Carrie doesn't make it.....nor any female government ministers.
The Woman’s Hour Power List 2020: Our Planet has been revealed! This year we're celebrating 30 inspiring women whose work is making a significant positive contribution to the environment and the sustainability of our planet.
It's not quite clear that the Moderna vaccine is "more efficacious" than the Pfizer vaccine.
The Pfizer press release says "The case split between vaccinated individuals and those who received the placebo indicates a vaccine efficacy rate above 90%".
The Moderna press release says there were "95 cases, of which 90 cases of COVID-19 were observed in the placebo group versus 5 cases observed in the mRNA-1273 group, resulting in a point estimate of vaccine efficacy of 94.5%"
Those numbers may not be directly comparable, because Pfizer may have calculated a statistical confidence interval, rather just a "point estimate". If so, the observed efficacies would probably be indistinguishable.
Why we need to wait for the peer reviewed academic papers based on the full studies.
I'm not sure approval will be waiting on peer reviewed papers. They will submit their evidence to the regulatory authorities for a decision (in UK MHRA). The evidence will be looked at by experts there. Of course I am sure papers will be published, but not as part of getting it into use.
Given what you can get through peer review for publication.... I think the regulators have my confidence, not the publications.
Quite. I know a few people who either are or have been at MHRA, and they are not the type to have the wool pulled over their eyes. One in particular (not on a vaccine area) is still our go to guy for manuscript checking. Its his superpower to spot mistakes (from typos, to stuff that doesn;t make sense, to dodgy bits of data we were hoping to sneak through...)
As opposed to publication where throughput seems to be the demand these days.
Given the lack of comeback for failures in peer reviewing papers - Wakefield anyone? - versus what would happen if the regulator stuffs up...
It's all about incentives - publish shite, nothing seems to happen. The regulators are looking at career ending events, if they screw up.
Quite. Referees generally don't get paid for doing scientific papers, unless things have changed a lot since I was asked every month or fortnight to referee a paper. Out of the goodness of theirt heart - but it doesn't cut the academic mustard except perhaps as a minor bit in the research engagement element of the Research Assessment Framework or whatever the periodic review of Uk university research is called now.
However there are third party reviewers who, so to speak, do it as an integral part of their research work - the systematic reviewers such as the treatment reviews by the Cochrane Collaboration. No idea if they willbe covering vaccine trials, but getting their teeth into trials generally is part of their bread and butter.
Even funnier is how they recruit referees - I published a paper and got bombarded with requests to review papers by some very eminent people.
Which made me wonder about the people who cheerfully do it for bragging rights.....
This is going to be so awesome, Apple will make such an awesome success of this, and not the disaster that Samsung made.
A Chinese report claims that Apple has had Foxconn and other suppliers make samples of folding iPhones, and that the devices could be launched as early as 2022.
Both Foxconn and Nippon Nippon have been asked to send samples so that Apple can see how they stand up to more than 100,000 fold operations …
I don't really get the idea of a folding phone. The large screen on my regular phone is more than enough to do phone type stuff and then I have a laptop for doing proper work.
I think it'd be great. I currently switch between an iPad mini for reading ebooks and an iPhone for doing, well smartphone things. If I could have a book-readable screen on my phone for only when I need it, then I wouldn't need two devices.
Mr. kinabalu, aye, and during the race sat next to Ecclestone.
I'm fine with sport generally being apolitical. But if it wants to start delving into political matters (leaving aside that BLM is neo-Marxist bullshit) it can't only say "Racism in America, so bad" and turn a blind eye to literal concentration camps.
At least, it can't if it wants a shred of moral integrity.
Why expect that - remember that in 1985, calling for democracy in South Africa was a moral imperative.
Carrie doesn't make it.....nor any female government ministers.
The Woman’s Hour Power List 2020: Our Planet has been revealed! This year we're celebrating 30 inspiring women whose work is making a significant positive contribution to the environment and the sustainability of our planet.
Mr. Malmesbury, I don't expect it. But the lack of consistency utterly undermines the professed moral righteousness of the sport in general, and Hamilton in particular.
This is going to be so awesome, Apple will make such an awesome success of this, and not the disaster that Samsung made.
A Chinese report claims that Apple has had Foxconn and other suppliers make samples of folding iPhones, and that the devices could be launched as early as 2022.
Both Foxconn and Nippon Nippon have been asked to send samples so that Apple can see how they stand up to more than 100,000 fold operations …
I don't really get the idea of a folding phone. The large screen on my regular phone is more than enough to do phone type stuff and then I have a laptop for doing proper work.
I think it'd be great. I currently switch between an iPad mini for reading ebooks and an iPhone for doing, well smartphone things. If I could have a book-readable screen on my phone for only when I need it, then I wouldn't need two devices.
But at the cost of additional weight and another point of failure. It seems to go against Apple's whole design philosophy.
I find the term 'tax dodger' really pejorative, my financial advisers call it 'tax minimisation strategies' which is much nicer sounding.
There is a difference between evasion (illegal) and avoidance (legal) - dodging smells like evasion, minimisation just avoidance.
There is also a difference between asking your accountant what are legitimate deductions and what are the normal best practices to reduce your exposure to tax, compared to moving to another country just to minimize your tax bill or one of these crazy schemes so many celebs used where they no longer employed directly or via a UK service company, instead technically worked for overseas companies and then took interest free loans rather than a wage.
Mr. kinabalu, aye, and during the race sat next to Ecclestone.
I'm fine with sport generally being apolitical. But if it wants to start delving into political matters (leaving aside that BLM is neo-Marxist bullshit) it can't only say "Racism in America, so bad" and turn a blind eye to literal concentration camps.
At least, it can't if it wants a shred of moral integrity.
I think Patrick Hutchinson and Marcus Rashford have been more effective in leading public opinion than Lewis Hamilton and Stormzy.
It's because they let their actions speak for themselves.
It's not quite clear that the Moderna vaccine is "more efficacious" than the Pfizer vaccine.
The Pfizer press release says "The case split between vaccinated individuals and those who received the placebo indicates a vaccine efficacy rate above 90%".
The Moderna press release says there were "95 cases, of which 90 cases of COVID-19 were observed in the placebo group versus 5 cases observed in the mRNA-1273 group, resulting in a point estimate of vaccine efficacy of 94.5%"
Those numbers may not be directly comparable, because Pfizer may have calculated a statistical confidence interval, rather just a "point estimate". If so, the observed efficacies would probably be indistinguishable.
Why we need to wait for the peer reviewed academic papers based on the full studies.
I'm not sure approval will be waiting on peer reviewed papers. They will submit their evidence to the regulatory authorities for a decision (in UK MHRA). The evidence will be looked at by experts there. Of course I am sure papers will be published, but not as part of getting it into use.
Given what you can get through peer review for publication.... I think the regulators have my confidence, not the publications.
Quite. I know a few people who either are or have been at MHRA, and they are not the type to have the wool pulled over their eyes. One in particular (not on a vaccine area) is still our go to guy for manuscript checking. Its his superpower to spot mistakes (from typos, to stuff that doesn;t make sense, to dodgy bits of data we were hoping to sneak through...)
As opposed to publication where throughput seems to be the demand these days.
Given the lack of comeback for failures in peer reviewing papers - Wakefield anyone? - versus what would happen if the regulator stuffs up...
It's all about incentives - publish shite, nothing seems to happen. The regulators are looking at career ending events, if they screw up.
Quite. Referees generally don't get paid for doing scientific papers, unless things have changed a lot since I was asked every month or fortnight to referee a paper. Out of the goodness of theirt heart - but it doesn't cut the academic mustard except perhaps as a minor bit in the research engagement element of the Research Assessment Framework or whatever the periodic review of Uk university research is called now.
However there are third party reviewers who, so to speak, do it as an integral part of their research work - the systematic reviewers such as the treatment reviews by the Cochrane Collaboration. No idea if they willbe covering vaccine trials, but getting their teeth into trials generally is part of their bread and butter.
Even funnier is how they recruit referees - I published a paper and got bombarded with requests to review papers by some very eminent people.
Which made me wonder about the people who cheerfully do it for bragging rights.....
Quite.
Of course, also, the third party reviews such as by Cochrane are done after the original papers are published ... but synoptic assessment of a number of, e.g., treatment trials is useful in itself.
Been looking at the raw data - we seem to be seeing a trend of spikes in cases on Mondays in the specimen day data - 26th Oct, 2nd Nov, 9th Nov.... Will be interesting to see what happens this week.
