[katieHaylor (OP)]

Barrie asks:

In the confusing discussion of the Oxford vaccine testing results, I have not heard any mention of how many volunteers who had the placebo caught the virus and went to hospital.  Do you know the answer?

[Zer0]

Hello Barrie!
🙋

I do Not know the Answer to rhe question you ask...

But one thing im very much certain bout, is the OAZ vax is pretty skeptical & sketchy in nature.
(My personal views, Not to be confused with the viewpoint of the TNS Forum)
🙏

I personally heard Alot of negative reviews...i am Not a Specialist in this field...but too many doubts surrounding this.
(Donno Why the UN does not issue a press release or statement to clarify on the subject matter in question)
🤔
Maybe, the UN did... I'm simply not aware of it.
🙏

P.S. - Yup! I know...this response comes waay tooo late...
👎
But, Better Late than Never, Right!
😇👍

[evan_au]

How many Oxford vaccine trial volunteers were in the placebo group?

As I understand it, the usual practice is to have a 50:50 split of "treatment" (the real medicine) and "placebo" (imitation medicine).

The Astra-Zeneca trial was conducted in several countries, and the trials varied in:
- The incidence of COVID-19 varied over time, and between countries
- Dosing (the UK trial accidentally had half-strength for the initial dose)
- Age (the UK trial tended to have younger participants)
- Delay between doses (the UK trial was put on hold, so some of the participants received their second doses a lot later than the planned 3 weeks gap)
- The later trial in Africa was small in size, and faced several new variants.

So, even if you had the raw number of how many people in the placebo arm went to hospital, you would still need to untangle all the other variables.

[CliffordK]

I thought they should have done a multi-arm analysis.

So, say 1/6 of the patients get the Placebo
1/6 get Moderna
1/6 get Pfizer
1/6 get J&J
1/6 get Astrozenica
1/6 get Oxford

If J&J wanted to do a single shot, they could do a single shot early + Placebo late.

Overall, there is less redundancy in the study.  It is easier to compare between brands.  If conducted by a disinterested 3rd party, there is better study integrity, and a far greater number of people get an active medicine of one type or another.

[alancalverd]

This would be fine in an ideal world where all products were simultaneously available and politicians didn't interfere with the market. The priority was to get any and all products tested and into use ASAP through the proper procedure of phased testing: no point in waiting for every potential manufacturer to get through Phase 1 before carrying out a comparative test because someone would be bound to complain that they hadn't been invited. Plus your list excludes Sinopharm and at least 3 other Chinese manufacturers, an Israeli oral vaccine, and Sputnik, just to name a few contenders....where do you draw the line?