Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

What’s Trump really up to? – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,168
edited November 2020 in General
imageWhat’s Trump really up to? – politicalbetting.com

I think this analysis is on the right tracks. What must be dominating Trump’s mind at the moment is the possibility of facing criminal charges after the new President has been sworn in at 0900 Washington time on January 20th.

Read the full story here

«1345678

Comments

  • The 70% number is the new reporting deaths / new case numbers by day of reporting.

    Has any hypothesis been given why the low / high doses regime worked better?
  • 0900? Or midday?
  • Roy_G_Biv said:

    0900? Or midday?

    Answering my own question:
    "The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin."
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,127
    edited November 2020
    I see another President of a G7 nation who lost his re election bid by 51% to 48% in 2012 ie almost identical to Trump's margin of defeat this year, is going on trial for alleged corruption in France.

    Trump will be wary of facing Sarkozy's fate

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-55015479
  • Roy_G_Biv said:

    Roy_G_Biv said:

    0900? Or midday?

    Answering my own question:
    "The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin."
    article now amended I guess
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,599
    Who’s Edward Norton? A quick Google only finds an actor of that name.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 5,065
    HYUFD said:

    I see another President of a G7 nation who lost his re election bid by 51% to 48% ie almost identical to Trump's margin of defeat this year, is going on trial for alleged corruption in France.

    Trump will be wary of facing Sarkozy's fate

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-55015479

    That's assuming Trump knows who Saarkozy is! Trumps knowledge of international politics before he became president was not great.
  • My guess is Biden will pardon Trump to save reputational damage to the White House and America (and any New York state prosecutions can probably be included).
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,204
    Trump's bluff should definitely be called. No deals cut, not a single one.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,858
    Sandpit said:

    Who’s Edward Norton? A quick Google only finds an actor of that name.

    No idea but I think that he is right on this. Trump cannot be allowed to get some form of immunity as the price for going quietly.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 50,361
    I think it possible that Trump's "plan" is some variant on "One more day without giving in. Something may come up."

    It's the kind of thing that matches his stupidity - and is the kind of thing that crappy books on being a "winner" have in them......
  • Sandpit said:

    Who’s Edward Norton? A quick Google only finds an actor of that name.

    Yes, it's the actor.
  • They won't find a jury in America to give a unanimous verdict on any Trump case that could lead to imprisonment, even in NY.

  • HYUFD said:

    I see another President of a G7 nation who lost his re election bid by 51% to 48% in 2012 ie almost identical to Trump's margin of defeat this year, is going on trial for alleged corruption in France.

    Trump will be wary of facing Sarkozy's fate

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-55015479

    "He is going on trial accused of corruption and influence-peddling"

    Happily such things could never happen here with a British leader.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,858

    My guess is Biden will pardon Trump to save reputational damage to the White House and America (and any New York state prosecutions can probably be included).

    I think not. The Nixon precedent is not really applicable here.
  • Sandpit said:

    Who’s Edward Norton? A quick Google only finds an actor of that name.

    If Trump gets to be president by playing a businessman on TV then Edward Norton gets to be a game theory expert for being Matt Damon's stupid poker-hustling friend in Rounders.
  • Current Betfair prices:-

    Biden 1.04
    Democrats 1.04
    Biden PV 1.02
    Biden PV 49-51.9% 1.04
    Trump PV 46-48.9% 1.04
    Trump ECV 210-239 1.07
    Biden ECV 300-329 1.07
    Biden ECV Hcap -48.5 1.04
    Biden ECV Hcap -63.5 1.06
    Trump ECV Hcap +81.5 1.02

    AZ Dem 1.03
    GA Dem 1.04
    MI Dem 1.03
    NV Dem 1.04
    PA Dem 1.03
    WI Dem 1.04

    Trump to leave before end of term NO 1.09
    Trump exit date 2021 1.08
  • They won't find a jury in America to give a unanimous verdict on any Trump case that could lead to imprisonment, even in NY.

    Maybe aye maybe no. But the judicial process must proceed despite that possibility.
  • The 70% number is the new reporting deaths / new case numbers by day of reporting.

    Has any hypothesis been given why the low / high doses regime worked better?

    I was expecting something like this. The Oxford vaccine rides in on a chimp adenovirus vector. One risk of such vaccines is that the host develops immunity to the vector, which then never gets much chance to create coronavirus proteins for the immune system to train against. It's possible that a full first dose gives the host's immune system enough adenovirus evidence to suppress the second dose.

    It may also mean that the Oxford vaccine is not suitable for future years' "booster" shots. I've been hoping to speak to an vaccine expert to ask them this very question, but not had a chance yet.

    PS: some of the statistics discussion on the last thread was kind of... completely off base. But I have real students' work to mark, so I'll leave you to your binomials. Have fun!

    --AS
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,992
    Sandpit said:

    Who’s Edward Norton? A quick Google only finds an actor of that name.

    I think the rule on this one is that if they are expressing views you don't agree with they are jumped up luvvies getting ahead of themselves and what do they know about anything; while if they are expressing views you do agree with they are using their precious public platform to give a voice to those who would otherwise not be heard and are performing a vital public service.
  • I read the Ed Norton tweets when they came out and I agree with everything he says. There is No Need for a deal with Trump. Yes it will make the transition less than optimal but I doubt that any transition from him could ever be so. Concede, not concede, get dragged out, do a moonlight flit - it doesn't matter because legally the time and date where he ceases to be President is set.

    It would be spectacular if the FBI were waiting for the moment he drives off Federal property to arrest him. However, just like Corbyn I am sure that His followers will never believe that He has done anything wrong.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 41,996
    edited November 2020
    David Frum was on R4 this am, and though he is of course anti Trump he's also a Rep. He posited that though Trump behaves tactically, he is incapable of strategic planning; after thrashing about tactically and failing to strike down the result, he will now be thrashing about tactically to make sure he stays out of prison.

    Frum also said the idea that Trump, a creator of a series of failed businesses, would have the nous and organisational ability to start his own media company, is laughable. All in all, a satisfyingly bitchy 5-10 minutes.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,221
    edited November 2020

    My guess is Biden will pardon Trump to save reputational damage to the White House and America (and any New York state prosecutions can probably be included).

    Why ?
    The repetitional damage has been done, and ignoring malfeasance would make it worse.
    Pardons for New York state prosecutions cannot be included in any event.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,881
    Nigelb said:

    My guess is Biden will pardon Trump to save reputational damage to the White House and America (and any New York state prosecutions can probably be included).

    Why ?
    The repetitional damage has been done, and ignoring malfeasance would make it worse.
    New York state prosecutions canon be included in any event.
    Plus it would damage President Biden, as pardoning Nixon did Ford.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 50,361
    TOPPING said:

    Sandpit said:

    Who’s Edward Norton? A quick Google only finds an actor of that name.

