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.
GOP lawyers attempting to 'prosecute' Biden should be a good laugh if the quality of their current shenanigans is anything to go by.
If they take control of the House in 2022 and keep the Senate, expect payback for the impeachment hearings.
The left taught America not to accept presidential election results.
Why are they surprised when the evidence is the lesson has been learned?
Well, you only have to look at this site to see why.
@williamglenn's video last night showed how various celebs openly called for Republican electors to ignore the 2016 result in their states and so ignore their electorates.
Didn't really see many of the usual suspects here condemning that.
But, that's fine, because it was for the "right" reason. And, as many on here still seem to believe, like Gallowgate, the laughable nonsense re Putin helping Trump in 2016. Any reason why Putin didn't help him then in 2020?
It seems to me that the press have had the temerity to accept what Oxford told them, and add the outrageous spin that 70 is not as big a number as 90. Primary end points are primary end points, guys, and you stick to protocols or what is the point of them. What has happened this morning is that the government has been on the scientists' case and told them to TONE DOWN the science and numeracy in favour of telling people what they want to hear. It is bizarre that this is being championed as a triumph of statistical literacy.
There's a distinction though, the trial was 70% effective across two modes. One had 62% efficacy and one had 90% efficacy. The vaccine that will come to market will be based on the 90% efficacy mode, therefore the vaccine has 90% efficacy. That's why the 90% figure is what should be shouted from the rooftops, more than happy for the 62% to be put out there as well, the 70% figure is actually a statistical phantom because there is no vaccine dosage that will give 70% efficacy.
You really expect British journalists to be able to understand something that nuanced?
No of course not. However, in their defence the 90% figure is being widely reported outside of the BBC. It really does seem like the BBC is at fault.
Since the (apparent) discrepancy in efficacy between 'half + 1' and '1+1' is so large, is there any scientific reason to explain why the protocol of an initial half dose could in fact produce better results overall, or should we regard the discrepancy as a statistical fluke and just take the 70% weighted average of the samples as what you'd expect to end up with using either protocol?
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?
Boris tries to railroad through a deal, Starmer's Labour abstains, Brexit becomes a blue on blue fight. Boris goes from hero to absolute zero. Nobody happy with him. Can't have a "let's send a message to Brussels" election in the middle of Covid, so that route is closed off. Muddle, chaos, confusion most likely.
We go into 2021 with our relationship with the EU still as much of a minefield as it has been for decades.
Starmer has gone on and on about getting a deal - will it be feasible for him to abstain if one if reached to avoid no deal?
Of course not. If no deal is set to be a disaster, Labour will want to say that "we tried to stop it".
There are 364 Conservative MPs. So if there are fewer than about 40 headbangers, BoJo can get the deal through purely on Conservative votes. That's what the government would like, but it might be pushing it. Presumably, the government wouldn't try and withdraw the whip from the rebels in this situation, despite the blatant hypocrisy?
If Labour abstain, that takes the winning post down to 226, and the government can afford 138 rebels. Not quite enough for Boris to lose a party vote of no confidence, but the realpolitik would be that he wouldn't be getting married as Prime Minister.
So, it's hard to see how Labour's numbers are relevant here. The key limiting step is what's going on in the PM's head; can he bring himself to sell the incoming deal to Parliament and the public?
And since he, more than anyone else, brought the UK to this point, including the idea that the UK could get a "cake and eat it" deal, it serves him right that he has to stand up and admit that it's not as simple as that.
It’s a big call for the Opposition parties. It the vote goes down then it *will* be no-deal, and the more opposition MPs plan to vote against, the larger will be the Tory rebel faction of no-deal advocates.
But would Labour really abstain on the most significant vote in the whole Parliament?
Why wouldn't they abstain? Labour are not going to whip against the deal, so it makes no difference whatsoever whether they vote in favour or abstain.
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.
GOP lawyers attempting to 'prosecute' Biden should be a good laugh if the quality of their current shenanigans is anything to go by.
If they take control of the House in 2022 and keep the Senate, expect payback for the impeachment hearings.
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.
GOP lawyers attempting to 'prosecute' Biden should be a good laugh if the quality of their current shenanigans is anything to go by.
If they take control of the House in 2022 and keep the Senate, expect payback for the impeachment hearings.
The left taught America not to accept presidential election results.
Why are they surprised when the evidence is the lesson has been learned?
Well, you only have to look at this site to see why.
@williamglenn's video last night showed how various celebs openly called for Republican electors to ignore the 2016 result in their states and so ignore their electorates.
Didn't really see many of the usual suspects here condemning that.
But, that's fine, because it was for the "right" reason. And, as many on here still seem to believe, like Gallowgate, the laughable nonsense re Putin helping Trump in 2016. Any reason why Putin didn't help him then in 2020?
Well Mr Ed and contrarian are here to flood the zone with shit again, so I imagine the actually interesting discussion of vaccine efficacy will end for now. Enjoy refuting bonkers right-wing conspiracies for the rest of the day.
