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.
Probably more difficult to arrange than in the UK, though. Speed means corners cut.
I have to say it doesn't make sense to relax at Christmas this year when we know that we will have significant vaccine deliveries in January. I don't see the logic in it, and I'm not exactly a huge supporter of lockdowns. Doesn't make sense now that we can see the light at the end of the tunnel isn't very far away.
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.
I have to say it doesn't make sense to relax at Christmas this year when we know that we will have significant vaccine deliveries in January. I don't see the logic in it, and I'm not exactly a huge supporter of lockdowns. Doesn't make sense now that we can see the light at the end of the tunnel isn't very far away.
Exactly. We might have to have an awkward conversation with some relatives over this.
Sky news now running with the "upto 90% effective" headline and BBC changed theirs to "is highly effective".
Yes, it was crap reporting by the BBC to just glance at the report then run the morning news headlining on the "only 70%"
Winning the PR war with this is going to be half the battle and the BBC made a big error with that headline. Using the word "only" is completely irresponsible.
I have to say it doesn't make sense to relax at Christmas this year when we know that we will have significant vaccine deliveries in January. I don't see the logic in it, and I'm not exactly a huge supporter of lockdowns. Doesn't make sense now that we can see the light at the end of the tunnel isn't very far away.
Sky news now running with the "upto 90% effective" headline and BBC changed theirs to "is highly effective".
Yes, it was crap reporting by the BBC to just glance at the report then run the morning news headlining on the "only 70%"
Winning the PR war with this is going to be half the battle and the BBC made a big error with that headline. Using the word "only" is completely irresponsible.
I hope somebody from the government has given them a Bad Al style rocket on the blower. i hear Ms Patel is particularly good at this.
Its not about party politics, its about the nations health.
I have to say it doesn't make sense to relax at Christmas this year when we know that we will have significant vaccine deliveries in January. I don't see the logic in it, and I'm not exactly a huge supporter of lockdowns. Doesn't make sense now that we can see the light at the end of the tunnel isn't very far away.
Let’s hope enough people see it that way. If everyone behaves themselves over Christmas, we can have parties again by Easter.
Vaccine data is like the US elections. No point in comparing the 3 vaccines (And hopefully more !) till we've got the full results in. Oxford may well be the Joe Biden of the lot.
Sky news now running with the "upto 90% effective" headline and BBC changed theirs to "is highly effective".
Yes, it was crap reporting by the BBC to just glance at the report then run the morning news headlining on the "only 70%"
Winning the PR war with this is going to be half the battle and the BBC made a big error with that headline. Using the word "only" is completely irresponsible.
I hope somebody from the government has given them a Bad Al style rocket on the blower. i hear Ms Patel is particularly good at this.
One quiet word, perhaps?
I heard an interesting story about the Patel thing - apparently we should ask *what* she was shouting about.
On topic: They must not give Trump a deal. It is the easy option, but it is wrong. It is not only morally wrong it is strategically wrong for the long term.
Any would be dictator needs to know that if they fail the consequences will be harsh (and that goes for people who knowingly facilitated him/her).
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.
Then you need to read more US history. Reagan ran for his second term in California on an explicitly populist platform. His big issue was attacking subversive attitudes of the student protestors.
And don't forget he ran for the President nomination against Ford. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries ...During this period, Ronald Reagan concluded his second term in office as Governor of California. His administration was marked by efforts to dismantle the welfare state and a high-profile crackdown on urban crime and left-wing dissent, especially at the University of California, Berkeley. He also led an effort to enforce the state's capital punishment laws but was blocked by the California Supreme Court in the People v. Anderson decision. Following Reagan's retirement from office in January 1975, he began hosting a national radio show and writing a national newspaper column...
Excellent news! Weren't there reports that approval would be a matter of days/a week after submission given the regulator has been monitoring things while the trials were ongoing?
Sky news now running with the "upto 90% effective" headline and BBC changed theirs to "is highly effective".
Yes, it was crap reporting by the BBC to just glance at the report then run the morning news headlining on the "only 70%"
Winning the PR war with this is going to be half the battle and the BBC made a big error with that headline. Using the word "only" is completely irresponsible.
Shameless horrible organisation. I’m now going to have spend the rest of the week reassuring my mother that it really is good news.
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.
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.
There is a lot of truth in that. I`d add a couple of things.
Firstly, a lot hangs on your definition of "nasty". If you are of the left many think that your view of human nature is deluded. It doesn`t necessary follow from this that anyone who is NOT of the left is nasty. I think populism is driven by ignorance, fuzzy-thinking and warping facts to suit your own ignorant view. Effing annoying but not in itself nasty.
Secondly, I do get a degree of amusement from the sight of left-wingers realising, seeming for this first time due to their rose-tinted view of human nature, that many that they`ve been sticking up for all these years aren`t actually very nice. A dose of reality, as it were.
A responsible government will use today’s vaccine news to roll back on the Christmas gimmick.
(Yes, I know, I know)
I think the government should go for rule of 6 (plus kids) on Christmas day, but please don't have granny round. And really push the message, we really are nearly there.
All the briefings last night of get down the shops are even stranger given they must have known this announcement was coming this morning.
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.
I have to say it doesn't make sense to relax at Christmas this year when we know that we will have significant vaccine deliveries in January. I don't see the logic in it, and I'm not exactly a huge supporter of lockdowns. Doesn't make sense now that we can see the light at the end of the tunnel isn't very far away.
Likewise. I have become increasingly sceptical of the lockdown policy and have felt all along that we should spend more time studying what Sweden is doing and, importantly, why.
There was far too much bet on getting a vaccine imho.
