, as measured by cases of symptomatic virologically confirmed COVID-19, and safety, as measured by the occurrence of serious adverse events. Analyses were done by group allocation in participants who received the vaccine. Safety was assessed over 28 days after vaccination. Here, we report the preliminary findings on safety, reactogenicity, and cellular and humoral immune responses. The study is ongoing, and was registered at ISRCTN, 15281137, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606. Findings Between April 23 and May 21, 2020, 1077 participants were enrolled and assigned to receive either ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (n=543) or MenACWY (n=534), ten of whom were enrolled in the non-randomised ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 prime-boost group. Local and systemic reactions were more common in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and many were reduced by use of prophylactic paracetamol, including pain, feeling feverish, chills, muscle ache, headache, and malaise (all p<0·05). There were no serious adverse events related to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19. In the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, spike-specific T-cell responses peaked on day 14 (median 856 spot-forming cells per million peripheral blood mononuclear cells, IQR 493–1802; n=43). Anti-spike IgG responses rose by day 28 (median 157 ELISA units [EU], 96–317; n=127), and were boosted following a second dose (639 EU, 360–792; n=10). Neutralising antibody responses against SARS-CoV-2 were detected in 32 (91%) of 35 participants after a single dose when measured in MNA80 and in 35 (100%) participants when measured in PRNT50. After a booster dose, all participants had neutralising activity (nine of nine in MNA80 at day 42 and ten of ten in Marburg VN on day 56). Neutralising antibody responses correlated strongly with antibody levels measured by ELISA (R²=0·67 by Marburg VN; p<0·001). Interpretation ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 showed an acceptable safety profile, and homologous boosting increased antibody responses. These results, together with the induction of both humoral and cellular immune responses, support largescale evaluation of this candidate vaccine in an ongoing phase 3 programme.
justforfunhere 6y ago
Oxford vaccine is among the front runners. This is really good news. They plan to finish their final trials before October this year. If all goes well, we should be looking at major relief by this year's end.
- coldpie 6y ago
  That's unrealistically optimistic. The best case scenarios I've heard have it being deployed to healthcare workers late this year, and then hopefully be made available across the globe to approach the herd immunity threshold by the end of 2021, at least in some countries/communities. End of 2021 is an optimistic timeline to be talking about "major relief", and that's assuming no one messes with vaccine availability... Until then, we all need to take this extremely seriously and do everything we can to prevent spread.
  - jryle70 6y ago
    They plan to make a million doses available by September, possibly more: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-oxford-vaccine-res/over-a-million-doses-of-oxford-astrazeneca-covid-19-vaccine-possible-by-september-researcher-idUSKCN24L1TW https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-oxford...
    - thsowers 6y ago
      Is a million doses "major relief"?
      - fuhrysteve 6y ago
        Certainly not, but considering there should be 100M available by the end of the year, it seems like they are scaling up the production line considerably
    - ashconnor 6y ago
      That just about covers NHS employees.
Roonerelli 6y ago
one thing about the Oxford vaccine is that when vaccinated you are still able to pass on the virus , despite having the anti-bodies to fight it. It's excellent news nonetheless edited with some references https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/doubts-oxford-vaccine-fails-stop-coronavirus-animal-trials/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-diseas... https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/coronavirus-vaccine-oxford-trials-concerns-transmission-astrazeneca-latest-a9521241.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/coronavirus-vaccin...
- djsumdog 6y ago
  Why is that the case with the Oxford vaccine? Can you elaborate?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - t2riRXawYxLGGYb 6y ago
    I'm curious what they meant as well. Perhaps what they meant was the potential period where the virus is replicating in the body before the immune system detects it and kills it. I suppose even someone with the vaccine would have a very short-lived period of viral replication? Or perhaps they simply meant that humans could be fomites (eg, it gets on someone's hand, then they shake your hand, etc?) Honestly I'm just guessing here. I suspect this is not a real concern.
- CyanLite2 6y ago
  This is a little bit of a misnomer. Anybody can pass on the virus. If you have it in your nose and you sneeze, you'll spread it everywhere. If you have it on your hands and you touch high-traffic surface areas, you'll spread it. The point is that if a high number of people are vaccinated, then it won't matter if the virus fragments are spread, as long as it's not causing disease then it doesn't matter.
- zwily 6y ago
  That was true for the monkeys that were challenged with huge viral loads. We don’t know if it will still be true for humans who encounter normal loads.
axegon_ 6y ago
At 1077, this is indeed a promising result. I genuinely hope this isn't yet another marketing stunt(of which we've seen a lot lately). Mind you, > The vaccine - called ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 - is being developed at unprecedented speed. Seriously? Did they ask a 9 year old to pick a nickname?
- Rexxar 6y ago
  My first thought when I saw the name : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Les_Shadoks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Les_Shadoks
  - lifeisstillgood 6y ago
    >> "When one tries continuously, one ends up succeeding. Thus, the more one fails, the greater the chance that it will work." Philosophy of French '60s cartoon birds eerily similar to modern software development methodologies
- ArgyleSound 6y ago
  Lol, it stands for Chimpanzee Adenovirus Oxford. Not too unconventional a name.
- bagpuss 6y ago
  Chimpanzee Adenovirus Oxford type 1 the 'nickname' follows a standard nomenclature for this kind of thing. Chadox does sound like a new brand of underarm deodorant though
- jpxw 6y ago
  It stands for the Chad Oxford vaccine (as opposed to the virgin Oxford vaccine)
djsumdog 6y ago
It seems like they tested for antibodies, but this article makes no mention of challenges to the real virus. It's important to remember that vaccines for previous coronaviruses (SARS/MERS) had reports of generating anitbodies, but also causing immunopathic responses or immune enhancement syndrome: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3335060/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3335060/ https://www.pnas.org/content/117/15/8218 https://www.pnas.org/content/117/15/8218 >Is it safe? It's really really to early to say yes or no, and the fact that the article tries to make a claim either way, is worrying. Vaccines for new families of viruses traditionally take years or decades to develop. We still don't have vaccines for retroviruses like HIV/Herpes (and it may not be possible due to the nature of those viruses). I've had all my vaccinations; I'm not an anti-vaxer. But I do have concerns on trying to push out any novel vaccine in less than two years without adequate testing. Although this virus has killed many, the risk factor for it is nowhere near high enough to warrant an emergency vaccine. There are trials underway for inhaled steroids that look very promising, and there's a good chance this virus will burn out in our population long before a truly safe vaccine comes to market. Having a viable treatment option seems much more valuable and safer than vaccinations in this particular case.