Sorry, @OnboardG1, just tell me the "conspiracy theory" you say we are pushing?
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.
GOP lawyers attempting to 'prosecute' Biden should be a good laugh if the quality of their current shenanigans is anything to go by.
If they take control of the House in 2022 and keep the Senate, expect payback for the impeachment hearings.
I do not understand why when most are calling this fake news
Let's see how their fact checker Chris Morris deals with it. Bit late of course for the likes of @FrancisUrquhart's folks as the damage has to be undone. MysticRose earlier on self-organised him/herself into the same category and has decided to go for the quality jab. Choice would be a fine thing.
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?
Boris tries to railroad through a deal, Starmer's Labour abstains, Brexit becomes a blue on blue fight. Boris goes from hero to absolute zero. Nobody happy with him. Can't have a "let's send a message to Brussels" election in the middle of Covid, so that route is closed off. Muddle, chaos, confusion most likely.
We go into 2021 with our relationship with the EU still as much of a minefield as it has been for decades.
Starmer has gone on and on about getting a deal - will it be feasible for him to abstain if one if reached to avoid no deal?
Of course not. If no deal is set to be a disaster, Labour will want to say that "we tried to stop it".
There are 364 Conservative MPs. So if there are fewer than about 40 headbangers, BoJo can get the deal through purely on Conservative votes. That's what the government would like, but it might be pushing it. Presumably, the government wouldn't try and withdraw the whip from the rebels in this situation, despite the blatant hypocrisy?
If Labour abstain, that takes the winning post down to 226, and the government can afford 138 rebels. Not quite enough for Boris to lose a party vote of no confidence, but the realpolitik would be that he wouldn't be getting married as Prime Minister.
So, it's hard to see how Labour's numbers are relevant here. The key limiting step is what's going on in the PM's head; can he bring himself to sell the incoming deal to Parliament and the public?
And since he, more than anyone else, brought the UK to this point, including the idea that the UK could get a "cake and eat it" deal, it serves him right that he has to stand up and admit that it's not as simple as that.
Boris will compromise on state aid, Macron will compromise on fishing and a deal will be done within a week or two.
34 Tory rebels voted against May's deal at its final vote, I expect about the same will vote against Boris' deal, plus IDS, however given Boris has a majority of 80 and May had no majority at all Boris will still get it through.
I can see the rebel count being a bit higher than that- maybe into the 50s. After all, the Conservative class of 2019 are less... pragmatic on Brexit than their predecessors. But nowhere near enough for the deal to be voted down.
So there are two immediate questions:
1 Will this batch of Brexit rebels be de-whipped? (Logically, they probably should, but I can't imagine for a second that they will.)
2 (The crucial one.) Will Boris be able to sign up to the incoming compromise? (I don't know what's going on in his head. His complete lack of shame is probably an asset in this situation.)
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.
GOP lawyers attempting to 'prosecute' Biden should be a good laugh if the quality of their current shenanigans is anything to go by.
If they take control of the House in 2022 and keep the Senate, expect payback for the impeachment hearings.
The left taught America not to accept presidential election results.
Why are they surprised when the evidence is the lesson has been learned?
Well, you only have to look at this site to see why.
@williamglenn's video last night showed how various celebs openly called for Republican electors to ignore the 2016 result in their states and so ignore their electorates.
Didn't really see many of the usual suspects here condemning that.
But, that's fine, because it was for the "right" reason. And, as many on here still seem to believe, like Gallowgate, the laughable nonsense re Putin helping Trump in 2016. Any reason why Putin didn't help him then in 2020?
Who said anything about Putin?
Err, this:
"I mean it is different, as Russia *did* interfere with the 2016 election. But don't let facts get in the way of a good narrative, as usual."
I do not understand why when most are calling this fake news
Let's see how their fact checker Chris Morris deals with it. Bit late of course for the likes of @FrancisUrquhart's folks as the damage has to be undone. MysticRose earlier on self-organised him/herself into the same category and has decided to go for the quality jab. Choice would be a fine thing.
I have put them right....as I have had to do a number of times since March, like when I told them to get in the bloody house and don't come out...but but but the government aren't saying anything yet and the media say just 50 cases a day...get in the house and don't come out.
Well Mr Ed and contrarian are here to flood the zone with shit again, so I imagine the actually interesting discussion of vaccine efficacy will end for now. Enjoy refuting bonkers right-wing conspiracies for the rest of the day.
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.
GOP lawyers attempting to 'prosecute' Biden should be a good laugh if the quality of their current shenanigans is anything to go by.
If they take control of the House in 2022 and keep the Senate, expect payback for the impeachment hearings.
The left taught America not to accept presidential election results.
Why are they surprised when the evidence is the lesson has been learned?
Well, you only have to look at this site to see why.
@williamglenn's video last night showed how various celebs openly called for Republican electors to ignore the 2016 result in their states and so ignore their electorates.
