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.
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."
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.
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."
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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!
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.
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".
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?
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.
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.
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"?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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 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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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)
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 ...
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.
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..."
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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'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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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..."
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.
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?
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.
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.
Comments
Has any hypothesis been given why the low / high doses regime worked better?
"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."
Trump will be wary of facing Sarkozy's fate
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-55015479
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......
Happily such things could never happen here with a British leader.
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
https://twitter.com/RupertMyers/status/1330808028417953793?s=20
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
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.
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.
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.
You have an opinion of sorts
He/She is talking bollocks
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.
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.
An innocent man would say "no need, but thanks".
He will probably be acquitted on the basis that corruption and influence-peddling are mandatory aspects of the role.
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.
--AS
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.
https://twitter.com/ACurrentAffair9/status/1330788260856131584?s=20
Who I suspect wouldn't be sold on the idea any more than I am.
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.
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...
Also, seems very poor science from Pfizer not to have measured this, given we know asymptomatic covid is a big thing.
Not quite the same thing, of course.
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?
https://twitter.com/RupertMyers/status/1330813818168029184?s=20
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.
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
It got Reagan re-elected governor of California, and eventually President.
(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
Months we no longer have since the intention is to start using the vaccine pretty much immediately and have it largely completed by Easter?
(Actually, I'm pretty sure he's joking....as am I)
According to someone I know in the trial: "Every effing Wednesday..."
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.
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.
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.
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.
https://twitter.com/redhistorian/status/1330643876701483009?s=21
No wonder he resigned.
The only question is why he didn’t resign earlier.