    I think the rule on this one is that if they are expressing views you don't agree with they are jumped up luvvies getting ahead of themselves and what do they know about anything; while if they are expressing views you do agree with they are using their precious public platform to give a voice to those who would otherwise not be heard and are performing a vital public service.
    I am a Philosopher King
    You have an opinion of sorts
    He/She is talking bollocks
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,221

    Sandpit said:

    Who’s Edward Norton? A quick Google only finds an actor of that name.

    If Trump gets to be president by playing a businessman on TV then Edward Norton gets to be a game theory expert for being Matt Damon's stupid poker-hustling friend in Rounders.
    His dad was a federal prosecutor, so he's not entirely without insight.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,533
    edited November 2020
    FPT
    IanB2 said:



    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.

    Perhaps. Another strategy could be to aim to have both vaccinations eventually, if there's no reason to think that they interact badly. There are several things we don't know, and there's a choice of rushing on with the easiest (which saves lives) or waiting till we've fully understood the results (which may save more lives).

    To explain the reason why statisticians insist that you need to decide what you're going to measure first is that if you look at several samples with an open mind (which sounds a good thing, but read on...) and then seize on whichever happens to be the best one, you increase the risk of being misled by random variation around the true average. There are statistical methods for allowing for that, as I recall (It's a while since I studied!), and it would be important to see the full results to see if they've been applied.

    Remember we do have a lot of Pfizer vaccine coming in, and preparations for delivering it to the vaccination centres are under way. So the right answer may be to give that to the most vulnerable, and the Oxford vaccine to everyone else. What we emphatically should NOT do is fall in love with one or another method for political or nationalist reasons, or allow politicians to do so. This is really does need to be science-led.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 50,361

    I read the Ed Norton tweets when they came out and I agree with everything he says. There is No Need for a deal with Trump. Yes it will make the transition less than optimal but I doubt that any transition from him could ever be so. Concede, not concede, get dragged out, do a moonlight flit - it doesn't matter because legally the time and date where he ceases to be President is set.

    It would be spectacular if the FBI were waiting for the moment he drives off Federal property to arrest him. However, just like Corbyn I am sure that His followers will never believe that He has done anything wrong.

    Biden is playing this one right - the courts are not going with anything that Trump wants. Every day he defats himself some more. Until Jan 20th there is not much else he can do - short of Trump going Full! R$%^&d!
  • HYUFD said:
    Except it isn't, because it's not all about the money.

    It's remarkable how some people like Andrew Adonis keep failing to realise this.

    Perhaps that's partly deliberate, even if at a sub-conscious level, because he'd far prefer it to be about the money otherwise he'd have to accept engaging with the difficult socio-cultural issues it throws up.
  • Roy_G_BivRoy_G_Biv Posts: 998
    edited November 2020
    Carnyx said:

    Nigelb said:

    My guess is Biden will pardon Trump to save reputational damage to the White House and America (and any New York state prosecutions can probably be included).

    Why ?
    The repetitional damage has been done, and ignoring malfeasance would make it worse.
    New York state prosecutions canon be included in any event.
    Plus it would damage President Biden, as pardoning Nixon did Ford.
    A delicious move could be that Biden says "I will consider pardoning Trump if he asks me to".
    An innocent man would say "no need, but thanks".
  • Nigelb said:

    My guess is Biden will pardon Trump to save reputational damage to the White House and America (and any New York state prosecutions can probably be included).

    Why ?
    The repetitional damage has been done, and ignoring malfeasance would make it worse.
    Pardons for New York state prosecutions cannot be included in any event.
    Not even by phoning the New York prosecutor and negotiating their inclusion?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 50,361

    HYUFD said:

    I see another President of a G7 nation who lost his re election bid by 51% to 48% in 2012 ie almost identical to Trump's margin of defeat this year, is going on trial for alleged corruption in France.

    Trump will be wary of facing Sarkozy's fate

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-55015479

    "He is going on trial accused of corruption and influence-peddling"

    Happily such things could never happen here with a British leader.
    He was a French President.

    He will probably be acquitted on the basis that corruption and influence-peddling are mandatory aspects of the role.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,410

    Sandpit said:

    Who’s Edward Norton? A quick Google only finds an actor of that name.

    If Trump gets to be president by playing a businessman on TV then Edward Norton gets to be a game theory expert for being Matt Damon's stupid poker-hustling friend in Rounders.
    His name was Tyler Durden.
  • HYUFD said:
    Except it isn't, because it's not all about the money.

    It's remarkable how some people like Andrew Adonis keep failing to realise this.

    Perhaps that's partly deliberate, even if at a sub-conscious level, because he'd far prefer it to be about the money otherwise he'd have to accept engaging with the difficult socio-cultural issues it throws up.
    What's the difference between "engaging with the difficult socio-cultural issues" and "Woke"?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,221

    The 70% number is the new reporting deaths / new case numbers by day of reporting.

    Has any hypothesis been given why the low / high doses regime worked better?

    I was expecting something like this. The Oxford vaccine rides in on a chimp adenovirus vector. One risk of such vaccines is that the host develops immunity to the vector, which then never gets much chance to create coronavirus proteins for the immune system to train against. It's possible that a full first dose gives the host's immune system enough adenovirus evidence to suppress the second dose.

    It may also mean that the Oxford vaccine is not suitable for future years' "booster" shots. I've been hoping to speak to an vaccine expert to ask them this very question, but not had a chance yet...

    --AS
    As I posted on the last thread, that makes some sense to me, too.

    This guy is a virologist.
    https://twitter.com/_b_meyer/status/1330782510763151360

    Perhaps the lower initial dose means such an unuseful immune response to the vector is less likely against the booster shot.

  • GaussianGaussian Posts: 831

    HYUFD said:

    I see another President of a G7 nation who lost his re election bid by 51% to 48% in 2012 ie almost identical to Trump's margin of defeat this year, is going on trial for alleged corruption in France.

    Trump will be wary of facing Sarkozy's fate

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-55015479

    "He is going on trial accused of corruption and influence-peddling"

    Happily such things could never happen here with a British leader.
    You mean the corruption or the trial?
  • DavidL said:

    My guess is Biden will pardon Trump to save reputational damage to the White House and America (and any New York state prosecutions can probably be included).

    I think not. The Nixon precedent is not really applicable here.
    To be clear, I accept the argument that a pardon, if it becomes the right of every President, would remove perhaps the last constraint against abuse of presidential power but I expect Biden to fold.
  • Nigelb said:

    The 70% number is the new reporting deaths / new case numbers by day of reporting.

    Has any hypothesis been given why the low / high doses regime worked better?

    I was expecting something like this. The Oxford vaccine rides in on a chimp adenovirus vector. One risk of such vaccines is that the host develops immunity to the vector, which then never gets much chance to create coronavirus proteins for the immune system to train against. It's possible that a full first dose gives the host's immune system enough adenovirus evidence to suppress the second dose.

    It may also mean that the Oxford vaccine is not suitable for future years' "booster" shots. I've been hoping to speak to an vaccine expert to ask them this very question, but not had a chance yet...

    --AS
    As I posted on the last thread, that makes some sense to me, too.