- Trasmatta 6y ago
  > We still don't have vaccines for retroviruses like HIV/Herpes HIV is so fundamentally different that it doesn't make sense to include it as a comparison here. > there's a good chance this virus will burn out in our population long before a truly safe vaccine comes to market. The virus isn't just going to "burn out" anytime soon. 143k deaths in the US already, and we likely haven't even hit 10% of the population being infected yet. Treatments will help pull the death rate downwards, but without a vaccine we're likely looking at multiple hundreds of thousands more deaths.
  - djsumdog 6y ago
    > HIV is so fundamentally different Coronaviruses are very different. We've rarely had any this deadly before. All vaccines are different; they're not one blanket thing. Smallpox vaccines are attenuated virus (a virus that has mutated to be benign in humans; in the case of Smallpox, the first vaccine by Jenner was injecting people with Horsepox). Most Influenza vaccines are heat treated/inactivated virus. In all cases, vaccines try to produce antibodies and force our immune systems to develop a memory for a virus we haven't actually been exposed to. As shown in the links above, this might not work at all for coronavirus. To some extent, the actual interactions of vaccines, are somewhat opaque. This In A Nutshell video shows a very small part of the adaptive immune system, greatly simplified: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSypUV6QUNw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSypUV6QUNw > The virus isn't just going to "burn out" anytime soon Exponential growth doesn't go on forever. It has to hit an inflection point: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kas0tIxDvrg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kas0tIxDvrg The more deadly a virus is, the faster it does burn out. It runs out of hosts to infect or everyone develops an immunity. SARS/MERS may have had lower outbreaks because of how much more dangerous they were. If you graph fatalities on a logarithmic scale, you'll see we're already well past the inflection point in the US: https://aatishb.com/covidtrends/?data=deaths https://aatishb.com/covidtrends/?data=deaths The cases are going up, but the fatalities are not, indicating there may be a lot of over-counting. Keep in mind people who test positive but die of a car wreck are counted as COVID19. All these people getting surgery after 3 months are required to get tested just for their surgery, and a positive antibody test counts as an active case, even if they're not sick or have the virus at all. It's so bad in the UK they've stopped reporting fatality numbers due to issues with the data.
heidar 6y ago
At this point I'm becoming more worried about distribution rather than finding a working vaccine. One in six people (in the UK) said they'd refuse a vaccine if it became available, and another one in six weren't sure. (YouGov poll) It might make distribution to reach herd immunity difficult.
- EnderMB 6y ago
  I might be wrong on this, but wouldn't that still be fine in order to achieve herd immunity? I distinctly remember reading something that said 60% was the minimum threshold required to ensure that the virus spread as a greatly reduced rate.
  - coldpie 6y ago
    It's all estimates, of course, but there's some good reading about what factors effect the herd immunity threshold here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity#Mechanics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity#Mechanics They estimate 50-83% vaccination threshold to achieve herd immunity for COVID-19. I believe the citation is this study, but I admit my ability to read scientific papers is lacking: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32433946/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32433946/
  - zmk_ 6y ago
    Right now they are saying that 95% had a substantial immune response. But we do not know whether it is substantial enough and lasting enough. Imagine that it is both for less than 70% of vaccinated. 5/6*0.7<0.6 (and yes, 0.7 is to prove a point).
- bengale 6y ago
  We need more information than that poll. Someone unwilling to take a brand new vaccine is not inherently the same as some loony anti-vaccer. It’s not obvious to me that it would be sensible to be first inline for one of these vaccines that have been developed so quickly.
  - scurvy 6y ago
blackbear_ 6y ago
Good, but the real question is whether the immune system will "remember" the vaccine for long enough. From [1]: > Although the magnitude of neutralizing antibody (nAb) responses correlated with disease severity, there was a rapid decline in nAb titres in most patients within 3 months after onset of symptoms. [...] However, the consequences on secondary immune responses and their ability to prevent reinfection remain to be determined. [1]: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41577-020-0405-3 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41577-020-0405-3
- CyanLite2 6y ago
  nAbs don't last forever, for any infectious virus. That's what T-Cells and B-Cells are for. This vaccine showed a T-Cell response, which means it SHOULD last long enough. T-Cells from SARS survivors have lasted 11+ years. But we won't know until 2-3 years from now. We can't wait that long. I say ship it to production now, and do a v2.0 release later.
  - skunkworker 6y ago
    Here’s a source if anyone’s interested. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2550-z https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2550-z
    - blackbear_ 6y ago
      Very interesting, thank you!
  - zmk_ 6y ago
    This is a very dangerous approach and would just add fuel to the antivax fire. Even if drugs/vaccines are effective that does not mean that they do not come with severe side effects. Imagine injecting the whole population with Thalidomide...
    - objektif 6y ago
      Obviously nobody will force you to get the vaccine. A lot of people will be ready to take the minimal amount of risk. I assume you are not forced to work from home while taking care of kids at the same time :)
hank_z 6y ago
I am wondering how the vaccine genetically impacts on these people who are already recovered from Covid-19.
- wycy 6y ago
  I would imagine that people who've already recovered from covid-19 wouldn't need/get a vaccine, but I am not a doctor.
  - linuxftw 6y ago
    Not everyone that (allegedly) gets the vaccine develops antibodies because there are other components of the immune system that destroy the infection prior to the need of developing antibodies. Even in those that do develop antibodies, they are finding those antibodies are undetectable after some short time period.
  - hank_z 6y ago
    I understand that. I am not a doctor either. Let me rephrase my question more concretely and hopefully someone can answer it. I am curious to know whether the immunity to covid-19 will become stronger or weaker if those people who've already recovered from covid-19 get a vaccine.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 6y ago
