Sunday 29th June 2025
Blog Page 417

Playing the (Long) Game: Starmer’s party address

Jasper Evans
-
0
Playing the (Long) Game: Starmer’s party address

“We’re not going to win back those we’ve lost with a single speech, or a clever policy offer” argued Kier Starmer to the empty room. This was fortunate because he had not much of either. Starmer’s party address had been merrily filled with a series of well-constructed arguments, neat little lines, and charming family stories, but it would not be remembered as a great piece of rhetoric, and was devoid of policy. If one overall theme emerged from it, it would be this: we are going to play the game this time, and we are going to try to play it well.

Starmer’s speech addressed exactly all the points it had to for a Labour leader dealing with the fallout of the most recent election. It made no attempts to defend the Corbyn era, instead accepting a ‘deserved’ defeat with its head bowed, and started to repent. Starmer’s repeated references to his love of country pushed hard against the unpatriotic representation the Labour party had received in recent years. Similarly, he made clear how his leadership, his ‘new leadership’, would better deal with Brexit (‘the debate […] is over’) and more importantly the anti-Semitism plaguing elements of the party. There were not one, but two targets of the speech, blundering Johnson and the ghost of Jeremy Corbyn.

That’s not to say he didn’t get a good few licks in at the Tories. A strong right hook drew comparisons between Johnson’s career as a lying journalist and Starmer’s as a terrorist-busting lawyer. There were also repeated jabs at the government’s incompetence, a now well-established method of attack, admittedly made easier by their current propensity for self-inflicted foot injuries. Yet there was no thorough indictment of Conservative ideology. No argument that a new society would be needed after the experiences and lessons of the pandemic and the recent protests in response to the unlawful killing of George Floyd, and even less of a clear plan of what such a society would look like. To radical proletariats, Starmer offered little.

But as the speech pointed out, there have only been three Labour winners in the last three-quarters of a century, and none of them have been radical prepubescent proletariats. After over a decade of Conservative rule, the country desperately needs new leadership, and Labour’s previous offers of radical change have yet to be accepted. Labour has not appeared competent or patriotic and has had multiple unacceptable instances of antisemitism dilute its ability to criticise racism within the Conservative party. These issues have to be addressed before it can properly argue its case. This seems especially true given the long wait we have until the next election. Who knows what policies will be most relevant in 2024? Right now, any big policies risk criticism or reversal, and offer little reward.

Napoleon famously said never to interrupt your enemy while they’re making a mistake, and current polling shows Starmer has been wise to follow this advice. Still, though, Starmer’s first speech did not offer a clear alternative world. Eventually your enemies stop making mistakes, as the deposed Napoleon could attest. Starmer’s speech showed Labour is getting ready to set sail, now they just need to decide where they’re going.

image attribution: Rwendland

Report thy neighbour

Emily Rosindell
-
0
Report thy neighbour

CW: some linked sources make mentions of rape 

Why do we adhere to our social contract? Do we feel morally obligated to? Or do we feel threatened by the risk of punishment? The question has plagued our society for years, being put by The New York Times, in 1964 as: “Does the individual have the right – or perhaps the duty – to disobey the law when his mind, his conscience, or his religious faith tells him that the law is unjust?” 

On 14 September, MP Kit Malthouse, Minister for Crime and Policing, announced encouragement to the public to “report their neighbors for any suspected breaches of the new ‘rule of six’”. The ‘rule of six’ refers to new regulations that make it illegal to meet socially in groups of more than six indoors and outdoors in England and Scotland, and indoors in Wales.

While members of the public have wondered if they are being called upon to make up for lack of enforcement, officials are calling for nation-wide camaraderie in keeping COVID-19 levels low. In an interview with BBC Breakfast, Martin Hewitt, the National Police Chief’s Council’s chairman, stated that new restrictions “[rely] on all of us being responsible” when asked about Malthouse’s statements.