    This guy is a virologist.
    https://twitter.com/_b_meyer/status/1330782510763151360

    Perhaps the lower initial dose means such an unuseful immune response to the vector is less likely against the booster shot.

    Perhaps they should try using for the vector a virus that humans have difficulty mounting an immune response against. Like HIV? I mean, nothing could go wrong with that idea, I'm sure. ;)

    --AS
  • Gaussian said:

    HYUFD said:

    I see another President of a G7 nation who lost his re election bid by 51% to 48% in 2012 ie almost identical to Trump's margin of defeat this year, is going on trial for alleged corruption in France.

    Trump will be wary of facing Sarkozy's fate

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-55015479

    "He is going on trial accused of corruption and influence-peddling"

    Happily such things could never happen here with a British leader.
    You mean the corruption or the trial?
    The ambiguity was the joke. Don't dissect the frog.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,868

    FPT

    IanB2 said:



    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.

    Perhaps. Another strategy could be to aim to have both vaccinations eventually, if there's no reason to think that they interact badly. There are several things we don't know, and there's a choice of rushing on with the easiest (which saves lives) or waiting till we've fully understood the results (which may save more lives).

    To explain the reason why statisticians insist that you need to decide what you're going to measure first is that if you look at several samples with an open mind (which sounds a good thing, but read on...) and then seize on whichever happens to be the best one, you increase the risk of being misled by random variation around the true average. There are statistical methods for allowing for that, as I recall (It's a while since I studied!), and it would be important to see the full results to see if they've been applied.

    Remember we do have a lot of Pfizer vaccine coming in, and preparations for delivering it to the vaccination centres are under way. So the right answer may be to give that to the most vulnerable, and the Oxford vaccine to everyone else. What we emphatically should NOT do is fall in love with one or another method for political or nationalist reasons, or allow politicians to do so. This is really does need to be science-led.
    Right now we don't know if the Pfizer vaccine is better or worse than AZ though. We know that Pfizer is 94% effective at preventing symptomatic COVID, we know that AZ have a dosing method that is 90% effective at preventing both symptomatic and asymptomatic COVID. The trials in each case haven't measured the same thing so making a judgement on who gets what isn't a good idea right now.
  • Roy_G_Biv said:

    Gaussian said:

    HYUFD said:

    I see another President of a G7 nation who lost his re election bid by 51% to 48% in 2012 ie almost identical to Trump's margin of defeat this year, is going on trial for alleged corruption in France.

    Trump will be wary of facing Sarkozy's fate

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-55015479

    "He is going on trial accused of corruption and influence-peddling"

    Happily such things could never happen here with a British leader.
    You mean the corruption or the trial?
    The ambiguity was the joke. Don't dissect the frog.
    EDIT: oh god, I was referring to the old "analyse the joke = dissect the frog" theme. Not using "frog" in the Frenchman meaning [head in hands]
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,221

    FPT

    IanB2 said:



    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.

    Perhaps. Another strategy could be to aim to have both vaccinations eventually, if there's no reason to think that they interact badly. There are several things we don't know, and there's a choice of rushing on with the easiest (which saves lives) or waiting till we've fully understood the results (which may save more lives).

    To explain the reason why statisticians insist that you need to decide what you're going to measure first is that if you look at several samples with an open mind (which sounds a good thing, but read on...) and then seize on whichever happens to be the best one, you increase the risk of being misled by random variation around the true average. There are statistical methods for allowing for that, as I recall (It's a while since I studied!), and it would be important to see the full results to see if they've been applied.

    Remember we do have a lot of Pfizer vaccine coming in, and preparations for delivering it to the vaccination centres are under way. So the right answer may be to give that to the most vulnerable, and the Oxford vaccine to everyone else. What we emphatically should NOT do is fall in love with one or another method for political or nationalist reasons, or allow politicians to do so. This is really does need to be science-led.
    Agreed.
    I really dislike the expression "gold standard" for just that reason.
    Its application to PCR tests for coronavirus is probably one of the reasons politicians were so slow to fund mass antigen testing.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,221

    Nigelb said:

    My guess is Biden will pardon Trump to save reputational damage to the White House and America (and any New York state prosecutions can probably be included).

    Why ?
    The repetitional damage has been done, and ignoring malfeasance would make it worse.
    Pardons for New York state prosecutions cannot be included in any event.
    Not even by phoning the New York prosecutor and negotiating their inclusion?
    No, that would be governor Cuomo.
    Who I suspect wouldn't be sold on the idea any more than I am.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 50,361

    HYUFD said:
    Except it isn't, because it's not all about the money.

    It's remarkable how some people like Andrew Adonis keep failing to realise this.

    Perhaps that's partly deliberate, even if at a sub-conscious level, because he'd far prefer it to be about the money otherwise he'd have to accept engaging with the difficult socio-cultural issues it throws up.
    It's the money *multiplied* by other effects.
  • HYUFD said:
    Except it isn't, because it's not all about the money.

    It's remarkable how some people like Andrew Adonis keep failing to realise this.

    Perhaps that's partly deliberate, even if at a sub-conscious level, because he'd far prefer it to be about the money otherwise he'd have to accept engaging with the difficult socio-cultural issues it throws up.
    But it is about the money, at least in part. Even Brexit correlates with austerity (another way in which the Cameron government was hoist by its own petard). Why do you think Boris and Cummings were all about levelling up the left-behind regions?
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 5,065
    I take it that Mr Myers was rejected by Oxford, went to the University of Durham and has bored everyone with the claim at least once a week since then, that the social life there is much better than in Oxbridge.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,713
    HYUFD said:
    It isn't, because by and large the Populists are those born in the 1940s and their opponents born in the Eighties.
  • HYUFD said:
    Except it isn't, because it's not all about the money.

    It's remarkable how some people like Andrew Adonis keep failing to realise this.

    Perhaps that's partly deliberate, even if at a sub-conscious level, because he'd far prefer it to be about the money otherwise he'd have to accept engaging with the difficult socio-cultural issues it throws up.
    The money and non money issues are linked. Far easier to believe that immigration has stopped you getting a pay rise if you haven't had a pay rise (even if that's not why).
    Some people always dislike social change, but it all gets supercharged when the economy is in the shit. I mean, there was far more cultural change in the 1960s than now, and you didn't have the same kind of angry populist BS you have now because people thought that things were getting better overall.
    You now have rising "deaths of despair" on both sides of the Atlantic. People aren't killing themselves with booze and pills because of transgender bathrooms or brown people or whatever else your oblique reference to "difficult socio cultural issues" is referring to.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,708
    edited November 2020

    They won't find a jury in America to give a unanimous verdict on any Trump case that could lead to imprisonment, even in NY.

    Take a pool randomly selected from New York Southern District and it'll be maybe 60% Dem and I guess only say 15% maniac-Trumpist, and America has that amazing thing where each side gets to strike out jurors they don't like the look of so you can probably get rid of the 15%.