But now we have a vaccine at hand (seems unlikely now that all of those candidates will fail when the production is ramped up and mass injection starts), I can't see why we are changing the government's lockdown strategy.
The AZ trial procedure looks stronger with the weekly swabs, well possible the Moderna/Pfizer vaccines had the same number of asymptomatic cases that the AZ one did.
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
Another way of looking at it is that those with most experience of the eu and left wing governments voted against both. Those with less experience of either voted for both.
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.
Sure, i`m not arguing that people should travel without having the vaccine. I`m just saying that government should step up to the plate on this. Private companies should be our servants not our masters.
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.
There is a lot of truth in that. I`d add a couple of things.
Firstly, a lot hangs on your definition of "nasty". If you are of the left many think that your view of human nature is deluded. It doesn`t necessary follow from this that anyone who is NOT of the left is nasty. I think populism is driven by ignorance, fuzzy-thinking and warping facts to suit your own ignorant view. Effing annoying but not in itself nasty.
Secondly, I do get a degree of amusement from the sight of left-wingers realising, seeming for this first time due to their rose-tinted view of human nature, that many that they`ve been sticking up for all these years aren`t actually very nice. A dose of reality, as it were.
Just as funny as when they realise that people are people. That just because of a sun tan and different language, people aren't necessarily nicer.
Sky news now running with the "upto 90% effective" headline and BBC changed theirs to "is highly effective".
Yes, it was crap reporting by the BBC to just glance at the report then run the morning news headlining on the "only 70%"
Winning the PR war with this is going to be half the battle and the BBC made a big error with that headline. Using the word "only" is completely irresponsible.
Although you do have to wonder why the report lumped the two dosage schemes together into a single 70% number in the first place. It's not like both will be used when one is clearly better.
The AZ trial procedure looks stronger with the weekly swabs, well possible the Moderna/Pfizer vaccines had the same number of asymptomatic cases that the AZ one did.
It would make the 90% figure for the half dose regime - if it holds up, of course - look very good indeed.
I see Piers Moron twitterfeed is full of the vaccine announcement....oh no its all about him screaming at Hancock about if he will take a pay rise that hasn't even been announced.
Excellent news! Weren't there reports that approval would be a matter of days/a week after submission given the regulator has been monitoring things while the trials were ongoing?
Is that the UK regulator, MHRA? What about the EU one,
Excellent news! Weren't there reports that approval would be a matter of days/a week after submission given the regulator has been monitoring things while the trials were ongoing?
Is that the UK regulator, MHRA? What about the EU one, EUMA??
Excellent news! Weren't there reports that approval would be a matter of days/a week after submission given the regulator has been monitoring things while the trials were ongoing?
Is that the UK regulator, MHRA? What about the EU one?
Yeah, the MHRA. No idea what the EU timetable would be or if they've had access during the trial.
I have to say it doesn't make sense to relax at Christmas this year when we know that we will have significant vaccine deliveries in January. I don't see the logic in it, and I'm not exactly a huge supporter of lockdowns. Doesn't make sense now that we can see the light at the end of the tunnel isn't very far away.
Likewise. I have become increasingly sceptical of the lockdown policy and have felt all along that we should spend more time studying what Sweden is doing and, importantly, why.
There was far too much bet on getting a vaccine imho.
But now we have a vaccine at hand (seems unlikely now that all of those candidates will fail when the production is ramped up and mass injection starts), I can't see why we are changing the government's lockdown strategy.
Because there is plenty of time for a lot people to fall ill and die or have life changing effects before we get to the stage where the vast majority of the population has had the vaccine.
That's why the 95% figure of Pfizer isn't comparable to the 90% figure from AZ.
Is it just me, or does not testing all the members of a trial on a weekly basis seem like an obvious omission?
It really depends, the Pfizer vaccine is advertised as stopping 95% of symptomatic COVID, which is what people care about. That's what their vaccine is designed to do, stop people from getting symptoms and in 95% of cases that is what happens. If you don't care about asymptomatic spread because everyone who is liable to experience serious symptoms has been vaccinated then this is a well designed trial.
AZ have given themselves a rod for their own back by testing for asymptomatic infections, but these results also have interesting indications that the vaccine may prevent people from getting it at all with the half/full dosage method.
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.
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.
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.
That's why the 95% figure of Pfizer isn't comparable to the 90% figure from AZ.
Is it just me, or does not testing all the members of a trial on a weekly basis seem like an obvious omission?
It really depends, the Pfizer vaccine is advertised as stopping 95% of symptomatic COVID, which is what people care about. That's what their vaccine is designed to do, stop people from getting symptoms and in 95% of cases that is what happens. If you don't care about asymptomatic spread because everyone who is liable to experience serious symptoms has been vaccinated then this is a well designed trial.
AZ have given themselves a rod for their own back by testing for asymptomatic infections, but these results also have interesting indications that the vaccine may prevent people from getting it at all with the half/full dosage method.
I meant in the sense of missing data - knowing all the COVID cases across the trial would have been good data. The ground truth undermining the trial... Thinking like a scientist, I suppose.
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.
Then you need to read more US history. Reagan ran for his second term in California on an explicitly populist platform. His big issue was attacking subversive attitudes of the student protestors.
And don't forget he ran for the President nomination against Ford. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries ...During this period, Ronald Reagan concluded his second term in office as Governor of California. His administration was marked by efforts to dismantle the welfare state and a high-profile crackdown on urban crime and left-wing dissent, especially at the University of California, Berkeley. He also led an effort to enforce the state's capital punishment laws but was blocked by the California Supreme Court in the People v. Anderson decision. Following Reagan's retirement from office in January 1975, he began hosting a national radio show and writing a national newspaper column...