    > people who've already recovered from covid-19 wouldn't need/get a vaccine, It is not known how long immunity from having covid-19 lasts, and there have already been a few cases of apparent re-infection. So yes, they would likely benefit from a vaccine. https://www.vox.com/2020/7/12/21321653/getting-covid-19-twice-reinfection-antibody-herd-immunity https://www.vox.com/2020/7/12/21321653/getting-covid-19-twic... https://www.timesofisrael.com/israeli-doctor-diagnosed-with-virus-after-apparently-recovering-from-covid-19/ https://www.timesofisrael.com/israeli-doctor-diagnosed-with-...
    - hank_z 6y ago
      Terrible. I thought the immunity would last forever.
aaisola 6y ago
My understanding is that with the flu shot scientists and epidemiologists essentially make an educated guess as to which strains are going to be prevalent in a particular year. Why is COVID-19 different where the expectation is that one vaccine will prove a panacea. The virus has already shown that it can mutate similar to the flu vaccine.
- jeherr 6y ago
  Influenza is a family of related viruses. COVID-19 is actually the disease caused by the virus. SARS-CoV-2 is the actual virus, and it is only a single virus in the family of coronaviruses. Other coronaviruses include SARS-CoV, MERS-CoV, and a host of others which just cause a subset of the common cold. This should be compared more to something like the H1N1 outbreak, which was a single influenza virus that was particularly deadly for some subset of people. That was just one type of influenza.
  - jjcon 6y ago
    Stupid question - why will a coronavirus vaccine take so long even when they say people are working at an incredible pace if we can produce a new flu vaccine each year? Are scientists guessing strains multiple years in advance so there is time to produce a vaccine or something?
    - KaiserPro 6y ago
      Its not stupid. Its a new vaccine, to treat a new virus thats is in a class of virus thats never had a vaccine. if that makes any sense? the yearly flu vaccines are tweaks to an already understood vaccine, (minor releases) Sometimes there are major releases but thats for a jab that targets a different class of flu (h5n1 vs h1n2) this is an entirely new vaccine, for a virus that has never had a vaccine, so its more like a v1.0 release on a new platform.
    - selectodude 6y ago
      The flu vaccine is simply deactivated flu virus that is grown in eggs. The big issue here is that coronavirus is “smart” enough to not reproduce in eggs.
Vysero 6y ago
I mean all of this sounds so great, but at the same time my inner millennial brain can't help, but go directly to 'I am Legend' XD Please dear god let this be a wonderful, and amazing cure, and not the beginning of the zombie apocalypse.
- Vysero 6y ago
  Please note, if you can't see that this was a joke you might have a serious problem, and should seek help.
amluto 6y ago
The actual paper: https://marlin-prod.literatumonline.com/pb-assets/Lancet/pdfs/S0140673620316044.pdf https://marlin-prod.literatumonline.com/pb-assets/Lancet/pdf...
kashyapc 6y ago
Also notice this trade-off [edit: I'm saying this with a neutral tone, and not implying anything, so that a more informed person can elaborate on it]: [quote] Is it safe? Yes, but there are side-effects. There were no dangerous side-effects from taking the vaccine, however, 70% of people on the trial developed either fever or headache. The researchers say this could be managed with paracetamol. [/quote] Unrelated PS: What's the deal with these one-sentence "paragraphs", BBC? I think I know the answer: it is the "modern medicine" for lack of attention spans. (What about the side effects to this...) Unrelated PS-2: I didn't notice that someone else here has already quoted the above part. Sorry for the duplication.
- mghfreud 6y ago
  Don't the regular flu vaccines have the same side effects?
  - kashyapc 6y ago
    I'm not denying it; just merely noting it, hoping more clueful people than me can comment on it :-)
  - coredog64 6y ago
    Yes. Although I know intellectually that I should get an annual flu shot, my animal brain kicks in every time to remind me that I feel crappy for a day or three after each one.
- bb123 6y ago
  The BBC style guide suggests breaking up paragraphs and using bullet points like this as they are easier to read on a digital screen than dense paragraphs of text: https://www.bbc.co.uk/academy/en/articles/art20131010112740749 https://www.bbc.co.uk/academy/en/articles/art201310101127407...
  - kashyapc 6y ago
    Ah, thanks for the pointer; I can understand that reasoning. But I hope that doesn't really get stretched too far.
adrianmonk 6y ago
> ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 If I didn't have the context of 2020 and this article, I would swear that was an auto-generated random password.
- ceocoder 6y ago
  may be in 10 years this will become our new correct horse battery staple
- chapium 6y ago
  ChAdOx1 would certainly make a good IRC handle.
  - Symmetry 6y ago
    And then there are the "ChAdOx versus Virgin Coronavirus" memes.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- ethbro 6y ago
  Chimpanzee adenovirus-vectored Oxford vaccine #1, targeting novel coronavirus 2019 (aka SARS-CoV-2). Seems pretty well-named.
  - SketchySeaBeast 6y ago
    It's accurately named. All I can say is "well-named" is in the eye of the beholder, and I'm fairly certain you're not in marketing.
    - ethbro 6y ago
      It won't get a trade name until it goes to market. We just don't normally hear about pre-market drugs in mainstream media.
- TheRealWatson 6y ago
meddlepal 6y ago
We will never eradicate this disease due to the large number of anti-vaccine folks.
- latchkey 6y ago
  [deleted]
  - rsynnott 6y ago
    With something like this, you really do. The first vaccines are unlikely to be 100% effective, and may not last very long, so to get close to eradication we'd have to see very good take-up rates.
  - SteveNuts 6y ago
    We still do because if there are too many anti-vaccine people that would prevent us from reaching herd immunity.
  - evan_ 6y ago
    I do worry about anti-vaccine people. I don't think that because someone falls for propaganda they should die from a preventable disease. Their kids shouldn't either.
  - JshWright 6y ago
    The good news is that if you always drive sober, you don't have to worry about drunk drivers. The reality is, no vaccine is 100% effective (immune response isn't a binary thing), and the are lots of people that can't be vaccinated for medical reasons. Every person who is not vaccinated by choice is wilfully exposing others to risk.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
kyriakos 6y ago
question about this and vaccines in general... would this be beneficial to someone who already contracted the disease? at the early stages at least? would it help that person recover faster or lessen the effects of the disease?
- schoen 6y ago
  My web search suggested that normally existing vaccines aren't helpful this way, but that there is ongoing research on "therapeutic vaccines" that would be. https://www.webmd.com/vaccines/features/treating-disease-with-vaccines https://www.webmd.com/vaccines/features/treating-disease-wit... The article says none are currently available as treatments for any infectious disease.
  - penagwin 6y ago
    We might be talking about different things, but many vaccines are potentially useful post-infection particularly for slower diseases, as it doesn't necessarily help the actual infection, but can help prevent it from spreading to new cells. It's highly dependent on the disease, how it spreads, etc. But it is a thing.
dharma1 6y ago
I'm curious why the share price slide after the mainstream news. Sure, there have been rumours about the Lancet paper for a few days, maybe these were priced in already - and AstraZeneca has promised to manufacture it at cost or near cost. Still weird the market reacted this way https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/astrazeneca-stock-price-reaction-oxford-covid19-trial-positive-results-2020-7-1029410447 https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/astrazeneca-...