    However I imagine Trump would do his best to tie the court up in procedural motions for the rest of his life so they'd never actually get to pass a verdict...
  • not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 4,449
    QAnon is Trumps' Project Mayhem
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,868
    Nigelb said:

    The 70% number is the new reporting deaths / new case numbers by day of reporting.

    Has any hypothesis been given why the low / high doses regime worked better?

    I was expecting something like this. The Oxford vaccine rides in on a chimp adenovirus vector. One risk of such vaccines is that the host develops immunity to the vector, which then never gets much chance to create coronavirus proteins for the immune system to train against. It's possible that a full first dose gives the host's immune system enough adenovirus evidence to suppress the second dose.

    It may also mean that the Oxford vaccine is not suitable for future years' "booster" shots. I've been hoping to speak to an vaccine expert to ask them this very question, but not had a chance yet...

    --AS
    As I posted on the last thread, that makes some sense to me, too.

    This guy is a virologist.
    twitter.com/_b_meyer/status/1330782510763151360

    Perhaps the lower initial dose means such an unuseful immune response to the vector is less likely against the booster shot.

    I actually think that makes some sense too. The full initial dose produces a full immune response to the vector meaning the booster is destroyed in the bloodstream before the actual vaccine has time to replicate.
  • MaxPB said:

    FPT

    IanB2 said:



    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.

    Perhaps. Another strategy could be to aim to have both vaccinations eventually, if there's no reason to think that they interact badly. There are several things we don't know, and there's a choice of rushing on with the easiest (which saves lives) or waiting till we've fully understood the results (which may save more lives).

    To explain the reason why statisticians insist that you need to decide what you're going to measure first is that if you look at several samples with an open mind (which sounds a good thing, but read on...) and then seize on whichever happens to be the best one, you increase the risk of being misled by random variation around the true average. There are statistical methods for allowing for that, as I recall (It's a while since I studied!), and it would be important to see the full results to see if they've been applied.

    Remember we do have a lot of Pfizer vaccine coming in, and preparations for delivering it to the vaccination centres are under way. So the right answer may be to give that to the most vulnerable, and the Oxford vaccine to everyone else. What we emphatically should NOT do is fall in love with one or another method for political or nationalist reasons, or allow politicians to do so. This is really does need to be science-led.
    Right now we don't know if the Pfizer vaccine is better or worse than AZ though. We know that Pfizer is 94% effective at preventing symptomatic COVID, we know that AZ have a dosing method that is 90% effective at preventing both symptomatic and asymptomatic COVID. The trials in each case haven't measured the same thing so making a judgement on who gets what isn't a good idea right now.
    I presume AZ must know what percentage of positives in their trial were asymptomatic vs symptomatic.

    Also, seems very poor science from Pfizer not to have measured this, given we know asymptomatic covid is a big thing.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,221

    Nigelb said:

    The 70% number is the new reporting deaths / new case numbers by day of reporting.

    Has any hypothesis been given why the low / high doses regime worked better?

    I was expecting something like this. The Oxford vaccine rides in on a chimp adenovirus vector. One risk of such vaccines is that the host develops immunity to the vector, which then never gets much chance to create coronavirus proteins for the immune system to train against. It's possible that a full first dose gives the host's immune system enough adenovirus evidence to suppress the second dose.

    It may also mean that the Oxford vaccine is not suitable for future years' "booster" shots. I've been hoping to speak to an vaccine expert to ask them this very question, but not had a chance yet...

    --AS
    As I posted on the last thread, that makes some sense to me, too.

    This guy is a virologist.
    https://twitter.com/_b_meyer/status/1330782510763151360

    Perhaps the lower initial dose means such an unuseful immune response to the vector is less likely against the booster shot.

    Perhaps they should try using for the vector a virus that humans have difficulty mounting an immune response against. Like HIV? I mean, nothing could go wrong with that idea, I'm sure. ;)

    --AS
    Well, HSV is used as a gene vector...
    Not quite the same thing, of course.
  • Inevitable:
    twitter.com/ACurrentAffair9/status/1330788260856131584?s=20

    Qantas demands proof of vaccination in order to fly.

    Question is, how do we in Britain provide that? We do not have a national identity database to which vaccination status can be added. Is HMG working on fudged up bits of paper, and can we trust them not to build it into an ID database on the sly?
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,468
    The NHS should pre-empt this by providing a "receipt" or "certificate of vaccination" to everyone who has one.
  • MaxPB said:

    FPT

    IanB2 said:



    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.

    Perhaps. Another strategy could be to aim to have both vaccinations eventually, if there's no reason to think that they interact badly. There are several things we don't know, and there's a choice of rushing on with the easiest (which saves lives) or waiting till we've fully understood the results (which may save more lives).

    To explain the reason why statisticians insist that you need to decide what you're going to measure first is that if you look at several samples with an open mind (which sounds a good thing, but read on...) and then seize on whichever happens to be the best one, you increase the risk of being misled by random variation around the true average. There are statistical methods for allowing for that, as I recall (It's a while since I studied!), and it would be important to see the full results to see if they've been applied.

    Remember we do have a lot of Pfizer vaccine coming in, and preparations for delivering it to the vaccination centres are under way. So the right answer may be to give that to the most vulnerable, and the Oxford vaccine to everyone else. What we emphatically should NOT do is fall in love with one or another method for political or nationalist reasons, or allow politicians to do so. This is really does need to be science-led.
    Right now we don't know if the Pfizer vaccine is better or worse than AZ though. We know that Pfizer is 94% effective at preventing symptomatic COVID, we know that AZ have a dosing method that is 90% effective at preventing both symptomatic and asymptomatic COVID. The trials in each case haven't measured the same thing so making a judgement on who gets what isn't a good idea right now.
    I'm not questioning you on this but do you have a citation on them measuring different things? That's really interesting and I'd like to read more about it.
  • OnboardG1OnboardG1 Posts: 1,589
    Good. Anti-Vaxers can be social pariahs while I enjoy my next holiday and my business travel in safety.
  • eristdoof said:

    I take it that Mr Myers was rejected by Oxford, went to the University of Durham and has bored everyone with the claim at least once a week since then, that the social life there is much better than in Oxbridge.
    Cambridge lawyer, which means...
    https://twitter.com/RupertMyers/status/1330813818168029184?s=20
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,599
    If you’re one of the countries that closed your borders almost completely and have managed to contain the virus, then of course you’re going to want everyone to have been vaccinated.

    It’ll be like getting your typhoid/tetanus/cholera jabs when going to Africa or South America now, you’ll get a Covid jab before going to Australia or NZ.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,092
    edited November 2020
    Sky news now running with the "upto 90% effective" headline and BBC changed theirs to "is highly effective".
  • Not sure how much coverage this is getting:

    From the beginning, our goal has been to identify a solution to the pandemic in an affordable and accessible vaccine that would benefit rich and poor in all parts of the globe. Our agreement with AstraZeneca will make the vaccine available on a not-for-profit basis during the pandemic and in perpetuity to low- and middle-income countries.

    email from Professor Louise Richardson, Vice-Chancellor, Oxford University
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,221

    HYUFD said:
    Except it isn't, because it's not all about the money.

