Don't understand why AZ even reported the 70% figure. It's unnecessarily confusing.
Because it's the was they decided at the start that they'd assess efficacy - doing something different when you've seen the results is a fundamental mistake in clinical trials, like saying you don't like a poll result but the Scottish subsample suggests a much better outcome. Further examination of the data gives a "hint" that doing it differently might give a 90% result, but that needs a separate trial IMO.
It's not a question of blame - we invested in a very serious effort and normally 70% would be a great result. Ity turns out that something else would be even better, but that's nobody's fault. What would be totally unacceptable would be to push out the Oxford vaccine now without further testing of the new hypothesis. Let's use the Pfizer/Modema vaccine for now.
70% ain't bad for a single dose regime, and possibly milder disease in who gets it despite.
Quite reasonable to roll out while awaiting the 2 stage trial result.
I agree that changing the outcome measure after looking at the data is not good science.
70% efficacy would still massively reduce the R rate though? I thought 70% was under the target for herd immunity?
Listening to the report on the Oxford vaccine it is really great news and yet it seems siren voices are trying to criticise it's efficacy and you do wonder why when we get good news many seem to want it to fail
It is very disappointing that we cannot all rejoice at good news
Er, because two other vaccines are better i.e. more effective.
It's good news but it's not great news. We've backed the wrong horse.
It's like saying that we should rejoice that British Sky Broadcasting produced a Squarial when the market i.e. everyone wanted a mini satellite dish instead.
You mark my words ... there will be a massive push for Pfizer and Moderna. And I'm one of them.
I'm fine with the 90% one. Which could, of course, still be 95%+ with more data.
Wait til the postal ballots are counted.
The key question for many is which vaccine contains which mind control microchip. I am not sure the Dido Harding mind control system has been fully tested.
Absolutely nothing to worry about. The Dido Harding mind control chip won't work.
Or will we get brain push notifications 24/7? Do we want Matt Hancock appearing more often in our dreams? The people have a right to know.
More often? He hasn't figured in mine yet but different strokes I suppose.
Morning all! Glad to see that the Tories are Determined to kill Granny for Christmas. Ho Ho Ho!
And Labour in Wales, Unionists/SF in NI and the SNP in Scotland. Idiot.
Dear me. Who is the government of the United Kingdom? Feeding their idiot savants in the press CHRISTMAS IS SAVED! So its ok to have Johnny come home from university and have 5 days of festive frolics with Mum, Dad, Granny, Aunt Flo and Uncle Fester. And then 5 days of funerals in January to bury half of them.
And for what? A "shopping binge"? To keep Wetherspoons going?
As I said yesterday. Corrupt, Inept, Arrogant, Hypocritical. The worst government we have ever had and at the worst possible time.
I presume you believe that Sturgeon, Philips, Drakeford have been forced into this by Johnson. In whci case my initial assessment was spot on. Are you expecting Starmer to oppose this?
"Forced" isn't the right word. The devolved administrations have been able to flex the UK approach and set out their own messaging - but this is built on the UK platform which has been chaotic, contradictory and self-defeating. Short of Sturgeon coming and and saying what needs saying - that Westminster haven't a fucking clue what they are doing please ignore them - its difficult to completely change the narrative.
We have one government. And a growing pile of corpses. A bit like with Biden in the US what Starmer says/thinks isn't going to change things when the government rule by edict. Remember the 5 point scale which Shagger managed to put us initially at 3.5 on? Remember the 3 point scale which wasn't strong enough and ended up with regional variations and haggling? Now we apparently have another 3 point scale but different to the last 3 point scale but don't worry because He has Saved Christmas so that you can finally kill your parents.
You're so ott with your prejudices and hate that it's quite pointless to say any more - as others have already made clear this morning.
I'll take your opinion under advisement. OTT? There was a 5 point scale. Which he put at 3.5 on. Widely ridiculed on here at the time There was a 3 point scale. Not enough said Whitty, hence the need for a "lockdown" There was regional variation. And haggling. And Tory MPs saying "no money" for their Greater Manchester seats only to be torpedoed by Downing Street finding the money days later There is a pile of 55,000 corpses. And thats only the official number There is a major worry by the scientists that the unlockdown for Christmas will kill people by the thousand.
But as you say, I am completely over the top in my hate for a government who has presided over this whilst comparable countries get by reasonably unscathed.
Which countries especially in Europe are you using in respect of your last sentence
"especially in Europe" klaxon. In other words, "please cherry-pick your data to weaken your own point".
Not at all
As we are told so often we are all Europeans and it is fair to compare outcomes within Europe
Ah, now you're trying to elevate politics above science. That really won't do.
No, I think he just does not like it when you criticise his beloved Conservative Party. If you had criticised Labour you probably would have received glowing praise....
Right now, I'm not even criticising any party. I'm just saying that we shouldn't cherry pick our comparisons. There are very valid comparisons that can be made with other countries, even those that are populated by - gasp - Asians. But, for some odd reason, they tend to fall by the wayside.
We could learn a lot from South Korea, India, Japan, Iran. Both in terms of good and poor practice.
The original post referred to “comparable countries”. Of course comparisons can be made to those you list, but I’d argue France, Germany, Italy, Spain and possibly Belgium would be “comparable countries” while Japan, India etc are too different
Although all the people on here who have been claiming for the last few years that the UK has more in common with Australia and New Zealand than European neighbours should be consistent and compare with those countries first.
Don't understand why AZ even reported the 70% figure. It's unnecessarily confusing.
Because it's the was they decided at the start that they'd assess efficacy - doing something different when you've seen the results is a fundamental mistake in clinical trials, like saying you don't like a poll result but the Scottish subsample suggests a much better outcome. Further examination of the data gives a "hint" that doing it differently might give a 90% result, but that needs a separate trial IMO.
It's not a question of blame - we invested in a very serious effort and normally 70% would be a great result. Ity turns out that something else would be even better, but that's nobody's fault. What would be totally unacceptable would be to push out the Oxford vaccine now without further testing of the new hypothesis. Let's use the Pfizer/Modema vaccine for now.
70% ain't bad for a single dose regime, and possibly milder disease in who gets it despite.
Quite reasonable to roll out while awaiting the 2 stage trial result.
I agree that changing the outcome measure after looking at the data is not good science.
70% efficacy would still massively reduce the R rate though? I thought 70% was under the target for herd immunity?
I recall 60%, but you may be right. Trouble is, not everyone will agree to have it so overall we`d be well under 70% (or 60%).
The Guardian, not always known for rose spectacle views, is headlining 90%.
"Oxford AstraZeneca Covid vaccine has up to 90% efficacy, data reveals
Oxford University said interim analysis from its phase 3 vaccine trial showed that the efficacy of their vaccine is 70%. But that came from combining the results of two different dosing regimes, one of which was 90% and the other was 62%. The 90% regime involved a half-dose first and then a full dose of the vaccine later. The interim analysis was based on 131 infections among participants who received the vaccine and those in a control group who were given an established meningitis shot.
In a statement, Prof Andrew Pollard, the director of the Oxford Vaccine Group and chief investigator of the Oxford vaccine trial, said: “These findings show that we have an effective vaccine that will save many lives. Excitingly, we’ve found that one of our dosing regimens may be around 90% effective and if this dosing regime is used, more people could be vaccinated with planned vaccine supply."
The Guardian, not always known for rose spectacle views, is headlining 90%.
"Oxford AstraZeneca Covid vaccine has up to 90% efficacy, data reveals
Oxford University said interim analysis from its phase 3 vaccine trial showed that the efficacy of their vaccine is 70%. But that came from combining the results of two different dosing regimes, one of which was 90% and the other was 62%. The 90% regime involved a half-dose first and then a full dose of the vaccine later. The interim analysis was based on 131 infections among participants who received the vaccine and those in a control group who were given an established meningitis shot.
In a statement, Prof Andrew Pollard, the director of the Oxford Vaccine Group and chief investigator of the Oxford vaccine trial, said: “These findings show that we have an effective vaccine that will save many lives. Excitingly, we’ve found that one of our dosing regimens may be around 90% effective and if this dosing regime is used, more people could be vaccinated with planned vaccine supply."
Don't understand why AZ even reported the 70% figure. It's unnecessarily confusing.
Because it's the was they decided at the start that they'd assess efficacy - doing something different when you've seen the results is a fundamental mistake in clinical trials, like saying you don't like a poll result but the Scottish subsample suggests a much better outcome. Further examination of the data gives a "hint" that doing it differently might give a 90% result, but that needs a separate trial IMO.
It's not a question of blame - we invested in a very serious effort and normally 70% would be a great result. Ity turns out that something else would be even better, but that's nobody's fault. What would be totally unacceptable would be to push out the Oxford vaccine now without further testing of the new hypothesis. Let's use the Pfizer/Modema vaccine for now.
70% ain't bad for a single dose regime, and possibly milder disease in who gets it despite.
Quite reasonable to roll out while awaiting the 2 stage trial result.
I agree that changing the outcome measure after looking at the data is not good science.
Haven't they trialled both regimes in parallel though?:
"In a statement, Prof Andrew Pollard, the director of the Oxford Vaccine Group and chief investigator of the Oxford vaccine trial, said: “These findings show that we have an effective vaccine that will save many lives. Excitingly, we’ve found that one of our dosing regimens may be around 90% effective and if this dosing regime is used, more people could be vaccinated with planned vaccine supply.""