- greenonions 6y ago
  Outside of publicity, I don't see this as having an enormous impact on profits. Companies will be compelled to produce the vaccine in any event, and will be compensated, but I can't imagine governments would be purchasing the vaccine for any large markup.
  - nickff 6y ago
    The problem is that this is a money-losing proposition. If ten companies attempt to produce a vaccine, spending X, and two of them succeed (before the rest), with the government paying each double their development costs (2X), that means that the expected outcome of developing a vaccine is -0.6X. As a result, we should expect that most companies will only make a token effort.
  - dharma1 6y ago
    I think it depends on the company, AstraZeneca CEO already said a while ago they will be manufacturing this at cost or near cost, this is a time for big pharma to give back. Some drug companies like Gilead though have very high markup, paid by the taxpayer. And some bioteh companies with mRNA vaccines in phase 1/2 trials like Moderna and Biontech, or protein treatment like Synairgen have seen share prices skyrocket. I guess the assumption is they will be collecting fees from the IP and/or future contracts for other drugs if this works out.
- nrb 6y ago
  “Buy the rumor, sell the news” https://www.ig.com/en/trading-strategies/-buy-the-rumour--sell-the-news--explained-190319 https://www.ig.com/en/trading-strategies/-buy-the-rumour--se...
oxfordmale 6y ago
It is good preliminary news. The real question if this vaccine prevents you spreading the disease or effectively turns you into an asymptomatic spreader. There also outstanding questions if this works well for elderly people, as vaccination are generally less effective if you are older. Basically news worth a small cheer, not an exuberant celebration quite yet.
- major505 6y ago
  and also, how much time one people will be imune, and if new doses will be needed to reinforce the response of the imune system. People are saying September as a date for the vaccine to be avaliable, but it seens to be still many questions to answer before that.
- daviroo 6y ago
  If everyone gets the vaccine then does the distinction matter? Genuine question not rhetorical.
  - oxfordmale 6y ago
    Logistically you can't give everyone the vaccine at the same time. If immunity is only temporary (few months) front line hospital staff are likely going to get vaccinated before the rest of society.
  - SaltyLemonZest 6y ago
    Even if it's made mandatory, which may not happen, manufacturing and distributing enough vaccines for everyone to get one will take years. Ideally we want to get everything back to normal once we have enough vaccines stocked up to strategically deploy in hot spots, but if the vaccine doesn't severely reduce the disease's spread that strategy won't be effective.
    - rimliu 6y ago
      a) It would take months not years. b) you don't need to have _everybody_ vaccinated.
premk 6y ago
Prof Sarah Gilbert, from the University of Oxford, UK, says: "There is still much work to be done before we can confirm if our vaccine will help manage the Covid-19 pandemic, but these early results hold promise."
praveen9920 6y ago
Call me cynical. 1. This vaccine race seems like "first one gets eternal glory" scenario, which might pressurise scientists to take shortcuts, which may be bad. 2. Even with successful vaccine trials, wouldn't take atleast an year to setup supply chain capable of distribution? 3. Virus mutates very fast, is it possible that all these early vaccine trials resulting in super virus which can't be killed by any kind of immune system.
- jaredhansen 6y ago
  1. Pretty easy to assay the vaccine itself and the blood of vaccine recipients and figure out (1) is it what they're saying it is? and (2) does it do what they're saying it does? 2. No. Google around for this; there's plenty of info on how this can be done more quickly. Also, "even if we find a vaccine it will take a year or more to produce it at scale" is no reason not to develop one or to celebrate progress in such development. 3. Possible? Uh, sure, yeah, most things are possible. Probable? I'm not aware of any evidence suggesting that "early vaccine trials result in super virus" is a remotely probable scenario. If you are aware of any such evidence, please post it here because I'd like to read it and update my view accordingly.
- gnicholas 6y ago
  > 2. Even with successful vaccine trials, wouldn't take at least a year to setup supply chain capable of distribution? My understanding is that at least some of the vaccines are being produced at scale while the trials are still ongoing, in the hopes that they will be successful and a huge supply will be needed.
walterbell 6y ago
This article text should be much earlier. > However, all these approaches are at the absolute boundary of science and have not been proven to work before. More traditional methods of vaccine development are also being investigated. The company Valneva is taking the whole coronavirus, inactivating it and then inject it. One name for approaches "at the absolute boundary of science" is research. Only one company is named as developing an actual vaccine. We need new category names for the many competing treatments which are still in research phases, including those which utilize genetic engineering.
stx 6y ago
From what I am hearing the antibodies that you get from having the actual virus do not provide protection from re-infection for very long. I cant find the source but I think it was a Medcram lecture. Would antibodies be from a vaccine be more effective at preventing infection then getting the actual infection? I thought usually it was the other way around.
hatsunearu 6y ago
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31604-4/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6... The paper (I'm sure it's been posted somewhere in thread). Surprisingly readable (if you have a basic understanding of immunology and Google), go check it out. The TL;DR is they administered the vaccine to many people and compared the immune response, as measured by various immunology assays, and it elicited a noticeable response for every assay very close to the same responses from actual COVID patients. There were plenty of mild to moderate side effects, but they were reduced quite a bit using paracetamol (Tylenol, basically)
torgian 6y ago
It's a little worrying that the UK already ordered 100 million doses of the vaccine, even though it hasn't passed trials yet. I understand that tons of resources are being poured into making a vaccine, which will make developing this vaccine a lot faster. However, this still makes me worry that the media ( and the UK government in part ) is showing false potential false hopes to people that read this article. Yes, we might get a vaccine next year, but we might never get a vaccine either.
JohnDebra09 6y ago
Some years ago I was tested HSV2 positive and ever since then i have been taking different kinds of medicine but yet no improvement until i saw testimonies on the internet of how Dr.Isai has been curing different people from different kinds of diseases, immediately i contacted him. After our discussion he prepared the medicine and send it to me, which i received and took according to his instructions. Now my doctor just confirmed me HSV2 negative. My heart is so filled with joy, thank you so much Dr.Isai for curing me. If you are reading this and you are suffering from HSV or any other disease you can contact Dr.Isai on this Email address: drisaiherbalcenter@gmail.com or you whatsapp him on +2349034352176. He is a honest man