    It's remarkable how some people like Andrew Adonis keep failing to realise this.

    Perhaps that's partly deliberate, even if at a sub-conscious level, because he'd far prefer it to be about the money otherwise he'd have to accept engaging with the difficult socio-cultural issues it throws up.
    The money and non money issues are linked. Far easier to believe that immigration has stopped you getting a pay rise if you haven't had a pay rise (even if that's not why).
    Some people always dislike social change, but it all gets supercharged when the economy is in the shit. I mean, there was far more cultural change in the 1960s than now, and you didn't have the same kind of angry populist BS you have now because people thought that things were getting better overall...
    You certainly did in the US.
    It got Reagan re-elected governor of California, and eventually President.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 5,065

    My guess is Biden will pardon Trump to save reputational damage to the White House and America (and any New York state prosecutions can probably be included).

    If anyone is going to pardon Trump it would be Pence, as a favour for Trump handing him the Presidency at the start of January.
  • Piers Corbyn won't be going far on his holidays for the forseeable future.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,868
    I'm actually half thinking that AZ might want to do a rapid 20k (10k placebo) trial of the half/full dose while there is still a lot of virus out there and put it beyond any doubt. Recruitment for it would probably be fairly easy in the UK now that the results are out there and with Xmas coming up and an expected bump in transmission rates expected they could have enough events by the end of January if they start now. Target areas of known infection such as the NE, NW and Midlands to maximise chance of exposure.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,221
    edited November 2020

    MaxPB said:

    FPT

    IanB2 said:



    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.

    Perhaps. Another strategy could be to aim to have both vaccinations eventually, if there's no reason to think that they interact badly. There are several things we don't know, and there's a choice of rushing on with the easiest (which saves lives) or waiting till we've fully understood the results (which may save more lives).

    To explain the reason why statisticians insist that you need to decide what you're going to measure first is that if you look at several samples with an open mind (which sounds a good thing, but read on...) and then seize on whichever happens to be the best one, you increase the risk of being misled by random variation around the true average. There are statistical methods for allowing for that, as I recall (It's a while since I studied!), and it would be important to see the full results to see if they've been applied.

    Remember we do have a lot of Pfizer vaccine coming in, and preparations for delivering it to the vaccination centres are under way. So the right answer may be to give that to the most vulnerable, and the Oxford vaccine to everyone else. What we emphatically should NOT do is fall in love with one or another method for political or nationalist reasons, or allow politicians to do so. This is really does need to be science-led.
    Right now we don't know if the Pfizer vaccine is better or worse than AZ though. We know that Pfizer is 94% effective at preventing symptomatic COVID, we know that AZ have a dosing method that is 90% effective at preventing both symptomatic and asymptomatic COVID. The trials in each case haven't measured the same thing so making a judgement on who gets what isn't a good idea right now.
    I'm not questioning you on this but do you have a citation on them measuring different things? That's really interesting and I'd like to read more about it.
    I'd have to look it up, but it's certainly true that Pfizer did not regularly swab participants to test for infection, and AZN did.

    (edit)
    Here's the Pfizer protocol. If you look at page 18, you'll see they swab when the participant is dosed, and subsequently only if and when they report symptoms.
    https://pfe-pfizercom-d8-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/2020-09/C4591001_Clinical_Protocol.pdf
  • MaxPB said:

    I'm actually half thinking that AZ might want to do a rapid 20k (10k placebo) trial of the half/full dose while there is still a lot of virus out there and put it beyond any doubt. Recruitment for it would probably be fairly easy in the UK now that the results are out there and with Xmas coming up and an expected bump in transmission rates expected they could have enough events by the end of January if they start now. Target areas of known infection such as the NE, NW and Midlands to maximise chance of exposure.

    Won't it take months for a new trial to get results?

    Months we no longer have since the intention is to start using the vaccine pretty much immediately and have it largely completed by Easter?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,421

    Piers Corbyn won't be going far on his holidays for the forseeable future.

    Just the Isle of Wight.
  • Mr. Urquhart, good changes but would've been better from the start.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 27,929
    edited November 2020
    eristdoof said:

    My guess is Biden will pardon Trump to save reputational damage to the White House and America (and any New York state prosecutions can probably be included).

    If anyone is going to pardon Trump it would be Pence, as a favour for Trump handing him the Presidency at the start of January.
    That may well happen. Pence could very well be the next President (or acting President at least) and it does look like Pence is trying to maintain a discreet distance from Trump's wilder allegations. Or it could be Pelosi or Kamala or Biden. One of them anyway.
  • OnboardG1OnboardG1 Posts: 1,589
    Nigelb said:

    MaxPB said:

    FPT

    IanB2 said:



    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.

    Perhaps. Another strategy could be to aim to have both vaccinations eventually, if there's no reason to think that they interact badly. There are several things we don't know, and there's a choice of rushing on with the easiest (which saves lives) or waiting till we've fully understood the results (which may save more lives).

    To explain the reason why statisticians insist that you need to decide what you're going to measure first is that if you look at several samples with an open mind (which sounds a good thing, but read on...) and then seize on whichever happens to be the best one, you increase the risk of being misled by random variation around the true average. There are statistical methods for allowing for that, as I recall (It's a while since I studied!), and it would be important to see the full results to see if they've been applied.

    Remember we do have a lot of Pfizer vaccine coming in, and preparations for delivering it to the vaccination centres are under way. So the right answer may be to give that to the most vulnerable, and the Oxford vaccine to everyone else. What we emphatically should NOT do is fall in love with one or another method for political or nationalist reasons, or allow politicians to do so. This is really does need to be science-led.
    Right now we don't know if the Pfizer vaccine is better or worse than AZ though. We know that Pfizer is 94% effective at preventing symptomatic COVID, we know that AZ have a dosing method that is 90% effective at preventing both symptomatic and asymptomatic COVID. The trials in each case haven't measured the same thing so making a judgement on who gets what isn't a good idea right now.
    I'm not questioning you on this but do you have a citation on them measuring different things? That's really interesting and I'd like to read more about it.
    I'd have to look it up, but it's certainly true that Pfizer did not regularly swab participants to test for infection, and AZN did.
    In the UK trial arm. It’s less clear that that happened in the BRA trial arm, which I find extremely annoying.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,868

    MaxPB said:

    FPT

    IanB2 said:



    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.

    Perhaps. Another strategy could be to aim to have both vaccinations eventually, if there's no reason to think that they interact badly. There are several things we don't know, and there's a choice of rushing on with the easiest (which saves lives) or waiting till we've fully understood the results (which may save more lives).

    To explain the reason why statisticians insist that you need to decide what you're going to measure first is that if you look at several samples with an open mind (which sounds a good thing, but read on...) and then seize on whichever happens to be the best one, you increase the risk of being misled by random variation around the true average. There are statistical methods for allowing for that, as I recall (It's a while since I studied!), and it would be important to see the full results to see if they've been applied.