Attacking longhairs was standard Republican behaviour throughout the sixties and seventies, Nixon did the same thing and I wouldn't call him a populist either. Reagan obviously represented a rightwards shift for the Republicans, he took on Goldwater's mantle and gave it a more friendly face. But the point is that Reagan didn't stand nationally until the 1970s and didn't win until the 1980s and while he incorporated a lot of culture war bollox into his offer to voters I wouldn't describe him as a populist any more than I would describe Thatcher in those terms. Populists run against the system and don't offer any real solutions to the problems they identify. You can criticise Reagan (and Thatcher) for the solutions they came up with but they were rightwingers not populists in my view.
Sky news now running with the "upto 90% effective" headline and BBC changed theirs to "is highly effective".
Yes, it was crap reporting by the BBC to just glance at the report then run the morning news headlining on the "only 70%"
Winning the PR war with this is going to be half the battle and the BBC made a big error with that headline. Using the word "only" is completely irresponsible.
Although you do have to wonder why the report lumped the two dosage schemes together into a single 70% number in the first place. It's not like both will be used when one is clearly better.
Full disclosure - for the stock market regulators for one. And openness is the only way to fight the anti-vaccine shite.
That's why the 95% figure of Pfizer isn't comparable to the 90% figure from AZ.
Is it just me, or does not testing all the members of a trial on a weekly basis seem like an obvious omission?
It really depends, the Pfizer vaccine is advertised as stopping 95% of symptomatic COVID, which is what people care about. That's what their vaccine is designed to do, stop people from getting symptoms and in 95% of cases that is what happens. If you don't care about asymptomatic spread because everyone who is liable to experience serious symptoms has been vaccinated then this is a well designed trial.
AZ have given themselves a rod for their own back by testing for asymptomatic infections, but these results also have interesting indications that the vaccine may prevent people from getting it at all with the half/full dosage method.
Can't Oxford/AZ extract the symptomatic cases from their trial and report on the same basis as Pfizer? They must have records.
The AZ trial procedure looks stronger with the weekly swabs, well possible the Moderna/Pfizer vaccines had the same number of asymptomatic cases that the AZ one did.
It would make the 90% figure for the half dose regime - if it holds up, of course - look very good indeed.
Exactly, that 90% figure is starting to look absolutely incredible, which is why I think they might want to do a very fast 20k trial in areas of high transmission in the UK and get people jabbed with this dosage before Xmas to get 100 or so events in the days afterwards and confirm these findings.
Malmesbury: re Sweden, trouble with your thought is that Swedens cases are soaring again and Doctors are asking the Government to FURTHER tighten up. Compared to Denmark, Norway and Finland, Sweden is a mess.
That's why the 95% figure of Pfizer isn't comparable to the 90% figure from AZ.
Is it just me, or does not testing all the members of a trial on a weekly basis seem like an obvious omission?
It really depends, the Pfizer vaccine is advertised as stopping 95% of symptomatic COVID, which is what people care about. That's what their vaccine is designed to do, stop people from getting symptoms and in 95% of cases that is what happens. If you don't care about asymptomatic spread because everyone who is liable to experience serious symptoms has been vaccinated then this is a well designed trial.
AZ have given themselves a rod for their own back by testing for asymptomatic infections, but these results also have interesting indications that the vaccine may prevent people from getting it at all with the half/full dosage method.
There was a paper yesterday from China which seemed to show that there was almost no asymptomatic transfer of the virus, unless I misunderstood. So the Pfizer jab might get rid of the virus pretty quickly.
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.
It's all calculated risk, albeit we don't know the precise inputs.
I have been to see my 90-yr old mother, who lives on her own, regularly for the past six months to sit, chat, discuss books, play chess, etc.
She wanted to, I wanted to. She knew the risks, such as they were, or at least the general risk and was happy nevertheless. So risky as it was, my mother has not suffered any loneliness, staring at relatives through windows, isolation, or Covid-related depression since this all began.
That was worth it. Others' views may differ.
But I'm with you on looking forward to Easter and celebrating the Chocolate bunnies.
I have to say it doesn't make sense to relax at Christmas this year when we know that we will have significant vaccine deliveries in January. I don't see the logic in it, and I'm not exactly a huge supporter of lockdowns. Doesn't make sense now that we can see the light at the end of the tunnel isn't very far away.
Likewise. I have become increasingly sceptical of the lockdown policy and have felt all along that we should spend more time studying what Sweden is doing and, importantly, why.
There was far too much bet on getting a vaccine imho.
But now we have a vaccine at hand (seems unlikely now that all of those candidates will fail when the production is ramped up and mass injection starts), I can't see why we are changing the government's lockdown strategy.
Because there is plenty of time for a lot people to fall ill and die or have life changing effects before we get to the stage where the vast majority of the population has had the vaccine.
Indeed. So why are we relaxing for Xmas? That was my point.
Excellent news! Weren't there reports that approval would be a matter of days/a week after submission given the regulator has been monitoring things while the trials were ongoing?
Is that the UK regulator, MHRA? What about the EU one?
Yeah, the MHRA. No idea what the EU timetable would be or if they've had access during the trial.
Legislation has been passed to allow UK to just use MHRA as we will be anyway from January.
Trump: I am more convinced today than I was yesterday that he is desires to take the country into a dictatorship and only the intervention of the Chiefs of Staff can save the day. We are on a knife edge of biblical proportions.
Sky news now running with the "upto 90% effective" headline and BBC changed theirs to "is highly effective".
Yes, it was crap reporting by the BBC to just glance at the report then run the morning news headlining on the "only 70%"
Winning the PR war with this is going to be half the battle and the BBC made a big error with that headline. Using the word "only" is completely irresponsible.