415 points by ceocoder 6y ago

” Levels of T cells peaked 14 days after vaccination and antibody levels peaked after 28 days. The study has not run for long enough to understand what long-term immunity may look like.” ”Is it safe? Yes, but there are side-effects. There were no dangerous side-effects from taking the vaccine, however, 70% of people on the trial developed either fever or headache. The researchers say this could be managed with paracetamol.” This sounds like really good news, anyone with medical background disseminate this further? Edit: here is the lancet article posted on /r/COVID19 sub and extract https://www.thelancet.com/lancet/article/s0140-6736(20)31604-4 https://www.thelancet.com/lancet/article/s0140-6736(20)31604... Background: The pandemic of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) might be curtailed by vaccination. We assessed the safety, reactogenicity, and immunogenicity of a viral vectored coronavirus vaccine that expresses the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2. Methods We did a phase 1/2, single-blind, randomised controlled trial in five trial sites in the UK of a chimpanzee adenovirus-vectored vaccine (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19) expressing the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein compared with a meningococcal conjugate vaccine (MenACWY) as control. Healthy adults aged 18–55 years with no history of laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection or of COVID-19-like symptoms were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 at a dose of 5×10¹⁰ viral particles or MenACWY as a single intramuscular injection. A protocol amendment in two of the five sites allowed prophylactic paracetamol to be administered before vaccination. Ten participants assigned to a non-randomised, unblinded ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 prime-boost group received a two-dose schedule, with the booster vaccine administered 28 days after the first dose. Humoral responses at baseline and following vaccination were assessed using a standardised total IgG ELISA against trimeric SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, a muliplexed immunoassay, three live SARS-CoV-2 neutralisation assays (a 50% plaque reduction neutralisation assay [PRNT50]; a microneutralisation assay [MNA50, MNA80, and MNA90]; and Marburg VN), and a pseudovirus neutralisation assay. Cellular responses were assessed using an ex-vivo interferon-γ enzyme-linked immunospot assay. The co-primary outcomes are to assess efficacy, as measured by cases of symptomatic virologically confirmed COVID-19, and safety, as measured by the occurrence of serious adverse events. Analyses were done by group allocation in participants who received the vaccine. Safety was assessed over 28 days after vaccination. Here, we report the preliminary findings on safety, reactogenicity, and cellular and humoral immune responses. The study is ongoing, and was registered at ISRCTN, 15281137, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606. Findings Between April 23 and May 21, 2020, 1077 participants were enrolled and assigned to receive either ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (n=543) or MenACWY (n=534), ten of whom were enrolled in the non-randomised ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 prime-boost group. Local and systemic reactions were more common in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and many were reduced by use of prophylactic paracetamol, including pain, feeling feverish, chills, muscle ache, headache, and malaise (all p<0·05). There were no serious adverse events related to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19. In the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, spike-specific T-cell responses peaked on day 14 (median 856 spot-forming cells per million peripheral blood mononuclear cells, IQR 493–1802; n=43). Anti-spike IgG responses rose by day 28 (median 157 ELISA units [EU], 96–317; n=127), and were boosted following a second dose (639 EU, 360–792; n=10). Neutralising antibody responses against SARS-CoV-2 were detected in 32 (91%) of 35 participants after a single dose when measured in MNA80 and in 35 (100%) participants when measured in PRNT50. After a booster dose, all participants had neutralising activity (nine of nine in MNA80 at day 42 and ten of ten in Marburg VN on day 56). Neutralising antibody responses correlated strongly with antibody levels measured by ELISA (R²=0·67 by Marburg VN; p<0·001). Interpretation ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 showed an acceptable safety profile, and homologous boosting increased antibody responses. These results, together with the induction of both humoral and cellular immune responses, support largescale evaluation of this candidate vaccine in an ongoing phase 3 programme.

justforfunhere 6y ago

Oxford vaccine is among the front runners. This is really good news. They plan to finish their final trials before October this year. If all goes well, we should be looking at major relief by this year's end.

coldpie 6y ago
That's unrealistically optimistic. The best case scenarios I've heard have it being deployed to healthcare workers late this year, and then hopefully be made available across the globe to approach the herd immunity threshold by the end of 2021, at least in some countries/communities. End of 2021 is an optimistic timeline to be talking about "major relief", and that's assuming no one messes with vaccine availability... Until then, we all need to take this extremely seriously and do everything we can to prevent spread.
- jryle70 6y ago
  They plan to make a million doses available by September, possibly more: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-oxford-vaccine-res/over-a-million-doses-of-oxford-astrazeneca-covid-19-vaccine-possible-by-september-researcher-idUSKCN24L1TW https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-oxford...
  - thsowers 6y ago
    Is a million doses "major relief"?
    - fuhrysteve 6y ago
      Certainly not, but considering there should be 100M available by the end of the year, it seems like they are scaling up the production line considerably
  - ashconnor 6y ago
    That just about covers NHS employees.

Roonerelli 6y ago

one thing about the Oxford vaccine is that when vaccinated you are still able to pass on the virus , despite having the anti-bodies to fight it. It's excellent news nonetheless edited with some references https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/doubts-oxford-vaccine-fails-stop-coronavirus-animal-trials/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-diseas... https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/coronavirus-vaccine-oxford-trials-concerns-transmission-astrazeneca-latest-a9521241.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/coronavirus-vaccin...

djsumdog 6y ago
Why is that the case with the Oxford vaccine? Can you elaborate?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- t2riRXawYxLGGYb 6y ago
  I'm curious what they meant as well. Perhaps what they meant was the potential period where the virus is replicating in the body before the immune system detects it and kills it. I suppose even someone with the vaccine would have a very short-lived period of viral replication? Or perhaps they simply meant that humans could be fomites (eg, it gets on someone's hand, then they shake your hand, etc?) Honestly I'm just guessing here. I suspect this is not a real concern.
CyanLite2 6y ago
This is a little bit of a misnomer. Anybody can pass on the virus. If you have it in your nose and you sneeze, you'll spread it everywhere. If you have it on your hands and you touch high-traffic surface areas, you'll spread it. The point is that if a high number of people are vaccinated, then it won't matter if the virus fragments are spread, as long as it's not causing disease then it doesn't matter.
zwily 6y ago
That was true for the monkeys that were challenged with huge viral loads. We don’t know if it will still be true for humans who encounter normal loads.

axegon_ 6y ago

At 1077, this is indeed a promising result. I genuinely hope this isn't yet another marketing stunt(of which we've seen a lot lately). Mind you, > The vaccine - called ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 - is being developed at unprecedented speed. Seriously? Did they ask a 9 year old to pick a nickname?

Rexxar 6y ago
My first thought when I saw the name : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Les_Shadoks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Les_Shadoks
- lifeisstillgood 6y ago
  >> "When one tries continuously, one ends up succeeding. Thus, the more one fails, the greater the chance that it will work." Philosophy of French '60s cartoon birds eerily similar to modern software development methodologies
ArgyleSound 6y ago
Lol, it stands for Chimpanzee Adenovirus Oxford. Not too unconventional a name.
bagpuss 6y ago
Chimpanzee Adenovirus Oxford type 1 the 'nickname' follows a standard nomenclature for this kind of thing. Chadox does sound like a new brand of underarm deodorant though
jpxw 6y ago
It stands for the Chad Oxford vaccine (as opposed to the virgin Oxford vaccine)

djsumdog 6y ago

It seems like they tested for antibodies, but this article makes no mention of challenges to the real virus. It's important to remember that vaccines for previous coronaviruses (SARS/MERS) had reports of generating anitbodies, but also causing immunopathic responses or immune enhancement syndrome: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3335060/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3335060/ https://www.pnas.org/content/117/15/8218 https://www.pnas.org/content/117/15/8218 >Is it safe? It's really really to early to say yes or no, and the fact that the article tries to make a claim either way, is worrying. Vaccines for new families of viruses traditionally take years or decades to develop. We still don't have vaccines for retroviruses like HIV/Herpes (and it may not be possible due to the nature of those viruses). I've had all my vaccinations; I'm not an anti-vaxer. But I do have concerns on trying to push out any novel vaccine in less than two years without adequate testing. Although this virus has killed many, the risk factor for it is nowhere near high enough to warrant an emergency vaccine. There are trials underway for inhaled steroids that look very promising, and there's a good chance this virus will burn out in our population long before a truly safe vaccine comes to market. Having a viable treatment option seems much more valuable and safer than vaccinations in this particular case.