Didn't really see many of the usual suspects here condemning that.
But, that's fine, because it was for the "right" reason. And, as many on here still seem to believe, like Gallowgate, the laughable nonsense re Putin helping Trump in 2016. Any reason why Putin didn't help him then in 2020?
Who said anything about Putin?
Err, this:
"I mean it is different, as Russia *did* interfere with the 2016 election. But don't let facts get in the way of a good narrative, as usual."
Well Mr Ed and contrarian are here to flood the zone with shit again, so I imagine the actually interesting discussion of vaccine efficacy will end for now. Enjoy refuting bonkers right-wing conspiracies for the rest of the day.
When someone tries to draw equivalence between a QAnon-supporting nut job of a lawyer and a former Director of the FBI, you realise that the thread is lost to rational debate, and time is better spent elsewhere.
Since the (apparent) discrepancy in efficacy between 'half + 1' and '1+1' is so large, is there any scientific reason to explain why the protocol of an initial half dose could in fact produce better results overall, or should we regard the discrepancy as a statistical fluke and just take the 70% weighted average of the samples as what you'd expect to end up with using either protocol?
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?
Boris tries to railroad through a deal, Starmer's Labour abstains, Brexit becomes a blue on blue fight. Boris goes from hero to absolute zero. Nobody happy with him. Can't have a "let's send a message to Brussels" election in the middle of Covid, so that route is closed off. Muddle, chaos, confusion most likely.
We go into 2021 with our relationship with the EU still as much of a minefield as it has been for decades.
Starmer has gone on and on about getting a deal - will it be feasible for him to abstain if one if reached to avoid no deal?
Of course not. If no deal is set to be a disaster, Labour will want to say that "we tried to stop it".
There are 364 Conservative MPs. So if there are fewer than about 40 headbangers, BoJo can get the deal through purely on Conservative votes. That's what the government would like, but it might be pushing it. Presumably, the government wouldn't try and withdraw the whip from the rebels in this situation, despite the blatant hypocrisy?
If Labour abstain, that takes the winning post down to 226, and the government can afford 138 rebels. Not quite enough for Boris to lose a party vote of no confidence, but the realpolitik would be that he wouldn't be getting married as Prime Minister.
So, it's hard to see how Labour's numbers are relevant here. The key limiting step is what's going on in the PM's head; can he bring himself to sell the incoming deal to Parliament and the public?
And since he, more than anyone else, brought the UK to this point, including the idea that the UK could get a "cake and eat it" deal, it serves him right that he has to stand up and admit that it's not as simple as that.
Boris will compromise on state aid, Macron will compromise on fishing and a deal will be done within a week or two.
34 Tory rebels voted against May's deal at its final vote, I expect about the same will vote against Boris' deal, plus IDS, however given Boris has a majority of 80 and May had no majority at all Boris will still get it through.
I can see the rebel count being a bit higher than that- maybe into the 50s. After all, the Conservative class of 2019 are less... pragmatic on Brexit than their predecessors. But nowhere near enough for the deal to be voted down.
So there are two immediate questions:
1 Will this batch of Brexit rebels be de-whipped? (Logically, they probably should, but I can't imagine for a second that they will.)
2 (The crucial one.) Will Boris be able to sign up to the incoming compromise? (I don't know what's going on in his head. His complete lack of shame is probably an asset in this situation.)
3. Even if he does sign up for it, will he be able to get it to a vote before losing the confidence of his own MPs?
Since the (apparent) discrepancy in efficacy between 'half + 1' and '1+1' is so large, is there any scientific reason to explain why the protocol of an initial half dose could in fact produce better results overall, or should we regard the discrepancy as a statistical fluke and just take the 70% weighted average of the samples as what you'd expect to end up with using either protocol?
Help me, science types!
It was discussed earlier (perhaps on the ast thread). One poss is that the inactivated virus carrying the actual intended antio-covid bit (so to speak) is itself attracting all the attention of the immune system if you put too much in to begin with - it drowns out the actual vaccine. So a smaller dose doesn't drown out the anti-covid bit, preparing the way for a stronger and more permanent response to the latter when the second dose is implemented.
It says that the Oxford vaccine is '70% effective at preventing Covid symptoms'. NO!!!
It's just so infuriating. We have a potentially incredible vaccine designed and manufactured in the UK and the BBC are completely fucking it up.
I'm really looking forwards to seeing the final data readouts from it and if that 90% figure holds up and what proportion of those who recorded infections were asymptomatic.
Since the (apparent) discrepancy in efficacy between 'half + 1' and '1+1' is so large, is there any scientific reason to explain why the protocol of an initial half dose could in fact produce better results overall, or should we regard the discrepancy as a statistical fluke and just take the 70% weighted average of the samples as what you'd expect to end up with using either protocol?
Help me, science types!