What does this mean for the public? Will we peer out of our windows to call 101 on the old woman with seven family members visiting? Or will only illegal raves be closed down quickly with responsible actions from good civilians? A new emotional challenge in this pandemic will be combatting the cognitive dissonance of our moral compass. Those who feel morally obligated to follow restrictions may feel uncomfortable reporting their neighbours, while those following the rules for the betterment of the community may feel distressed by those with blatant disregard for the pandemic.

It’s unclear whether the government wants to bring together communities to fight COVID-19 or are just making up for the difficulty in enforcing the restrictions. Asking the public to report neighbors is not a new tactic in emergency situations.

Cuba’s model of social control relies strongly on the public.  Cuban citizens have long been asked by their government to report neighbors participating in any illegal activity in an attempt to curb black market trade. The threat of a possible report by neighbors creates a fear that reduces the amount of illegal activity publicly and visibly happening. Cuba’s model is somewhat reminiscent of Soviet social control due it’s threatening nature. However, the Cuban model is unique in that it produced an incentive to report suspicious activity and actions that seem criminal in the name of ‘contributions to society’. Cuba is not the only nation with a history of neighborhood watch though.

Looking at the United States, we find another long held culture of reporting illegal activity amongst neighbors. American ‘neighborhood watch’ culture has been a prominent aspect of community living since the early 1960s. Shortly after the infamous murder of Kitty Genovese in Queens, New York City, many civilian groups created local watch schedules to protect their residents from crime by liasing with the police. Seeing this response, the National Sheriff’s Association (NSA) created the National Neighborhood Watch Program in 1972 to allow for a standardized structure to enhance legal enforcement. However the intensity of this program in America has directly contributed to gentrification of neighborhoods and stereotyping what a “dangerous” person may appear as. There are proven inadequacies when law enforcement is put into the hands of the people. Conversation around these inadequacies resurfaced in 2012 following the murder of Trayvon Martin, an unarmed Black teenager, after a neighborhood watch member deemed him to be suspicious through racial profiling. 

Essentially, neighbourhood watch programs that are used long term in Cuba and the United States have shown to create communities that are hostile to one another. However, could this tactic work for a specific purpose, such as short term enforcement of COVID-19 regulations?

We can look to South Africa, where there has been a long standing requirement to report others who may have serious and infectious diseases, including plague and anthrax. There are intense repercussions for not notifying healthcare providers of noticeable viruses, including up to 10 years in jail. This rule has sparked a new conversation in South Africa around its effectiveness to battle pandemic situations, such as COVID-19. South African government officials report this rule to be effective in identifying cases in a short period of time. Could this method be the origin story of new government guidelines in the UK? Historically, this ‘report thy neighbour’ strategy seems to have been implemented in extremely partisan nations (like the US) suggesting a link between asking civilians to watch their neighbours and the creation of an adversarial environment. The British public, although at times divided, would most likely have little incentive to report neighbours they otherwise get on well with. 

COVID-19 cases are continually on the rise with business re-openings and movement as its catalyst. This new guideline to report neighbours with suspected cases is an attempt to push home the importance of following restrictions. Perhaps police are having difficulty enforcing new restrictions, so in turn civilians are called upon. While a facade of community engagement is created, divisions are only strengthened by turning on one another.

The Coming A-pork-alypse

Jennifer Zhou
-
0
The Coming A-pork-alypse

In early April, an Iowan farmer, Al Van Beek faced the hardest decision of his life. For months on end, the COVID-19 pandemic had been ravaging the meat industry: disrupting supply chains, delaying processing facilities, and single handedly causing the closure 40% of America’s pork plants. Nearly 8,000 pigs were crammed onto Van Beek’s farm—and now they had nowhere to go. Faced with mounting pressure, Van Beek made a desperate choice. Abortion injections were given to all pregnant sows on his farm; their dead babies, meanwhile, were composted for fertiliser.