Although you do have to wonder why the report lumped the two dosage schemes together into a single 70% number in the first place. It's not like both will be used when one is clearly better.
Full disclosure - for the stock market regulators for one. And openness is the only way to fight the anti-vaccine shite.
It's just a shame about the scientifically illiterate journalists and their "only 70%" headlines.
Sky news now running with the "upto 90% effective" headline and BBC changed theirs to "is highly effective".
Yes, it was crap reporting by the BBC to just glance at the report then run the morning news headlining on the "only 70%"
Winning the PR war with this is going to be half the battle and the BBC made a big error with that headline. Using the word "only" is completely irresponsible.
Although you do have to wonder why the report lumped the two dosage schemes together into a single 70% number in the first place. It's not like both will be used when one is clearly better.
Full disclosure - for the stock market regulators for one. And openness is the only way to fight the anti-vaccine shite.
It's just a shame about the scientifically illiterate journalists and their "only 70%" headlines.
Should we except anything less after the past 6 months?
Trump: I am more convinced today than I was yesterday that he is desires to take the country into a dictatorship and only the intervention of the Chiefs of Staff can save the day. We are on a knife edge of biblical proportions.
That's why the 95% figure of Pfizer isn't comparable to the 90% figure from AZ.
Is it just me, or does not testing all the members of a trial on a weekly basis seem like an obvious omission?
It really depends, the Pfizer vaccine is advertised as stopping 95% of symptomatic COVID, which is what people care about. That's what their vaccine is designed to do, stop people from getting symptoms and in 95% of cases that is what happens. If you don't care about asymptomatic spread because everyone who is liable to experience serious symptoms has been vaccinated then this is a well designed trial.
AZ have given themselves a rod for their own back by testing for asymptomatic infections, but these results also have interesting indications that the vaccine may prevent people from getting it at all with the half/full dosage method.
It would matter if the asymptomatic cases could still lead to "long" complications. Fortunately long symptoms seem to correlate with initial severity. Which doesn't of course rule it out.
Thanks to everyone so far who replied with their views on whether a 'normal' wedding/reception on 1st May is likely to be possible. As a few of you noted, the challenge with wedding planning is how far in advance we need to make decisions and sign contracts or adapt them. We might be able to push any decision on whether we scale back the wedding until mid January to see what things are looking like. Any other views are welcome; I find it useful to get outsider perspectives as sometimes I cannot see the wood for the trees when the decision is so close to me!
On topic: They must not give Trump a deal. It is the easy option, but it is wrong. It is not only morally wrong it is strategically wrong for the long term.
Any would be dictator needs to know that if they fail the consequences will be harsh (and that goes for people who knowingly facilitated him/her).
Trump has come perilously close to succeeding.
If you prosecute him, all that will happen is that he will be seen as a martyr and reinforce his support.
It will also guarantee that the Republicans will seek to prosecute Biden on whatever grounds when he finishes being President, especially as Trump didn't seek to prosecute Clinton.
Sky news now running with the "upto 90% effective" headline and BBC changed theirs to "is highly effective".
Yes, it was crap reporting by the BBC to just glance at the report then run the morning news headlining on the "only 70%"
Winning the PR war with this is going to be half the battle and the BBC made a big error with that headline. Using the word "only" is completely irresponsible.
Although you do have to wonder why the report lumped the two dosage schemes together into a single 70% number in the first place. It's not like both will be used when one is clearly better.
Full disclosure - for the stock market regulators for one. And openness is the only way to fight the anti-vaccine shite.
It's just a shame about the scientifically illiterate journalists and their "only 70%" headlines.
"It's just a shame about the scientifically illiterate journalists and their "only 70%" headlines."
On topic: They must not give Trump a deal. It is the easy option, but it is wrong. It is not only morally wrong it is strategically wrong for the long term.
Any would be dictator needs to know that if they fail the consequences will be harsh (and that goes for people who knowingly facilitated him/her).
Trump has come perilously close to succeeding.
If you prosecute him, all that will happen is that he will be seen as a martyr and reinforce his support.
It will also guarantee that the Republicans will seek to prosecute Biden on whatever grounds when he finishes being President, especially as Trump didn't seek to prosecute Clinton.
If Biden does something unlawful then he should be prosecuted.
Simply amazing that a Conservative government seems to be holding out over State Aid.
The issue with state aid is that EU countries routinely ignore the rules when they feel like it, and the EU doesn’t enforce punishments on them.
The concern from the U.K. side, is that the EU will push to enforce the same rules against the U.K. that they routinely ignore among their own member states.
Trump: I am more convinced today than I was yesterday that he is desires to take the country into a dictatorship and only the intervention of the Chiefs of Staff can save the day. We are on a knife edge of biblical proportions.
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.
With Cummings out the door, it'd make sense for the UK to fold accept a great deal for Britain
Cummings was never the issue on a deal.
Boris' problem in accepting "a great deal for Britain" is that his backbenchers won't support it. Or him, for trying it on.
Glad you put that in quote marks. Backbenchers shouldn`t support it. Good, or at least adequate, deal or no deal. An extension to transition would be preferable to a bad deal.
Do you think that Johnson`s weakening on this was a reason for Cummings going? Or was it the personal stuff re; Carrie?
Malmesbury: re Sweden, trouble with your thought is that Swedens cases are soaring again and Doctors are asking the Government to FURTHER tighten up. Compared to Denmark, Norway and Finland, Sweden is a mess.
Not sure I follow? Don't think I've ever advocated the "Swedish solution". Which isn't a solution - more an attempted middle way.
On topic: They must not give Trump a deal. It is the easy option, but it is wrong. It is not only morally wrong it is strategically wrong for the long term.
Any would be dictator needs to know that if they fail the consequences will be harsh (and that goes for people who knowingly facilitated him/her).