From another site: one explanation might be so-called "high dose tolerance" in which too high a vaccine dose initially prompts the immune system to react very quickly which paradoxically can suppress immune response when compared to a small initial dose of the vaccine. I think this is why the Oxford team had a low dose and a high dose test group.
Well Mr Ed and contrarian are here to flood the zone with shit again, so I imagine the actually interesting discussion of vaccine efficacy will end for now. Enjoy refuting bonkers right-wing conspiracies for the rest of the day.
When someone tries to draw equivalence between a QAnon-supporting nut job of a lawyer and a former Director of the FBI, you realise that the thread is lost to rational debate, and time is better spent elsewhere.
Sorry @Wulfrun_Phil you have lost me. I said she was nuts.
PS same question to you as I put to @Anabobazina - do you condemn the celebs in 2016 who openly called for Republican EC voters to ignore their states' votes and not vote for Trump as per @williamglenn's posting of the video?
Oxford just held a press briefing where Prof Pollard said he’s happy that the 90% sub sample is large and robust enough to take to the regulators. That’s good news and allays some of the confusion earlier about hints of this and that.
Sub samples, on PB??
*Statistically significant* sub samples.
It's not just a subsample though, but a cherry-picked subsample. Hopefully they are adjusting the significance thresholds accordingly.
I don't understand why you say it's "cherry picked".
They used two different regimens, and have reported separate results for each. What would have been the point of using two different regimens, if they weren't planning to analyse them separately? If it had been an _unplanned_ analysis, you could obviously describe it as "cherry picked". But if they weren't planning to analyse the results of this regimen, why would they have used it?
It's cherry-picked because we're picking the 90% subsample over the 62% one, without knowing why they should be different. The statistical analysis has to account for the possibility that the 90% subsample is only better by luck. (No I don't know how to do it.)
As an analogy, let's say you do a hundred coin tosses, 50 before sunset and 50 after. Before sunset you happen to get 30 heads and 20 tails, and the other way round after, so 50/50 overall. You might conclude that you can increase your chances to get heads to 60% by tossing your coin before sunset, but that's obviously nonsense.
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.
But to be fair to the BBC, this is what Astrazeneca's own press release says, so it's not unreasonable to cite the average efficacy. It's not 'fake news' as you previously said.
One dosing regimen (n=2,741) showed vaccine efficacy of 90% when AZD1222 was given as a half dose, followed by a full dose at least one month apart, and another dosing regimen (n=8,895) showed 62% efficacy when given as two full doses at least one month apart. The combined analysis from both dosing regimens (n=11,636) resulted in an average efficacy of 70%.
It's fake news because we're not going to have the full/full dose available. The half/full dose method will be used and it's 90% effective. AZ are registering full trial results scientifically, that's what they have to do. It's up to the media to provide proper context and the Guardian, Sky, the Mail and others all got it right this morning with the numbers and yet the BBC used hugely irresponsible wording in their headline.
This vaccine prevents 90% of symptomatic and asymptomatic COVID, the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines prevent 95% of symptomatic COVID. Those are the facts.
I think you do need to give a confidence interval rather than just the observed efficacy. The confidence interval is a lot wider for the 90% group than for Pfizer or Moderna.
But it's wider still for the 62% group, because the observed efficacy was so much lower, despite the larger number of participants.
It would be interesting to see what the CI is for each of those dosages trialled, but yes I agree. We don't have the full data to calculate them yet and I'm very interested to see what they are.
I am only a mathematician, not a statistician, so don't take this as gospel, but the figures I get (assuming the splits were 3-30 and 27-71) are: Half-full: expected efficacy: 87%, confidence interval (95%): 69-97% Full-full: expected efficacy: 61%, confidence interval (95%): 41-76%
On those figures the choice of regimen looks like a "no-brainer".
It says that the Oxford vaccine is '70% effective at preventing Covid symptoms'. NO!!!
It's just so infuriating. We have a potentially incredible vaccine designed and manufactured in the UK and the BBC are completely fucking it up.
I'm really looking forwards to seeing the final data readouts from it and if that 90% figure holds up and what proportion of those who recorded infections were asymptomatic.
Now about that public service remit to educate the public with the facts....that thing is supposedly so valuable we have a telly tax for. Too busy tying themselves in knots over which songs to censor or not, which words are banned on MOTD and what events employees are banned from attending in their own time.
Oxford just held a press briefing where Prof Pollard said he’s happy that the 90% sub sample is large and robust enough to take to the regulators. That’s good news and allays some of the confusion earlier about hints of this and that.
Sub samples, on PB??
*Statistically significant* sub samples.
It's not just a subsample though, but a cherry-picked subsample. Hopefully they are adjusting the significance thresholds accordingly.
It's not cherry-picked, as it was predefined at the outset of the trial.
Well Mr Ed and contrarian are here to flood the zone with shit again, so I imagine the actually interesting discussion of vaccine efficacy will end for now. Enjoy refuting bonkers right-wing conspiracies for the rest of the day.