    Remember we do have a lot of Pfizer vaccine coming in, and preparations for delivering it to the vaccination centres are under way. So the right answer may be to give that to the most vulnerable, and the Oxford vaccine to everyone else. What we emphatically should NOT do is fall in love with one or another method for political or nationalist reasons, or allow politicians to do so. This is really does need to be science-led.
    Right now we don't know if the Pfizer vaccine is better or worse than AZ though. We know that Pfizer is 94% effective at preventing symptomatic COVID, we know that AZ have a dosing method that is 90% effective at preventing both symptomatic and asymptomatic COVID. The trials in each case haven't measured the same thing so making a judgement on who gets what isn't a good idea right now.
    I'm not questioning you on this but do you have a citation on them measuring different things? That's really interesting and I'd like to read more about it.
    Yes, the Pfizer methodology was to test people who had symptoms while AZ did weekly swabs of all UK participants. I can't remember where I read it, I'll try and dig it out.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 36,001

    Not sure how much coverage this is getting:

    From the beginning, our goal has been to identify a solution to the pandemic in an affordable and accessible vaccine that would benefit rich and poor in all parts of the globe. Our agreement with AstraZeneca will make the vaccine available on a not-for-profit basis during the pandemic and in perpetuity to low- and middle-income countries.

    email from Professor Louise Richardson, Vice-Chancellor, Oxford University

    Shares dipped on the news...
  • StockyStocky Posts: 10,222
    Sandpit said:

    If you’re one of the countries that closed your borders almost completely and have managed to contain the virus, then of course you’re going to want everyone to have been vaccinated.

    It’ll be like getting your typhoid/tetanus/cholera jabs when going to Africa or South America now, you’ll get a Covid jab before going to Australia or NZ.
    Sandpit said:

    If you’re one of the countries that closed your borders almost completely and have managed to contain the virus, then of course you’re going to want everyone to have been vaccinated.

    It’ll be like getting your typhoid/tetanus/cholera jabs when going to Africa or South America now, you’ll get a Covid jab before going to Australia or NZ.
    Yes - but it`s not up to a private company to bring in this policy. It`s to job of governments. If, say, the Australian government say that anyone entering their country needs to be vaccinated then that`s fine, if Quantas say it it`s a form of discrimination.
  • eristdoof said:

    I take it that Mr Myers was rejected by Oxford, went to the University of Durham and has bored everyone with the claim at least once a week since then, that the social life there is much better than in Oxbridge.
    Even more embarrassing....he's displaying the unfortunate inferiority complex of those who went to Fen Poly.....as we sometimes see on here.....

    (Actually, I'm pretty sure he's joking....as am I)
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 5,065

    The NHS should pre-empt this by providing a "receipt" or "certificate of vaccination" to everyone who has one.
    In Germany there is an "Impfpass" =vaccine passport, which should be accepted as proof of vaccine. Allthough I'm guessing it would be quite easy to forge. Normally there is not much reason to fake the details on it, but if it makes the difference between getting to Bondi Beach or not ...
  • MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    FPT

    IanB2 said:



    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.

    Perhaps. Another strategy could be to aim to have both vaccinations eventually, if there's no reason to think that they interact badly. There are several things we don't know, and there's a choice of rushing on with the easiest (which saves lives) or waiting till we've fully understood the results (which may save more lives).

    To explain the reason why statisticians insist that you need to decide what you're going to measure first is that if you look at several samples with an open mind (which sounds a good thing, but read on...) and then seize on whichever happens to be the best one, you increase the risk of being misled by random variation around the true average. There are statistical methods for allowing for that, as I recall (It's a while since I studied!), and it would be important to see the full results to see if they've been applied.

    Remember we do have a lot of Pfizer vaccine coming in, and preparations for delivering it to the vaccination centres are under way. So the right answer may be to give that to the most vulnerable, and the Oxford vaccine to everyone else. What we emphatically should NOT do is fall in love with one or another method for political or nationalist reasons, or allow politicians to do so. This is really does need to be science-led.
    Right now we don't know if the Pfizer vaccine is better or worse than AZ though. We know that Pfizer is 94% effective at preventing symptomatic COVID, we know that AZ have a dosing method that is 90% effective at preventing both symptomatic and asymptomatic COVID. The trials in each case haven't measured the same thing so making a judgement on who gets what isn't a good idea right now.
    I'm not questioning you on this but do you have a citation on them measuring different things? That's really interesting and I'd like to read more about it.
    Yes, the Pfizer methodology was to test people who had symptoms while AZ did weekly swabs of all UK participants. I can't remember where I read it, I'll try and dig it out.
    Thanks that would be great. Really fascinating how this is treated differently, most lay people would assume the headline figures are comparable or that the methods for data collection would be standardised ... I certainly would have had you not written this.
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 5,005
    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    FPT

    IanB2 said:



    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.

    Perhaps. Another strategy could be to aim to have both vaccinations eventually, if there's no reason to think that they interact badly. There are several things we don't know, and there's a choice of rushing on with the easiest (which saves lives) or waiting till we've fully understood the results (which may save more lives).

    To explain the reason why statisticians insist that you need to decide what you're going to measure first is that if you look at several samples with an open mind (which sounds a good thing, but read on...) and then seize on whichever happens to be the best one, you increase the risk of being misled by random variation around the true average. There are statistical methods for allowing for that, as I recall (It's a while since I studied!), and it would be important to see the full results to see if they've been applied.

    Remember we do have a lot of Pfizer vaccine coming in, and preparations for delivering it to the vaccination centres are under way. So the right answer may be to give that to the most vulnerable, and the Oxford vaccine to everyone else. What we emphatically should NOT do is fall in love with one or another method for political or nationalist reasons, or allow politicians to do so. This is really does need to be science-led.
    Right now we don't know if the Pfizer vaccine is better or worse than AZ though. We know that Pfizer is 94% effective at preventing symptomatic COVID, we know that AZ have a dosing method that is 90% effective at preventing both symptomatic and asymptomatic COVID. The trials in each case haven't measured the same thing so making a judgement on who gets what isn't a good idea right now.
    I'm not questioning you on this but do you have a citation on them measuring different things? That's really interesting and I'd like to read more about it.
    Yes, the Pfizer methodology was to test people who had symptoms while AZ did weekly swabs of all UK participants. I can't remember where I read it, I'll try and dig it out.
    I've had independent verification that AZN did weekly swabs.
    According to someone I know in the trial: "Every effing Wednesday..."
  • Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:
    Except it isn't, because it's not all about the money.

    It's remarkable how some people like Andrew Adonis keep failing to realise this.

