Oxford jab protection against South Africa variant 'limited"

[Louis Balfour]

I thought this warranted a separate thread, because this appears to be bad news if wider studies support early findings. One wonders what impact it may have upon uptake, when the specific jab administered is something of a lottery.

My parents in law had the Oxford jab yesterday and my MIL is in quite bad shape today as a consequence. It would be a shame if it proved a waste of time, especially given the hope attached to it.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55967767

[rxe]

IMO the only metric that matters is protection against severe symptoms. If the vaccine reduces the impact to an episode of snottiness, then who cares?

[Alucidnation]

None of the other vaccination threads good enough for you?

[milkround]

Don't see it as being different from a flu vaccine... You need a new one each year - and even then it doesn't always work.

I'm sure they will update and sell the new and improved one if needed.

Side note - what's up with adding geographical names to the new variations? Trump was called awful names when he kept calling the old one 'the china virus'. I don't like Trump a lot... But why was it awful for him to say that but now it's totally cool to name a variant after a place where it first came to prominence? Total joke of hypocrisy of the highest order if you ask me.

[pquinn]

DOOM! DOOOOMMM!

Or 'vaccine still works more than well enough'.

[Iminquarantine]

There was a SA study about the AZ vaccine. There is also the paper to be published tomorrow which the Financial Times gave early news on.

My reading of the info so far (note I have no medical training) is that AZ is less effective against severe disease, but still moderately effective.

Take this with a grain of salt; as I said I have no medical training. AFAIK the U.K. strain has also now acquired the SA mutation. Therefore it may be a problem even if movements of people who have been to SA are restricted.

Edited by Iminquarantine on Sunday 7th February 10:54

[Northernboy]

Louis Balfour said:

I thought this warranted a separate thread, because this appears to be bad news if wider studies support early findings. One wonders what impact it may have upon uptake, when the specific jab administered is something of a lottery.

My parents in law had the Oxford jab yesterday and my MIL is in quite bad shape today as a consequence. It would be a shame if it proved a waste of time, especially given the hope attached to it.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55967767

There is absolutely no reason to assume it will be a waste of time, and no reason to start scaremongering, or to put such a negative spin on the data.

Some people seem determined to see the worst here.

[don'tbesilly]

Louis Balfour said:

I thought this warranted a separate thread, because this appears to be bad news if wider studies support early findings. One wonders what impact it may have upon uptake, when the specific jab administered is something of a lottery.

My parents in law had the Oxford jab yesterday and my MIL is in quite bad shape today as a consequence. It would be a shame if it proved a waste of time, especially given the hope attached to it.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55967767

I suppose what appears to be bad news to some will not appear as being the bad news that some are portraying it to be (not aimed at you specifically).

The article seems quite clear, and most of what's been written was confirmed this morning by Professor Sarah Gilbert (designed the Oxford vaccine) on the Marr show

A spokesman for AstraZeneca said they had not yet been able to properly establish whether the jab would prevent severe disease and hospitalisation caused by the South Africa variant because those involved in the study had predominantly been young, healthy adults.

But the company expressed confidence that the vaccine would offer protection against serious cases, because it created neutralising antibodies similar to those of other coronavirus vaccines.

A spokesman for AstraZeneca said the company and the University of Oxford had started adapting the vaccine against the South Africa variant, adding that a new vaccine to work against mutated versions of the virus could be ready to deploy in the autumn if needed.

I'm being vaccinated tomorrow with the AZ vaccine, I'm more concerned about the snow causing problems in getting to the GP's than I am in getting the jab, which will probably become part of normal life going forward as the flu/pneumonia yearly jabs are now, and with the subsequent effects suffered as a result of the body confirming the vaccine has started to work.

It would be more a shame to not have the vaccine because one think's it might be a waste of time when the current evidence would suggest the contrary.

[BlackLabel]

“South African variant” - thought we weren’t allowed to associate a nation/region with coronavirus?

[ghost83]

They said it will prevent hospitalisation and death which is the main focus

[voyds9]

BlackLabel said:

“South African variant” - thought we weren’t allowed to associate a nation/region with coronavirus?

Oh we don't mind upsetting people without large armies, nuclear weapons and a trading economy.

[andy43]

Northernboy said:

Louis Balfour said:

I thought this warranted a separate thread, because this appears to be bad news if wider studies support early findings. One wonders what impact it may have upon uptake, when the specific jab administered is something of a lottery.

My parents in law had the Oxford jab yesterday and my MIL is in quite bad shape today as a consequence. It would be a shame if it proved a waste of time, especially given the hope attached to it.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55967767

There is absolutely no reason to assume it will be a waste of time, and no reason to start scaremongering, or to put such a negative spin on the data.

Some people seem determined to see the worst here.

This.
Vaccines have a wide ranging effect on different bits of our immune systems.
They’ll always have a reducing effect on serious illness whatever the virus mutates to. I’m not a doctor.
Recent Dr Campbell YT video suggested a noticeable response to vaccination means a healthy immune response and better protection going forward.
A good Vitamin D level also helps the vaccine sink in and teach your systems better.

[anonymous-user]

BlackLabel said:

“South African variant” - thought we weren’t allowed to associate a nation/region with coronavirus?

As long as its not china its alright

[Sophisticated Sarah]

pquinn said:

DOOM! DOOOOMMM!

Or 'vaccine still works more than well enough'.

Pretty much. But let us all piss our panties and wear quadruple masks to defeat this deadly menace

[98elise]

rxe said:

IMO the only metric that matters is protection against severe symptoms. If the vaccine reduces the impact to an episode of snottiness, then who cares?

Agreed. If it just made you feel unwell for a few days nobody would give a st.

[don'tbesilly]

Worth a watch:



https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/13583529314...

[Armchair Expert]

Yet the Johnson vaccine that works the same way as the AZ one is said to be highly effective against the African strain?

[ghost83]

Professor van tam said yesterday he’s not that concerned over the South African variant as it doesn’t have a high rate of transmission and his focus is the Kent variant!

It’s just the media as usual making it worse than it needs to be as spreading fear is what they do! As long as the vaccine prevents hospitalisation and death then that’s it’s main job, but van tam also said it’s likely we will have to have boosters in the autumn and then will need one every year like with the flu

[andy43]

This South African study slating the Oxford vaccine only had 2000 people in it, all young, the data and report haven’t been peer reviewed and yet South Africa has stopped use of the Oxford vaccine despite what Oxford themselves have said.
Something doesn’t add up.
You’d risk your populations lives based on that ‘report’?
And why on earth do the media go with headlines that the vaccine has no effect on mild and moderate disease? It still stops people dying, still keeps most out of hospital, so why not say that?
This isn’t France FFS.

[Blue62]

andy43 said:

This South African study slating the Oxford vaccine only had 2000 people in it, all young, the data and report haven’t been peer reviewed and yet South Africa has stopped use of the Oxford vaccine despite what Oxford themselves have said.
Something doesn’t add up.
You’d risk your populations lives based on that ‘report’?
And why on earth do the media go with headlines that the vaccine has no effect on mild and moderate disease? It still stops people dying, still keeps most out of hospital, so why not say that?
This isn’t France FFS.

I think there’s a lot of vaccine hesitancy in SA, their decision may have more to do with building public confidence than science. The vaccines key aim is to reduce symptoms, keep people out of hospital and reduce deaths, if that can be achieved we can all start to look forward to getting our lives back. Anyone who thinks the vaccines are about reducing cases (transmission) has either not been keeping up or is reading the wrong stuff, probably peer reviewed by David Icke.