Trump has come perilously close to succeeding.
If you prosecute him, all that will happen is that he will be seen as a martyr and reinforce his support.
It will also guarantee that the Republicans will seek to prosecute Biden on whatever grounds when he finishes being President, especially as Trump didn't seek to prosecute Clinton.
Politicians should not prosecute cases at all. If there's evidence of wrongdoing, it must be followed up. Clinton was investigated. The judicial process was followed, as it should be for anyone.
We did a review of the IP strategies being followed by all the covid vaccine leaders last week. This is what we said about Oxford/Astra Zeneca:
A third approach has been adopted by the University of Oxford and its partner AstraZeneca towards their Phase 3 candidate AZD1222 (formerly known as ChAdOx1 nCoV-19). Back in April, Oxford University Innovation’s Adam Stoten spoke to IAMabout its plan to provide expedited access to the university’s vaccine-related IP. Its default approach was to issue non-exclusive, royalty-free licences to support at-cost or cost + small margin supply during the pandemic. In this respect, OUI’s strategy resembled similar commitments made by other academic institutions, such as Stanford University, Harvard University, MIT and Knowledge Transfer Ireland. Whether its subsequent agreement with AstraZeneca is consistent with this approach or a departure from it has been the subject of some debate. The UK company has been granted an exclusive – rather than non-exclusive – licence to develop the vaccine, but it has issued a large number of sub-licences giving companies the ability to supply markets around the world. The extent to which these provide exclusivity for sub-licensees in specific jurisdictions is not entirely clear from public pronouncements, but the company has expressed commitment to building up several parallel supply chains. While its CEO Pascal Soriot has emphasised the importance of IP for combatting covid-19, AstraZeneca has consistently said that it will not make a profit from vaccines sales during the pandemic. It has also licensed one billion doses to be produced by the Serum Institute of India for 57 poorer countries. A degree of controversy arose after it emerged that AstraZeneca could declare the pandemic – and therefore its non-profit commitment – over as early July 2021. The company has since stated that its commitment to supply low-income countries at cost will continue in perpetuity.
Vaccine data is like the US elections. No point in comparing the 3 vaccines (And hopefully more !) till we've got the full results in. Oxford may well be the Joe Biden of the lot.
On topic: They must not give Trump a deal. It is the easy option, but it is wrong. It is not only morally wrong it is strategically wrong for the long term.
Any would be dictator needs to know that if they fail the consequences will be harsh (and that goes for people who knowingly facilitated him/her).
Trump has come perilously close to succeeding.
If you prosecute him, all that will happen is that he will be seen as a martyr and reinforce his support.
It will also guarantee that the Republicans will seek to prosecute Biden on whatever grounds when he finishes being President, especially as Trump didn't seek to prosecute Clinton.
It is not Republicans or Democrats who will prosecute Trump, but state or federal prosecutors. In any event we were discussing a pardon. Declining to give him one is not prosecuting him.
We did a review of the IP strategies being followed by all the covid vaccine leaders last week. This is what we said about Oxford/Astra Zeneca:
A third approach has been adopted by the University of Oxford and its partner AstraZeneca towards their Phase 3 candidate AZD1222 (formerly known as ChAdOx1 nCoV-19). Back in April, Oxford University Innovation’s Adam Stoten spoke to IAMabout its plan to provide expedited access to the university’s vaccine-related IP. Its default approach was to issue non-exclusive, royalty-free licences to support at-cost or cost + small margin supply during the pandemic. In this respect, OUI’s strategy resembled similar commitments made by other academic institutions, such as Stanford University, Harvard University, MIT and Knowledge Transfer Ireland. Whether its subsequent agreement with AstraZeneca is consistent with this approach or a departure from it has been the subject of some debate. The UK company has been granted an exclusive – rather than non-exclusive – licence to develop the vaccine, but it has issued a large number of sub-licences giving companies the ability to supply markets around the world. The extent to which these provide exclusivity for sub-licensees in specific jurisdictions is not entirely clear from public pronouncements, but the company has expressed commitment to building up several parallel supply chains. While its CEO Pascal Soriot has emphasised the importance of IP for combatting covid-19, AstraZeneca has consistently said that it will not make a profit from vaccines sales during the pandemic. It has also licensed one billion doses to be produced by the Serum Institute of India for 57 poorer countries. A degree of controversy arose after it emerged that AstraZeneca could declare the pandemic – and therefore its non-profit commitment – over as early July 2021. The company has since stated that its commitment to supply low-income countries at cost will continue in perpetuity.
Trump: I am more convinced today than I was yesterday that he is desires to take the country into a dictatorship and only the intervention of the Chiefs of Staff can save the day. We are on a knife edge of biblical proportions.
He has no leverage in the machinery of government. The court cases are all going against him. Which means the electors will show up as per the vote. Which will mean that Biden will be President according to the constitution.
Which means at 12.00.00000000001pm on Jan 20th, Trump will be an intruder at the White House if he is still there.
Sky news now running with the "upto 90% effective" headline and BBC changed theirs to "is highly effective".
Yes, it was crap reporting by the BBC to just glance at the report then run the morning news headlining on the "only 70%"
Winning the PR war with this is going to be half the battle and the BBC made a big error with that headline. Using the word "only" is completely irresponsible.
Although you do have to wonder why the report lumped the two dosage schemes together into a single 70% number in the first place. It's not like both will be used when one is clearly better.
Full disclosure - for the stock market regulators for one. And openness is the only way to fight the anti-vaccine shite.
Fully agree regarding the need for openness, but the combined 70% just seems a meaningless number. Why not just present the two schemes separately?