The Guardian, not always known for rose spectacle views, is headlining 90%.
"Oxford AstraZeneca Covid vaccine has up to 90% efficacy, data reveals
Oxford University said interim analysis from its phase 3 vaccine trial showed that the efficacy of their vaccine is 70%. But that came from combining the results of two different dosing regimes, one of which was 90% and the other was 62%. The 90% regime involved a half-dose first and then a full dose of the vaccine later. The interim analysis was based on 131 infections among participants who received the vaccine and those in a control group who were given an established meningitis shot.
In a statement, Prof Andrew Pollard, the director of the Oxford Vaccine Group and chief investigator of the Oxford vaccine trial, said: “These findings show that we have an effective vaccine that will save many lives. Excitingly, we’ve found that one of our dosing regimens may be around 90% effective and if this dosing regime is used, more people could be vaccinated with planned vaccine supply."
The Guardian, not always known for rose spectacle views, is headlining 90%.
"Oxford AstraZeneca Covid vaccine has up to 90% efficacy, data reveals
Oxford University said interim analysis from its phase 3 vaccine trial showed that the efficacy of their vaccine is 70%. But that came from combining the results of two different dosing regimes, one of which was 90% and the other was 62%. The 90% regime involved a half-dose first and then a full dose of the vaccine later. The interim analysis was based on 131 infections among participants who received the vaccine and those in a control group who were given an established meningitis shot.
In a statement, Prof Andrew Pollard, the director of the Oxford Vaccine Group and chief investigator of the Oxford vaccine trial, said: “These findings show that we have an effective vaccine that will save many lives. Excitingly, we’ve found that one of our dosing regimens may be around 90% effective and if this dosing regime is used, more people could be vaccinated with planned vaccine supply."
Woo, great vaccine news! That’s three of them almost ready to go.
Hopefully this damn menace will soon be over.
Should load a three-pronged needle with all three, so no one knows what they are going to get. Bit like a tame version of Russian roulette. Sort of.
That'll be fun. I used to have a monthly blood test and just before the needle went in the nurse would say 'Ok. Little prick'. Then after several months she said 'Ok. Small scratch'. So I asked her what had happened to 'little prick' and she said they'd had a directive to say 'small scratch' from now on......
Do we have a vaccine against Scottish Liberal Democrats? .... asking for a friend in the fine catering sector.
I think it was known as Ruth Davidson. A moderate tory with a sense of humour who was even pro EU really left them on the edge of extinction.
What ever happened to her?
She had a child and a time out. Currently leading the Tories in the Scottish Parliament but not quite at 100% I would say. Possible new SoS for Scotland in the Lords after the May elections? Got to be better than Jack.
Don't understand why AZ even reported the 70% figure. It's unnecessarily confusing.
Because it's the was they decided at the start that they'd assess efficacy - doing something different when you've seen the results is a fundamental mistake in clinical trials, like saying you don't like a poll result but the Scottish subsample suggests a much better outcome. Further examination of the data gives a "hint" that doing it differently might give a 90% result, but that needs a separate trial IMO.
It's not a question of blame - we invested in a very serious effort and normally 70% would be a great result. Ity turns out that something else would be even better, but that's nobody's fault. What would be totally unacceptable would be to push out the Oxford vaccine now without further testing of the new hypothesis. Let's use the Pfizer/Modema vaccine for now.
70% ain't bad for a single dose regime, and possibly milder disease in who gets it despite.
Quite reasonable to roll out while awaiting the 2 stage trial result.
I agree that changing the outcome measure after looking at the data is not good science.
70% efficacy would still massively reduce the R rate though? I thought 70% was under the target for herd immunity?
I recall 60%, but you may be right. Trouble is, not everyone will agree to have it so overall we`d be well under 70% (or 60%).
I think you need to take those estimates with a huge dose of salt. They're based on a very simplistic model in which transmission of the virus is uniform throughout the population. In reality, the R estimates will be heavily influenced by people who are most likely to get and spread the infection. I think if a vaccine could reduce transmission by 70% that would be ample to stop the virus spreading, even if not everyone was vaccinated.
Woo, great vaccine news! That’s three of them almost ready to go.
Hopefully this damn menace will soon be over.
Should load a three-pronged needle with all three, so no one knows what they are going to get. Bit like a tame version of Russian roulette. Sort of.
That'll be fun. I used to have a monthly blood test and just before the needle went in the nurse would say 'Ok. Little prick'. Then after several months she said 'Ok. Small scratch'. So I asked her what had happened to 'little prick' and she said they'd had a directive to say 'small scratch' from now on......
Still some stick in the muds here I see but great that most have realised that this awfulness will soon be over. Weird tendency in some to continually close their ears and eyes to good news and live life like an Eyore. As for the rest of us, party party time roughly the first sunny weekend after Easter.
Don't understand why AZ even reported the 70% figure. It's unnecessarily confusing.
Because it's the was they decided at the start that they'd assess efficacy - doing something different when you've seen the results is a fundamental mistake in clinical trials, like saying you don't like a poll result but the Scottish subsample suggests a much better outcome. Further examination of the data gives a "hint" that doing it differently might give a 90% result, but that needs a separate trial IMO.
It's not a question of blame - we invested in a very serious effort and normally 70% would be a great result. Ity turns out that something else would be even better, but that's nobody's fault. What would be totally unacceptable would be to push out the Oxford vaccine now without further testing of the new hypothesis. Let's use the Pfizer/Modema vaccine for now.
70% ain't bad for a single dose regime, and possibly milder disease in who gets it despite.
Quite reasonable to roll out while awaiting the 2 stage trial result.
I agree that changing the outcome measure after looking at the data is not good science.
70% efficacy would still massively reduce the R rate though? I thought 70% was under the target for herd immunity?
I recall 60%, but you may be right. Trouble is, not everyone will agree to have it so overall we`d be well under 70% (or 60%).
I think you need to take those estimates with a huge dose of salt. They're based on a very simplistic model in which transmission of the virus is uniform throughout the population. In reality, the R estimates will be heavily influenced by people who are most likely to get and spread the infection. I think if a vaccine could reduce transmission by 70% that would be ample to stop the virus spreading, even if not everyone was vaccinated.
If R is currently 1.1 on average in the country then an immunity rates of well under 70% would do it. 25% may be enough to keep R on a downward trajectory. Does anyone know the stats on this?
Still some stick in the muds here I see but great that most have realised that this awfulness will soon be over. Weird tendency in some to continually close their ears and eyes to good news and live life like an Eyore. As for the rest of us, party party time roughly the first sunny weekend after Easter.
Our New York holiday in May is looking more likely!
Still some stick in the muds here I see but great that most have realised that this awfulness will soon be over. Weird tendency in some to continually close their ears and eyes to good news and live life like an Eyore. As for the rest of us, party party time roughly the first sunny weekend after Easter.
Once we get past tipping point on the vaccine then yes, I have a great many friends I need to get drunk with. The concern is that "it'll soon be over" and "Boris saves Christmas from the scientists" is that we get past tipping point of people gathering together for party party time over Christmas and end up with a large pile of corpses in January.
It will soon be over. All the more reason to knuckle down now. To die of Covid unnecessarily in the weeks before the vaccine rolls out would be such a waste. As a far greater government once told people - Don't Die of Ignorance.
Still some stick in the muds here I see but great that most have realised that this awfulness will soon be over. Weird tendency in some to continually close their ears and eyes to good news and live life like an Eyore. As for the rest of us, party party time roughly the first sunny weekend after Easter.
I think everyone is a bit tired, but it is worth reflecting that in a parallel universe the vaccines failed and Trump won.
There are some interesting choices ahead for the government. We have got 50m secured doses of the Pfizer vaccine coming and Pfizer are the only game in town for vaccination of 13-17 year olds. I think there's a case for reserving 10m doses of it for eventual use with this age group and pushing out AZ and Moderna to 5m more people.
Still some stick in the muds here I see but great that most have realised that this awfulness will soon be over. Weird tendency in some to continually close their ears and eyes to good news and live life like an Eyore. As for the rest of us, party party time roughly the first sunny weekend after Easter.
Re: the "stick in the muds" - party politics is not serving us well in a pandemic is it.
Given a choice between - a) vaccine, end to pandemic, economic recovery and b) lockdown continues for a longer, more ammunition to criticise the government, greater chance of a LP win at next GE - I`m not entirely convinced that everyone is rooting for a).
Don't understand why AZ even reported the 70% figure. It's unnecessarily confusing.
Because it's the was they decided at the start that they'd assess efficacy - doing something different when you've seen the results is a fundamental mistake in clinical trials, like saying you don't like a poll result but the Scottish subsample suggests a much better outcome. Further examination of the data gives a "hint" that doing it differently might give a 90% result, but that needs a separate trial IMO.
It's not a question of blame - we invested in a very serious effort and normally 70% would be a great result. Ity turns out that something else would be even better, but that's nobody's fault. What would be totally unacceptable would be to push out the Oxford vaccine now without further testing of the new hypothesis. Let's use the Pfizer/Modema vaccine for now.
70% ain't bad for a single dose regime, and possibly milder disease in who gets it despite.
Quite reasonable to roll out while awaiting the 2 stage trial result.