Mr. kinabalu, aye, and during the race sat next to Ecclestone.
I'm fine with sport generally being apolitical. But if it wants to start delving into political matters (leaving aside that BLM is neo-Marxist bullshit) it can't only say "Racism in America, so bad" and turn a blind eye to literal concentration camps.
At least, it can't if it wants a shred of moral integrity.
I think Patrick Hutchinson and Marcus Rashford have been more effective in leading public opinion than Lewis Hamilton and Stormzy.
It's because they let their actions speak for themselves.
Are you saying Marcus is the MLK and Lewis the Malcolm X?
I'm reading his new book. Not as good as "Chavs" or "Establishment" but a workmanlike and interesting account of the Corbyn project from the inside. Smacks of honesty rather than gloss. He's particularly tough on Milne. On certain others too including Corbyn himself. Johnny Mac is clearly the guy he really rates.
It's called This Land: The Story of a Movement. No pictures.
I'm reading his new book. Not as good as "Chavs" or "Establishment" but a workmanlike and interesting account of the Corbyn project from the inside. Smacks of honesty rather than gloss. He's particularly tough on Milne. On certain others too including Corbyn himself. Johnny Mac is clearly the guy he really rates.
It's called This Land: The Story of a Movement. No pictures.
Damn it - I`d have bought that if it had pictures
I'll lend it to you when I've finished - so long as you don't crease the pages.
It's not quite clear that the Moderna vaccine is "more efficacious" than the Pfizer vaccine.
The Pfizer press release says "The case split between vaccinated individuals and those who received the placebo indicates a vaccine efficacy rate above 90%".
The Moderna press release says there were "95 cases, of which 90 cases of COVID-19 were observed in the placebo group versus 5 cases observed in the mRNA-1273 group, resulting in a point estimate of vaccine efficacy of 94.5%"
Those numbers may not be directly comparable, because Pfizer may have calculated a statistical confidence interval, rather just a "point estimate". If so, the observed efficacies would probably be indistinguishable.
Why we need to wait for the peer reviewed academic papers based on the full studies.
I'm not sure approval will be waiting on peer reviewed papers. They will submit their evidence to the regulatory authorities for a decision (in UK MHRA). The evidence will be looked at by experts there. Of course I am sure papers will be published, but not as part of getting it into use.
Given what you can get through peer review for publication.... I think the regulators have my confidence, not the publications.
Quite. I know a few people who either are or have been at MHRA, and they are not the type to have the wool pulled over their eyes. One in particular (not on a vaccine area) is still our go to guy for manuscript checking. Its his superpower to spot mistakes (from typos, to stuff that doesn;t make sense, to dodgy bits of data we were hoping to sneak through...)
One of the reasons why the MHRA/EMA split was such a worry.Not a lot of those guys (or gals) about. Did the UK ones stay with MHRA or go to Amsterdam?
Most I know stayed here (including non-UK, but UK based academics).
"More efficacious" - surely "based on a very small sample size, it appears that the Moderna vaccine may be very slightly more efficacious than the Pfizer/BioNTech one."
No, because what Pfizer may be saying, in effect, is that the statistical confidence interval for the efficacy is about 90-100%. In which case the Moderna result would fall in the middle of that range, and if you calculated a confidence interval from it, it would be very similar.
Have you got any links to a statement along those lines?
I've be surprised (a) if the confidence interval was that narrow* and (b) that Pfizer wouldn't have publicised their point estimate, if much higher than 90% (I took it from the publicity that the point estimate was just over 90%)
*I'd need size of both arms for both vaccines to estimate, but the 'uncertainty' in the number infected in the vaccinated group will be quite high (and there's also lesser uncertainty in the control group). Say - clutching numbers from thin air - that 10 in 20000 vaccine recipients got infected, the 95% CI for a population estimate from that alone is around 4-16 people per 20000. Say a control arm of 20000 with 90 infections, your point estimate is 89% effective, but a very crude estimate of 95%CI from uncertainty in the vaccinated group alone is 82-96% effective. That's an underestimate because there is also uncertainty in the number of infections in the control group (and maybe other design uncertainties, different populations, different exposures etc to take into account)
I did do a back-of-the-envelope estimate, which suggested that a 90-4 split of infections between the placebo and vaccine arms would be consistent with a confidence interval whose lower end was around 90%.
Mr. kinabalu, aye, and during the race sat next to Ecclestone.
I'm fine with sport generally being apolitical. But if it wants to start delving into political matters (leaving aside that BLM is neo-Marxist bullshit) it can't only say "Racism in America, so bad" and turn a blind eye to literal concentration camps.
At least, it can't if it wants a shred of moral integrity.
I think Patrick Hutchinson and Marcus Rashford have been more effective in leading public opinion than Lewis Hamilton and Stormzy.
It's because they let their actions speak for themselves.
Are you saying Marcus is the MLK and Lewis the Malcolm X?
"More efficacious" - surely "based on a very small sample size, it appears that the Moderna vaccine may be very slightly more efficacious than the Pfizer/BioNTech one."
No, because what Pfizer may be saying, in effect, is that the statistical confidence interval for the efficacy is about 90-100%. In which case the Moderna result would fall in the middle of that range, and if you calculated a confidence interval from it, it would be very similar.
Have you got any links to a statement along those lines?
I've be surprised (a) if the confidence interval was that narrow* and (b) that Pfizer wouldn't have publicised their point estimate, if much higher than 90% (I took it from the publicity that the point estimate was just over 90%)
*I'd need size of both arms for both vaccines to estimate, but the 'uncertainty' in the number infected in the vaccinated group will be quite high (and there's also lesser uncertainty in the control group). Say - clutching numbers from thin air - that 10 in 20000 vaccine recipients got infected, the 95% CI for a population estimate from that alone is around 4-16 people per 20000. Say a control arm of 20000 with 90 infections, your point estimate is 89% effective, but a very crude estimate of 95%CI from uncertainty in the vaccinated group alone is 82-96% effective. That's an underestimate because there is also uncertainty in the number of infections in the control group (and maybe other design uncertainties, different populations, different exposures etc to take into account)
I did do a back-of-the-envelope estimate, which suggested that a 90-4 split of infections between the placebo and vaccine arms would be consistent with a confidence interval whose lower end was around 90%.
Seems like the latest one can pretty much be stored in a domestic freezer. Not sure how much easier that makes it to use but sounds a big plus for it to me.
My wife is now being measured for fitted PPE so doesnt look like things are expected to get better any time soon at her hospital. Last I heard they had 301 cases. April peak was 170.
I'm reading his new book. Not as good as "Chavs" or "Establishment" but a workmanlike and interesting account of the Corbyn project from the inside. Smacks of honesty rather than gloss. He's particularly tough on Milne. On certain others too including Corbyn himself. Johnny Mac is clearly the guy he really rates.
It's called This Land: The Story of a Movement. No pictures.
I have recently finished "Left Out" by Pogrund and Maguire which is a very comprehensive account of the last two Corbyn years and is clearly based on numerous interviews with those on the inside on all wings of the party rather than being written from an individual's own perspective. What is impressive is that despite it's bredth and detail there has been very little kickback from anyone really questioning in public the revelations and details it contains. That suggests it's a generally reliable account of the internal infighting. Unlike Jones, Pogrund and Macguire are mainstream journalists, not writing from a particular agenda. I think it's going to be regarded as the definitive account.
Corbyn and his office including Milne and Murphy emerge very badly from the debacle, running an utterly divisive but also dysfunctional organisation. So too from the other wing do the likes of Umunna who were clearly heading for the exit door from 2017 and just waiting for the right time to act.
Anyway, if anyone wants some required reading for their Christmas list, I recommend it.
Mr. kinabalu, aye, and during the race sat next to Ecclestone.
I'm fine with sport generally being apolitical. But if it wants to start delving into political matters (leaving aside that BLM is neo-Marxist bullshit) it can't only say "Racism in America, so bad" and turn a blind eye to literal concentration camps.
At least, it can't if it wants a shred of moral integrity.
"Neo-Marxism"
The word "neo" here is doing so much heavy lifting you could start crane hire business.
I'm reading his new book. Not as good as "Chavs" or "Establishment" but a workmanlike and interesting account of the Corbyn project from the inside. Smacks of honesty rather than gloss. He's particularly tough on Milne. On certain others too including Corbyn himself. Johnny Mac is clearly the guy he really rates.
It's called This Land: The Story of a Movement. No pictures.