The BBC article on it is absolutely terrible, this in particular is factually incorrect:
"Are the results disappointing? After Pfizer and Moderna both produced vaccines delivering 95% protection from Covid-19, a figure of 70% is still highly effective, but will be seen by some as relatively disappointing.
But this is still a vaccine that can save lives from Covid-19 and is more effective than a seasonal flu jab."
It's not 70%, its 62% and 90% for the two dosage variations and as we've discussed here the 90% variation includes testing for asymptomatic cases where neither of the other two trials did that.
With Cummings out the door, it'd make sense for the UK to fold accept a great deal for Britain
Cummings was never the issue on a deal.
Boris' problem in accepting "a great deal for Britain" is that his backbenchers won't support it. Or him, for trying it on.
Glad you put that in quote marks. Backbenchers shouldn`t support it. Good, or at least adequate, deal or no deal. An extension to transition would be preferable to a bad deal.
Do you think that Johnson`s weakening on this was a reason for Cummings going? Or was it the personal stuff re; Carrie?
Cummings - and Boris's press chief - couldn't see how any deal was remotely compatible with the Tories' 2019 Manifesto, couldn't see how it could be sold other than as a massive climbdown and so were happy to walk away from the coming shit storm, would be my best guess of what went on.
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.
That’s unusual, I thought he preferred other people’s wives...
Sarkozy's wife, Carla Bruni in the 1990s (though this was before Sarkozy married her though Trump was married at the time)
I guess that's Trump's second wife, Marla Maples? He was still married to Ivana until 92. Don't know why I just watched this video of him and Marla together in 91, but it's strange. He calls her "Melala" just after 3 mins in. Did he have 21 year old Melania on the brain before his 6 year marriage to Marla? https://youtu.be/SfOgCBNIwKg?t=189
The BBC article on it is absolutely terrible, this in particular is factually incorrect:
"Are the results disappointing? After Pfizer and Moderna both produced vaccines delivering 95% protection from Covid-19, a figure of 70% is still highly effective, but will be seen by some as relatively disappointing.
But this is still a vaccine that can save lives from Covid-19 and is more effective than a seasonal flu jab."
It's not 70%, its 62% and 90% for the two dosage variations and as we've discussed here the 90% variation includes testing for asymptomatic cases where neither of the other two trials did that.
I'd be surprised if whoever wrote that could put their own clothes on in the morning.
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.
It's all calculated risk, albeit we don't know the precise inputs.
I have been to see my 90-yr old mother, who lives on her own, regularly for the past six months to sit, chat, discuss books, play chess, etc.
She wanted to, I wanted to. She knew the risks, such as they were, or at least the general risk and was happy nevertheless. So risky as it was, my mother has not suffered any loneliness, staring at relatives through windows, isolation, or Covid-related depression since this all began.
That was worth it. Others' views may differ.
But I'm with you on looking forward to Easter and celebrating the Chocolate bunnies.
Sure, my parents have done the same with my Grandmother. Bubbling single people and another household isn’t particularly risky, and has been a good policy in my view. The issue is around having big, six to seven household Christmas visits where you can potentially end up with all of them having a Covid case. It just isn’t worth it in my view when a vaccine is just a month or two off.
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 partly about money and property, but probably slightly more about culture and related issues.
What it definitely isn't is just one or the other, which a surprising number of people continue to insist on, depending on their political stance.
Trump: I am more convinced today than I was yesterday that he is desires to take the country into a dictatorship and only the intervention of the Chiefs of Staff can save the day. We are on a knife edge of biblical proportions.
He has no leverage in the machinery of government. The court cases are all going against him. Which means the electors will show up as per the vote. Which will mean that Biden will be President according to the constitution.
Which means at 12.00.00000000001pm on Jan 20th, Trump will be an intruder at the White House if he is still there.
Agreed, the peaceful transfer of power is hardwired into America's constitutional DNA. If Trump tries to stand in its way he will be swatted away like a fly.
On topic: They must not give Trump a deal. It is the easy option, but it is wrong. It is not only morally wrong it is strategically wrong for the long term.
Any would be dictator needs to know that if they fail the consequences will be harsh (and that goes for people who knowingly facilitated him/her).
Trump has come perilously close to succeeding.
If you prosecute him, all that will happen is that he will be seen as a martyr and reinforce his support.
It will also guarantee that the Republicans will seek to prosecute Biden on whatever grounds when he finishes being President, especially as Trump didn't seek to prosecute Clinton.
It is not Republicans or Democrats who will prosecute Trump, but state or federal prosecutors. In any event we were discussing a pardon. Declining to give him one is not prosecuting him.
Biden won't pardon him - too much of the Democrat base would go apeshit if he did.
He won't rush to prosecute federally. My guess is that any federal case will be deferred until a number (if not all) of the state cases are out of the way. States rights :-)
That way Biden can say
- I'm not vindictive - I'm letting justice take it's course - I'm not interfering in the courts
Trump will probably be federally indicted half way through Kamella Harris second term.
The BBC article on it is absolutely terrible, this in particular is factually incorrect:
"Are the results disappointing? After Pfizer and Moderna both produced vaccines delivering 95% protection from Covid-19, a figure of 70% is still highly effective, but will be seen by some as relatively disappointing.
But this is still a vaccine that can save lives from Covid-19 and is more effective than a seasonal flu jab."
It's not 70%, its 62% and 90% for the two dosage variations and as we've discussed here the 90% variation includes testing for asymptomatic cases where neither of the other two trials did that.
I'd be surprised if whoever wrote that could put their own clothes on in the morning.
The journalist who wrote that supposedly has a degree in Biology....face palm. Obviously missed the modules that covered reading scientific papers of real world medical trials.