Trasmatta 6y ago
> We still don't have vaccines for retroviruses like HIV/Herpes HIV is so fundamentally different that it doesn't make sense to include it as a comparison here. > there's a good chance this virus will burn out in our population long before a truly safe vaccine comes to market. The virus isn't just going to "burn out" anytime soon. 143k deaths in the US already, and we likely haven't even hit 10% of the population being infected yet. Treatments will help pull the death rate downwards, but without a vaccine we're likely looking at multiple hundreds of thousands more deaths.
- djsumdog 6y ago
  > HIV is so fundamentally different Coronaviruses are very different. We've rarely had any this deadly before. All vaccines are different; they're not one blanket thing. Smallpox vaccines are attenuated virus (a virus that has mutated to be benign in humans; in the case of Smallpox, the first vaccine by Jenner was injecting people with Horsepox). Most Influenza vaccines are heat treated/inactivated virus. In all cases, vaccines try to produce antibodies and force our immune systems to develop a memory for a virus we haven't actually been exposed to. As shown in the links above, this might not work at all for coronavirus. To some extent, the actual interactions of vaccines, are somewhat opaque. This In A Nutshell video shows a very small part of the adaptive immune system, greatly simplified: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSypUV6QUNw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSypUV6QUNw > The virus isn't just going to "burn out" anytime soon Exponential growth doesn't go on forever. It has to hit an inflection point: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kas0tIxDvrg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kas0tIxDvrg The more deadly a virus is, the faster it does burn out. It runs out of hosts to infect or everyone develops an immunity. SARS/MERS may have had lower outbreaks because of how much more dangerous they were. If you graph fatalities on a logarithmic scale, you'll see we're already well past the inflection point in the US: https://aatishb.com/covidtrends/?data=deaths https://aatishb.com/covidtrends/?data=deaths The cases are going up, but the fatalities are not, indicating there may be a lot of over-counting. Keep in mind people who test positive but die of a car wreck are counted as COVID19. All these people getting surgery after 3 months are required to get tested just for their surgery, and a positive antibody test counts as an active case, even if they're not sick or have the virus at all. It's so bad in the UK they've stopped reporting fatality numbers due to issues with the data.

heidar 6y ago

At this point I'm becoming more worried about distribution rather than finding a working vaccine. One in six people (in the UK) said they'd refuse a vaccine if it became available, and another one in six weren't sure. (YouGov poll) It might make distribution to reach herd immunity difficult.

EnderMB 6y ago
I might be wrong on this, but wouldn't that still be fine in order to achieve herd immunity? I distinctly remember reading something that said 60% was the minimum threshold required to ensure that the virus spread as a greatly reduced rate.
- coldpie 6y ago
  It's all estimates, of course, but there's some good reading about what factors effect the herd immunity threshold here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity#Mechanics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity#Mechanics They estimate 50-83% vaccination threshold to achieve herd immunity for COVID-19. I believe the citation is this study, but I admit my ability to read scientific papers is lacking: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32433946/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32433946/
- zmk_ 6y ago
  Right now they are saying that 95% had a substantial immune response. But we do not know whether it is substantial enough and lasting enough. Imagine that it is both for less than 70% of vaccinated. 5/6*0.7<0.6 (and yes, 0.7 is to prove a point).
bengale 6y ago
We need more information than that poll. Someone unwilling to take a brand new vaccine is not inherently the same as some loony anti-vaccer. It’s not obvious to me that it would be sensible to be first inline for one of these vaccines that have been developed so quickly.
- scurvy 6y ago

blackbear_ 6y ago

Good, but the real question is whether the immune system will "remember" the vaccine for long enough. From [1]: > Although the magnitude of neutralizing antibody (nAb) responses correlated with disease severity, there was a rapid decline in nAb titres in most patients within 3 months after onset of symptoms. [...] However, the consequences on secondary immune responses and their ability to prevent reinfection remain to be determined. [1]: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41577-020-0405-3 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41577-020-0405-3

CyanLite2 6y ago
nAbs don't last forever, for any infectious virus. That's what T-Cells and B-Cells are for. This vaccine showed a T-Cell response, which means it SHOULD last long enough. T-Cells from SARS survivors have lasted 11+ years. But we won't know until 2-3 years from now. We can't wait that long. I say ship it to production now, and do a v2.0 release later.
- skunkworker 6y ago
  Here’s a source if anyone’s interested. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2550-z https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2550-z
  - blackbear_ 6y ago
    Very interesting, thank you!
- zmk_ 6y ago
  This is a very dangerous approach and would just add fuel to the antivax fire. Even if drugs/vaccines are effective that does not mean that they do not come with severe side effects. Imagine injecting the whole population with Thalidomide...
  - objektif 6y ago
    Obviously nobody will force you to get the vaccine. A lot of people will be ready to take the minimal amount of risk. I assume you are not forced to work from home while taking care of kids at the same time :)

hank_z 6y ago

I am wondering how the vaccine genetically impacts on these people who are already recovered from Covid-19.

wycy 6y ago
I would imagine that people who've already recovered from covid-19 wouldn't need/get a vaccine, but I am not a doctor.
- linuxftw 6y ago
  Not everyone that (allegedly) gets the vaccine develops antibodies because there are other components of the immune system that destroy the infection prior to the need of developing antibodies. Even in those that do develop antibodies, they are finding those antibodies are undetectable after some short time period.
- hank_z 6y ago
  I understand that. I am not a doctor either. Let me rephrase my question more concretely and hopefully someone can answer it. I am curious to know whether the immunity to covid-19 will become stronger or weaker if those people who've already recovered from covid-19 get a vaccine.
- SideburnsOfDoom 6y ago
  > people who've already recovered from covid-19 wouldn't need/get a vaccine, It is not known how long immunity from having covid-19 lasts, and there have already been a few cases of apparent re-infection. So yes, they would likely benefit from a vaccine. https://www.vox.com/2020/7/12/21321653/getting-covid-19-twice-reinfection-antibody-herd-immunity https://www.vox.com/2020/7/12/21321653/getting-covid-19-twic... https://www.timesofisrael.com/israeli-doctor-diagnosed-with-virus-after-apparently-recovering-from-covid-19/ https://www.timesofisrael.com/israeli-doctor-diagnosed-with-...
  - hank_z 6y ago
    Terrible. I thought the immunity would last forever.