Van Beek’s dilemma is just one example of the nightmarish crisis facing farmers across the world. Over the past few months, recurring outbreaks of disease have combined with the general economic downturn to produce a disaster unprecedented in the history of the industry. Demand is dropping. Slaughterhouses are shutting down. Farmers are left stranded, every day, with a backlog of animals numbering in the millions. Official organisations (like the USA’s Department of Agriculture and the UK’s Compassion in World Farming) have responded in the only way they know how: by issuing directives on the “depopulation” and “euthanasia” of animals.

These titles are deliberately bland. “Depopulation”, after all, doesn’t sound so different from the routine killing that maintains the day-to-day supply of our supermarkets. But behind the unassuming names lurks a slaughter of nearly unimaginable scale. Around 70, 000 pigs and 60, 000 chickens are killed each day because of lack of space and workers. To maximise efficiency, farmers are depopulating using a method known as heat strangulation: after cooping hundreds of animals in a barn, a switch is flipped to turn off the airflow and increase the heat. Birds and pigs, trapped en masse in what is essentially a livestock oven, die over a period of hours from a combination of heat stress and suffocation.

“Euthanasia” is a gross misnomer for this type of death. There’s nothing humane about heat strangulation—and there’s something troubling, in fact, about our willingness to hide behind sanitised labels. After all, aren’t humans mostly to blame for the emergent crisis? Our rapaciously carnivorous diet creates an incentive for mass production, forcing most farmers to boost productivity by using breeds with unnaturally fast growth rates and keeping animals in intensive confinement. The meat industry operates to maximum capacity, at maximum speed, with the maximum number of livestock—leaving farmers with no flexibility to hold animals longer than planned.

This train of thought becomes even more disturbing when we remember that animals have nothing to do with the pandemic. Farm animals aren’t affected by COVID-19, nor do they transmit it; we can’t justify killing them in the same way that we justify, for instance, killing poultry during outbreaks of avian flu. The outbreaks at meat plants and slaughterhouses weren’t caused by animals, but by overcrowding, poor hygiene, and employers’ lack of concern for sanitation. In other words, we’re not killing animals because they’re sick; we’re killing them because humans are.

This article began by calling the meat industry a victim of the “COVID crisis”—but perhaps that phrase is misleading. Our habits as consumers have pushed factories and farms to the breaking point, creating a culture where unclean workhouses and high-speed slaughter are treated as the norm. The conditions were already in place for disaster: we just needed an unexpected event like COVID to trigger it.

The mass killings now taking place are a graphic illustration of how wrong the system has gone. With the economy in shambles and the vaccine still a distant prospect, there’s no telling when the animal killings will end—but once they do, we’ll need to make major reforms to the meat industry to make it more resilient against disaster. Hiding behind words like “euthanasia” and “depopulation” represents a gross denial of guilt. The first step to ending the animal apocalypse may be recognising our own culpability.

Return to Oxford

Luke Bateman
-
0
Return to Oxford

A peal of percussive raindrops tumble from towering heavens.
A lonely leaf joins the fray in a willowing, whispering wash.
Oh, to wander through carbuncle cobblestone alleys
And be caught in a rattling autumny swash.

Verbalisation

Flavia Velasquez Cotini
-
0
Verbalisation

There is a feeling I experience over and over – an urge to say something meaningful. My hands reach out expectantly for pen and paper as if performing a lucky ritual. Like a growing undertow, my urge rumbles, gathers and gathers. The urge brews in the depths, builds momentum. The urge whirlpools passing passions into lasting currents. Emotions swell towards the paper like the tide seeking the moon, reach out, demand expression. 

Then there is a sudden pull – my loose thoughts spill over the pebbly surface of the page. Images crashing and breaking against sobering stillness, propelling seafoam into the air, rumpling the Edenic crispness of the page.  

The passing of time holds a distilling power upon matter. It extracts the message, I tell myself. I put my faith in it, await its effect, pace my heart to its ebb and flow. Only at my low tide do I return to inspect the page’s dishevelled shore. Once waves have receded from it, the paper resembles the sight of a shipwreck – mine. I inspect whatever is left. Lone, crystallised words; the reduced remains of an ample mess. Solidified phrases from an evaporated sermon. Anything rough, anything rock-like and grainy endures. Something to say, one hopes? Something meaningful among the rubble?