I have recently finished "Left Out" by Pogrund and Maguire which is a very comprehensive account of the last two Corbyn years and is clearly based on numerous interviews with those on the inside on all wings of the party rather than being written from an individual's own perspective. What is impressive is that despite it's bredth and detail there has been very little kickback from anyone really questioning in public the revelations and details it contains. That suggests it's a generally reliable account of the internal infighting. Unlike Jones, Pogrund and Macguire are mainstream journalists, not writing from a particular agenda. I think it's going to be regarded as the definitive account.
Corbyn and his office including Milne and Murphy emerge very badly from the debacle, running an utterly divisive but also dysfunctional organisation. So too from the other wing do the likes of Umunna who were clearly heading for the exit door from 2017 and just waiting for the right time to act.
Anyway, if anyone wants some required reading for their Christmas list, I recommend it.
Does it say anything about Mr Corbyn's infamous Glasgow speech in which he demanded A, B, C ... which were already either provided (nationalised water, bedroom tax payments) or had been forbidden to Scotland by Labour party policy/Scotland Act/Smith Cttee? I could never understand that incident and wonder whether they explain it.
What is interesting with such opposition is that it is always vaguely expressed - "unethical" to do mass testing - why?
There seems to be a chunk of the medical establishment who would rather eat their own feet, than condone the usage of quick, but less accurate tests or countenance mass screening programs.
"More efficacious" - surely "based on a very small sample size, it appears that the Moderna vaccine may be very slightly more efficacious than the Pfizer/BioNTech one."
No, because what Pfizer may be saying, in effect, is that the statistical confidence interval for the efficacy is about 90-100%. In which case the Moderna result would fall in the middle of that range, and if you calculated a confidence interval from it, it would be very similar.
Have you got any links to a statement along those lines?
I've be surprised (a) if the confidence interval was that narrow* and (b) that Pfizer wouldn't have publicised their point estimate, if much higher than 90% (I took it from the publicity that the point estimate was just over 90%)
*I'd need size of both arms for both vaccines to estimate, but the 'uncertainty' in the number infected in the vaccinated group will be quite high (and there's also lesser uncertainty in the control group). Say - clutching numbers from thin air - that 10 in 20000 vaccine recipients got infected, the 95% CI for a population estimate from that alone is around 4-16 people per 20000. Say a control arm of 20000 with 90 infections, your point estimate is 89% effective, but a very crude estimate of 95%CI from uncertainty in the vaccinated group alone is 82-96% effective. That's an underestimate because there is also uncertainty in the number of infections in the control group (and maybe other design uncertainties, different populations, different exposures etc to take into account)
I did do a back-of-the-envelope estimate, which suggested that a 90-4 split of infections between the placebo and vaccine arms would be consistent with a confidence interval whose lower end was around 90%.
Seems like the latest one can pretty much be stored in a domestic freezer. Not sure how much easier that makes it to use but sounds a big plus for it to me.
My wife is now being measured for fitted PPE so doesnt look like things are expected to get better any time soon at her hospital. Last I heard they had 301 cases. April peak was 170.
I've heard it stated that the Pfizer product may not *need* to be stored at -80C. But that they currently *know* that will work - it might well survive higher temperatures. But they haven't got sufficient test data yet...
Mr. kinabalu, aye, and during the race sat next to Ecclestone.
I'm fine with sport generally being apolitical. But if it wants to start delving into political matters (leaving aside that BLM is neo-Marxist bullshit) it can't only say "Racism in America, so bad" and turn a blind eye to literal concentration camps.
At least, it can't if it wants a shred of moral integrity.
"Neo-Marxism"
The word "neo" here is doing so much heavy lifting you could start crane hire business.
But let's just ignore the bit about the concentration camps.
Mr. kinabalu, aye, and during the race sat next to Ecclestone.
I'm fine with sport generally being apolitical. But if it wants to start delving into political matters (leaving aside that BLM is neo-Marxist bullshit) it can't only say "Racism in America, so bad" and turn a blind eye to literal concentration camps.
At least, it can't if it wants a shred of moral integrity.
"Neo-Marxism"
The word "neo" here is doing so much heavy lifting you could start crane hire business.
But let's just ignore the bit about the concentration camps.
I have no argument with that point. We should be doing more about that. It's both surly and stupid to expect people to point out everything they agree with before they are allowed to mention something they disagree with. Try not to do it again.
"More efficacious" - surely "based on a very small sample size, it appears that the Moderna vaccine may be very slightly more efficacious than the Pfizer/BioNTech one."
No, because what Pfizer may be saying, in effect, is that the statistical confidence interval for the efficacy is about 90-100%. In which case the Moderna result would fall in the middle of that range, and if you calculated a confidence interval from it, it would be very similar.
Have you got any links to a statement along those lines?
I've be surprised (a) if the confidence interval was that narrow* and (b) that Pfizer wouldn't have publicised their point estimate, if much higher than 90% (I took it from the publicity that the point estimate was just over 90%)
*I'd need size of both arms for both vaccines to estimate, but the 'uncertainty' in the number infected in the vaccinated group will be quite high (and there's also lesser uncertainty in the control group). Say - clutching numbers from thin air - that 10 in 20000 vaccine recipients got infected, the 95% CI for a population estimate from that alone is around 4-16 people per 20000. Say a control arm of 20000 with 90 infections, your point estimate is 89% effective, but a very crude estimate of 95%CI from uncertainty in the vaccinated group alone is 82-96% effective. That's an underestimate because there is also uncertainty in the number of infections in the control group (and maybe other design uncertainties, different populations, different exposures etc to take into account)
I did do a back-of-the-envelope estimate, which suggested that a 90-4 split of infections between the placebo and vaccine arms would be consistent with a confidence interval whose lower end was around 90%.
Seems like the latest one can pretty much be stored in a domestic freezer. Not sure how much easier that makes it to use but sounds a big plus for it to me.
My wife is now being measured for fitted PPE so doesnt look like things are expected to get better any time soon at her hospital. Last I heard they had 301 cases. April peak was 170.
I've heard it stated that the Pfizer product may not *need* to be stored at -80C. But that they currently *know* that will work - it might well survive higher temperatures. But they haven't got sufficient test data yet...
I've also heard that main storage at -70 (in effect either -87 freezer, or dry ice) but then potentially 5 days in the normal freezer/ready for injection.
What is interesting with such opposition is that it is always vaguely expressed - "unethical" to do mass testing - why?
There seems to be a chunk of the medical establishment who would rather eat their own feet, than condone the usage of quick, but less accurate tests or countenance mass screening programs.
It's not exactly being compulsorily injected with a drug. And it's not something like Huntingdon's where a test result really needs lots of interpretation, guidance and support (so it's arguably unfair to do it without providing that). But not having a very accurate test does pose interpretation problems (ie a safe result is not carte blanche to party) - though that is hardly an argument given the amount of clear programmes of public health education in this epidemic so far, or lack of.
I wonder if they are worried that positive tests will lead to sanctions/legal penalties (inclouding compulsory quarantine)? They've got enough trouble with antivaxxers coming hull up on the horizon without going all out to provoke them. Ironically IIRC Leicester was a major centre of anti-smallpox vaccination in the late C19/early C20.
"More efficacious" - surely "based on a very small sample size, it appears that the Moderna vaccine may be very slightly more efficacious than the Pfizer/BioNTech one."
No, because what Pfizer may be saying, in effect, is that the statistical confidence interval for the efficacy is about 90-100%. In which case the Moderna result would fall in the middle of that range, and if you calculated a confidence interval from it, it would be very similar.
Have you got any links to a statement along those lines?
I've be surprised (a) if the confidence interval was that narrow* and (b) that Pfizer wouldn't have publicised their point estimate, if much higher than 90% (I took it from the publicity that the point estimate was just over 90%)
*I'd need size of both arms for both vaccines to estimate, but the 'uncertainty' in the number infected in the vaccinated group will be quite high (and there's also lesser uncertainty in the control group). Say - clutching numbers from thin air - that 10 in 20000 vaccine recipients got infected, the 95% CI for a population estimate from that alone is around 4-16 people per 20000. Say a control arm of 20000 with 90 infections, your point estimate is 89% effective, but a very crude estimate of 95%CI from uncertainty in the vaccinated group alone is 82-96% effective. That's an underestimate because there is also uncertainty in the number of infections in the control group (and maybe other design uncertainties, different populations, different exposures etc to take into account)
I did do a back-of-the-envelope estimate, which suggested that a 90-4 split of infections between the placebo and vaccine arms would be consistent with a confidence interval whose lower end was around 90%.
