<story><title>Coronavirus: Oxford vaccine triggers immune response</title><url>https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53469839</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>ageitgey</author><text>You are misunderstanding the point of this study. This is a Phase 1 study designed to show that the vaccine itself doesn&amp;#x27;t directly make people sick and to measure their antibody responses via blood tests.&lt;p&gt;The on-going Phase 2&amp;#x2F;3 trials in the UK, South Africa and Brazil are designed to establish the efficacy of the vaccine under viral challenge. The idea is that you vaccinate a bunch of people (and an equally-sized control group) and wait around until a subset of them test positive for the virus. Then you unblind the groups and make sure that the people who got sick were in the control group. You also check for ADE (antibody dependent enhancement) to make sure the vaccine doesn&amp;#x27;t amplify the strength of the virus.&lt;p&gt;All your questions are valid, but this study doesn&amp;#x27;t claim to answer them. Those results are still forthcoming. Additionally, the risk of ADE is well understood and carefully considered in the design of these trials.&lt;p&gt;(Disclaimer - I&amp;#x27;m a participant in the UK Phase 2&amp;#x2F;3 trial)</text></item><item><author>djsumdog</author><text>It seems like they tested for antibodies, but this article makes no mention of challenges to the real virus.&lt;p&gt;It&amp;#x27;s important to remember that vaccines for previous coronaviruses (SARS&amp;#x2F;MERS) had reports of generating anitbodies, but also causing immunopathic responses or immune enhancement syndrome:&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov&amp;#x2F;pmc&amp;#x2F;articles&amp;#x2F;PMC3335060&amp;#x2F;&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov&amp;#x2F;pmc&amp;#x2F;articles&amp;#x2F;PMC3335060&amp;#x2F;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.pnas.org&amp;#x2F;content&amp;#x2F;117&amp;#x2F;15&amp;#x2F;8218&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.pnas.org&amp;#x2F;content&amp;#x2F;117&amp;#x2F;15&amp;#x2F;8218&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt;Is it safe?&lt;p&gt;It&amp;#x27;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&amp;#x27;t have vaccines for retroviruses like HIV&amp;#x2F;Herpes (and it may not be possible due to the nature of those viruses).&lt;p&gt;I&amp;#x27;ve had all my vaccinations; I&amp;#x27;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.&lt;p&gt;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&amp;#x27;s a good chance this virus will burn out in our population long before a truly safe vaccine comes to market.&lt;p&gt;Having a viable treatment option seems much more valuable and safer than vaccinations in this particular case.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>drited</author><text>The OP was critiquing the media reporting on the study not the study itself so I think your suggestion that the OP misunderstood the point of the study is off base.&lt;p&gt;The OP did not claim that the study sought to answer the questions posed. The article does answer the question &amp;#x27;Is it safe?&amp;#x27; with the word &amp;#x27;Yes&amp;#x27; so I believe you are actually in agreement with the OP and the OP did understand that it is really early to say that, hence the critique.</text></comment>
<story><title>Coronavirus: Oxford vaccine triggers immune response</title><url>https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53469839</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>ageitgey</author><text>You are misunderstanding the point of this study. This is a Phase 1 study designed to show that the vaccine itself doesn&amp;#x27;t directly make people sick and to measure their antibody responses via blood tests.&lt;p&gt;The on-going Phase 2&amp;#x2F;3 trials in the UK, South Africa and Brazil are designed to establish the efficacy of the vaccine under viral challenge. The idea is that you vaccinate a bunch of people (and an equally-sized control group) and wait around until a subset of them test positive for the virus. Then you unblind the groups and make sure that the people who got sick were in the control group. You also check for ADE (antibody dependent enhancement) to make sure the vaccine doesn&amp;#x27;t amplify the strength of the virus.&lt;p&gt;All your questions are valid, but this study doesn&amp;#x27;t claim to answer them. Those results are still forthcoming. Additionally, the risk of ADE is well understood and carefully considered in the design of these trials.&lt;p&gt;(Disclaimer - I&amp;#x27;m a participant in the UK Phase 2&amp;#x2F;3 trial)</text></item><item><author>djsumdog</author><text>It seems like they tested for antibodies, but this article makes no mention of challenges to the real virus.&lt;p&gt;It&amp;#x27;s important to remember that vaccines for previous coronaviruses (SARS&amp;#x2F;MERS) had reports of generating anitbodies, but also causing immunopathic responses or immune enhancement syndrome:&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov&amp;#x2F;pmc&amp;#x2F;articles&amp;#x2F;PMC3335060&amp;#x2F;&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov&amp;#x2F;pmc&amp;#x2F;articles&amp;#x2F;PMC3335060&amp;#x2F;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.pnas.org&amp;#x2F;content&amp;#x2F;117&amp;#x2F;15&amp;#x2F;8218&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.pnas.org&amp;#x2F;content&amp;#x2F;117&amp;#x2F;15&amp;#x2F;8218&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt;Is it safe?&lt;p&gt;It&amp;#x27;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&amp;#x27;t have vaccines for retroviruses like HIV&amp;#x2F;Herpes (and it may not be possible due to the nature of those viruses).&lt;p&gt;I&amp;#x27;ve had all my vaccinations; I&amp;#x27;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.&lt;p&gt;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&amp;#x27;s a good chance this virus will burn out in our population long before a truly safe vaccine comes to market.&lt;p&gt;Having a viable treatment option seems much more valuable and safer than vaccinations in this particular case.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>lbeltrame</author><text>It is slightly different than a regular Phase 1 study because there&amp;#x27;s a control arm. I suspect they want to use the data as a complement to the Phase 2&amp;#x2F;3 results in the unfortunate case the volounteers end up positive for the virus.</text></comment>