We did a review of the IP strategies being followed by all the covid vaccine leaders last week. This is what we said about Oxford/Astra Zeneca:
A third approach has been adopted by the University of Oxford and its partner AstraZeneca towards their Phase 3 candidate AZD1222 (formerly known as ChAdOx1 nCoV-19). Back in April, Oxford University Innovation’s Adam Stoten spoke to IAMabout its plan to provide expedited access to the university’s vaccine-related IP. Its default approach was to issue non-exclusive, royalty-free licences to support at-cost or cost + small margin supply during the pandemic. In this respect, OUI’s strategy resembled similar commitments made by other academic institutions, such as Stanford University, Harvard University, MIT and Knowledge Transfer Ireland. Whether its subsequent agreement with AstraZeneca is consistent with this approach or a departure from it has been the subject of some debate. The UK company has been granted an exclusive – rather than non-exclusive – licence to develop the vaccine, but it has issued a large number of sub-licences giving companies the ability to supply markets around the world. The extent to which these provide exclusivity for sub-licensees in specific jurisdictions is not entirely clear from public pronouncements, but the company has expressed commitment to building up several parallel supply chains. While its CEO Pascal Soriot has emphasised the importance of IP for combatting covid-19, AstraZeneca has consistently said that it will not make a profit from vaccines sales during the pandemic. It has also licensed one billion doses to be produced by the Serum Institute of India for 57 poorer countries. A degree of controversy arose after it emerged that AstraZeneca could declare the pandemic – and therefore its non-profit commitment – over as early July 2021. The company has since stated that its commitment to supply low-income countries at cost will continue in perpetuity.
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.
It's all calculated risk, albeit we don't know the precise inputs.
I have been to see my 90-yr old mother, who lives on her own, regularly for the past six months to sit, chat, discuss books, play chess, etc.
She wanted to, I wanted to. She knew the risks, such as they were, or at least the general risk and was happy nevertheless. So risky as it was, my mother has not suffered any loneliness, staring at relatives through windows, isolation, or Covid-related depression since this all began.
That was worth it. Others' views may differ.
But I'm with you on looking forward to Easter and celebrating the Chocolate bunnies.
Sure, my parents have done the same with my Grandmother. Bubbling single people and another household isn’t particularly risky, and has been a good policy in my view. The issue is around having big, six to seven household Christmas visits where you can potentially end up with all of them having a Covid case. It just isn’t worth it in my view when a vaccine is just a month or two off.
I live on my own. I am in a bubble with my girlfriend, who lives with her sister.
I'll be going to spend Christmas Day my Dad, who also lives on his own. I would be doing this regardless of what the "rules" were. I don't feel this is anymore risky than a single household of five who work in different jobs and attend different schools, spending Christmas together.
On topic: They must not give Trump a deal. It is the easy option, but it is wrong. It is not only morally wrong it is strategically wrong for the long term.
Any would be dictator needs to know that if they fail the consequences will be harsh (and that goes for people who knowingly facilitated him/her).
Trump has come perilously close to succeeding.
If you prosecute him, all that will happen is that he will be seen as a martyr and reinforce his support.
It will also guarantee that the Republicans will seek to prosecute Biden on whatever grounds when he finishes being President, especially as Trump didn't seek to prosecute Clinton.
It is not Republicans or Democrats who will prosecute Trump, but state or federal prosecutors. In any event we were discussing a pardon. Declining to give him one is not prosecuting him.
A presidential pardon has no effect on State level crimes.
With Cummings out the door, it'd make sense for the UK to fold accept a great deal for Britain
Cummings was never the issue on a deal.
Boris' problem in accepting "a great deal for Britain" is that his backbenchers won't support it. Or him, for trying it on.
Glad you put that in quote marks. Backbenchers shouldn`t support it. Good, or at least adequate, deal or no deal. An extension to transition would be preferable to a bad deal.
Do you think that Johnson`s weakening on this was a reason for Cummings going? Or was it the personal stuff re; Carrie?
Cummings - and Boris's press chief - couldn't see how any deal was remotely compatible with the Tories' 2019 Manifesto, couldn't see how it could be sold other than as a massive climbdown and so were happy to walk away from the coming shit storm, would be my best guess of what went on.
Yes, that`s what I thought. Oh dear, doesn`t bode well.
So if EU won`t give us a deal that IS compatible with the Tory manifesto then what then in your opinion?
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.
B*llocks. A lot of it is down to a lack of respect that they get shown by their PC-focused "leaders" who sprout the latest nonsense whilst feathering their own nests and protecting their own interests.
Comments
Here's the AZN study protocol.
https://s3.amazonaws.com/ctr-med-7111/D8110C00001/52bec400-80f6-4c1b-8791-0483923d0867/c8070a4e-6a9d-46f9-8c32-cece903592b9/D8110C00001_CSP-v2.pdf
Pages 22 and 23 are the relevant ones ?
Its not about party politics, its about the nations health.
I heard an interesting story about the Patel thing - apparently we should ask *what* she was shouting about.
At that point some people become rather reticent.
Any would be dictator needs to know that if they fail the consequences will be harsh (and that goes for people who knowingly facilitated him/her).
Trump has come perilously close to succeeding.
Reagan ran for his second term in California on an explicitly populist platform. His big issue was attacking subversive attitudes of the student protestors.
And don't forget he ran for the President nomination against Ford.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries
...During this period, Ronald Reagan concluded his second term in office as Governor of California. His administration was marked by efforts to dismantle the welfare state and a high-profile crackdown on urban crime and left-wing dissent, especially at the University of California, Berkeley. He also led an effort to enforce the state's capital punishment laws but was blocked by the California Supreme Court in the People v. Anderson decision. Following Reagan's retirement from office in January 1975, he began hosting a national radio show and writing a national newspaper column...