I agree that changing the outcome measure after looking at the data is not good science.
It’s a two dose regime.
I read through the press release carefully and picked up on a few mistakes I made the first time through. The press release lacks in some details so I am extrapolating. In the UK they had around 12k people. They dosed half with meningitis vaccine. Half (extrapolated from their n numbers) of the remaining got 2x full doses, the other half got one reduced dose then a full dose. The Brazilian trial was around 10k with 5k getting the meningitis vaccine and 5k getting the 2x full dose.
131 participants got COVID. The overall efficacy outcome combining both trials with ~23k participants and both dosages is 70% (92 in the placebo arm, 39 in the trial arm). That was their interim outcome. What I’m not qualified to answer is the statistical significance of their half/full dose results because the trial was smaller. I’ll wait for Derek Lowe’s article. Bluntly, unless you’re a research scientist with the trial documents at your fingertips no one here is qualified to make that assessment either. Nick is right to be cautious, because it isn’t easy interpreting the results of complex trials. Be patient, be glad it works, but don’t do the 90% jig yet.
Do we have a vaccine against Scottish Liberal Democrats? .... asking for a friend in the fine catering sector.
I think it was known as Ruth Davidson. A moderate tory with a sense of humour who was even pro EU really left them on the edge of extinction.
She didn't though, they remained annoyingly resilient all through the Ruth Davidson against Indy ref II party years.
Not really. They have vanished in the borders, the NE and the west coast. They cling on in the far north, posh bits of Edinburgh and NE Fife. Its not a viable base for the medium term. Edinburgh will be the next to go I reckon.
Don't understand why AZ even reported the 70% figure. It's unnecessarily confusing.
Because it's the was they decided at the start that they'd assess efficacy - doing something different when you've seen the results is a fundamental mistake in clinical trials, like saying you don't like a poll result but the Scottish subsample suggests a much better outcome. Further examination of the data gives a "hint" that doing it differently might give a 90% result, but that needs a separate trial IMO.
It's not a question of blame - we invested in a very serious effort and normally 70% would be a great result. Ity turns out that something else would be even better, but that's nobody's fault. What would be totally unacceptable would be to push out the Oxford vaccine now without further testing of the new hypothesis. Let's use the Pfizer/Modema vaccine for now.
TBF, it's a bit more than a hint. They have a decent number of cases to go on.
Sorry, yes, I was quoting the Oxford director, but he's talking about something slightly different: "There is just a hint in the data at the moment that those who got that regime with higher protection, there is a suggestion that it was also able to reduce asymptomatic infection." This is a claim that's also been made for the Pfizer vaccine, though I've not seen hard evidence.
I think we should give the scientists a little time to come up with some detailed analysis - they've been under huge pressure to report. FWIW my impression is that they didn't set out to do a trial on the lower dose, but they quite properly included various dose patterns to generate further hypotheses. The numbers in the subsample don't look sufficient to justify rushing out on that basis, but this is a former statistician going by a newspaper report of an interim result, so don't take my word for it.
Whatever works best! What we don't need is people embracing the Oxford approach because it's British, or rejecting it because they don't like the Goverrnment that bought a big stock. But it's undoubtedly true that people at high risk will want the best approach for them. rather than the fastest/cheapest.
I’m slightly concerned by the smallish sample size in the dose that has 90% efficacy. They clearly weren’t expecting that dose to be as effective so only gave it to 3000 people compared to >17k who got the full dose. That should slightly dampen our expectations. Anything between 70% and 90% is still worthwhile and good (especially as an inexpensive mass jab you can produce billions of doses of) but it’s not going to go down well when the government bangs on about being world beating and delivers the population a “second class” innoculation.
The trouble is that 70% is an average between the two groups. The measured efficacy in the larger group was only 62%, and because the efficacy is lower there's a lot of statistical uncertainty about the true figure. It might even be below 50%. I don't think you can justify choosing the less efficacious regimen just because the numbers are larger. Particularly if it means fewer people can be vaccinated.
Still some stick in the muds here I see but great that most have realised that this awfulness will soon be over. Weird tendency in some to continually close their ears and eyes to good news and live life like an Eyore. As for the rest of us, party party time roughly the first sunny weekend after Easter.
I think everyone is a bit tired, but it is worth reflecting that in a parallel universe the vaccines failed and Trump won.
In 72% of those parallel universes Trump didn't win in 2016 (ref: fivethirtyeight.com)
FWIW my impression is that they didn't set out to do a trial on the lower dose, but they quite properly included various dose patterns to generate further hypotheses.
I think they obviously did intend to look at both dosing regimens, because they used one for about a quarter of the participants, and the other for about three quarters.
Wildly O/T: a resident says he's a trail biker, and has been digging a small trail on common land. He says it's nowhere near wherever anyone walks, and doesn't damage the environment since it's just earth and nature will fill it up again in due course. He says he's a teenager getting a lot of hassle for sitting around at home, and now he's getting a lot of hassle for doing something useful outdoors.
I'm a bit dubious about someone with the best of intentions digging up common land, but what is the legal position on this?
Don't understand why AZ even reported the 70% figure. It's unnecessarily confusing.
Because it's the was they decided at the start that they'd assess efficacy - doing something different when you've seen the results is a fundamental mistake in clinical trials, like saying you don't like a poll result but the Scottish subsample suggests a much better outcome. Further examination of the data gives a "hint" that doing it differently might give a 90% result, but that needs a separate trial IMO.
It's not a question of blame - we invested in a very serious effort and normally 70% would be a great result. Ity turns out that something else would be even better, but that's nobody's fault. What would be totally unacceptable would be to push out the Oxford vaccine now without further testing of the new hypothesis. Let's use the Pfizer/Modema vaccine for now.
Utter rot.
I would gladly take a 70% vaccine (that could be 90%) over no vaccine at all.
And don't forget that vaccinating people lowers R thus lowering the risk even to the unvaccinated or failed vaccinations.
If all 3 pass safety trials and get approval then they need rolling out as fast as possible.
Do we have a vaccine against Scottish Liberal Democrats? .... asking for a friend in the fine catering sector.
I think it was known as Ruth Davidson. A moderate tory with a sense of humour who was even pro EU really left them on the edge of extinction.
She didn't though, they remained annoyingly resilient all through the Ruth Davidson against Indy ref II party years.
Not really. They have vanished in the borders, the NE and the west coast. They cling on in the far north, posh bits of Edinburgh and NE Fife. Its not a viable base for the medium term. Edinburgh will be the next to go I reckon.
I reckon the smallish but distinct 'hate Brexit but also hate the Nats' demographic will keep them going for a while yet. Would enjoy seeing Cole-Hamilton get his jotters, mind.
Don't understand why AZ even reported the 70% figure. It's unnecessarily confusing.
Because it's the was they decided at the start that they'd assess efficacy - doing something different when you've seen the results is a fundamental mistake in clinical trials, like saying you don't like a poll result but the Scottish subsample suggests a much better outcome. Further examination of the data gives a "hint" that doing it differently might give a 90% result, but that needs a separate trial IMO.
It's not a question of blame - we invested in a very serious effort and normally 70% would be a great result. Ity turns out that something else would be even better, but that's nobody's fault. What would be totally unacceptable would be to push out the Oxford vaccine now without further testing of the new hypothesis. Let's use the Pfizer/Modema vaccine for now.
70% ain't bad for a single dose regime, and possibly milder disease in who gets it despite.
Quite reasonable to roll out while awaiting the 2 stage trial result.
I agree that changing the outcome measure after looking at the data is not good science.
It’s a two dose regime.
I read through the press release carefully and picked up on a few mistakes I made the first time through. The press release lacks in some details so I am extrapolating. In the UK they had around 12k people. They dosed half with meningitis vaccine. Half (extrapolated from their n numbers) of the remaining got 2x full doses, the other half got one reduced dose then a full dose. The Brazilian trial was around 10k with 5k getting the meningitis vaccine and 5k getting the 2x full dose.
131 participants got COVID. The overall efficacy outcome combining both trials with ~23k participants and both dosages is 70% (92 in the placebo arm, 39 in the trial arm). That was their interim outcome. What I’m not qualified to answer is the statistical significance of their half/full dose results because the trial was smaller. I’ll wait for Derek Lowe’s article. Bluntly, unless you’re a research scientist with the trial documents at your fingertips no one here is qualified to make that assessment either. Nick is right to be cautious, because it isn’t easy interpreting the results of complex trials. Be patient, be glad it works, but don’t do the 90% jig yet.
Yes, need the proper paper, not just press release to make sense of it. The same is true for the other candidates too.
I’m slightly concerned by the smallish sample size in the dose that has 90% efficacy. They clearly weren’t expecting that dose to be as effective so only gave it to 3000 people compared to >17k who got the full dose. That should slightly dampen our expectations. Anything between 70% and 90% is still worthwhile and good (especially as an inexpensive mass jab you can produce billions of doses of) but it’s not going to go down well when the government bangs on about being world beating and delivers the population a “second class” innoculation.
The trouble is that 70% is an average between the two groups. The measured efficacy in the larger group was only 62%, and because the efficacy is lower there's a lot of statistical uncertainty about the true figure. It might even be below 50%. I don't think you can justify choosing the less efficacious regimen just because the numbers are larger. Particularly if it means fewer people can be vaccinated.