Grit. Lumpy words of brine and crumbled seashell I can hardly recognise as mine. What is it that they spell out – if anything at all?

Artwork by Anja Segmuller.

Paying Attention

Matilda Houston-Brown
-
0
Paying Attention

what do I get? Now, there’s the huge way of 
sun caught between windowsills of potted cacti.
We’re building sunflowers with our
hands, like chimneys, yellow cathedrals. Four
tattooed dots sketch out full stopped ellipsis.
My ankle swelled up, bruised sallow rainbows.

what do we get? New dog in the doorway
sings applause. I lie tied up with the hot
new sky, wrapped in a stone circle. Spring picks up 
its feet. Sheep chase the goats round the fresh
paddock we picked, staccato cloven hooves.
Good Friday, we walk outside for the change.

on the last day in my notebook I got 
you, again, again, huge ways the sun criss-
crossed your floor, paving to written mornings
alongside the rain, wetness of an earth
re-owned, handed out in fistfuls. I wrote
that the world feels too much of everything,

that I am so lucky to be in it.

Opinion: Boris cannot ‘take back control’ when there is none left

Julia Brechtelsbauer
-
0
Opinion: Boris cannot ‘take back control’ when there is none left

We all have to follow the law. Right? A basic statement often parroted to us as children but one which has begun to appear not so simple. This year, the British public has been hit with varied and repeated instances of the Government producing confused and vague policy, as well as blasé rule-breaking from those in authority. Whilst these may seem necessary to those who currently occupy Westminster, it’s beginning to become obvious just how dangerous this attitude can be, potentially rocking the democratic core of the UK, the principles which Boris’ Brexiteer campaign was founded upon.

During the peak of the coronavirus pandemic in the UK, Dominic Cummings made the infamous trip up-north, seemingly breaking the very advice the Government advisor himself was producing. Not only that, but he was indeed praised by the Prime Minister himself for acting as ‘any good father would’. Of course, this ignores the fact that he was breaking the rules. The outrage that this evoked in myself was undoubtedly mirrored across the country (blatantly, in the media). But outrage left apathy in its place. As Love Islander Amber Rose Gill tweeted ‘After I saw that man drive all the way up the country to check his eyesight with a hot box of corona & the gov defended him I knew I wasn’t listening to a damn thing after that’. Plain and simply put, if Dominic can break the rules, why can’t I?

This bud of sentiment goes to show the true importance of the idea that no-one is above the law. Whilst it’s easy to appeal to ideas of fairness in this respect, the real importance of such a rule is its implications. If Cummings is above the rules, then there mustn’t be rules worth following. The government’s insistence on individual responsibility and discretion in the midst of the pandemic hasn’t aided in squashing that bud. Press conferences by various ministers were dominated by conditional caveats; ‘Go to work, if you can’, ‘travel abroad at your own risk’, ‘stay at a 2m distance when possible’. The instructions given by the Government were undeniably vague, which of course, led the public to fill in the blanks. Even if, unlike Amber Gill, you wished to follow the rules, how would you even ascertain exactly what to do? The government pushed the public into their own judgment, on not only whether to follow the rules, but to decide what exactly the rules were.

The government’s inability to facilitate abiding by the law did not end there. Sky in late August noted 11 times where Boris changed his mind on a policy already released to the public. Now to that list, including the infamous A-level and school meals scandal, we can add the Parliament bar being exempt from the 10pm closure rule. The message is clear to the public; don’t take us too seriously, because we might change our mind.

If that shameless breaking of the rule of law wasn’t enough, the ‘rule of six’ legislation was published only minutes before coming into force. In theoretical terms, every person obliged to follow the law in the UK, should have been able to read all 10 pages of the dense statutory instrument in 30 minutes. Of course, neither you nor I spend our spare time reading every law which may come our way, but the bare principle of only publishing a law half an hour before its effect further perpetuates the government’s inability to allow us to follow their own rules.