A responsible government will use today’s vaccine news to roll back on the Christmas gimmick.
(Yes, I know, I know)
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/carla-bruni-donald-trump-made-affair-denies-affair-a7797786.html
Firstly, a lot hangs on your definition of "nasty". If you are of the left many think that your view of human nature is deluded. It doesn`t necessary follow from this that anyone who is NOT of the left is nasty. I think populism is driven by ignorance, fuzzy-thinking and warping facts to suit your own ignorant view. Effing annoying but not in itself nasty.
Secondly, I do get a degree of amusement from the sight of left-wingers realising, seeming for this first time due to their rose-tinted view of human nature, that many that they`ve been sticking up for all these years aren`t actually very nice. A dose of reality, as it were.
All the briefings last night of get down the shops are even stranger given they must have known this announcement was coming this morning.
That's why the 95% figure of Pfizer isn't comparable to the 90% figure from AZ.
There was far too much bet on getting a vaccine imho.
But now we have a vaccine at hand (seems unlikely now that all of those candidates will fail when the production is ramped up and mass injection starts), I can't see why we are changing the government's lockdown strategy.
AZ have given themselves a rod for their own back by testing for asymptomatic infections, but these results also have interesting indications that the vaccine may prevent people from getting it at all with the half/full dosage method.
That’s unusual, I thought he preferred other people’s wives...
foldaccept a great deal for BritainCompared to Denmark, Norway and Finland, Sweden is a mess.
I have been to see my 90-yr old mother, who lives on her own, regularly for the past six months to sit, chat, discuss books, play chess, etc.
She wanted to, I wanted to. She knew the risks, such as they were, or at least the general risk and was happy nevertheless. So risky as it was, my mother has not suffered any loneliness, staring at relatives through windows, isolation, or Covid-related depression since this all began.
That was worth it. Others' views may differ.
But I'm with you on looking forward to Easter and celebrating the Chocolate bunnies.
No one is above the law.
We are on a knife edge of biblical proportions.
Boris' problem in accepting "a great deal for Britain" is that his backbenchers won't support it. Or him, for trying it on.
It will also guarantee that the Republicans will seek to prosecute Biden on whatever grounds when he finishes being President, especially as Trump didn't seek to prosecute Clinton.
Fixed that for you.
Look up Gell-Mann Amnesia....
The concern from the U.K. side, is that the EU will push to enforce the same rules against the U.K. that they routinely ignore among their own member states.
Do you think that Johnson`s weakening on this was a reason for Cummings going? Or was it the personal stuff re; Carrie?
A third approach has been adopted by the University of Oxford and its partner AstraZeneca towards their Phase 3 candidate AZD1222 (formerly known as ChAdOx1 nCoV-19). Back in April, Oxford University Innovation’s Adam Stoten spoke to IAMabout its plan to provide expedited access to the university’s vaccine-related IP. Its default approach was to issue non-exclusive, royalty-free licences to support at-cost or cost + small margin supply during the pandemic. In this respect, OUI’s strategy resembled similar commitments made by other academic institutions, such as Stanford University, Harvard University, MIT and Knowledge Transfer Ireland.
Whether its subsequent agreement with AstraZeneca is consistent with this approach or a departure from it has been the subject of some debate. The UK company has been granted an exclusive – rather than non-exclusive – licence to develop the vaccine, but it has issued a large number of sub-licences giving companies the ability to supply markets around the world. The extent to which these provide exclusivity for sub-licensees in specific jurisdictions is not entirely clear from public pronouncements, but the company has expressed commitment to building up several parallel supply chains.
While its CEO Pascal Soriot has emphasised the importance of IP for combatting covid-19, AstraZeneca has consistently said that it will not make a profit from vaccines sales during the pandemic. It has also licensed one billion doses to be produced by the Serum Institute of India for 57 poorer countries.
A degree of controversy arose after it emerged that AstraZeneca could declare the pandemic – and therefore its non-profit commitment – over as early July 2021. The company has since stated that its commitment to supply low-income countries at cost will continue in perpetuity.
https://www.iam-media.com/coronavirus/your-guide-covid-19-vaccine-stakeholders-ip-strategies
In short, not only is the vaccine the most promising in terms of storage and transportation, it is also going to be among the cheapest. Fantastic.
In any event we were discussing a pardon. Declining to give him one is not prosecuting him.
Which means at 12.00.00000000001pm on Jan 20th, Trump will be an intruder at the White House if he is still there.
"Are the results disappointing?
After Pfizer and Moderna both produced vaccines delivering 95% protection from Covid-19, a figure of 70% is still highly effective, but will be seen by some as relatively disappointing.
But this is still a vaccine that can save lives from Covid-19 and is more effective than a seasonal flu jab."
It's not 70%, its 62% and 90% for the two dosage variations and as we've discussed here the 90% variation includes testing for asymptomatic cases where neither of the other two trials did that.
https://youtu.be/SfOgCBNIwKg?t=189
What it definitely isn't is just one or the other, which a surprising number of people continue to insist on, depending on their political stance.
He won't rush to prosecute federally. My guess is that any federal case will be deferred until a number (if not all) of the state cases are out of the way. States rights :-)
That way Biden can say
- I'm not vindictive
- I'm letting justice take it's course
- I'm not interfering in the courts
Trump will probably be federally indicted half way through Kamella Harris second term.
I'll be going to spend Christmas Day my Dad, who also lives on his own. I would be doing this regardless of what the "rules" were. I don't feel this is anymore risky than a single household of five who work in different jobs and attend different schools, spending Christmas together.
So if EU won`t give us a deal that IS compatible with the Tory manifesto then what then in your opinion?