Seems like the latest one can pretty much be stored in a domestic freezer. Not sure how much easier that makes it to use but sounds a big plus for it to me.
My wife is now being measured for fitted PPE so doesnt look like things are expected to get better any time soon at her hospital. Last I heard they had 301 cases. April peak was 170.
I've heard it stated that the Pfizer product may not *need* to be stored at -80C. But that they currently *know* that will work - it might well survive higher temperatures. But they haven't got sufficient test data yet...
I've also heard that main storage at -70 (in effect either -87 freezer, or dry ice) but then potentially 5 days in the normal freezer/ready for injection.
That is what was said on today's R4 lunchtime news programme. Whereas the new US vaccine only needs a refrigerator. The supplier interviewed said she was reasonably confident about the UK coping with the super-cooling required, but it would hinder export to countries less well equipped.
I can't say that I find those objections very serious. It may be that their true objections aren't being properly reported by the journalist, but if the quoted arguments are the strongest ones against mass testing then it would be sensible to continue, and grow, the trials.
It's not quite clear that the Moderna vaccine is "more efficacious" than the Pfizer vaccine.
The Pfizer press release says "The case split between vaccinated individuals and those who received the placebo indicates a vaccine efficacy rate above 90%".
The Moderna press release says there were "95 cases, of which 90 cases of COVID-19 were observed in the placebo group versus 5 cases observed in the mRNA-1273 group, resulting in a point estimate of vaccine efficacy of 94.5%"
Those numbers may not be directly comparable, because Pfizer may have calculated a statistical confidence interval, rather just a "point estimate". If so, the observed efficacies would probably be indistinguishable.
Why we need to wait for the peer reviewed academic papers based on the full studies.
I'm not sure approval will be waiting on peer reviewed papers. They will submit their evidence to the regulatory authorities for a decision (in UK MHRA). The evidence will be looked at by experts there. Of course I am sure papers will be published, but not as part of getting it into use.
Given what you can get through peer review for publication.... I think the regulators have my confidence, not the publications.
Quite. I know a few people who either are or have been at MHRA, and they are not the type to have the wool pulled over their eyes. One in particular (not on a vaccine area) is still our go to guy for manuscript checking. Its his superpower to spot mistakes (from typos, to stuff that doesn;t make sense, to dodgy bits of data we were hoping to sneak through...)
As opposed to publication where throughput seems to be the demand these days.
Given the lack of comeback for failures in peer reviewing papers - Wakefield anyone? - versus what would happen if the regulator stuffs up...
It's all about incentives - publish shite, nothing seems to happen. The regulators are looking at career ending events, if they screw up.
Quite. Referees generally don't get paid for doing scientific papers, unless things have changed a lot since I was asked every month or fortnight to referee a paper. Out of the goodness of theirt heart - but it doesn't cut the academic mustard except perhaps as a minor bit in the research engagement element of the Research Assessment Framework or whatever the periodic review of Uk university research is called now.
However there are third party reviewers who, so to speak, do it as an integral part of their research work - the systematic reviewers such as the treatment reviews by the Cochrane Collaboration. No idea if they willbe covering vaccine trials, but getting their teeth into trials generally is part of their bread and butter.
Even funnier is how they recruit referees - I published a paper and got bombarded with requests to review papers by some very eminent people.
Which made me wonder about the people who cheerfully do it for bragging rights.....
As a one-time editor I can tell you that it's a nightmare to recruit good referees. So much so that I resigned, and indeed I now contribute to the problem by hardly ever accepting requests (of which I get several per week) to review papers myself, except for conferences where I'm on the programme committee. Life is just too short, and careful informed reviews too easily countermanded by an idiot who wants their friend's paper to get accepted...
I can't say that I find those objections very serious. It may be that their true objections aren't being properly reported by the journalist, but if the quoted arguments are the strongest ones against mass testing then it would be sensible to continue, and grow, the trials.
I'm not personally super convinced, although she certainly has good points on being transparent & I would certainly prefer to have screening experts involved vs. Deloitte et al.
I can't say that I find those objections very serious. It may be that their true objections aren't being properly reported by the journalist, but if the quoted arguments are the strongest ones against mass testing then it would be sensible to continue, and grow, the trials.
I'm not personally super convinced, although she certainly has good points on being transparent & I would certainly prefer to have screening experts involved vs. Deloitte et al.
Indeed well worth a look, thanks. "The UK National Screening Committee (NSC)—the recognised source of expert, independent, conflict-free advice to ministers on screening—had played no part in the decision making process, and the legality of the procurement processes have been questioned."
What is interesting with such opposition is that it is always vaguely expressed - "unethical" to do mass testing - why?
There seems to be a chunk of the medical establishment who would rather eat their own feet, than condone the usage of quick, but less accurate tests or countenance mass screening programs.
It's not exactly being compulsorily injected with a drug. And it's not something like Huntingdon's where a test result really needs lots of interpretation, guidance and support (so it's arguably unfair to do it without providing that). But not having a very accurate test does pose interpretation problems (ie a safe result is not carte blanche to party) - though that is hardly an argument given the amount of clear programmes of public health education in this epidemic so far, or lack of.
I wonder if they are worried that positive tests will lead to sanctions/legal penalties (inclouding compulsory quarantine)? They've got enough trouble with antivaxxers coming hull up on the horizon without going all out to provoke them. Ironically IIRC Leicester was a major centre of anti-smallpox vaccination in the late C19/early C20.
There is an interesting history regarding screening/mass testing in this country.
I suggest you start with the whole breast cancer screening story and go from there, if you want to read on the background.
Essentially there is a school of thought that anything less that superlative tests, carried out in the finest labs are any good. For anything. Approximation is *evil*. False positives are a horror to avoided at all costs...
Like all doctrines, it is based in sound ideas. But very often doctrine becomes the foundation of religious mantra, substituting for thought.
"More efficacious" - surely "based on a very small sample size, it appears that the Moderna vaccine may be very slightly more efficacious than the Pfizer/BioNTech one."
No, because what Pfizer may be saying, in effect, is that the statistical confidence interval for the efficacy is about 90-100%. In which case the Moderna result would fall in the middle of that range, and if you calculated a confidence interval from it, it would be very similar.
Have you got any links to a statement along those lines?
I've be surprised (a) if the confidence interval was that narrow* and (b) that Pfizer wouldn't have publicised their point estimate, if much higher than 90% (I took it from the publicity that the point estimate was just over 90%)
*I'd need size of both arms for both vaccines to estimate, but the 'uncertainty' in the number infected in the vaccinated group will be quite high (and there's also lesser uncertainty in the control group). Say - clutching numbers from thin air - that 10 in 20000 vaccine recipients got infected, the 95% CI for a population estimate from that alone is around 4-16 people per 20000. Say a control arm of 20000 with 90 infections, your point estimate is 89% effective, but a very crude estimate of 95%CI from uncertainty in the vaccinated group alone is 82-96% effective. That's an underestimate because there is also uncertainty in the number of infections in the control group (and maybe other design uncertainties, different populations, different exposures etc to take into account)
I did do a back-of-the-envelope estimate, which suggested that a 90-4 split of infections between the placebo and vaccine arms would be consistent with a confidence interval whose lower end was around 90%.
Seems like the latest one can pretty much be stored in a domestic freezer. Not sure how much easier that makes it to use but sounds a big plus for it to me.
My wife is now being measured for fitted PPE so doesnt look like things are expected to get better any time soon at her hospital. Last I heard they had 301 cases. April peak was 170.
I've heard it stated that the Pfizer product may not *need* to be stored at -80C. But that they currently *know* that will work - it might well survive higher temperatures. But they haven't got sufficient test data yet...
I've also heard that main storage at -70 (in effect either -87 freezer, or dry ice) but then potentially 5 days in the normal freezer/ready for injection.
I understand that is based on what they are *sure* will work, now, without any further testing. But that it may well be possible to use far less restrictive requirements.
He should have closed his Ocado tab before filming. Not 100% great for his man of the people schtick.
He also seems to have a fairly large office for a man of the people.
Do you have to be poor to be a man of the people?
Only if you are on the left
You've noticed then.
If you're poor it's the politics of envy. If you're rich it's champagne socialist hypocrisy. And if you speak up on anything it's virtue signalling.
Such is the burden of the Left.
The only acceptable example of the breed is neither poor nor rich and you wouldn't know their views anyway because they keep their head down and their trap shut.
I can't say that I find those objections very serious. It may be that their true objections aren't being properly reported by the journalist, but if the quoted arguments are the strongest ones against mass testing then it would be sensible to continue, and grow, the trials.