I haven;t posted on here for days.
I make a few posts and you sh8t your nappies.
And then these posters were the ones who were loudest about decrying "shy Trump" voters and acting shocked when most of the polls weren't right.
It says that the Oxford vaccine is '70% effective at preventing Covid symptoms'. NO!!!
It's just so infuriating. We have a potentially incredible vaccine designed and manufactured in the UK and the BBC are completely fucking it up.
I'm really looking forwards to seeing the final data readouts from it and if that 90% figure holds up and what proportion of those who recorded infections were asymptomatic.
The only surprising thing, is not being surprised that the BBC mess it up.
Well Mr Ed and contrarian are here to flood the zone with shit again, so I imagine the actually interesting discussion of vaccine efficacy will end for now. Enjoy refuting bonkers right-wing conspiracies for the rest of the day.
When someone tries to draw equivalence between a QAnon-supporting nut job of a lawyer and a former Director of the FBI, you realise that the thread is lost to rational debate, and time is better spent elsewhere.
Didn;t J Edgar Hoover run the FBI..?? Fine upstanding fellow that he was.
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.
GOP lawyers attempting to 'prosecute' Biden should be a good laugh if the quality of their current shenanigans is anything to go by.
If they take control of the House in 2022 and keep the Senate, expect payback for the impeachment hearings.
Do you think Putin's Russia interferes with foreign elections or not? I think they do, and even if they didn't that Trump winning in 2016 was an optimum result for them. I believe Trump winning again would have been optimum for them, the current imbroglio is second best and a Biden landslide would definitely not have turned Vlad's frown upside down. Whether they expended any resources on making stuff happen is a separate issue.
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.
But to be fair to the BBC, this is what Astrazeneca's own press release says, so it's not unreasonable to cite the average efficacy. It's not 'fake news' as you previously said.
One dosing regimen (n=2,741) showed vaccine efficacy of 90% when AZD1222 was given as a half dose, followed by a full dose at least one month apart, and another dosing regimen (n=8,895) showed 62% efficacy when given as two full doses at least one month apart. The combined analysis from both dosing regimens (n=11,636) resulted in an average efficacy of 70%.
It's fake news because we're not going to have the full/full dose available. The half/full dose method will be used and it's 90% effective. AZ are registering full trial results scientifically, that's what they have to do. It's up to the media to provide proper context and the Guardian, Sky, the Mail and others all got it right this morning with the numbers and yet the BBC used hugely irresponsible wording in their headline.
This vaccine prevents 90% of symptomatic and asymptomatic COVID, the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines prevent 95% of symptomatic COVID. Those are the facts.
I think you do need to give a confidence interval rather than just the observed efficacy. The confidence interval is a lot wider for the 90% group than for Pfizer or Moderna.
But it's wider still for the 62% group, because the observed efficacy was so much lower, despite the larger number of participants.
It would be interesting to see what the CI is for each of those dosages trialled, but yes I agree. We don't have the full data to calculate them yet and I'm very interested to see what they are.
I am only a mathematician, not a statistician, so don't take this as gospel, but the figures I get (assuming the splits were 3-30 and 27-71) are: Half-full: expected efficacy: 87%, confidence interval (95%): 69-97% Full-full: expected efficacy: 61%, confidence interval (95%): 41-76%
On those figures the choice of regimen looks like a "no-brainer".
Have the splits been revealed or are they reverse engineered from the known data?
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.
There are, however, a number of other studies that have traced asymptomatic transmission in multiple cases, so it's not really clear-cut.
The best indications would be that asymptomatic people are less infectious but not non-infectious.
There are also a number of studies which indicate that some asymptomatic (not pre-sysmptomatic) individuals can have similar viral loads as symptomatic individuals.
All those in the Chinese paper appeared to have quite low levels of virus, I think ? Ct > 34
Well Mr Ed and contrarian are here to flood the zone with shit again, so I imagine the actually interesting discussion of vaccine efficacy will end for now. Enjoy refuting bonkers right-wing conspiracies for the rest of the day.
I haven;t posted on here for days.
I make a few posts and you sh8t your nappies.
And then these posters were the ones who were loudest about decrying "shy Trump" voters and acting shocked when most of the polls weren't right.
Or ''Team Quinnipiac'' as they are otherwise known...
Oxford just held a press briefing where Prof Pollard said he’s happy that the 90% sub sample is large and robust enough to take to the regulators. That’s good news and allays some of the confusion earlier about hints of this and that.
Sub samples, on PB??
*Statistically significant* sub samples.
It's not just a subsample though, but a cherry-picked subsample. Hopefully they are adjusting the significance thresholds accordingly.
I don't understand why you say it's "cherry picked".
They used two different regimens, and have reported separate results for each. What would have been the point of using two different regimens, if they weren't planning to analyse them separately? If it had been an _unplanned_ analysis, you could obviously describe it as "cherry picked". But if they weren't planning to analyse the results of this regimen, why would they have used it?