I put that in greater detail in my later post. Of course you don’t approve the 2x full dose over the other one if it works less well. But... you also don’t want to yell “Oxford is 90% effective” from the roof tops if it turns out that was a statistical burp from a small sample size. Again, this is partly an issue with how hard it is to report on complex, multi arm trials with multiple outcomes. Pfizer and Moderna were simpler.
I know grade inflation is a persistent problem but these charts, specifically the one about positive tests by Health Board, are worth a look. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-53511877
On their own measures:
NONE of Scotland should be in tier 4 (currently over 2m people) Only Lanarkshire and Greater Glasgow should be in tier 3 (instead of almost all the central belt and Aberdeen) Ayrshire, Lothian, Fife and Forth Valley should be tier 2 Borders, Grampian and Tayside should be tier 1 (we are currently tier 3). Highland, Shetland, Western Isles and Orkney should all be at tier 0.
Really surprised that more is not being made of this. The economic consequences of this are severe and, apparently, unnecessary.
Really positive news on the Oxford vaccine. A selfish question from me, but one where the collective brains trust of politicalbetting may provide some light!
I am due to get married on 1st May. It was postponed from July. I read some reports that talk of life 'back to normal' by Easter, others by summer. How likely do we think the traditional wedding - collective eating, singing, drinking and dancing will be back by May 1st?! Sadly we cannot wait until Easter to decide as we have some suppliers still to hire and others we are already contracted to. It is that lack of certainty that makes it difficult!
I know grade inflation is a persistent problem but these charts, specifically the one about positive tests by Health Board, are worth a look. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-53511877
On their own measures:
NONE of Scotland should be in tier 4 (currently over 2m people) Only Lanarkshire and Greater Glasgow should be in tier 3 (instead of almost all the central belt and Aberdeen) Ayrshire, Lothian, Fife and Forth Valley should be tier 2 Borders, Grampian and Tayside should be tier 1 (we are currently tier 3). Highland, Shetland, Western Isles and Orkney should all be at tier 0.
Really surprised that more is not being made of this. The economic consequences of this are severe and, apparently, unnecessary.
Do we have a vaccine against Scottish Liberal Democrats? .... asking for a friend in the fine catering sector.
I think it was known as Ruth Davidson. A moderate tory with a sense of humour who was even pro EU really left them on the edge of extinction.
She didn't though, they remained annoyingly resilient all through the Ruth Davidson against Indy ref II party years.
Not really. They have vanished in the borders, the NE and the west coast. They cling on in the far north, posh bits of Edinburgh and NE Fife. Its not a viable base for the medium term. Edinburgh will be the next to go I reckon.
I reckon the smallish but distinct 'hate Brexit but also hate the Nats' demographic will keep them going for a while yet. Would enjoy seeing Cole-Hamilton get his jotters, mind.
The Edinburgh LDs have turned into the NIMBY party and oppose anything that might make Barnton less desirable (or nicer to live in). They’ll hang on here as long as there are hordes of vanity panzer commanders willing to fill a park to listen to the dreadful man whine about cycle paths. If we could get rid of the bloody man I’d be happy. Neither him or his Westminster counterpart are a scratch on Mike Crockhart, who was a superb MP.
Wildly O/T: a resident says he's a trail biker, and has been digging a small trail on common land. He says it's nowhere near wherever anyone walks, and doesn't damage the environment since it's just earth and nature will fill it up again in due course. He says he's a teenager getting a lot of hassle for sitting around at home, and now he's getting a lot of hassle for doing something useful outdoors.
I'm a bit dubious about someone with the best of intentions digging up common land, but what is the legal position on this?
Trespass. Common land actually belongs to someone, it's just that the landowner has fewer rights over his own property than most landowners do. The "just earth" stuff is a bit dubious, too.
Listening to the report on the Oxford vaccine it is really great news and yet it seems siren voices are trying to criticise it's efficacy and you do wonder why when we get good news many seem to want it to fail
It is very disappointing that we cannot all rejoice at good news
Er, because two other vaccines are better i.e. more effective.
It's good news but it's not great news. We've backed the wrong horse.
It's like saying that we should rejoice that British Sky Broadcasting produced a Squarial when the market i.e. everyone wanted a mini satellite dish instead.
You mark my words ... there will be a massive push for Pfizer and Moderna. And I'm one of them.
Not really - the two dose looks of similar effect to the Pfizer and Moderna data, and these are AL:L preliminary data. It also looks as if there were NO serious cases even where patients did get covid. If you have a vaccine that makes covid a trivial disease for all, that works for me. No need to wear a mask etc to stop getting a mild sniffle!
Really positive news on the Oxford vaccine. A selfish question from me, but one where the collective brains trust of politicalbetting may provide some light!
I am due to get married on 1st May. It was postponed from July. I read some reports that talk of life 'back to normal' by Easter, others by summer. How likely do we think the traditional wedding - collective eating, singing, drinking and dancing will be back by May 1st?! Sadly we cannot wait until Easter to decide as we have some suppliers still to hire and others we are already contracted to. It is that lack of certainty that makes it difficult!
Thanks all!
Hmm. Due to the time it will take to roll the vaccine out, and the risk-averse rather than risk-aware zeitgeist I`m afraid I`d say it`s less than 50% likely that you will be able to do all those things by May 1st. Hope I`m wrong.
Really positive news on the Oxford vaccine. A selfish question from me, but one where the collective brains trust of politicalbetting may provide some light!
I am due to get married on 1st May. It was postponed from July. I read some reports that talk of life 'back to normal' by Easter, others by summer. How likely do we think the traditional wedding - collective eating, singing, drinking and dancing will be back by May 1st?! Sadly we cannot wait until Easter to decide as we have some suppliers still to hire and others we are already contracted to. It is that lack of certainty that makes it difficult!
Thanks all!
Do you feel lucky, punk?
Of course no one has any idea. My gut feel is that there will be a sustained push for "events" to be allowed freer rein. Hence having a party because you feel like it for 100 people = prob not. Wedding/funeral/sports matches = maybe so.
But you spin the dice. I'm surprised the suppliers are being inflexible. Don't they know there's a pandemic on?
I can understand why they haven't settled the Next President market, just. What beggars belief is that they haven't settled the Popular Vote market.
I think the reason is Betfair blundered into this mess. However, the excuse will be that the Trump campaign's lawsuits asked the courts to disqualify *millions* of votes.
FWIW my impression is that they didn't set out to do a trial on the lower dose, but they quite properly included various dose patterns to generate further hypotheses.
I think they obviously did intend to look at both dosing regimens, because they used one for about a quarter of the participants, and the other for about three quarters.
Yes, fair enough. I'm statistically cautious about having a choice of outcomes and jumping on the better one (or the worse one). OnboardG1 sums it up well, though.
Don't understand why AZ even reported the 70% figure. It's unnecessarily confusing.
Because it's the was they decided at the start that they'd assess efficacy - doing something different when you've seen the results is a fundamental mistake in clinical trials, like saying you don't like a poll result but the Scottish subsample suggests a much better outcome. Further examination of the data gives a "hint" that doing it differently might give a 90% result, but that needs a separate trial IMO.
It's not a question of blame - we invested in a very serious effort and normally 70% would be a great result. Ity turns out that something else would be even better, but that's nobody's fault. What would be totally unacceptable would be to push out the Oxford vaccine now without further testing of the new hypothesis. Let's use the Pfizer/Modema vaccine for now.
70% ain't bad for a single dose regime, and possibly milder disease in who gets it despite.
Quite reasonable to roll out while awaiting the 2 stage trial result.
I agree that changing the outcome measure after looking at the data is not good science.
70% efficacy would still massively reduce the R rate though? I thought 70% was under the target for herd immunity?
I recall 60%, but you may be right. Trouble is, not everyone will agree to have it so overall we`d be well under 70% (or 60%).
I think you need to take those estimates with a huge dose of salt. They're based on a very simplistic model in which transmission of the virus is uniform throughout the population. In reality, the R estimates will be heavily influenced by people who are most likely to get and spread the infection. I think if a vaccine could reduce transmission by 70% that would be ample to stop the virus spreading, even if not everyone was vaccinated.
If R is currently 1.1 on average in the country then an immunity rates of well under 70% would do it. 25% may be enough to keep R on a downward trajectory. Does anyone know the stats on this?
The initial, major effect of rolling out the vaccine will be drops in hospitalisations and deaths.
Infections will be relatively unaffected in the first few months.
This is because the rollout is targeting the most vulnerable groups first. Who make up a small part of the population.
I’m slightly concerned by the smallish sample size in the dose that has 90% efficacy. They clearly weren’t expecting that dose to be as effective so only gave it to 3000 people compared to >17k who got the full dose. That should slightly dampen our expectations. Anything between 70% and 90% is still worthwhile and good (especially as an inexpensive mass jab you can produce billions of doses of) but it’s not going to go down well when the government bangs on about being world beating and delivers the population a “second class” innoculation.
The trouble is that 70% is an average between the two groups. The measured efficacy in the larger group was only 62%, and because the efficacy is lower there's a lot of statistical uncertainty about the true figure. It might even be below 50%. I don't think you can justify choosing the less efficacious regimen just because the numbers are larger. Particularly if it means fewer people can be vaccinated.