I'm not personally super convinced, although she certainly has good points on being transparent & I would certainly prefer to have screening experts involved vs. Deloitte et al.
Thanks, that's helpful. I take her points about the lawfulness of the data collection, privacy, and ethics.
I think, though, that she's mistaking an emergency public health intervention for a scientific study. The mass testing pilots/trials aren't really "trials" as scientists would think of them, rather being mostly logistical trials. I'm of the view that, during an emergency, it's enough to act on the balance of probabilities: "we don't know whether..." isn't a reason not to do it, I think.
I agree that it would have been good to have scientific input, though. (I mean, of course I would think that...!)
Do you think punters will have a "preferred" vaccine? Are we going to have cases of people refusing the "Pfizer vaccine" because they've read something on the internet, and want the "Moderna" one instead?
The European commission president, Ursula von der Leyen, has said her officials have concluded exploratory talks with Moderna, writes Daniel Boffey, the Guardian’s Brussels bureau chief.
Von der Leyen said:
We hope to finalise the contract soon. We do not know at this stage which vaccines will end up being safe and effective. The European Medicines Agency will authorise them only after a robust assessment. And this is why we need to have a broad portfolio of vaccines based on very different technologies in parallel.
He should have closed his Ocado tab before filming. Not 100% great for his man of the people schtick.
He also seems to have a fairly large office for a man of the people.
Do you have to be poor to be a man of the people?
Only if you are on the left
You've noticed then.
If you're poor it's the politics of envy. If you're rich it's champagne socialist hypocrisy. And if you speak up on anything it's virtue signalling.
Such is the burden of the Left.
The only acceptable example of the breed is neither poor nor rich and you wouldn't know their views anyway because they keep their head down and their trap shut.
Yes, although it does go the other way, to some extent, as well. The Labour attacks on Sunak's wealth weren't that joyous to witness.
Do you think punters will have a "preferred" vaccine? Are we going to have cases of people refusing the "Pfizer vaccine" because they've read something on the internet, and want the "Moderna" one instead?
They'll likely get what they are given, unless they go private.
Two new "mega labs" will open in early 2021 to try to double the UK's daily coronavirus testing capacity, the government has said. The sites - at Leamington Spa in the Midlands and another at an unconfirmed site in Scotland - will increase testing capacity by 600,000.
That's great, but will we need a capacity of a million tests a day in a few months time?
Becauswe the vaccines will take time to give to everyone; they are not fully effective (so some fol;k are still vulnerable); and we need to stamp out any further outbreaks pdq while R spools down and the virus is eliminated? Also for incoming travellers.
But we aren't using the 500k a day capacity now. And what sort of tests, more PCR tests? As for incoming travellers, we need systems that do the tests at the airport, not in a big lab in Leamington Spa.
The problem is, quite simply, that people are not volunteering for testing. In the Liverpool trial, where it's free and available to anyone, symptoms or not - not the massive pickup required.
I think that they are preparing for mandatory testing.
Has to be the way ahead. Go door to door and get everyone. Was it Slovenia that has just tested its entire population?
Slovakia.
Difficult to keep track of these new-fangled countries.
Sir and/or madam, for your information the Slovaks were worshiping trees & painting themselves blue centuries before the Britons achieved that level of development & enlightenment!
Do you think punters will have a "preferred" vaccine? Are we going to have cases of people refusing the "Pfizer vaccine" because they've read something on the internet, and want the "Moderna" one instead?
Yes. Me, for starters, if it appears one or the other has such an edge that insisting on it is worth the hassle. I make many or most decisions these days because I've read something on the internet. What do you do?
The European commission president, Ursula von der Leyen, has said her officials have concluded exploratory talks with Moderna, writes Daniel Boffey, the Guardian’s Brussels bureau chief.
Von der Leyen said:
We hope to finalise the contract soon. We do not know at this stage which vaccines will end up being safe and effective. The European Medicines Agency will authorise them only after a robust assessment. And this is why we need to have a broad portfolio of vaccines based on very different technologies in parallel.
I noticed the EU scheme for ventalitors finally delivered some...30 to the czech republic...nowhere near enough, so other EU countries had to sent their own to help.
See the media at the same old crap, every other question, why didn't you buy this vaccine before. Do you regret it. How many more grannies have you killed.
Would you buy from a company sight unseen, who have never brought a vaccine to market and wouldn't share their research openly, when a more established company is offering a similar approach and being much more open...
The European commission president, Ursula von der Leyen, has said her officials have concluded exploratory talks with Moderna, writes Daniel Boffey, the Guardian’s Brussels bureau chief.
Von der Leyen said:
We hope to finalise the contract soon. We do not know at this stage which vaccines will end up being safe and effective. The European Medicines Agency will authorise them only after a robust assessment. And this is why we need to have a broad portfolio of vaccines based on very different technologies in parallel.
Carrie doesn't make it.....nor any female government ministers.
The Woman’s Hour Power List 2020: Our Planet has been revealed! This year we're celebrating 30 inspiring women whose work is making a significant positive contribution to the environment and the sustainability of our planet.
I can't say that I find those objections very serious. It may be that their true objections aren't being properly reported by the journalist, but if the quoted arguments are the strongest ones against mass testing then it would be sensible to continue, and grow, the trials.
I'm not personally super convinced, although she certainly has good points on being transparent & I would certainly prefer to have screening experts involved vs. Deloitte et al.
Thanks, that's helpful. I take her points about the lawfulness of the data collection, privacy, and ethics.
I think, though, that she's mistaking an emergency public health intervention for a scientific study. The mass testing pilots/trials aren't really "trials" as scientists would think of them, rather being mostly logistical trials. I'm of the view that, during an emergency, it's enough to act on the balance of probabilities: "we don't know whether..." isn't a reason not to do it, I think.
I agree that it would have been good to have scientific input, though. (I mean, of course I would think that...!)
--AS
Shades of a little known episode in WWII.
The US Navy decided that, since the U Boat Enigma key was so important, that they would build enough of their ultra-fast version of the Bombe, that they could guarantee to break the code every day, without any tips, hints or cribs.
Alan Turing* lobbied almost desperately against it - because it was crude and inelegant.
The opposing point of view - that for less than the price of 1 cruiser, breaking the code would no longer require any luck - cut no ice
In the end various people shoved him out of the way of the project - quite hard.
The European commission president, Ursula von der Leyen, has said her officials have concluded exploratory talks with Moderna, writes Daniel Boffey, the Guardian’s Brussels bureau chief.
Von der Leyen said:
We hope to finalise the contract soon. We do not know at this stage which vaccines will end up being safe and effective. The European Medicines Agency will authorise them only after a robust assessment. And this is why we need to have a broad portfolio of vaccines based on very different technologies in parallel.
He should have closed his Ocado tab before filming. Not 100% great for his man of the people schtick.
He also seems to have a fairly large office for a man of the people.
Do you have to be poor to be a man of the people?
Only if you are on the left
You've noticed then.
If you're poor it's the politics of envy. If you're rich it's champagne socialist hypocrisy. And if you speak up on anything it's virtue signalling.
Such is the burden of the Left.
The only acceptable example of the breed is neither poor nor rich and you wouldn't know their views anyway because they keep their head down and their trap shut.
Yes, although it does go the other way, to some extent, as well. The Labour attacks on Sunak's wealth weren't that joyous to witness.
That video? Bit tawdry that. Although his Hedge Fund background is imo a valid thing to home in on. Generally speaking, a person's political views should be taken at face value and in good faith unless there is good reason not to - and their personal finances do not supply such a reason. I do think the Right try to "police" the Left in this tedious regard more than the Left do the Right.
If the Oxford vaccine is shown to work in the next 2-3 weeks, UK is going to more than enough.
It wont be the number of doses, will.be the logistics of vaccinating so many people.
I'd expect a second wave to blow itself out quite early in the spring, vaccine or no, so I wonder if we're only going to get round, say, the 70+ s this season and then have a pause until September - got freeware of wasting the protection given by vaccinating prior to a period of low incidence.
The European commission president, Ursula von der Leyen, has said her officials have concluded exploratory talks with Moderna, writes Daniel Boffey, the Guardian’s Brussels bureau chief.
Von der Leyen said:
We hope to finalise the contract soon. We do not know at this stage which vaccines will end up being safe and effective. The European Medicines Agency will authorise them only after a robust assessment. And this is why we need to have a broad portfolio of vaccines based on very different technologies in parallel.
Why have the Guardian shuttered his original YouTube stuff?