aaisola 6y ago

My understanding is that with the flu shot scientists and epidemiologists essentially make an educated guess as to which strains are going to be prevalent in a particular year. Why is COVID-19 different where the expectation is that one vaccine will prove a panacea. The virus has already shown that it can mutate similar to the flu vaccine.

jeherr 6y ago
Influenza is a family of related viruses. COVID-19 is actually the disease caused by the virus. SARS-CoV-2 is the actual virus, and it is only a single virus in the family of coronaviruses. Other coronaviruses include SARS-CoV, MERS-CoV, and a host of others which just cause a subset of the common cold. This should be compared more to something like the H1N1 outbreak, which was a single influenza virus that was particularly deadly for some subset of people. That was just one type of influenza.
- jjcon 6y ago
  Stupid question - why will a coronavirus vaccine take so long even when they say people are working at an incredible pace if we can produce a new flu vaccine each year? Are scientists guessing strains multiple years in advance so there is time to produce a vaccine or something?
  - KaiserPro 6y ago
    Its not stupid. Its a new vaccine, to treat a new virus thats is in a class of virus thats never had a vaccine. if that makes any sense? the yearly flu vaccines are tweaks to an already understood vaccine, (minor releases) Sometimes there are major releases but thats for a jab that targets a different class of flu (h5n1 vs h1n2) this is an entirely new vaccine, for a virus that has never had a vaccine, so its more like a v1.0 release on a new platform.
  - selectodude 6y ago
    The flu vaccine is simply deactivated flu virus that is grown in eggs. The big issue here is that coronavirus is “smart” enough to not reproduce in eggs.

Vysero 6y ago

I mean all of this sounds so great, but at the same time my inner millennial brain can't help, but go directly to 'I am Legend' XD Please dear god let this be a wonderful, and amazing cure, and not the beginning of the zombie apocalypse.

Vysero 6y ago
Please note, if you can't see that this was a joke you might have a serious problem, and should seek help.

amluto 6y ago

The actual paper: https://marlin-prod.literatumonline.com/pb-assets/Lancet/pdfs/S0140673620316044.pdf https://marlin-prod.literatumonline.com/pb-assets/Lancet/pdf...

kashyapc 6y ago

Also notice this trade-off [edit: I'm saying this with a neutral tone, and not implying anything, so that a more informed person can elaborate on it]: [quote] Is it safe? Yes, but there are side-effects. There were no dangerous side-effects from taking the vaccine, however, 70% of people on the trial developed either fever or headache. The researchers say this could be managed with paracetamol. [/quote] Unrelated PS: What's the deal with these one-sentence "paragraphs", BBC? I think I know the answer: it is the "modern medicine" for lack of attention spans. (What about the side effects to this...) Unrelated PS-2: I didn't notice that someone else here has already quoted the above part. Sorry for the duplication.

mghfreud 6y ago
Don't the regular flu vaccines have the same side effects?
- kashyapc 6y ago
  I'm not denying it; just merely noting it, hoping more clueful people than me can comment on it :-)
- coredog64 6y ago
  Yes. Although I know intellectually that I should get an annual flu shot, my animal brain kicks in every time to remind me that I feel crappy for a day or three after each one.
bb123 6y ago
The BBC style guide suggests breaking up paragraphs and using bullet points like this as they are easier to read on a digital screen than dense paragraphs of text: https://www.bbc.co.uk/academy/en/articles/art20131010112740749 https://www.bbc.co.uk/academy/en/articles/art201310101127407...
- kashyapc 6y ago
  Ah, thanks for the pointer; I can understand that reasoning. But I hope that doesn't really get stretched too far.

adrianmonk 6y ago

> ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 If I didn't have the context of 2020 and this article, I would swear that was an auto-generated random password.

ceocoder 6y ago
may be in 10 years this will become our new correct horse battery staple
chapium 6y ago
ChAdOx1 would certainly make a good IRC handle.
- Symmetry 6y ago
  And then there are the "ChAdOx versus Virgin Coronavirus" memes.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
ethbro 6y ago
Chimpanzee adenovirus-vectored Oxford vaccine #1, targeting novel coronavirus 2019 (aka SARS-CoV-2). Seems pretty well-named.
- SketchySeaBeast 6y ago
  It's accurately named. All I can say is "well-named" is in the eye of the beholder, and I'm fairly certain you're not in marketing.
  - ethbro 6y ago
    It won't get a trade name until it goes to market. We just don't normally hear about pre-market drugs in mainstream media.
TheRealWatson 6y ago

meddlepal 6y ago

We will never eradicate this disease due to the large number of anti-vaccine folks.

latchkey 6y ago
[deleted]
- rsynnott 6y ago
  With something like this, you really do. The first vaccines are unlikely to be 100% effective, and may not last very long, so to get close to eradication we'd have to see very good take-up rates.
- SteveNuts 6y ago
  We still do because if there are too many anti-vaccine people that would prevent us from reaching herd immunity.
- evan_ 6y ago
  I do worry about anti-vaccine people. I don't think that because someone falls for propaganda they should die from a preventable disease. Their kids shouldn't either.
- JshWright 6y ago
  The good news is that if you always drive sober, you don't have to worry about drunk drivers. The reality is, no vaccine is 100% effective (immune response isn't a binary thing), and the are lots of people that can't be vaccinated for medical reasons. Every person who is not vaccinated by choice is wilfully exposing others to risk.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

kyriakos 6y ago

question about this and vaccines in general... would this be beneficial to someone who already contracted the disease? at the early stages at least? would it help that person recover faster or lessen the effects of the disease?

schoen 6y ago
My web search suggested that normally existing vaccines aren't helpful this way, but that there is ongoing research on "therapeutic vaccines" that would be. https://www.webmd.com/vaccines/features/treating-disease-with-vaccines https://www.webmd.com/vaccines/features/treating-disease-wit... The article says none are currently available as treatments for any infectious disease.
- penagwin 6y ago
  We might be talking about different things, but many vaccines are potentially useful post-infection particularly for slower diseases, as it doesn't necessarily help the actual infection, but can help prevent it from spreading to new cells. It's highly dependent on the disease, how it spreads, etc. But it is a thing.