I put that in greater detail in my later post. Of course you don’t approve the 2x full dose over the other one if it works less well. But... you also don’t want to yell “Oxford is 90% effective” from the roof tops if it turns out that was a statistical burp from a small sample size. Again, this is partly an issue with how hard it is to report on complex, multi arm trials with multiple outcomes. Pfizer and Moderna were simpler.
But the sample size for the half/full dose was pretty big, 62% vs 90% looks statistically significant.
However, I agree on the general point that doing a multi variable trial should maybe have been bigger. I guess the halting of it in the US is the main issue here, that had 20k participants.
The Guardian, not always known for rose spectacle views, is headlining 90%.
"Oxford AstraZeneca Covid vaccine has up to 90% efficacy, data reveals
Oxford University said interim analysis from its phase 3 vaccine trial showed that the efficacy of their vaccine is 70%. But that came from combining the results of two different dosing regimes, one of which was 90% and the other was 62%. The 90% regime involved a half-dose first and then a full dose of the vaccine later. The interim analysis was based on 131 infections among participants who received the vaccine and those in a control group who were given an established meningitis shot.
In a statement, Prof Andrew Pollard, the director of the Oxford Vaccine Group and chief investigator of the Oxford vaccine trial, said: “These findings show that we have an effective vaccine that will save many lives. Excitingly, we’ve found that one of our dosing regimens may be around 90% effective and if this dosing regime is used, more people could be vaccinated with planned vaccine supply."
Don't understand why AZ even reported the 70% figure. It's unnecessarily confusing.
Because it's the was they decided at the start that they'd assess efficacy - doing something different when you've seen the results is a fundamental mistake in clinical trials, like saying you don't like a poll result but the Scottish subsample suggests a much better outcome. Further examination of the data gives a "hint" that doing it differently might give a 90% result, but that needs a separate trial IMO.
It's not a question of blame - we invested in a very serious effort and normally 70% would be a great result. Ity turns out that something else would be even better, but that's nobody's fault. What would be totally unacceptable would be to push out the Oxford vaccine now without further testing of the new hypothesis. Let's use the Pfizer/Modema vaccine for now.
70% ain't bad for a single dose regime, and possibly milder disease in who gets it despite.
Quite reasonable to roll out while awaiting the 2 stage trial result.
I agree that changing the outcome measure after looking at the data is not good science.
70% efficacy would still massively reduce the R rate though? I thought 70% was under the target for herd immunity?
I recall 60%, but you may be right. Trouble is, not everyone will agree to have it so overall we`d be well under 70% (or 60%).
I think you need to take those estimates with a huge dose of salt. They're based on a very simplistic model in which transmission of the virus is uniform throughout the population. In reality, the R estimates will be heavily influenced by people who are most likely to get and spread the infection. I think if a vaccine could reduce transmission by 70% that would be ample to stop the virus spreading, even if not everyone was vaccinated.
If R is currently 1.1 on average in the country then an immunity rates of well under 70% would do it. 25% may be enough to keep R on a downward trajectory. Does anyone know the stats on this?
The initial, major effect of rolling out the vaccine will be drops in hospitalisations and deaths.
Infections will be relatively unaffected in the first few months.
This is because the rollout is targeting the most vulnerable groups first. Who make up a small part of the population.
See this -
Morning - I pm'd you yday. Happy to ask the question here, though - you keep on saying that the daily stats you post should be taken in context of the reporting lag. Does this mean we are looking at your tables as the situation was three days ago?
FWIW my impression is that they didn't set out to do a trial on the lower dose, but they quite properly included various dose patterns to generate further hypotheses.
I think they obviously did intend to look at both dosing regimens, because they used one for about a quarter of the participants, and the other for about three quarters.
Yes, fair enough. I'm statistically cautious about having a choice of outcomes and jumping on the better one (or the worse one). OnboardG1 sums it up well, though.
There's rules against the choice of outcome strategy - it is called pre-defining your primary end point - and it is those rules working as intended which constrain Oxford to headline the 70% number.
Listening to the report on the Oxford vaccine it is really great news and yet it seems siren voices are trying to criticise it's efficacy and you do wonder why when we get good news many seem to want it to fail
It is very disappointing that we cannot all rejoice at good news
Er, because two other vaccines are better i.e. more effective.
It's good news but it's not great news. We've backed the wrong horse.
It's like saying that we should rejoice that British Sky Broadcasting produced a Squarial when the market i.e. everyone wanted a mini satellite dish instead.
You mark my words ... there will be a massive push for Pfizer and Moderna. And I'm one of them.
That's bull. We backed every horse - it's simply that we don't have any domestic companies with the mRNA technology. Be grateful that we have the Oxford vaccine - it puts us in a far better position than most countries.
As for your massive push, you won't get the choice.
Imperial are developing the mRNA method. Still looking for a PIII partner. Anyway, 90% effective is plenty.
Sure - but it's a university research effort. And the government did back it to the tune of £41m back in April.
Moderna had been working on mRNA therapeutics, and the associated manufacturing and delivery technology for years (which failed, before they shifted to vaccine development). My point, which I've made before, is that, in an emergency, governments have to back what's already there. You can put in place the infrastructure for next time around, but it takes much longer to build from scratch.
I completely agree, we've got 99m doses of 95%, 94% and 90% effective vaccines due before the end of April. It's a very strong portfolio and another champagne moment for the vaccine taskforce.
What worries me is that by April a few countries (UK, US, Japan, Canada) will have their effective R down to 0 due to vaccination programmes. Where does that leave other vaccine candidates. Between these three there is around 2bn in global manufacturing capacity, that's nowhere near enough to see the back of this virus. We need other credible candidates to come through and I can only see J&J as having the ability to complete a PIII trial because they've already started during a second wave, loads of countries won't have a third wave.
It's a bit better than that - there are of course various Chinese vaccines to add in for a start. GSK/Sanofi will probably start PIII trials in the US at the end of this month, or perhaps the beginning of January, assuming their earlier trial reads out OK (& we've already ordered 60m doses). Novavax is in PIII https://ir.novavax.com/news-releases/news-release-details/novavax-provides-phase-3-covid-19-vaccine-clinical-development And there's also an inactivated coronavirus vaccine in PIII in India.
There are a whole load in PI/II, and while you're probably right about most not going much further.
There's also CureVac. Even if their mRNA vaccine doesn't progress, they've sourced large scale production in Europe which might be repurposed for one of the others ?
If 4m doses of Az already exist in the UK and the first dose only needs to be half a dose, can we not get on and vaccinate 8m people immediately ???
Yes. Let’s go.
70% is fine by the way.
70% is an average figure across two trial doses. Two full doses had 62% efficacy and a half then full dose had 90%. There's not actually any combination that does 70% so it's a very odd figure for AZ to release. The MHRA is almost certainly going to approve the half/full dose.
Really positive news on the Oxford vaccine. A selfish question from me, but one where the collective brains trust of politicalbetting may provide some light!
I am due to get married on 1st May. It was postponed from July. I read some reports that talk of life 'back to normal' by Easter, others by summer. How likely do we think the traditional wedding - collective eating, singing, drinking and dancing will be back by May 1st?! Sadly we cannot wait until Easter to decide as we have some suppliers still to hire and others we are already contracted to. It is that lack of certainty that makes it difficult!
Thanks all!
I'm guessing - as we all are - but my guess would be it's unlikely. Timelines of vaccination will slip and I'd imagine big events like your wedding would be one of the last things to go back to normal.
Still some stick in the muds here I see but great that most have realised that this awfulness will soon be over. Weird tendency in some to continually close their ears and eyes to good news and live life like an Eyore. As for the rest of us, party party time roughly the first sunny weekend after Easter.
The first weekend after Easter sees the Grand National which is sponsored by Randox, of Tory chumocracy fame. Coincidence? Well yes, probably.
Don't understand why AZ even reported the 70% figure. It's unnecessarily confusing.
Because it's the was they decided at the start that they'd assess efficacy - doing something different when you've seen the results is a fundamental mistake in clinical trials, like saying you don't like a poll result but the Scottish subsample suggests a much better outcome. Further examination of the data gives a "hint" that doing it differently might give a 90% result, but that needs a separate trial IMO.
It's not a question of blame - we invested in a very serious effort and normally 70% would be a great result. Ity turns out that something else would be even better, but that's nobody's fault. What would be totally unacceptable would be to push out the Oxford vaccine now without further testing of the new hypothesis. Let's use the Pfizer/Modema vaccine for now.
70% ain't bad for a single dose regime, and possibly milder disease in who gets it despite.
Quite reasonable to roll out while awaiting the 2 stage trial result.
I agree that changing the outcome measure after looking at the data is not good science.
70% efficacy would still massively reduce the R rate though? I thought 70% was under the target for herd immunity?
I recall 60%, but you may be right. Trouble is, not everyone will agree to have it so overall we`d be well under 70% (or 60%).
I think you need to take those estimates with a huge dose of salt. They're based on a very simplistic model in which transmission of the virus is uniform throughout the population. In reality, the R estimates will be heavily influenced by people who are most likely to get and spread the infection. I think if a vaccine could reduce transmission by 70% that would be ample to stop the virus spreading, even if not everyone was vaccinated.
If R is currently 1.1 on average in the country then an immunity rates of well under 70% would do it. 25% may be enough to keep R on a downward trajectory. Does anyone know the stats on this?