It's cherry-picked because we're picking the 90% subsample over the 62% one, without knowing why they should be different. The statistical analysis has to account for the possibility that the 90% subsample is only better by luck. (No I don't know how to do it.)
As an analogy, let's say you do a hundred coin tosses, 50 before sunset and 50 after. Before sunset you happen to get 30 heads and 20 tails, and the other way round after, so 50/50 overall. You might conclude that you can increase your chances to get heads to 60% by tossing your coin before sunset, but that's obviously nonsense.
I'm afraid that still makes no sense to me. There are two regimens, and results have been given for both of them. It's possible the difference is owing to chance, but it doesn't look very likely to me, because there's a relatively small overlap between the confidence intervals.
Certainly you can't say "the vaccine has 90%" efficacy, any more than you can say it has 62% efficacy. But you can say that about the two regimens separately - though as I already said, they should give confidence intervals to reflect the statistical uncertainty.
I wonder if we will see Witty and Valance back at the press conferences? They have gone missing since the dodgy slides, but they will be in a difficult spot to have to defend government Christmas policy.
Oxford just held a press briefing where Prof Pollard said he’s happy that the 90% sub sample is large and robust enough to take to the regulators. That’s good news and allays some of the confusion earlier about hints of this and that.
Sub samples, on PB??
*Statistically significant* sub samples.
It's not just a subsample though, but a cherry-picked subsample. Hopefully they are adjusting the significance thresholds accordingly.
I don't understand why you say it's "cherry picked".
They used two different regimens, and have reported separate results for each. What would have been the point of using two different regimens, if they weren't planning to analyse them separately? If it had been an _unplanned_ analysis, you could obviously describe it as "cherry picked". But if they weren't planning to analyse the results of this regimen, why would they have used it?
It's cherry-picked because we're picking the 90% subsample over the 62% one, without knowing why they should be different. The statistical analysis has to account for the possibility that the 90% subsample is only better by luck. (No I don't know how to do it.)
As an analogy, let's say you do a hundred coin tosses, 50 before sunset and 50 after. Before sunset you happen to get 30 heads and 20 tails, and the other way round after, so 50/50 overall. You might conclude that you can increase your chances to get heads to 60% by tossing your coin before sunset, but that's obviously nonsense.
Actually we do have an idea why they would be different and this isn't tossing coins, they were different regimens. The 90% is statistically significant and using a different regimen to the other one.
If you tosses two different coins and one coin gave heads 62% of the time and a different coin gave heads 90% of the time then I'd certainly consider that the second coin might be weighted different to the first!
Russian authorities have said they will not impose a nationwide lockdown as they did in the earlier stages of the pandemic, as the country reported a daily record of 25,173 new confirmed Covid-19 cases.
Obviously not rolling out their 90%, I mean 95%, I mean 99% effective vaccine out fast enough.
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?
Boris tries to railroad through a deal, Starmer's Labour abstains, Brexit becomes a blue on blue fight. Boris goes from hero to absolute zero. Nobody happy with him. Can't have a "let's send a message to Brussels" election in the middle of Covid, so that route is closed off. Muddle, chaos, confusion most likely.
We go into 2021 with our relationship with the EU still as much of a minefield as it has been for decades.
Starmer has gone on and on about getting a deal - will it be feasible for him to abstain if one if reached to avoid no deal?
Of course not. If no deal is set to be a disaster, Labour will want to say that "we tried to stop it".
There are 364 Conservative MPs. So if there are fewer than about 40 headbangers, BoJo can get the deal through purely on Conservative votes. That's what the government would like, but it might be pushing it. Presumably, the government wouldn't try and withdraw the whip from the rebels in this situation, despite the blatant hypocrisy?
If Labour abstain, that takes the winning post down to 226, and the government can afford 138 rebels. Not quite enough for Boris to lose a party vote of no confidence, but the realpolitik would be that he wouldn't be getting married as Prime Minister.
So, it's hard to see how Labour's numbers are relevant here. The key limiting step is what's going on in the PM's head; can he bring himself to sell the incoming deal to Parliament and the public?
And since he, more than anyone else, brought the UK to this point, including the idea that the UK could get a "cake and eat it" deal, it serves him right that he has to stand up and admit that it's not as simple as that.
Boris will compromise on state aid, Macron will compromise on fishing and a deal will be done within a week or two.
34 Tory rebels voted against May's deal at its final vote, I expect about the same will vote against Boris' deal, plus IDS, however given Boris has a majority of 80 and May had no majority at all Boris will still get it through.
And then if there are any negative consequences as a result of Brexit, the right will fight amongst themselves, blaming the lack of a "true Brexit". Perfect.
Fine, far better to get a Deal and see a few hardliners go back to Farage than not get a Deal and see lots more Tory voters and almost all remaining Tory Remainers go to Labour and the LDs
It says that the Oxford vaccine is '70% effective at preventing Covid symptoms'. NO!!!