His videos so far on his YouTube channel are getting piss poor number of views. Somebody with so many social media followers and national newspaper column should really be able to get more than a few 1000 views per video, when things like a bearded man doing food challenges can get 500k per video and even a man teaching the French, English swear words, to use against the French government for messing up COVID response does more views.
Traditional media seems to struggle to get large numbers of online viewers on the likes of YouTube, whereas there are some online-only or online-first creators who get huge numbers of viewers. And they aren't shoddy operations any more, they have some impressive fliming setups, with huge rented warehouses used as studios, and lots of technical support. You have gamers, people doing stunts and tricks, people doing reviews and the like, getting millions of views per video, far more than their traditional competitors, and they receive lots of sponsorship and advertising.
When I did a YouTube channel it was incredibly volatile / random.
I'd do a video I thought was amazing, and get 2,000 views. Then I'd do one which I thought was "meh", and it would get 200,000.
Basically, you either trigger the YouTube algorithm (one way or another) and it surfaces your video to people who might like t, or you don't and only your subscrbers ever see it.
How to end Illegal Immigration: 221k views The Future's Bright, The Future's Not Coal: 201k views What a $400 Hotel Room Tells Us About the Price of Oil*: 67k views What Causes Trade Deficits: 19k views Italy: 50 Ways To Leave the Euro: 5k views
I guess I should feel smug that my videos are more popular than Owen Jones.
The European commission president, Ursula von der Leyen, has said her officials have concluded exploratory talks with Moderna, writes Daniel Boffey, the Guardian’s Brussels bureau chief.
Von der Leyen said:
We hope to finalise the contract soon. We do not know at this stage which vaccines will end up being safe and effective. The European Medicines Agency will authorise them only after a robust assessment. And this is why we need to have a broad portfolio of vaccines based on very different technologies in parallel.
Why have the Guardian shuttered his original YouTube stuff?
His videos so far on his YouTube channel are getting piss poor number of views. Somebody with so many social media followers and national newspaper column should really be able to get more than a few 1000 views per video, when things like a bearded man doing food challenges can get 500k per video and even a man teaching the French, English swear words, to use against the French government for messing up COVID response does more views.
Traditional media seems to struggle to get large numbers of online viewers on the likes of YouTube, whereas there are some online-only or online-first creators who get huge numbers of viewers. And they aren't shoddy operations any more, they have some impressive fliming setups, with huge rented warehouses used as studios, and lots of technical support. You have gamers, people doing stunts and tricks, people doing reviews and the like, getting millions of views per video, far more than their traditional competitors, and they receive lots of sponsorship and advertising.
When I did a YouTube channel it was incredibly volatile / random.
I'd do a video I thought was amazing, and get 2,000 views. Then I'd do one which I thought was "meh", and it would get 200,000.
Basically, you either trigger the YouTube algorithm (one way or another) and it surfaces your video to people who might like t, or you don't and only your subscrbers ever see it.
How to end Illegal Immigration: 221k views The Future's Bright, The Future's Not Coal: 201k views What a $400 Hotel Room Tells Us About the Price of Oil*: 67k views What Causes Trade Deficits: 19k views Italy: 50 Ways To Leave the Euro: 5k views
I guess I should feel smug that my videos are more popular than Owen Jones.
The European commission president, Ursula von der Leyen, has said her officials have concluded exploratory talks with Moderna, writes Daniel Boffey, the Guardian’s Brussels bureau chief.
Von der Leyen said:
We hope to finalise the contract soon. We do not know at this stage which vaccines will end up being safe and effective. The European Medicines Agency will authorise them only after a robust assessment. And this is why we need to have a broad portfolio of vaccines based on very different technologies in parallel.
The European commission president, Ursula von der Leyen, has said her officials have concluded exploratory talks with Moderna, writes Daniel Boffey, the Guardian’s Brussels bureau chief.
Von der Leyen said:
We hope to finalise the contract soon. We do not know at this stage which vaccines will end up being safe and effective. The European Medicines Agency will authorise them only after a robust assessment. And this is why we need to have a broad portfolio of vaccines based on very different technologies in parallel.
Wait so Peston was peddling fake news earlier which our own twatter in chief reposted with no research?!
"The commission has a potential purchase agreement for 80m doses with Moderna with an option to double that amount."
And yet nothing has been signed. Just like with Pfizer. Nothing has been signed. I don't understand what the EU are waiting for, it's legitimately starting to worry me that they are letting financial prudence get in the way of speed and while the UK and US will be most of the way through a vaccine programme by the middle of 2021 they will just be starting out in a lot of Europe where side deals haven't been done. I'm actually genuinely concerned about it because we need Europe to get on top of this as well.
In fairness, many (most?) Chinese can't swim. It really is a remarkable feature of their culture. Here. You might drown, so pretty much everyone learns to swim as a child. There. You might drown, so don't go near the water.
The European commission president, Ursula von der Leyen, has said her officials have concluded exploratory talks with Moderna, writes Daniel Boffey, the Guardian’s Brussels bureau chief.
Von der Leyen said:
We hope to finalise the contract soon. We do not know at this stage which vaccines will end up being safe and effective. The European Medicines Agency will authorise them only after a robust assessment. And this is why we need to have a broad portfolio of vaccines based on very different technologies in parallel.
In fairness, many (most?) Chinese can't swim. It really is a remarkable feature of their culture. Here. You might drown, so pretty much everyone learns to swim as a child. There. You might drown, so don't go near the water.
I found the same among Ghanians & other West Africans. Though there it seems to be especially the sea.
On topic: Trump turned out to be smarter than we thought. By ensuring there would be many tens of thousands of avoidable cases of Covid-19 in the US, he made the Phase III trials reach the requisite number of cases sooner.
He should have closed his Ocado tab before filming. Not 100% great for his man of the people schtick.
He also seems to have a fairly large office for a man of the people.
Do you have to be poor to be a man of the people?
Only if you are on the left
You've noticed then.
If you're poor it's the politics of envy. If you're rich it's champagne socialist hypocrisy. And if you speak up on anything it's virtue signalling.
Such is the burden of the Left.
The only acceptable example of the breed is neither poor nor rich and you wouldn't know their views anyway because they keep their head down and their trap shut.
Yes, although it does go the other way, to some extent, as well. The Labour attacks on Sunak's wealth weren't that joyous to witness.
That video? Bit tawdry that. Although his Hedge Fund background is imo a valid thing to home in on. Generally speaking, a person's political views should be taken at face value and in good faith unless there is good reason not to - and their personal finances do not supply such a reason. I do think the Right try to "police" the Left in this tedious regard more than the Left do the Right.
I agree. It seems to be a trait, commoner on the right, to judge the worth of someone's opinions on the basis of their perceived status. The left have their own cognitive biases, as do liberals like me, and everyone else too.
We should have a directory of standard arguments and counter-arguments, like a Batsford Chess Openings, just to skip the boring stuff: Opening code 001: The champagne socialist gambit, charity variation 1a Look at his house! Champagne socialist! 1b But his ideas though 2a why doesn't he give up his own money instead of coming after mine? 2b because he knows government help is the only way to ensure selfish rich people d... 3a oh I'm selfish am I? I give to {list of charities} 3b all very noble, but {some billionaire} does nothing, why does he need all that money when there are chil... 4a you sound envious 4b it's not that at all, it's just that... etc.
Then instead of having the argument, someone can just say "001" and we can assume that everyone is suitably convinced that the other person is evil and or stupid and we can argue about something different instead.
In fairness, many (most?) Chinese can't swim. It really is a remarkable feature of their culture. Here. You might drown, so pretty much everyone learns to swim as a child. There. You might drown, so don't go near the water.
I found the same among Ghanians & other West Africans. Though there it seems to be especially the sea.
Anywhere in Africa there is the powerful crocodile disincentive to get in to any body of fresh water.
Do you think punters will have a "preferred" vaccine? Are we going to have cases of people refusing the "Pfizer vaccine" because they've read something on the internet, and want the "Moderna" one instead?
In certain parts of the world, there’s definitely going to be a preference where the choice is between Western, Russian or Chinese vaccines.
The European commission president, Ursula von der Leyen, has said her officials have concluded exploratory talks with Moderna, writes Daniel Boffey, the Guardian’s Brussels bureau chief.
Von der Leyen said:
We hope to finalise the contract soon. We do not know at this stage which vaccines will end up being safe and effective. The European Medicines Agency will authorise them only after a robust assessment. And this is why we need to have a broad portfolio of vaccines based on very different technologies in parallel.