The initial, major effect of rolling out the vaccine will be drops in hospitalisations and deaths.
Infections will be relatively unaffected in the first few months.
This is because the rollout is targeting the most vulnerable groups first. Who make up a small part of the population.
See this -
Morning - I pm'd you yday. Happy to ask the question here, though - you keep on saying that the daily stats you post should be taken in context of the reporting lag. Does this mean we are looking at your tables as the situation was three days ago?
Thx
Yes.
For specimen date, it takes 3-5 days for the data to finish being reported.
If you are looking at reporting day, then individual days are not useful - you need to look at the 7 day average (at least). This is because an individual day can have considerable variation in backfilling. So you need to wait x days to see a trend.
Really positive news on the Oxford vaccine. A selfish question from me, but one where the collective brains trust of politicalbetting may provide some light!
I am due to get married on 1st May. It was postponed from July. I read some reports that talk of life 'back to normal' by Easter, others by summer. How likely do we think the traditional wedding - collective eating, singing, drinking and dancing will be back by May 1st?! Sadly we cannot wait until Easter to decide as we have some suppliers still to hire and others we are already contracted to. It is that lack of certainty that makes it difficult!
Thanks all!
I think quite likely, but with still some precautions. I suspect the handwashing etc will be with us for a long time, but hopefully be then, facemasks won't be needed.
Don't understand why AZ even reported the 70% figure. It's unnecessarily confusing.
Because it's the was they decided at the start that they'd assess efficacy - doing something different when you've seen the results is a fundamental mistake in clinical trials, like saying you don't like a poll result but the Scottish subsample suggests a much better outcome. Further examination of the data gives a "hint" that doing it differently might give a 90% result, but that needs a separate trial IMO.
It's not a question of blame - we invested in a very serious effort and normally 70% would be a great result. Ity turns out that something else would be even better, but that's nobody's fault. What would be totally unacceptable would be to push out the Oxford vaccine now without further testing of the new hypothesis. Let's use the Pfizer/Modema vaccine for now.
70% ain't bad for a single dose regime, and possibly milder disease in who gets it despite.
Quite reasonable to roll out while awaiting the 2 stage trial result.
I agree that changing the outcome measure after looking at the data is not good science.
70% efficacy would still massively reduce the R rate though? I thought 70% was under the target for herd immunity?
I recall 60%, but you may be right. Trouble is, not everyone will agree to have it so overall we`d be well under 70% (or 60%).
I think you need to take those estimates with a huge dose of salt. They're based on a very simplistic model in which transmission of the virus is uniform throughout the population. In reality, the R estimates will be heavily influenced by people who are most likely to get and spread the infection. I think if a vaccine could reduce transmission by 70% that would be ample to stop the virus spreading, even if not everyone was vaccinated.
If R is currently 1.1 on average in the country then an immunity rates of well under 70% would do it. 25% may be enough to keep R on a downward trajectory. Does anyone know the stats on this?
The initial, major effect of rolling out the vaccine will be drops in hospitalisations and deaths.
Infections will be relatively unaffected in the first few months.
This is because the rollout is targeting the most vulnerable groups first. Who make up a small part of the population.
See this -
Morning - I pm'd you yday. Happy to ask the question here, though - you keep on saying that the daily stats you post should be taken in context of the reporting lag. Does this mean we are looking at your tables as the situation was three days ago?
Thx
Yes.
For specimen date, it takes 3-5 days for the data to finish being reported.
If you are looking at reporting day, then individual days are not useful - you need to look at the 7 day average (at least). This is because an individual day can have considerable variation in backfilling. So you need to wait x days to see a trend.
The Guardian, not always known for rose spectacle views, is headlining 90%.
"Oxford AstraZeneca Covid vaccine has up to 90% efficacy, data reveals
Oxford University said interim analysis from its phase 3 vaccine trial showed that the efficacy of their vaccine is 70%. But that came from combining the results of two different dosing regimes, one of which was 90% and the other was 62%. The 90% regime involved a half-dose first and then a full dose of the vaccine later. The interim analysis was based on 131 infections among participants who received the vaccine and those in a control group who were given an established meningitis shot.
In a statement, Prof Andrew Pollard, the director of the Oxford Vaccine Group and chief investigator of the Oxford vaccine trial, said: “These findings show that we have an effective vaccine that will save many lives. Excitingly, we’ve found that one of our dosing regimens may be around 90% effective and if this dosing regime is used, more people could be vaccinated with planned vaccine supply."
Woo, great vaccine news! That’s three of them almost ready to go.
Hopefully this damn menace will soon be over.
Should load a three-pronged needle with all three, so no one knows what they are going to get. Bit like a tame version of Russian roulette. Sort of.
That'll be fun. I used to have a monthly blood test and just before the needle went in the nurse would say 'Ok. Little prick'. Then after several months she said 'Ok. Small scratch'. So I asked her what had happened to 'little prick' and she said they'd had a directive to say 'small scratch' from now on......
Sometimes the truth hurts too much Roger.
I was going to point out that 'little prick' describes it much better!
I can understand why they haven't settled the Next President market, just. What beggars belief is that they haven't settled the Popular Vote market.
I think the reason is Betfair blundered into this mess. However, the excuse will be that the Trump campaign's lawsuits asked the courts to disqualify *millions* of votes.
The rules say "This market will be settled upon popular vote percentage figures as published by CNN". Even supposing the sake of argument Giuliani persuaded the Supreme Court to invalidate all the votes in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania and have their respective legislatures decide who got the delegates, surely CNN still wouldn't be reporting that nobody there voted???
Really positive news on the Oxford vaccine. A selfish question from me, but one where the collective brains trust of politicalbetting may provide some light!
I am due to get married on 1st May. It was postponed from July. I read some reports that talk of life 'back to normal' by Easter, others by summer. How likely do we think the traditional wedding - collective eating, singing, drinking and dancing will be back by May 1st?! Sadly we cannot wait until Easter to decide as we have some suppliers still to hire and others we are already contracted to. It is that lack of certainty that makes it difficult!
Thanks all!
Hmm. Due to the time it will take to roll the vaccine out, and the risk-averse rather than risk-aware zeitgeist I`m afraid I`d say it`s less than 50% likely that you will be able to do all those things by May 1st. Hope I`m wrong.
I am not one to normally take the Health Sec at his word but from what he says, by sometime in Feb we will have vaccinated the population segment accounting for something like 88% of all covid deaths and 98% by perhaps March or April.
I don’t think the government would survive if it attempted to maintain restrictions on gatherings beyond this point. The “risk averse” thing to do would be to open up fully and the “risky” thing to do would be to continue with social and economic restrictions.
It's also been pointed out that the different trial protocols could distort comparisons. Unlike Pfizer and Moderna, Oxford made sure to pick up asymptomatic cases as well.
While the US ones merely recorded symptomatic cases, the Oxford trial carried out weekly swabs on people to pick up any hint of infection. It could point towards the Oxford vaccine being able to prevent transmission and infection as well as illness (and is possibly what they were referring to with the "intriguing hint" stuff)
Don't understand why AZ even reported the 70% figure. It's unnecessarily confusing.
Because it's the was they decided at the start that they'd assess efficacy - doing something different when you've seen the results is a fundamental mistake in clinical trials, like saying you don't like a poll result but the Scottish subsample suggests a much better outcome. Further examination of the data gives a "hint" that doing it differently might give a 90% result, but that needs a separate trial IMO.
It's not a question of blame - we invested in a very serious effort and normally 70% would be a great result. Ity turns out that something else would be even better, but that's nobody's fault. What would be totally unacceptable would be to push out the Oxford vaccine now without further testing of the new hypothesis. Let's use the Pfizer/Modema vaccine for now.
If the Oxford one is cheaper, easier to produce, and doesn't need all the dry ice to store and move it about, then surely the best strategy is to get everyone vaccinated with a first dose of the Oxford, which gets us to herd immunity (when you add in the people already immune) as quickly as possible, and then come round with a second dose to get to over 90%? Indeed if the first dose is a half dose, logically we will be producing doses for the first phase twice as quickly.
Defund the police dump... can't even make a vaccine with 95% efficacy.
More seriously although another great achievement to have a working vaccine, questions about how this trial was run do need to be asked. Wrong dosage given at one point, slower than the other ones, etc.
Really positive news on the Oxford vaccine. A selfish question from me, but one where the collective brains trust of politicalbetting may provide some light!
I am due to get married on 1st May. It was postponed from July. I read some reports that talk of life 'back to normal' by Easter, others by summer. How likely do we think the traditional wedding - collective eating, singing, drinking and dancing will be back by May 1st?! Sadly we cannot wait until Easter to decide as we have some suppliers still to hire and others we are already contracted to. It is that lack of certainty that makes it difficult!
Thanks all!
I'm guessing - as we all are - but my guess would be it's unlikely. Timelines of vaccination will slip and I'd imagine big events like your wedding would be one of the last things to go back to normal.
Alternatively, there might be a huge clamour to get this vaccine asap... People have had enough and want to draw a line under it. If so, infection rates could crater dramatically in February and March.
Until the chattering classes all go skiing. Maybe your ski pass only gets issued with your vaccine cert? (Although, maybe boarding pass would be a better starting point.)
