Oxford vaccine developer says UK could start vaccinating by September 2020

[Notch7]

The accelerated development of a coronavirus vaccine could mean the UK is fully vaccinated by Christmas.

Sir John Bell is Regius Professor of Medicine at Oxford University. He is leading a team working on the development of a Covid-19 vaccine


there is a but......"most vaccines dont work"

https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/matt-frei/coronavirus-vaccine-could-be-in-uk-by-christmas/

 

[sircerebus666]

Given how the general population are generally told what they want to hear and given how usually way off these timelines are, I'm going to take this particular news story with my usual big pinch of salt and believe it when I see it

 

[Toria J]

At the start of the outbreak, we were told it would be a minimum of eighteen months before a vaccine was available due to the protocols they follow to make them both safe AND effective.

Safe. Effective. Pretty important for a vaccine, huh?

So, it sounds like we're gonna be guinea pigs then...

 

[noseall]

So, it sounds like we're gonna be guinea pigs then...

As with any vaccine.

 

[motorbiking]

AZ are scaling production to 2bn. So they must be confident.

 

[Brigadier]

AZ are scaling production to 2bn. So they must be confident.

Or being backed by government guarantee.

 

[IT Minion]

At the start of the outbreak, we were told it would be a minimum of eighteen months before a vaccine was available due to the protocols they follow to make them both safe AND effective.

Safe. Effective. Pretty important for a vaccine, huh?

So, it sounds like we're gonna be guinea pigs then...

A lot of the steps have been run concurrently, so the prep for manufacturing has run at the same time as the first phase tests, as has the prep for the second and third phase tests. This isn't how it's done normally as it risks wasting a load of effort, and money, if the drug fails a preceding step.

But they are doing the standard phase 1 (does it kill healthy people) and phase 2 (does it work?) trials. Phase 2 is underway at the moment. So far with regards to testing, it's just another vaccine. Just one that's moving as fast as it possibly can.

We might see a difference shortly, there has been talk about using a 'challenge' trial protocol. That is where you're given the vaccine, tested for antibodies and then exposed to the disease. It is used for some conditions but it's very rare to use it for ones that might kill you. That might be needed to make sure it works quickly as we don't want to wait six months to give the ginnea pigs long enough to be confident that enough have been exposed.

After the current phase 2 (does it work) there's a phase 3 (is it safe for everyone) trial. That involves making a lot of doses up and distributing them to a wide range of people. As the manufacturing is already being worked on, and every research department and hospital in the UK is sitting waiting to do the paperwork for it, that'll also go through at top speed.

The odds are against the Oxford trial, most vaccines don't pass the tests. But in a best case there could be a tested vaccine on our shelves this year. It's remarkable what can be done when everyone agrees that it needs to happen and it is everyone's top priority.

 

[EddieM]

Can you think of any vaccines that have been proven to kill people? I can't find any conclusive evidence on my 5 min search. The usual worst case scenario is that they offer no protection.

 

[Notch7]

Can you think of any vaccines that have been proven to kill people? I can't find any conclusive evidence on my 5 min search. The usual worst case scenario is that they offer no protection.

I think there may be a conflation between vaccines and drugs like say Thalidomide.

 

[Deleted2797112]

We might see a difference shortly, there has been talk about using a 'challenge' trial protocol. That is where you're given the vaccine, tested for antibodies and then exposed to the disease. It is used for some conditions but it's very rare to use it for ones that might kill you. That might be needed to make sure it works quickly as we don't want to wait six months to give the ginnea pigs long enough to be confident that enough have been exposed.

I recall listening to some expert or other being interviewed about this a few weeks ago on TV. As the rate of infections continues to drop, it becomes more unlikely that triallists will bump into the infection to test the vaccine. They are expected to go about their normal routine (including being locked down if applicable) and not go actively seeking to meet the virus. So efforts were being concentrated on getting front line health professionals to sign up as they're more likely to come across it in the normal course of their daily lives. But even there, with new infections dropping and less and less people hospitalised, the timescale for testing the effectiveness of the vaccine disappears into the future. So perhaps a different approach is being considered.

 

[Lower]

We might see a difference shortly, there has been talk about using a 'challenge' trial protocol. That is where you're given the vaccine, tested for antibodies and then exposed to the disease. It is used for some conditions but it's very rare to use it for ones that might kill you. That might be needed to make sure it works quickly as we don't want to wait six months to give the ginnea pigs long enough to be confident that enough have been exposed.

Coincidently, i was talking to someone yesterday involved in one trial at a london hospital.

600 people have been involved in the trial, 300 with the actual vaccine and 300 with a placebo.

None of them have tested positive for covid-19 There just isn't enough of the virus around any more in London for the test subjects to be exposed.

Next step is the challenge trial where they will vaccinate test subjects and then expose them to the virus in a lab.

 

[JohnD]

Can you think of any vaccines that have been proven to kill people? I can't find any conclusive evidence on my 5 min search. The usual worst case scenario is that they offer no protection.

Dengue fever has a vaccine that, in rare cases, and where the patient had not previously been infected, can make a newly-infected patient sicker than they would have been without it.

Now that this is known, it might not be prescribed for people outside the endemic regions, nor for people (especially children) that are not known to have been previously infected.

Catching one variant of Dengue, then, subsequently, a different variant, can have the same effect. It's possible the effect is not permanent.

Dr. Fauci referred to the risk/reward calculation to be made.

(A) Number of lives saved as a result of the treatment : (B) Number of lives lost as a result of the treatment.

I would not expect a treatment to be rolled out if B was greater than A.

But "B" need not be zero.

 

[EddieM]

Dengue fever has a vaccine that, in rare cases, and where the patient had not previously been infected, can make a newly-infected patient sicker than they would have been without it.

Now that this is known, it might not be prescribed for people outside the endemic regions, nor for people (especially children) that are not known to have been previously infected.

Catching one variant of Dengue, then, subsequently, a different variant, can have the same effect. It's possible the effect is not permanent.

Dr. Fauci referred to the risk/reward calculation to be made.

(A) Number of lives saved as a result of the treatment : (B) Number of lives lost as a result of the treatment.

I would not expect a treatment to be rolled out if B was greater than A.

But "B" need not be zero.

I'd imagine B has to be a very small percentage of A, but yep, nothing is risk free. Lets face it the most dangerous things the vast majority of people face in a day is staying in the bedroom and leaving the house to drive somewhere.

 

[JohnD]

I'd imagine B has to be a very small percentage of A, but yep, nothing is risk free. Lets face it the most dangerous things the vast majority of people face in a day is staying in the bedroom and leaving the house to drive somewhere.

If you could cut deaths in the country by ten million, would you do it?

What if it was done by saving the lives of twenty who would otherwise die, and sacrificing ten who would otherwise live? Or eleven and one? Or twelve and two?

Wars and the tobacco industry work with the numbers the other way round, and it's accepted.

 

[Notch7]

We need Andrew Wakefield back