Wait so Peston was peddling fake news earlier which our own twatter in chief reposted with no research?!
"The commission has a potential purchase agreement for 80m doses with Moderna with an option to double that amount."
And yet nothing has been signed. Just like with Pfizer. Nothing has been signed. I don't understand what the EU are waiting for, it's legitimately starting to worry me that they are letting financial prudence get in the way of speed and while the UK and US will be most of the way through a vaccine programme by the middle of 2021 they will just be starting out in a lot of Europe where side deals haven't been done. I'm actually genuinely concerned about it because we need Europe to get on top of this as well.
Are you sure nothing has been signed? The way that I read that -- and I stress I do not know -- is that some sort of pre-agreement is signed and that they in a due diligence stage before they push the button. If so, it sounds sensible enough to me. Either way, 160m doses isn't enough, so more needs to be done whatever happens with this particular "agreement".
In fairness, many (most?) Chinese can't swim. It really is a remarkable feature of their culture. Here. You might drown, so pretty much everyone learns to swim as a child. There. You might drown, so don't go near the water.
I found the same among Ghanians & other West Africans. Though there it seems to be especially the sea.
FWIW, I can't swim, and know lots of people who can't. We share that we made a few unsuccessful efforts when young, didn't enjoy it, and gave up - the probability that one really needs it is small, though I also know people who really love it. Takes all sorts...
In fairness, many (most?) Chinese can't swim. It really is a remarkable feature of their culture. Here. You might drown, so pretty much everyone learns to swim as a child. There. You might drown, so don't go near the water.
I found the same among Ghanians & other West Africans. Though there it seems to be especially the sea.
FWIW, I can't swim, and know lots of people who can't. We share that we made a few unsuccessful efforts when young, didn't enjoy it, and gave up - the probability that one really needs it is small, though I also know people who really love it. Takes all sorts...
Really? At all 3 schools I attended in the 70s it was compulsory to learn.
In fairness, many (most?) Chinese can't swim. It really is a remarkable feature of their culture. Here. You might drown, so pretty much everyone learns to swim as a child. There. You might drown, so don't go near the water.
I found the same among Ghanians & other West Africans. Though there it seems to be especially the sea.
Anywhere in Africa there is the powerful crocodile disincentive to get in to any body of fresh water.
I may be wrong, but aren't crocs saltwater dwellers, and gators freshwater?
In fairness, many (most?) Chinese can't swim. It really is a remarkable feature of their culture. Here. You might drown, so pretty much everyone learns to swim as a child. There. You might drown, so don't go near the water.
I found the same among Ghanians & other West Africans. Though there it seems to be especially the sea.
Anywhere in Africa there is the powerful crocodile disincentive to get in to any body of fresh water.
I may be wrong, but aren't crocs saltwater dwellers, and gators freshwater?
There are freshwater crocs everywhere in Africa. Salties confined to Australia afaik.
The European commission president, Ursula von der Leyen, has said her officials have concluded exploratory talks with Moderna, writes Daniel Boffey, the Guardian’s Brussels bureau chief.
Von der Leyen said:
We hope to finalise the contract soon. We do not know at this stage which vaccines will end up being safe and effective. The European Medicines Agency will authorise them only after a robust assessment. And this is why we need to have a broad portfolio of vaccines based on very different technologies in parallel.
Wait so Peston was peddling fake news earlier which our own twatter in chief reposted with no research?!
"The commission has a potential purchase agreement for 80m doses with Moderna with an option to double that amount."
And yet nothing has been signed. Just like with Pfizer. Nothing has been signed. I don't understand what the EU are waiting for, it's legitimately starting to worry me that they are letting financial prudence get in the way of speed and while the UK and US will be most of the way through a vaccine programme by the middle of 2021 they will just be starting out in a lot of Europe where side deals haven't been done. I'm actually genuinely concerned about it because we need Europe to get on top of this as well.
Are you sure nothing has been signed? The way that I read that -- and I stress I do not know -- is that some sort of pre-agreement is signed and that they in a due diligence stage before they push the button. If so, it sounds sensible enough to me. Either way, 160m doses isn't enough, so more needs to be done whatever happens with this particular "agreement".
Yes, nothing signed, exploratory talks as per the the commission president. Based on a price of $25 per dose, which is probably what the haggling is about.
Edit - the EU's big bet seems to be on Curevac, looking at their portfolio, 400m doses for 2021/22 delivery, hopefully it is just as effective as these two.
Nonsense. The Brexit Party are 2pp down on last week's You Gov poll - 6% then to 4% now. Farage's latest meanderings are having no impact, despite what some may wish.
As for the Lib Dems (5%), I can't help thinking they are in real trouble. Ed Davey is a mistake - he's a poor leader, and will get little traction. I saw Daisy Cooper perform in the HoC last week - quite impressive. She would have been a much better, forward-looking choice for leader, with plenty of time to make a name for herself by 2024.
In fairness, many (most?) Chinese can't swim. It really is a remarkable feature of their culture. Here. You might drown, so pretty much everyone learns to swim as a child. There. You might drown, so don't go near the water.
I found the same among Ghanians & other West Africans. Though there it seems to be especially the sea.
Anywhere in Africa there is the powerful crocodile disincentive to get in to any body of fresh water.
I may be wrong, but aren't crocs saltwater dwellers, and gators freshwater?
There are freshwater crocs everywhere in Africa. Salties confined to Australia afaik.
I think that is right - the fear, as it has been expressed to me, is that water (especially the sea) is dangerous and unpredictable *of itself*.
In fairness, many (most?) Chinese can't swim. It really is a remarkable feature of their culture. Here. You might drown, so pretty much everyone learns to swim as a child. There. You might drown, so don't go near the water.
I found the same among Ghanians & other West Africans. Though there it seems to be especially the sea.
FWIW, I can't swim, and know lots of people who can't. We share that we made a few unsuccessful efforts when young, didn't enjoy it, and gave up - the probability that one really needs it is small, though I also know people who really love it. Takes all sorts...
It is generally taught in schools now. It's like riding a bike. You do it once when you are young, then years later, you can pick it up again within moments.
Just noticed Rishi Sunak has taken to imitating his boss. The breathy enthusiasm you get from a dog after a run. Unfortunately as with Johnson it just looks fake.
He should have closed his Ocado tab before filming. Not 100% great for his man of the people schtick.
He also seems to have a fairly large office for a man of the people.
Do you have to be poor to be a man of the people?
Only if you are on the left
You've noticed then.
If you're poor it's the politics of envy. If you're rich it's champagne socialist hypocrisy. And if you speak up on anything it's virtue signalling.
Such is the burden of the Left.
The only acceptable example of the breed is neither poor nor rich and you wouldn't know their views anyway because they keep their head down and their trap shut.
Yes, although it does go the other way, to some extent, as well. The Labour attacks on Sunak's wealth weren't that joyous to witness.
That video? Bit tawdry that. Although his Hedge Fund background is imo a valid thing to home in on. Generally speaking, a person's political views should be taken at face value and in good faith unless there is good reason not to - and their personal finances do not supply such a reason. I do think the Right try to "police" the Left in this tedious regard more than the Left do the Right.
I agree. It seems to be a trait, commoner on the right, to judge the worth of someone's opinions on the basis of their perceived status. The left have their own cognitive biases, as do liberals like me, and everyone else too.
We should have a directory of standard arguments and counter-arguments, like a Batsford Chess Openings, just to skip the boring stuff: Opening code 001: The champagne socialist gambit, charity variation 1a Look at his house! Champagne socialist! 1b But his ideas though 2a why doesn't he give up his own money instead of coming after mine? 2b because he knows government help is the only way to ensure selfish rich people d... 3a oh I'm selfish am I? I give to {list of charities} 3b all very noble, but {some billionaire} does nothing, why does he need all that money when there are chil... 4a you sound envious 4b it's not that at all, it's just that... etc.
Then instead of having the argument, someone can just say "001" and we can assume that everyone is suitably convinced that the other person is evil and or stupid and we can argue about something different instead.
'It seems to be a trait, commoner on the right, to judge the worth of someone's opinions on the basis of their perceived status.'
The European commission president, Ursula von der Leyen, has said her officials have concluded exploratory talks with Moderna, writes Daniel Boffey, the Guardian’s Brussels bureau chief.
Von der Leyen said:
We hope to finalise the contract soon. We do not know at this stage which vaccines will end up being safe and effective. The European Medicines Agency will authorise them only after a robust assessment. And this is why we need to have a broad portfolio of vaccines based on very different technologies in parallel.