It's just so infuriating. We have a potentially incredible vaccine designed and manufactured in the UK and the BBC are completely fucking it up.
I'm really looking forwards to seeing the final data readouts from it and if that 90% figure holds up and what proportion of those who recorded infections were asymptomatic.
It really is, especially the way it seems to suggest the 90% figure is at best a guess of what would happen with a different dose... "could increase protection to 90%" rather than "does increase protection to 90%".
Oh for goodness sake the BBC are saying just about every 5 seconds now and with a banner on the screen that the vaccine is 70 to 90 effective and even saying it is 70% effective but with the 0.5 and 1 dose is 90% effective.
No it is 62 to 90% effective or rises from 62% to 90% with the 0.5/1 dose.
How can they be so useless and cause so much confusion.
It says that the Oxford vaccine is '70% effective at preventing Covid symptoms'. NO!!!
It's just so infuriating. We have a potentially incredible vaccine designed and manufactured in the UK and the BBC are completely fucking it up.
I'm really looking forwards to seeing the final data readouts from it and if that 90% figure holds up and what proportion of those who recorded infections were asymptomatic.
Yes, they must have this data. If 50% were asymptomatic then I would imagine that their 90% regime would be equivalent to Pfizer, although there's quite a wide range of uncertainty in both figures so focusing on the exact number is pointless anyway.
It works well enough to end this pandemic, and we've got lots of it. That's all we really need to know.
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?
Boris tries to railroad through a deal, Starmer's Labour abstains, Brexit becomes a blue on blue fight. Boris goes from hero to absolute zero. Nobody happy with him. Can't have a "let's send a message to Brussels" election in the middle of Covid, so that route is closed off. Muddle, chaos, confusion most likely.
We go into 2021 with our relationship with the EU still as much of a minefield as it has been for decades.
Starmer has gone on and on about getting a deal - will it be feasible for him to abstain if one if reached to avoid no deal?
Of course not. If no deal is set to be a disaster, Labour will want to say that "we tried to stop it".
There are 364 Conservative MPs. So if there are fewer than about 40 headbangers, BoJo can get the deal through purely on Conservative votes. That's what the government would like, but it might be pushing it. Presumably, the government wouldn't try and withdraw the whip from the rebels in this situation, despite the blatant hypocrisy?
If Labour abstain, that takes the winning post down to 226, and the government can afford 138 rebels. Not quite enough for Boris to lose a party vote of no confidence, but the realpolitik would be that he wouldn't be getting married as Prime Minister.
So, it's hard to see how Labour's numbers are relevant here. The key limiting step is what's going on in the PM's head; can he bring himself to sell the incoming deal to Parliament and the public?
And since he, more than anyone else, brought the UK to this point, including the idea that the UK could get a "cake and eat it" deal, it serves him right that he has to stand up and admit that it's not as simple as that.
It’s a big call for the Opposition parties. It the vote goes down then it *will* be no-deal, and the more opposition MPs plan to vote against, the larger will be the Tory rebel faction of no-deal advocates.
But would Labour really abstain on the most significant vote in the whole Parliament?
The vote will not go down, it would need at least 45 Tory rebels plus every single opposition MP to vote against the Deal for it to be defeated, even on May's final Deal only 34 Tory rebels voted against and Boris' Deal will be better for Brexiteers than that
Oh for goodness sake the BBC are saying just about every 5 seconds now and with a banner on the screen that the vaccine is 70 to 90 effective and even saying it is 70% effective but with the 0.5 and 1 dose is 90% effective.
No it is 62 to 90% effective or rises from 62% to 90% with the 0.5/1 dose.
How can they be so useless and cause so much confusion.
Its just all too confusing these numbers things....A £5bn a year operation, its all just too complex, too difficult, too confusing, to have at least a handful of people who can read a scientific paper. I blame government cuts.
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.
But to be fair to the BBC, this is what Astrazeneca's own press release says, so it's not unreasonable to cite the average efficacy. It's not 'fake news' as you previously said.
One dosing regimen (n=2,741) showed vaccine efficacy of 90% when AZD1222 was given as a half dose, followed by a full dose at least one month apart, and another dosing regimen (n=8,895) showed 62% efficacy when given as two full doses at least one month apart. The combined analysis from both dosing regimens (n=11,636) resulted in an average efficacy of 70%.
It's fake news because we're not going to have the full/full dose available. The half/full dose method will be used and it's 90% effective. AZ are registering full trial results scientifically, that's what they have to do. It's up to the media to provide proper context and the Guardian, Sky, the Mail and others all got it right this morning with the numbers and yet the BBC used hugely irresponsible wording in their headline.
This vaccine prevents 90% of symptomatic and asymptomatic COVID, the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines prevent 95% of symptomatic COVID. Those are the facts.
I think you do need to give a confidence interval rather than just the observed efficacy. The confidence interval is a lot wider for the 90% group than for Pfizer or Moderna.