Don't understand why AZ even reported the 70% figure. It's unnecessarily confusing.
Because it's the was they decided at the start that they'd assess efficacy - doing something different when you've seen the results is a fundamental mistake in clinical trials, like saying you don't like a poll result but the Scottish subsample suggests a much better outcome. Further examination of the data gives a "hint" that doing it differently might give a 90% result, but that needs a separate trial IMO.
It's not a question of blame - we invested in a very serious effort and normally 70% would be a great result. Ity turns out that something else would be even better, but that's nobody's fault. What would be totally unacceptable would be to push out the Oxford vaccine now without further testing of the new hypothesis. Let's use the Pfizer/Modema vaccine for now.
Utter rot.
I would gladly take a 70% vaccine (that could be 90%) over no vaccine at all.
And don't forget that vaccinating people lowers R thus lowering the risk even to the unvaccinated or failed vaccinations.
If all 3 pass safety trials and get approval then they need rolling out as fast as possible.
It is all very confusing. It is NOT a 70% vaccine that could be 90%. It is a 62% or 90% and you will be getting one or the other. A combination is impossible. Presumably they should have done enough tests on both as otherwise you can't authorise either as being safe and effective, but if they have why haven't they announced a 90% effective vaccine.
You can not mix and match.
Image you had done the test and the result was 0% and 100%. You can not declare the result as 50% effective and give people the one that completely failed.
The stuff coming out is gobbledygook.
I suspect they have enough from the combined 2 samples to know they have an effective sample, but not enough from the 2 individual samples and want to get the announcement out.
Hopefully they will be able to announce a 90% effective vaccine shortly.
To be fair to the suppliers, they were wonderful in pushing back to May when we postoned in March. We are starting to liaise with them about May, but we have pretty much decided that unless getting married is illegal in May then we aren't going to postpone again, we would just scale down the service/reception. Admittedly this complicates things for us because suppliers are more likely to allow a straight postponement but scaling back may be less clearcut. Moreover, when we first postponed there were somethings we hadn't ordered/booked and we are wary of getting stuck in contracts now which weigh up losses.
Ultimately, we will need to make a decision at an arbitrary time and balance risk, but this isn't helped with government giving mixed signals about what 'back to normal' may look like and its timing; although I should stress I don't blame them for that given the uncertainty.
Really positive news on the Oxford vaccine. A selfish question from me, but one where the collective brains trust of politicalbetting may provide some light!
I am due to get married on 1st May. It was postponed from July. I read some reports that talk of life 'back to normal' by Easter, others by summer. How likely do we think the traditional wedding - collective eating, singing, drinking and dancing will be back by May 1st?! Sadly we cannot wait until Easter to decide as we have some suppliers still to hire and others we are already contracted to. It is that lack of certainty that makes it difficult!
Thanks all!
I'm guessing - as we all are - but my guess would be it's unlikely. Timelines of vaccination will slip and I'd imagine big events like your wedding would be one of the last things to go back to normal.
Alternatively, there might be a huge clamour to get this vaccine asap... People have had enough and want to draw a line under it. If so, infection rates could crater dramatically in February and March.
Until the chattering classes all go skiing. Maybe your ski pass only gets issued with your vaccine cert? (Although, maybe boarding pass would be a better starting point.)
A vaccine cert is going to be essential for a lot of things, most particularly (but not solely) air and cruise ship travel. Once it's released there is going to be a lot of pressure to get on with it.
Wildly O/T: a resident says he's a trail biker, and has been digging a small trail on common land. He says it's nowhere near wherever anyone walks, and doesn't damage the environment since it's just earth and nature will fill it up again in due course. He says he's a teenager getting a lot of hassle for sitting around at home, and now he's getting a lot of hassle for doing something useful outdoors.
I'm a bit dubious about someone with the best of intentions digging up common land, but what is the legal position on this?
It's also possible that the site is protected under nature conservation regulations - a Site of Special Scientific Interest, maybe, designated by Natural England (easily checked on their website). Or a nature reserve in itself, as designated by owner or occupier (maybe a charity such as Woodland Trust) or local regulations. Easily enough checked, but uncontrolled digging in such a situation is a big no-no.
Edit: and archaeological for that matter. Trail bikers have a fatal attraction for humps and bumps in the ground without realising what they are.
I can understand why they haven't settled the Next President market, just. What beggars belief is that they haven't settled the Popular Vote market.
I think the reason is Betfair blundered into this mess. However, the excuse will be that the Trump campaign's lawsuits asked the courts to disqualify *millions* of votes.
The rules say "This market will be settled upon popular vote percentage figures as published by CNN". Even supposing the sake of argument Giuliani persuaded the Supreme Court to invalidate all the votes in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania and have their respective legislatures decide who got the delegates, surely CNN still wouldn't be reporting that nobody there voted???
As I said, I think Betfair blundered into this. Now that they have, the lawsuits provide (or provided) some cover.
On 26th August it was reported by the US mainstream media that Hillary Clinton had said that Joe Biden shouldn't concede the election "under any circumstances". Interesting how this has been forgotten now by the same media outlets.
It's also been pointed out that the different trial protocols could distort comparisons. Unlike Pfizer and Moderna, Oxford made sure to pick up asymptomatic cases as well.
While the US ones merely recorded symptomatic cases, the Oxford trial carried out weekly swabs on people to pick up any hint of infection. It could point towards the Oxford vaccine being able to prevent transmission and infection as well as illness (and is possibly what they were referring to with the "intriguing hint" stuff)
Yes, that's a big difference in methodology wrt picking up asymptomatic cases. The full trial data could show 95%+ efficacy for preventing symptomatic COVID like the other two. AZ's PR department has a lot to learn from the Americans. With vaccines I think winning the PR war is just as important as the science right now given all of the fake news we have everywhere, even on here.
I’m slightly concerned by the smallish sample size in the dose that has 90% efficacy. They clearly weren’t expecting that dose to be as effective so only gave it to 3000 people compared to >17k who got the full dose. That should slightly dampen our expectations. Anything between 70% and 90% is still worthwhile and good (especially as an inexpensive mass jab you can produce billions of doses of) but it’s not going to go down well when the government bangs on about being world beating and delivers the population a “second class” innoculation.
The trouble is that 70% is an average between the two groups. The measured efficacy in the larger group was only 62%, and because the efficacy is lower there's a lot of statistical uncertainty about the true figure. It might even be below 50%. I don't think you can justify choosing the less efficacious regimen just because the numbers are larger. Particularly if it means fewer people can be vaccinated.
I put that in greater detail in my later post. Of course you don’t approve the 2x full dose over the other one if it works less well. But... you also don’t want to yell “Oxford is 90% effective” from the roof tops if it turns out that was a statistical burp from a small sample size. Again, this is partly an issue with how hard it is to report on complex, multi arm trials with multiple outcomes. Pfizer and Moderna were simpler.
But the sample size for the half/full dose was pretty big, 62% vs 90% looks statistically significant.
However, I agree on the general point that doing a multi variable trial should maybe have been bigger. I guess the halting of it in the US is the main issue here, that had 20k participants.
The interesting thing to me is why (assuming difference is real and not statistical oddity) half then full works better and whether it was planned to test both on the hypothesis that half then full was more effective or simply that it might give fewer side effects (the latter seems the more likely). Probably in the (published?) protocol, but I don't have time to look just now.
1) It's effective enough to bring life back to normal, even at 70% effectiveness (i.e. taking the study as a whole).
2) There's good reason to think the 90% is statistically significant, in which case the efficiacy is comparable to the other the vaccine results.
3) We can actually implement this vaccine in size within the first half of next year. For those wanting the Pfizer vaccine only in the UK, that means we wait until 2022 for most of the UK population to get vaccinated. We simply haven't ordered enough for everyone, and aren't at the front of the queue.
4) The more vulnerable can still get the Pfizer one if needed, for as many as we're able to procure. It's not a zero sum game.
5) More widely, the developing world can actually afford and distribute the AZ vaccine, reducing the pool of high-infection areas longer-term.
If 4m doses of Az already exist in the UK and the first dose only needs to be half a dose, can we not get on and vaccinate 8m people immediately ???
Yes. Let’s go.
70% is fine by the way.
70% is an average figure across two trial doses. Two full doses had 62% efficacy and a half then full dose had 90%. There's not actually any combination that does 70% so it's a very odd figure for AZ to release. The MHRA is almost certainly going to approve the half/full dose.
Probably trying to correct for what the press will do with numbers. iF they had included -
- 62% at one dosage - 90% at another
There would have been headlines - "VACCINE! ONLY! 62%! EFFECTIVE! DISASTER! EVERYONE! RUN! ROUND! SCREAMING! ON! FIRE!"
Comments
After all, I have known very many intelligent chimpanzees.
"Oxford AstraZeneca Covid vaccine has up to 90% efficacy, data reveals
Oxford University said interim analysis from its phase 3 vaccine trial showed that the efficacy of their vaccine is 70%. But that came from combining the results of two different dosing regimes, one of which was 90% and the other was 62%. The 90% regime involved a half-dose first and then a full dose of the vaccine later. The interim analysis was based on 131 infections among participants who received the vaccine and those in a control group who were given an established meningitis shot.