    Perhaps that's partly deliberate, even if at a sub-conscious level, because he'd far prefer it to be about the money otherwise he'd have to accept engaging with the difficult socio-cultural issues it throws up.
    The money and non money issues are linked. Far easier to believe that immigration has stopped you getting a pay rise if you haven't had a pay rise (even if that's not why).
    Some people always dislike social change, but it all gets supercharged when the economy is in the shit. I mean, there was far more cultural change in the 1960s than now, and you didn't have the same kind of angry populist BS you have now because people thought that things were getting better overall...
    You certainly did in the US.
    It got Reagan re-elected governor of California, and eventually President.
    I wouldn't call Reagan a populist (compare his "morning in America" shtick with Trump's "American carnage" speech), and in any case he didn't become president until the early 80s, when the economy had been hit by two oil shocks, high inflation and unemployment and the stagnation of US median wages had begun. Goldwater ran in the sixties on a hard right platform and was crushed.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,092
    edited November 2020
    Here's a question....the government have leaked all this go wild for a week at christmas, when they did this did they know the AZ vaccine was ready? If so, surely they should have been, we need to stick to the course, there is going to be more than enough supply for life to be back to normal by easter (thst is what hancock has just said).
  • OnboardG1OnboardG1 Posts: 1,589
    Stocky said:

    Sandpit said:

    If you’re one of the countries that closed your borders almost completely and have managed to contain the virus, then of course you’re going to want everyone to have been vaccinated.

    It’ll be like getting your typhoid/tetanus/cholera jabs when going to Africa or South America now, you’ll get a Covid jab before going to Australia or NZ.
    Sandpit said:

    If you’re one of the countries that closed your borders almost completely and have managed to contain the virus, then of course you’re going to want everyone to have been vaccinated.

    It’ll be like getting your typhoid/tetanus/cholera jabs when going to Africa or South America now, you’ll get a Covid jab before going to Australia or NZ.
    Yes - but it`s not up to a private company to bring in this policy. It`s to job of governments. If, say, the Australian government say that anyone entering their country needs to be vaccinated then that`s fine, if Quantas say it it`s a form of discrimination.
    You aren’t allowed on a flight if you refuse to wear the seatbelt, get paralytically drunk or aren’t wearing trousers. Discrimination against stupidity is rightly built into the culture. People love to bang on about personal responsibility and here it is. You refused to take the vaccine, you bear the consequences of that.
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 5,005
    While the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines were great for proving it was possible and getting vaccines that could be made available to millions, the Oxford one could theoretically drive SARS-CoV-2 extinct, thanks to its deployability.
  • OnboardG1OnboardG1 Posts: 1,589
    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    FPT

    IanB2 said:



    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.

    Perhaps. Another strategy could be to aim to have both vaccinations eventually, if there's no reason to think that they interact badly. There are several things we don't know, and there's a choice of rushing on with the easiest (which saves lives) or waiting till we've fully understood the results (which may save more lives).

    To explain the reason why statisticians insist that you need to decide what you're going to measure first is that if you look at several samples with an open mind (which sounds a good thing, but read on...) and then seize on whichever happens to be the best one, you increase the risk of being misled by random variation around the true average. There are statistical methods for allowing for that, as I recall (It's a while since I studied!), and it would be important to see the full results to see if they've been applied.

    Remember we do have a lot of Pfizer vaccine coming in, and preparations for delivering it to the vaccination centres are under way. So the right answer may be to give that to the most vulnerable, and the Oxford vaccine to everyone else. What we emphatically should NOT do is fall in love with one or another method for political or nationalist reasons, or allow politicians to do so. This is really does need to be science-led.
    Right now we don't know if the Pfizer vaccine is better or worse than AZ though. We know that Pfizer is 94% effective at preventing symptomatic COVID, we know that AZ have a dosing method that is 90% effective at preventing both symptomatic and asymptomatic COVID. The trials in each case haven't measured the same thing so making a judgement on who gets what isn't a good idea right now.
    I'm not questioning you on this but do you have a citation on them measuring different things? That's really interesting and I'd like to read more about it.
    Yes, the Pfizer methodology was to test people who had symptoms while AZ did weekly swabs of all UK participants. I can't remember where I read it, I'll try and dig it out.
    It’s in the annexe to the press release.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,868

    MaxPB said:

    I'm actually half thinking that AZ might want to do a rapid 20k (10k placebo) trial of the half/full dose while there is still a lot of virus out there and put it beyond any doubt. Recruitment for it would probably be fairly easy in the UK now that the results are out there and with Xmas coming up and an expected bump in transmission rates expected they could have enough events by the end of January if they start now. Target areas of known infection such as the NE, NW and Midlands to maximise chance of exposure.

    Won't it take months for a new trial to get results?

    Months we no longer have since the intention is to start using the vaccine pretty much immediately and have it largely completed by Easter?
    It might not given that we expect a spike in cases around Xmas and the trial can be designed to chase infections, part of the issue with the current AZ one was that it was centred around London where getting participants is easier but London hasn't had a very big second wave.

    Additionally we have 40m doses of the Pfizer vaccine coming by the end of March and an additional 5m doses of the Moderna vaccine before the end of April, that's enough to be getting on with. A new large scale trial could report back by end of January if it was started now given the prevalence of the virus in the UK right now and be approved by the end of Feb before the stocks of the other two vaccines run out.
  • Mr. G1, the smoking comparison is one I'd go for.

    It's not criminal in any country that I'm aware of, but you can't do it on a plane because it affects the health of others.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,868
    OnboardG1 said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    FPT

    IanB2 said:



    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.

    Perhaps. Another strategy could be to aim to have both vaccinations eventually, if there's no reason to think that they interact badly. There are several things we don't know, and there's a choice of rushing on with the easiest (which saves lives) or waiting till we've fully understood the results (which may save more lives).

    To explain the reason why statisticians insist that you need to decide what you're going to measure first is that if you look at several samples with an open mind (which sounds a good thing, but read on...) and then seize on whichever happens to be the best one, you increase the risk of being misled by random variation around the true average. There are statistical methods for allowing for that, as I recall (It's a while since I studied!), and it would be important to see the full results to see if they've been applied.

    Remember we do have a lot of Pfizer vaccine coming in, and preparations for delivering it to the vaccination centres are under way. So the right answer may be to give that to the most vulnerable, and the Oxford vaccine to everyone else. What we emphatically should NOT do is fall in love with one or another method for political or nationalist reasons, or allow politicians to do so. This is really does need to be science-led.
    Right now we don't know if the Pfizer vaccine is better or worse than AZ though. We know that Pfizer is 94% effective at preventing symptomatic COVID, we know that AZ have a dosing method that is 90% effective at preventing both symptomatic and asymptomatic COVID. The trials in each case haven't measured the same thing so making a judgement on who gets what isn't a good idea right now.
    I'm not questioning you on this but do you have a citation on them measuring different things? That's really interesting and I'd like to read more about it.
    Yes, the Pfizer methodology was to test people who had symptoms while AZ did weekly swabs of all UK participants. I can't remember where I read it, I'll try and dig it out.
    It’s in the annexe to the press release.
    Thanks.
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 8,720

    Not sure how much coverage this is getting:

    From the beginning, our goal has been to identify a solution to the pandemic in an affordable and accessible vaccine that would benefit rich and poor in all parts of the globe. Our agreement with AstraZeneca will make the vaccine available on a not-for-profit basis during the pandemic and in perpetuity to low- and middle-income countries.

    email from Professor Louise Richardson, Vice-Chancellor, Oxford University

    Some of that 0.7% of GDP could be used in support.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,599

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    FPT

    IanB2 said:



    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.