The summer months following lock-down were dominated by scrambling for people to blame. We were told to Eat out to Help Out in August, to be told to limit interaction in September. The people trying to follow the instructions of the Government, and assist the economy, have been blamed. So to add to Dominic’s rule-breaking, and lacklustre government advice, the public was also effectively told by the government that following their advice was wrong, and consequently caused the rise in cases. It would seem that the government’s complete disregard for their own responsibility and the law couldn’t get worse.

In September, the Prime Minister introduced a Bill which had the public wondering whether the government was going to legislate breaking international law. I predict this to be the straw that breaks the back of the British democracy. Never in history has a Prime Minister acted so flagrantly in regards to his international legal obligations. Whilst this may seem like the price to pay to ‘get Brexit done’, the government must realise that they are also playing with our democracy. Johnson is sending the message that the law is not to be taken seriously. And if that is the case, why follow it? Or indeed, why waste time voting people in to create it? The Tories have had a few rounds of gambling on the constitution, but this time they are risking the very foundation of democracy; the rule of law.

Now the government is clutching at the straws of their own authority; shutting the pubs at 10pm, allowing us only to meet in groups of six, and limiting weddings to 15, when simply, they may have already lost us. When pandemics are dependent on mutual and collective action, the law being the most useful apparatus in orchestrating such, it is dangerous beyond usual implications that we don’t feel obliged to follow the law. Beyond this, pandemics demand international cooperation, and the very thing the Conservative government appears to not take seriously. Through the government breaking their own rules, vagueness and flip-flopping, the Johnson government has dug the grave for their own authority, just when they need it most. Johnson, having bounded around the slogan ‘take back control’, is losing control himself.

Whilst we are promised that Boris Johnson, coronavirus and Dominic Cummings are not forever, their impact upon the British conscience may be much deeper and long-lasting than the 30 minute-trip to Barnard Castle, or the rule-of-three slogans tirelessly churned out by the Government. The dangerous perception that we aren’t obligated to follow the law, of course, does not bode well for the UK’s response to the ‘second wave’, but even beyond that, gives a bleak impression for the future of Britain as the oldest democracy in the World. But since the Tory leadership campaign was dominated by admissions of recreational drug use, perhaps an attitude of disregard for the law is a fitting legacy for this government.

Keble students boycott hall food over rise in prices

Amelia Wood
-
0
Keble students boycott hall food over rise in prices

Undergraduate students at Keble College have launched a campaign to lower the cost of hall meals. They claim that the price of a standard dinner meal has almost doubled since last year, rising from £3.80 to £6.75 and that two course dinners have been made mandatory. 

Some of those affected by the rises have written an open letter of their concerns, as well as asking fellow students to boycott hall food until college administration agrees to reduce food prices to what they had been previously, as well as giving students the option to opt out of extras such as desserts.

The open letter has so far been signed by over 100 students. It says that meal prices were advertised at a lower rate than reality, which “put many students at a disadvantage and has put a burden on those students who have budgeted in accordance with the cheaper food prices advertised.”

After pressure from students, Keble has since decided to remove dessert from the compulsory meal, reducing the price to £4.75. The college has also agreed to discuss further with the JCR about prices. 

Individual student rooms at Keble do not have cooking facilities, which makes hall a primary food option.

Keble College told Cherwell that “the suggestion that we have materially increased food prices is simply wrong”. They stated that the average cost of a lunch in 2019/2020 was £4.00, and the average cost of a three-course dinner was £7.80.

They continued: “Students also have access to our café in the H B Allen Centre where freshly made Paninis are £2.40, Baguettes £2.50  and Pizza Margherita, 12“ is £5.00, with extra toppings at £0.40.”

Theo Sergiou, a second year PPE student at Keble, told Cherwell that the boycott is a “financial necessity” and says that Oxford alumni have gotten in touch with their support. The boycott is planned to continue until Monday.