I noticed the EU scheme for ventalitors finally delivered some...30 to the czech republic...nowhere near enough, so other EU countries had to sent their own to help.
Mercedes F1 engine factory in Brixworth turned out a thousand CPAP machines in less than a month back in April, and open sourced the whole project down to the data files for milling machines.
Anyone in the world could have picked that up and run with it, producing them by the million with a competent machine factory, anywhere there was a need for them.
I don’t just think it’s my personal dislike of the EU, that leads me to believe they’ve had a very bad pandemic.
Comments
The Woman’s Hour Power List 2020: Our Planet has been revealed! This year we're celebrating 30 inspiring women whose work is making a significant positive contribution to the environment and the sustainability of our planet.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/5f6X3JsVjcGXfXstdbYxhkk/womans-hour-power-list-2020-the-list
Which made me wonder about the people who cheerfully do it for bragging rights.....
Calling for democracy in the Ghana was racist.
Calling for democracy in Poland was fascist.
It's because they let their actions speak for themselves.
Of course, also, the third party reviews such as by Cochrane are done after the original papers are published ... but synoptic assessment of a number of, e.g., treatment trials is useful in itself.
Damn it - I`d have bought that if it had pictures
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/nov/16/operation-moonshot-like-building-channel-tunnel-without-civil-engineers-covid-testing
Commentators not impressed.
Derek Lowe has written a blog post on the Moderna results - https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2020/11/16/modernas-vaccine-efficacy-readout - and a commenter has pointed out that Anthony Fauci seems to have let slip a little more information about the Pfizer efficacy. A Reuters report on Friday quoted Fauci as saying:
"It was a home run for the Pfizer product, more than 90% - close to 95% - effective. I have every reason to believe that the Moderna product is going to be similar"
https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-fauci/fauci-not-advising-biden-sees-no-reason-to-quit-trump-now-reuters-interview-idUSKBN27T1J9
Due to technical difficulties we are unable to update the dashboard before 6pm.
My wife is now being measured for fitted PPE so doesnt look like things are expected to get better any time soon at her hospital. Last I heard they had 301 cases. April peak was 170.
Corbyn and his office including Milne and Murphy emerge very badly from the debacle, running an utterly divisive but also dysfunctional organisation. So too from the other wing do the likes of Umunna who were clearly heading for the exit door from 2017 and just waiting for the right time to act.
Anyway, if anyone wants some required reading for their Christmas list, I recommend it.
The word "neo" here is doing so much heavy lifting you could start crane hire business.
There seems to be a chunk of the medical establishment who would rather eat their own feet, than condone the usage of quick, but less accurate tests or countenance mass screening programs.
It's both surly and stupid to expect people to point out everything they agree with before they are allowed to mention something they disagree with. Try not to do it again.
I wonder if they are worried that positive tests will lead to sanctions/legal penalties (inclouding compulsory quarantine)? They've got enough trouble with antivaxxers coming hull up on the horizon without going all out to provoke them. Ironically IIRC Leicester was a major centre of anti-smallpox vaccination in the late C19/early C20.
--AS
Not that I'm jaded, of course.
--AS
I'm not personally super convinced, although she certainly has good points on being transparent & I would certainly prefer to have screening experts involved vs. Deloitte et al.
I suggest you start with the whole breast cancer screening story and go from there, if you want to read on the background.
Essentially there is a school of thought that anything less that superlative tests, carried out in the finest labs are any good. For anything. Approximation is *evil*. False positives are a horror to avoided at all costs...
Like all doctrines, it is based in sound ideas. But very often doctrine becomes the foundation of religious mantra, substituting for thought.
If you're poor it's the politics of envy.
If you're rich it's champagne socialist hypocrisy.
And if you speak up on anything it's virtue signalling.
Such is the burden of the Left.
The only acceptable example of the breed is neither poor nor rich and you wouldn't know their views anyway because they keep their head down and their trap shut.
I think, though, that she's mistaking an emergency public health intervention for a scientific study. The mass testing pilots/trials aren't really "trials" as scientists would think of them, rather being mostly logistical trials. I'm of the view that, during an emergency, it's enough to act on the balance of probabilities: "we don't know whether..." isn't a reason not to do it, I think.
I agree that it would have been good to have scientific input, though. (I mean, of course I would think that...!)
--AS
The European commission president, Ursula von der Leyen, has said her officials have concluded exploratory talks with Moderna, writes Daniel Boffey, the Guardian’s Brussels bureau chief.
Von der Leyen said:
We hope to finalise the contract soon. We do not know at this stage which vaccines will end up being safe and effective. The European Medicines Agency will authorise them only after a robust assessment. And this is why we need to have a broad portfolio of vaccines based on very different technologies in parallel.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2020/nov/16/coronavirus-live-news-us-confirms-1m-cases-in-a-week-boris-johnson-selfisolating
https://twitter.com/DominicRaab/status/1328391951859716097?s=20
It wont be the number of doses, will.be the logistics of vaccinating so many people.
Would you buy from a company sight unseen, who have never brought a vaccine to market and wouldn't share their research openly, when a more established company is offering a similar approach and being much more open...
The US Navy decided that, since the U Boat Enigma key was so important, that they would build enough of their ultra-fast version of the Bombe, that they could guarantee to break the code every day, without any tips, hints or cribs.
Alan Turing* lobbied almost desperately against it - because it was crude and inelegant.
The opposing point of view - that for less than the price of 1 cruiser, breaking the code would no longer require any luck - cut no ice
In the end various people shoved him out of the way of the project - quite hard.
*Yes, that Alan Turing
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1328393740088696832
Entirely worthless.
Plus tories starting to leak to BP.
I'd do a video I thought was amazing, and get 2,000 views. Then I'd do one which I thought was "meh", and it would get 200,000.
Basically, you either trigger the YouTube algorithm (one way or another) and it surfaces your video to people who might like t, or you don't and only your subscrbers ever see it.
How to end Illegal Immigration: 221k views
The Future's Bright, The Future's Not Coal: 201k views
What a $400 Hotel Room Tells Us About the Price of Oil*: 67k views
What Causes Trade Deficits: 19k views
Italy: 50 Ways To Leave the Euro: 5k views
I guess I should feel smug that my videos are more popular than Owen Jones.
* That was probably my best video
- price
- defined date(s) for delivery of the vaccine
- etc
The opposition being ahead now isn't sufficient for them to win next time, but it's probably necessary.
Here. You might drown, so pretty much everyone learns to swim as a child.
There. You might drown, so don't go near the water.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/16/former-president-obama-social-media-companies-make-editorial-choices.html
This is probably as good an insight as we’ve had so far, about how Pres Biden might look to regulate online content distribution.
Just not quite soon enough for him.
The left have their own cognitive biases, as do liberals like me, and everyone else too.
We should have a directory of standard arguments and counter-arguments, like a Batsford Chess Openings, just to skip the boring stuff:
Opening code 001: The champagne socialist gambit, charity variation
1a Look at his house! Champagne socialist!
1b But his ideas though
2a why doesn't he give up his own money instead of coming after mine?
2b because he knows government help is the only way to ensure selfish rich people d...
3a oh I'm selfish am I? I give to {list of charities}
3b all very noble, but {some billionaire} does nothing, why does he need all that money when there are chil...
4a you sound envious
4b it's not that at all, it's just that...
etc.
Then instead of having the argument, someone can just say "001" and we can assume that everyone is suitably convinced that the other person is evil and or stupid and we can argue about something different instead.
Either way, 160m doses isn't enough, so more needs to be done whatever happens with this particular "agreement".
Edit - the EU's big bet seems to be on Curevac, looking at their portfolio, 400m doses for 2021/22 delivery, hopefully it is just as effective as these two.
It kicks in when our democracies become too remote and detached from the people
BY MATTHEW GOODWIN"
https://unherd.com/2020/11/populism-isnt-dead-yet/
As for the Lib Dems (5%), I can't help thinking they are in real trouble. Ed Davey is a mistake - he's a poor leader, and will get little traction. I saw Daisy Cooper perform in the HoC last week - quite impressive. She would have been a much better, forward-looking choice for leader, with plenty of time to make a name for herself by 2024.
Really? 'White privilege' says hello.
The big media companies would be the only ones who could afford to run comment sections....
Anyone in the world could have picked that up and run with it, producing them by the million with a competent machine factory, anywhere there was a need for them.
I don’t just think it’s my personal dislike of the EU, that leads me to believe they’ve had a very bad pandemic.