In a statement, Prof Andrew Pollard, the director of the Oxford Vaccine Group and chief investigator of the Oxford vaccine trial, said: “These findings show that we have an effective vaccine that will save many lives. Excitingly, we’ve found that one of our dosing regimens may be around 90% effective and if this dosing regime is used, more people could be vaccinated with planned vaccine supply."
Although the URL has 70%:
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/nov/23/astrazeneca-says-its-coronavirus-vaccine-has-70-per-cent-efficacy-covid-oxford-university
And it was negative.
So that's the secret to your longevity....
"In a statement, Prof Andrew Pollard, the director of the Oxford Vaccine Group and chief investigator of the Oxford vaccine trial, said: “These findings show that we have an effective vaccine that will save many lives. Excitingly, we’ve found that one of our dosing regimens may be around 90% effective and if this dosing regime is used, more people could be vaccinated with planned vaccine supply.""
Really pleased for you.
https://twitter.com/classiclib3ral/status/1330671003685576704?s=19
It will soon be over. All the more reason to knuckle down now. To die of Covid unnecessarily in the weeks before the vaccine rolls out would be such a waste. As a far greater government once told people - Don't Die of Ignorance.
OK, rip up that sick note from your mum. Off to school with you.
Given a choice between - a) vaccine, end to pandemic, economic recovery and b) lockdown continues for a longer, more ammunition to criticise the government, greater chance of a LP win at next GE - I`m not entirely convinced that everyone is rooting for a).
I read through the press release carefully and picked up on a few mistakes I made the first time through. The press release lacks in some details so I am extrapolating. In the UK they had around 12k people. They dosed half with meningitis vaccine. Half (extrapolated from their n numbers) of the remaining got 2x full doses, the other half got one reduced dose then a full dose. The Brazilian trial was around 10k with 5k getting the meningitis vaccine and 5k getting the 2x full dose.
131 participants got COVID. The overall efficacy outcome combining both trials with ~23k participants and both dosages is 70% (92 in the placebo arm, 39 in the trial arm). That was their interim outcome. What I’m not qualified to answer is the statistical significance of their half/full dose results because the trial was smaller. I’ll wait for Derek Lowe’s article. Bluntly, unless you’re a research scientist with the trial documents at your fingertips no one here is qualified to make that assessment either. Nick is right to be cautious, because it isn’t easy interpreting the results of complex trials. Be patient, be glad it works, but don’t do the 90% jig yet.
I think we should give the scientists a little time to come up with some detailed analysis - they've been under huge pressure to report. FWIW my impression is that they didn't set out to do a trial on the lower dose, but they quite properly included various dose patterns to generate further hypotheses. The numbers in the subsample don't look sufficient to justify rushing out on that basis, but this is a former statistician going by a newspaper report of an interim result, so don't take my word for it.
Whatever works best! What we don't need is people embracing the Oxford approach because it's British, or rejecting it because they don't like the Goverrnment that bought a big stock. But it's undoubtedly true that people at high risk will want the best approach for them. rather than the fastest/cheapest.
Still good news particularly the other bits re the symptoms of those that got Covid after the injection.
But media putting out nonsense.
But enough of the Covid stuff. Shemima Begum is in the headlines again - case being heard now I think - so that should occupy PB for the entire day.
I'm a bit dubious about someone with the best of intentions digging up common land, but what is the legal position on this?
Because I agree with 95% of what Steve Baker has been saying on the airwaves this morning.
I would gladly take a 70% vaccine (that could be 90%) over no vaccine at all.
And don't forget that vaccinating people lowers R thus lowering the risk even to the unvaccinated or failed vaccinations.
If all 3 pass safety trials and get approval then they need rolling out as fast as possible.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-53511877
On their own measures:
NONE of Scotland should be in tier 4 (currently over 2m people)
Only Lanarkshire and Greater Glasgow should be in tier 3 (instead of almost all the central belt and Aberdeen)
Ayrshire, Lothian, Fife and Forth Valley should be tier 2
Borders, Grampian and Tayside should be tier 1 (we are currently tier 3).
Highland, Shetland, Western Isles and Orkney should all be at tier 0.
Really surprised that more is not being made of this. The economic consequences of this are severe and, apparently, unnecessary.
Really positive news on the Oxford vaccine. A selfish question from me, but one where the collective brains trust of politicalbetting may provide some light!
I am due to get married on 1st May. It was postponed from July. I read some reports that talk of life 'back to normal' by Easter, others by summer. How likely do we think the traditional wedding - collective eating, singing, drinking and dancing will be back by May 1st?! Sadly we cannot wait until Easter to decide as we have some suppliers still to hire and others we are already contracted to. It is that lack of certainty that makes it difficult!
Thanks all!
70% is fine by the way.
Of course no one has any idea. My gut feel is that there will be a sustained push for "events" to be allowed freer rein. Hence having a party because you feel like it for 100 people = prob not. Wedding/funeral/sports matches = maybe so.
But you spin the dice. I'm surprised the suppliers are being inflexible. Don't they know there's a pandemic on?
Infections will be relatively unaffected in the first few months.
This is because the rollout is targeting the most vulnerable groups first. Who make up a small part of the population.
See this -
However, I agree on the general point that doing a multi variable trial should maybe have been bigger. I guess the halting of it in the US is the main issue here, that had 20k participants.
Thx
GSK/Sanofi will probably start PIII trials in the US at the end of this month, or perhaps the beginning of January, assuming their earlier trial reads out OK (& we've already ordered 60m doses).
Novavax is in PIII
https://ir.novavax.com/news-releases/news-release-details/novavax-provides-phase-3-covid-19-vaccine-clinical-development
And there's also an inactivated coronavirus vaccine in PIII in India.
There are a whole load in PI/II, and while you're probably right about most not going much further.
There's also CureVac. Even if their mRNA vaccine doesn't progress, they've sourced large scale production in Europe which might be repurposed for one of the others ?
Timelines of vaccination will slip and I'd imagine big events like your wedding would be one of the last things to go back to normal.
For specimen date, it takes 3-5 days for the data to finish being reported.
If you are looking at reporting day, then individual days are not useful - you need to look at the 7 day average (at least). This is because an individual day can have considerable variation in backfilling. So you need to wait x days to see a trend.
Of course they couldn't hype the smaller subsample result. Some early comments on here were OTT.
I don’t think the government would survive if it attempted to maintain restrictions on gatherings beyond this point. The “risk averse” thing to do would be to open up fully and the “risky” thing to do would be to continue with social and economic restrictions.
Unlike Pfizer and Moderna, Oxford made sure to pick up asymptomatic cases as well.
While the US ones merely recorded symptomatic cases, the Oxford trial carried out weekly swabs on people to pick up any hint of infection. It could point towards the Oxford vaccine being able to prevent transmission and infection as well as illness (and is possibly what they were referring to with the "intriguing hint" stuff)
policedump... can't even make a vaccine with 95% efficacy.More seriously although another great achievement to have a working vaccine, questions about how this trial was run do need to be asked. Wrong dosage given at one point, slower than the other ones, etc.
Until the chattering classes all go skiing. Maybe your ski pass only gets issued with your vaccine cert? (Although, maybe boarding pass would be a better starting point.)
You can not mix and match.
Image you had done the test and the result was 0% and 100%. You can not declare the result as 50% effective and give people the one that completely failed.
The stuff coming out is gobbledygook.
I suspect they have enough from the combined 2 samples to know they have an effective sample, but not enough from the 2 individual samples and want to get the announcement out.
Hopefully they will be able to announce a 90% effective vaccine shortly.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/nov/23/joe-biden-to-nominate-antony-blinken-as-us-secretary-of-state
To be fair to the suppliers, they were wonderful in pushing back to May when we postoned in March. We are starting to liaise with them about May, but we have pretty much decided that unless getting married is illegal in May then we aren't going to postpone again, we would just scale down the service/reception. Admittedly this complicates things for us because suppliers are more likely to allow a straight postponement but scaling back may be less clearcut. Moreover, when we first postponed there were somethings we hadn't ordered/booked and we are wary of getting stuck in contracts now which weigh up losses.
Ultimately, we will need to make a decision at an arbitrary time and balance risk, but this isn't helped with government giving mixed signals about what 'back to normal' may look like and its timing; although I should stress I don't blame them for that given the uncertainty.
Edit: and archaeological for that matter. Trail bikers have a fatal attraction for humps and bumps in the ground without realising what they are.
William Cowper 1803
https://nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/hillary-clinton-says-biden-should-not-concede-2020-election-under-n1238156
1) It's effective enough to bring life back to normal, even at 70% effectiveness (i.e. taking the study as a whole).
2) There's good reason to think the 90% is statistically significant, in which case the efficiacy is comparable to the other the vaccine results.
3) We can actually implement this vaccine in size within the first half of next year. For those wanting the Pfizer vaccine only in the UK, that means we wait until 2022 for most of the UK population to get vaccinated. We simply haven't ordered enough for everyone, and aren't at the front of the queue.
4) The more vulnerable can still get the Pfizer one if needed, for as many as we're able to procure. It's not a zero sum game.
5) More widely, the developing world can actually afford and distribute the AZ vaccine, reducing the pool of high-infection areas longer-term.
- 62% at one dosage
- 90% at another
There would have been headlines - "VACCINE! ONLY! 62%! EFFECTIVE! DISASTER! EVERYONE! RUN! ROUND! SCREAMING! ON! FIRE!"