Sergiou said: “If the local independent kebab house can survive COVID without burdening students, college should have no reason to rely on their students to relieve them of their difficulties…We do not think college is doing this on purpose, nor do I believe they are conscious of their exclusion, however, this doesn’t change the effect it is having.”

He said the college explained the price increase with the JCR’s request last year to source food more sustainably.

Keble College told Cherwell: “The Covid crisis has meant we’ve had to change radically the way we prepare and deliver meals in order to protect staff and students. This has involved significant additional costs which are not reflected in meal charges.  On top of this, food costs are continuing to rise.  The global pandemic has impacted demand, supply and pricing across many commodities.

“Costs have been affected by, among other factors: Turbulent currencies, Product shortages, High price increases, Labour shortages, Weather conditions (a very hot and dry summer globally, impacting on harvests), Avian flu (pushing prices on poultry and egg, when flocks have to be culled), Salmon anaemia, and African Swine Fever in pigs from Germany (Europe’s largest pork producer).”

Keble also directed Cherwell to an article by The Tab which praises Keble’s food provisions to quarantining students, based on a student’s TikToks of her meal deliveries, in which the student compliments her roast chicken and cheesecake. 

Image credit: David Iliff/ Wikimedia Commons

Coalition of societies to work for racial equality in Oxford

Mark Robins
-
0
Coalition of societies to work for racial equality in Oxford

Student societies have joined a city-wide Coalition to support the rights of marginalised people in Oxford.

The Oxford Coalition of Black Communities and Communities of Colour has been founded this Black History Month to support ethnic minority and working-class groups in Oxford. Backed by NGOs and trade unionists, the Coalition will begin with a community-led “Manifesto for the City” to drive policy change in Oxford. 

A statement from the Coalition said it is “committed to the self-determination of Black and minority ethnic communities, as well as securing the rights of all marginalised people in our city”.

It added: “Our Coalition will use its collective energy and resources to drive practical and policy measures towards a city that works to empower every single one of its workers and residents.” The Oxford University Labour Club, Africa Society, and Feminist Society have backed the Coalition, joining local groups such as Black Lives Matter Oxford. 

Campaigners founded the initiative after recognising the need to sustain anti-racist collective organisations which arose after the death of George Floyd. They were also spurred by the coronavirus pandemic, which, the Coalition says, revealed “stark racial inequalities… globally and within UK society”.

The Coalition advocates “bottom-up” action to pursue its aims, citing reform after the death of Stephen Lawrence as a successful example of “pressure from below”.

A spokesperson told Cherwell: “The Coalition aims to practically foster greater solidarity, unity of purpose and action amongst different grass-roots organisations and community groups who have a shared goal around achieving race equality and promoting social justice in Oxford.

“To this end the Coalition aims to function as a grass-roots activist information bureau and network sharing ideas, and facilitating solidarity building amongst a range of community groups and local campaigns which can thereby help coordinate joint action around shared goals, aims, and objectives.” 

The Coalition claims that decision making bodies such as the Oxford City Council have not done enough to support Black and minority ethnic communities. “Actions speak louder than words,” said the Coalition.

“Take the issue of racism in the workplace – report after report – not least the government’s own Race Disparity Audit highlights how Black and minority ethnic workers are subject to disproportionate rates of disciplinaries, are over-represented in lower grade positions and under-represented in the top/senior posts within the occupational hierarchy. There is next to no Black and minority ethnic representation within the executive boards of most of Oxford’s key public institutions.”

“Currently as a result of pressure from below all our major institutions are announcing anti-racist charters and race equality action plans. The obvious danger here is that without sustained pressure from the grass-roots demanding greater accountability to local communities what we get left with is rhetorical ethics, tokenism and symbolic representation.”

Oxford City Council denies the claim. A spokesperson told Cherwell: “Oxford City Council plays a leading role in the city to promote and secure the rights of the city’s minority communities.

“We manage 19 community centres, including the Asian Cultural Centre; we provide millions of pounds of grants to community groups, including to organise events such as the Cowley Road Carnival and Oxford Mela;  right now we are also celebrating Black History Month, decolonising the Museum of Oxford, and one of our councillors is taking part in the Rhodes Commission.