dharma1 6y ago

I'm curious why the share price slide after the mainstream news. Sure, there have been rumours about the Lancet paper for a few days, maybe these were priced in already - and AstraZeneca has promised to manufacture it at cost or near cost. Still weird the market reacted this way https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/astrazeneca-stock-price-reaction-oxford-covid19-trial-positive-results-2020-7-1029410447 https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/astrazeneca-...

greenonions 6y ago
Outside of publicity, I don't see this as having an enormous impact on profits. Companies will be compelled to produce the vaccine in any event, and will be compensated, but I can't imagine governments would be purchasing the vaccine for any large markup.
- nickff 6y ago
  The problem is that this is a money-losing proposition. If ten companies attempt to produce a vaccine, spending X, and two of them succeed (before the rest), with the government paying each double their development costs (2X), that means that the expected outcome of developing a vaccine is -0.6X. As a result, we should expect that most companies will only make a token effort.
- dharma1 6y ago
  I think it depends on the company, AstraZeneca CEO already said a while ago they will be manufacturing this at cost or near cost, this is a time for big pharma to give back. Some drug companies like Gilead though have very high markup, paid by the taxpayer. And some bioteh companies with mRNA vaccines in phase 1/2 trials like Moderna and Biontech, or protein treatment like Synairgen have seen share prices skyrocket. I guess the assumption is they will be collecting fees from the IP and/or future contracts for other drugs if this works out.
nrb 6y ago
“Buy the rumor, sell the news” https://www.ig.com/en/trading-strategies/-buy-the-rumour--sell-the-news--explained-190319 https://www.ig.com/en/trading-strategies/-buy-the-rumour--se...

oxfordmale 6y ago

It is good preliminary news. The real question if this vaccine prevents you spreading the disease or effectively turns you into an asymptomatic spreader. There also outstanding questions if this works well for elderly people, as vaccination are generally less effective if you are older. Basically news worth a small cheer, not an exuberant celebration quite yet.

major505 6y ago
and also, how much time one people will be imune, and if new doses will be needed to reinforce the response of the imune system. People are saying September as a date for the vaccine to be avaliable, but it seens to be still many questions to answer before that.
daviroo 6y ago
If everyone gets the vaccine then does the distinction matter? Genuine question not rhetorical.
- oxfordmale 6y ago
  Logistically you can't give everyone the vaccine at the same time. If immunity is only temporary (few months) front line hospital staff are likely going to get vaccinated before the rest of society.
- SaltyLemonZest 6y ago
  Even if it's made mandatory, which may not happen, manufacturing and distributing enough vaccines for everyone to get one will take years. Ideally we want to get everything back to normal once we have enough vaccines stocked up to strategically deploy in hot spots, but if the vaccine doesn't severely reduce the disease's spread that strategy won't be effective.
  - rimliu 6y ago
    a) It would take months not years. b) you don't need to have _everybody_ vaccinated.

premk 6y ago

Prof Sarah Gilbert, from the University of Oxford, UK, says: "There is still much work to be done before we can confirm if our vaccine will help manage the Covid-19 pandemic, but these early results hold promise."

praveen9920 6y ago

Call me cynical. 1. This vaccine race seems like "first one gets eternal glory" scenario, which might pressurise scientists to take shortcuts, which may be bad. 2. Even with successful vaccine trials, wouldn't take atleast an year to setup supply chain capable of distribution? 3. Virus mutates very fast, is it possible that all these early vaccine trials resulting in super virus which can't be killed by any kind of immune system.

jaredhansen 6y ago
1. Pretty easy to assay the vaccine itself and the blood of vaccine recipients and figure out (1) is it what they're saying it is? and (2) does it do what they're saying it does? 2. No. Google around for this; there's plenty of info on how this can be done more quickly. Also, "even if we find a vaccine it will take a year or more to produce it at scale" is no reason not to develop one or to celebrate progress in such development. 3. Possible? Uh, sure, yeah, most things are possible. Probable? I'm not aware of any evidence suggesting that "early vaccine trials result in super virus" is a remotely probable scenario. If you are aware of any such evidence, please post it here because I'd like to read it and update my view accordingly.
gnicholas 6y ago
> 2. Even with successful vaccine trials, wouldn't take at least a year to setup supply chain capable of distribution? My understanding is that at least some of the vaccines are being produced at scale while the trials are still ongoing, in the hopes that they will be successful and a huge supply will be needed.

walterbell 6y ago

This article text should be much earlier. > However, all these approaches are at the absolute boundary of science and have not been proven to work before. More traditional methods of vaccine development are also being investigated. The company Valneva is taking the whole coronavirus, inactivating it and then inject it. One name for approaches "at the absolute boundary of science" is research. Only one company is named as developing an actual vaccine. We need new category names for the many competing treatments which are still in research phases, including those which utilize genetic engineering.

stx 6y ago

From what I am hearing the antibodies that you get from having the actual virus do not provide protection from re-infection for very long. I cant find the source but I think it was a Medcram lecture. Would antibodies be from a vaccine be more effective at preventing infection then getting the actual infection? I thought usually it was the other way around.

hatsunearu 6y ago

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31604-4/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6... The paper (I'm sure it's been posted somewhere in thread). Surprisingly readable (if you have a basic understanding of immunology and Google), go check it out. The TL;DR is they administered the vaccine to many people and compared the immune response, as measured by various immunology assays, and it elicited a noticeable response for every assay very close to the same responses from actual COVID patients. There were plenty of mild to moderate side effects, but they were reduced quite a bit using paracetamol (Tylenol, basically)

torgian 6y ago

It's a little worrying that the UK already ordered 100 million doses of the vaccine, even though it hasn't passed trials yet. I understand that tons of resources are being poured into making a vaccine, which will make developing this vaccine a lot faster. However, this still makes me worry that the media ( and the UK government in part ) is showing false potential false hopes to people that read this article. Yes, we might get a vaccine next year, but we might never get a vaccine either.

JohnDebra09 6y ago

Some years ago I was tested HSV2 positive and ever since then i have been taking different kinds of medicine but yet no improvement until i saw testimonies on the internet of how Dr.Isai has been curing different people from different kinds of diseases, immediately i contacted him. After our discussion he prepared the medicine and send it to me, which i received and took according to his instructions. Now my doctor just confirmed me HSV2 negative. My heart is so filled with joy, thank you so much Dr.Isai for curing me. If you are reading this and you are suffering from HSV or any other disease you can contact Dr.Isai on this Email address: drisaiherbalcenter@gmail.com or you whatsapp him on +2349034352176. He is a honest man