    Perhaps. Another strategy could be to aim to have both vaccinations eventually, if there's no reason to think that they interact badly. There are several things we don't know, and there's a choice of rushing on with the easiest (which saves lives) or waiting till we've fully understood the results (which may save more lives).

    To explain the reason why statisticians insist that you need to decide what you're going to measure first is that if you look at several samples with an open mind (which sounds a good thing, but read on...) and then seize on whichever happens to be the best one, you increase the risk of being misled by random variation around the true average. There are statistical methods for allowing for that, as I recall (It's a while since I studied!), and it would be important to see the full results to see if they've been applied.

    Remember we do have a lot of Pfizer vaccine coming in, and preparations for delivering it to the vaccination centres are under way. So the right answer may be to give that to the most vulnerable, and the Oxford vaccine to everyone else. What we emphatically should NOT do is fall in love with one or another method for political or nationalist reasons, or allow politicians to do so. This is really does need to be science-led.
    Right now we don't know if the Pfizer vaccine is better or worse than AZ though. We know that Pfizer is 94% effective at preventing symptomatic COVID, we know that AZ have a dosing method that is 90% effective at preventing both symptomatic and asymptomatic COVID. The trials in each case haven't measured the same thing so making a judgement on who gets what isn't a good idea right now.
    I'm not questioning you on this but do you have a citation on them measuring different things? That's really interesting and I'd like to read more about it.
    Yes, the Pfizer methodology was to test people who had symptoms while AZ did weekly swabs of all UK participants. I can't remember where I read it, I'll try and dig it out.
    I've had independent verification that AZN did weekly swabs.
    According to someone I know in the trial: "Every effing Wednesday..."
    Sounds like they were very thorough with the testing then, which is good news.

    It’s also worth remembering that this is the £3 vaccine that can be stored in a fridge - which will make the logistics of getting it out there much easier in the real world, especially to countries that don’t have unlimited money nor extra-cold storage facilities.
  • OnboardG1OnboardG1 Posts: 1,589

    Here's a question....the government have leaked all this go wild for a week at christmas, when they did this did they know the AZ vaccine was ready? If so, surely they should have been, we need to stick to the course, there is going to be more than enough supply for life to be back to normal by easter (thst is what hancock has just said).

    Hancock is bright enough (or experienced enough) to have realised this messaging is critically important. Lots of backbench (and cabinet) MPs are half-witted Mail surrogates who wAnT To SAve CHRistmAs.

    For me, I’m staying at home this year. I want my relatives to be alive for Easter when we can meet up safely and celebrate the resurrection of Christ and the triumph of human spirit and ingenuity.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,421

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    FPT

    IanB2 said:



    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.

    Perhaps. Another strategy could be to aim to have both vaccinations eventually, if there's no reason to think that they interact badly. There are several things we don't know, and there's a choice of rushing on with the easiest (which saves lives) or waiting till we've fully understood the results (which may save more lives).

    To explain the reason why statisticians insist that you need to decide what you're going to measure first is that if you look at several samples with an open mind (which sounds a good thing, but read on...) and then seize on whichever happens to be the best one, you increase the risk of being misled by random variation around the true average. There are statistical methods for allowing for that, as I recall (It's a while since I studied!), and it would be important to see the full results to see if they've been applied.

    Remember we do have a lot of Pfizer vaccine coming in, and preparations for delivering it to the vaccination centres are under way. So the right answer may be to give that to the most vulnerable, and the Oxford vaccine to everyone else. What we emphatically should NOT do is fall in love with one or another method for political or nationalist reasons, or allow politicians to do so. This is really does need to be science-led.
    Right now we don't know if the Pfizer vaccine is better or worse than AZ though. We know that Pfizer is 94% effective at preventing symptomatic COVID, we know that AZ have a dosing method that is 90% effective at preventing both symptomatic and asymptomatic COVID. The trials in each case haven't measured the same thing so making a judgement on who gets what isn't a good idea right now.
    I'm not questioning you on this but do you have a citation on them measuring different things? That's really interesting and I'd like to read more about it.
    Yes, the Pfizer methodology was to test people who had symptoms while AZ did weekly swabs of all UK participants. I can't remember where I read it, I'll try and dig it out.
    I've had independent verification that AZN did weekly swabs.
    According to someone I know in the trial: "Every effing Wednesday..."
    They have my sympathy.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,214
    edited November 2020

    HYUFD said:
    Except it isn't, because it's not all about the money.

    It's remarkable how some people like Andrew Adonis keep failing to realise this.

    Perhaps that's partly deliberate, even if at a sub-conscious level, because he'd far prefer it to be about the money otherwise he'd have to accept engaging with the difficult socio-cultural issues it throws up.
    I agree with this although I imagine with a different slant to you. The notion that people succumb to their baser instincts and vote for populist hatemongers such as Donald Trump purely because they are struggling financially is a false comfort blanket. An empty bank account and poor prospects no doubt increases the appeal but it in no way explains it. For the hardcore Trump base - and for equivalents elsewhere - there is a simpler and imo better explanation. Nasty people are attracted to nasty political leaders and nasty politics - by which I mean a politics which validates and celebrates their nastiness rather than attempts to challenge and educate them out of it and/or shames them for it. I know this is an unPC sentiment, and totally contra to the traditional position of the Left that I am normally in tune with, but there you go. No point shying away from the truth if it is the truth.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 5,751

    Inevitable:
    twitter.com/ACurrentAffair9/status/1330788260856131584?s=20

    Qantas demands proof of vaccination in order to fly.

    Question is, how do we in Britain provide that? We do not have a national identity database to which vaccination status can be added. Is HMG working on fudged up bits of paper, and can we trust them not to build it into an ID database on the sly?
    What is with vaccines that breeds conspiracy theories? Have you never heard of a yellow fever vaccine certificate, a required entry document in a good chunk of the world?
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,315
    Well, well: I asked on Saturday why the independent investigator had not interviewed the Home Secretary’s former Private Secretary and today we learn why. He was prevented from doing so.

    https://twitter.com/redhistorian/status/1330643876701483009?s=21

    No wonder he resigned.

    The only question is why he didn’t resign earlier.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,092
    edited November 2020
    Question for the government is, do we give what whatever vaccine stocks as it arrives based on vulnerability, or do we give the most vulnerable the Pfizer / Moderna one that is proven 95% and the rest of us plebs the AZ one.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,127
    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:
    It isn't, because by and large the Populists are those born in the 1940s and their opponents born in the Eighties.
    No, over 45s voted for Brexit ie those born in 1971 or earlier not 1941 or earlier and Corbyn won under 40s ie those born after 1980
This discussion has been closed.