"Some experts say the dosing discrepancy raises doubts about the robustness of the study’s findings. And they worry about another acknowledged peculiarity of the study: The half-dose regimen wasn’t tested on anyone over 55 - the group considered at high risk from COVID-19."
Until SOMEONE ELSE completes trials on that missing age 55+ cohort, this vaccine should be accepted ONLY for ages 0 to 54. And given its likely low efficacy (62%), NOT for anyone with co-morbidities.
We are not doing a half initial dose because that hasn't been studied in detail.
43% of the patients going into ICUs in the UK[1] are under 60 years old.
Most of the patients going into ICUs (including the older people) needed no assistance in their day to day lives before going into ICU.
60% efficiency which has been peer reviewed, is still as good as the flu vaccine, it can be stored in a normal fridge so will work better for distribution outside of major cities, and costs significantly less.
There are very few downsides, apart from not generating American news.
The independent regulator was aware at every stage and recommended they continue with trying the half dose trial. [1](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55308216).
By my understanding, the quoted figure is what percentage of infection occurred in the control group.
60% efficacy is not going to get you to herd immunity, nor even any kind of immunity for the majority of people taking the vaccine.
Does this give more than a couple of weeks grace on lockdown, if the critical limiting factor is ICU beds?
You are more likely to get symptoms with the Oxford vaccine than an mRNA one, but no more likely to die or need hospital care
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/covid-vaccine-boost-for-m...
I believe Moderna is currently conducting a new trial to ascertain the transmission question. Until we know for sure, all the talk about herd immunity may be moot.
There is a proper study into this happening now, to see if the improved numbers are a real thing, or just a demonstration of the demographic.
I am absolutely not an expert on this. Just paraphrasing something I read.
i do agree oxford and astrazeneca have not handled this well. it seems quite clearly an error based on a volume of documentation but leadership at both institutions appear to be insisting it was not, which degrades trust at a time when many members of the public do not trust health officials to tell them which way is up.