“Through this pandemic we have extended our work with minority communities, who have been particularly affected. This includes stronger relationships with Oxford’s religious leaders of all faiths and working with charity partners like Oxford Community Action, who support minority communities in hardship. We are always keen to work with residents of Oxford to make the city a better place to live, work and visit.” 

“We welcome the launch of Oxford Coalition of Black Communities and Communities of Colour, and look forward to their contribution to supporting Oxford’s communities.” 

The 2011 Census found that 22% of Oxford residents were from a Black of minority ethnic group, higher than the UK average of 13%. 

Image credit: Pixabay

Oxford vaccine trials paused in the US

Charlie Hancock
-
0
Oxford vaccine trials paused in the US

Combined phase II/III trials for a potential vaccine being developed at the University of Oxford’s Jenner Institute to protect against COVID-19 may be continuing in the UK, but they remain paused in the United States.

Global trials of the vaccine were halted after a British participant developed symptoms of transverse myelitis, a neurological disorder which causes the spinal cord to become inflamed and damages the myelin layer which protects nerve cell fibres. Although trials in the United Kingdom, South Africa and Brazil were resumed throughout September, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulatory body has halted trials in the United States until they are satisfied the participant’s adverse reaction was not caused by the vaccine.

Dr Anthony Fauci, the prominent immunologist advising the White House Coronavirus Taskforce, described the interruption as “unfortunate” but emphasised that it is not unusual for vaccine trials to be halted. “It’s really one of the safety valves that you have on clinical trials such as this”, he told CBS on 9 September.

Although investigating potential side-effects is an established part of the vaccine development process, there are concerns that if the FDA does not allow the trial to continue, it could reduce the data available to scientists to judge the efficacy and safety of the vaccine. Most new drugs and vaccines go through three phases of testing before they are made available to patients. Some national regulatory bodies, including the FDA, may demand additional rounds of testing. Phase III trials involve thousands of patients to provide a large sample size for scientists to determine how effective the vaccine is, but also if there are any side effects or groups of people who cannot receive the vaccine safely.

The Oxford vaccine requires two injections to be given at 28 day intervals. While 18,000 participants across the UK, Brazil and South Africa are on track to receive their second dose, 30,000 American participants may miss theirs or at least have it delayed unless the FDA allows the trial to continue soon. It is not clear what the implications of this delay would be. Eleanor Riley, Professor of Immunology at the University of Edinburgh told The Times that delivering the second dose a longer interval after the first than 28 days may leader to better outcomes. “However, changing the interval halfway through a trial can be problematic”, she added. If the American cohort of participants are not vaccinated according to the determined schedule, they may have to be excluded from the overall analysis of data.

The SARS-Cov-2 virus, which causes Covid-19, is covered with club-shaped spike proteins which it uses to infect human cells and hijack them to produce more viruses. Spike proteins are also recognised by the body’s immune system, causing it to produce antibodies to combat the infection.

The Oxford vaccine uses a harmless adenovirus to introduce a sequence of DNA into a human cell, causing it to make the spike proteins which cause an immune reaction. It is hoped that this method will allow the body to develop immunity to SARS-Cov-2, without causing a vaccinated individual to become unwell or contagious. Ideally that this will allow people with pre-existing conditions to receive the vaccine and reduce the risk of patients developing side-effects.

If the vaccine passes its phase III trials and is found to be both safe and effective, it could allow countries around the world to lift restrictions put in place to limit the spread of Covid-19.

Image credit: Bermix Studio/ Unsplash

1...416417418...2,514Page 417 of 2,514

Support Student Journalism

Cherwell is Oxford’s oldest independent newspaper, established in 1920. We are entirely student-run. By supporting us, you will contribute to keeping our paper in print and online. Every donation makes a difference.

Donate

Explore

Follow us

More

Oxford Student Publications Limited © 2025 - All Rights Reserved | Privacy Policy

Website by James Ashley