But it's wider still for the 62% group, because the observed efficacy was so much lower, despite the larger number of participants.
It would be interesting to see what the CI is for each of those dosages trialled, but yes I agree. We don't have the full data to calculate them yet and I'm very interested to see what they are.
I am only a mathematician, not a statistician, so don't take this as gospel, but the figures I get (assuming the splits were 3-30 and 27-71) are: Half-full: expected efficacy: 87%, confidence interval (95%): 69-97% Full-full: expected efficacy: 61%, confidence interval (95%): 41-76%
On those figures the choice of regimen looks like a "no-brainer".
Have the splits been revealed or are they reverse engineered from the known data?
Even then, yes, it does look like a no brainer.
The press release just contains the total number of cases, the two percentages and the numbers of participants for the two regimens. Some news outlets have also quoted an overall split between vaccine and placebo (30-101). Otherwise the splits are reverse-engineered. They may not be exact, but I think they have to be pretty close.
It seems to me that the press have had the temerity to accept what Oxford told them, and add the outrageous spin that 70 is not as big a number as 90. Primary end points are primary end points, guys, and you stick to protocols or what is the point of them. What has happened this morning is that the government has been on the scientists' case and told them to TONE DOWN the science and numeracy in favour of telling people what they want to hear. It is bizarre that this is being championed as a triumph of statistical literacy.
There's a distinction though, the trial was 70% effective across two modes. One had 62% efficacy and one had 90% efficacy. The vaccine that will come to market will be based on the 90% efficacy mode, therefore the vaccine has 90% efficacy. That's why the 90% figure is what should be shouted from the rooftops, more than happy for the 62% to be put out there as well, the 70% figure is actually a statistical phantom because there is no vaccine dosage that will give 70% efficacy.
You really expect British journalists to be able to understand something that nuanced?
It isn't just nuanced, it is plain wrong. Where is anyone getting "The vaccine that will come to market will be based on the 90% efficacy mode" from, when what Pollard said is
"Prof Andrew Pollard, the trial's lead investigator, said he was "really pleased" with the results as "it means we have a vaccine for the world".
However, protection was 90% in an analysis of around 3,000 people given a half-sized first dose and a full-sized second dose.
Prof Pollard said the finding was "intriguing" and would mean "we would have a lot more doses to distribute.""
"intriguing" means "requires further investigation" and "would" means conditionally on the results of investigation.
Wishful thinking is great, but this ooh I know more about science than professional science journalists stuff is less so.
What has actually happened is this: the 62% outcome is the only outcome Oxford can legitimately report *according to the rules of their own trial*. The 90% one is obviously better, but not reportable, but rather than pass over it altogether they tried to fudge it into the stats with the 70% average figure. That may be a nonsense figure, but if so why put it out there at all?
He’s probably using his phone at the other end of the table, having to set these things up himself due to being isolated.
(It still amazes me how rubbish people are at setting up video conference rooms, given how many times they have to use them at the moment. A decent webcam on a stand, and lapel mic that plugs into the computer can be had for less than £100. A ‘podcast studio’ setup with a pair of pro cameras, desktop mic and PC comes in at less than a couple of grand. Almost everyone forgets the lights).
It seems to me that the press have had the temerity to accept what Oxford told them, and add the outrageous spin that 70 is not as big a number as 90. Primary end points are primary end points, guys, and you stick to protocols or what is the point of them. What has happened this morning is that the government has been on the scientists' case and told them to TONE DOWN the science and numeracy in favour of telling people what they want to hear. It is bizarre that this is being championed as a triumph of statistical literacy.
There's a distinction though, the trial was 70% effective across two modes. One had 62% efficacy and one had 90% efficacy. The vaccine that will come to market will be based on the 90% efficacy mode, therefore the vaccine has 90% efficacy. That's why the 90% figure is what should be shouted from the rooftops, more than happy for the 62% to be put out there as well, the 70% figure is actually a statistical phantom because there is no vaccine dosage that will give 70% efficacy.
You really expect British journalists to be able to understand something that nuanced?
It isn't just nuanced, it is plain wrong. Where is anyone getting "The vaccine that will come to market will be based on the 90% efficacy mode" from, when what Pollard said is
"Prof Andrew Pollard, the trial's lead investigator, said he was "really pleased" with the results as "it means we have a vaccine for the world".
However, protection was 90% in an analysis of around 3,000 people given a half-sized first dose and a full-sized second dose.
Prof Pollard said the finding was "intriguing" and would mean "we would have a lot more doses to distribute.""
"intriguing" means "requires further investigation" and "would" means conditionally on the results of investigation.
Wishful thinking is great, but this ooh I know more about science than professional science journalists stuff is less so.
What has actually happened is this: the 62% outcome is the only outcome Oxford can legitimately report *according to the rules of their own trial*. The 90% one is obviously better, but not reportable, but rather than pass over it altogether they tried to fudge it into the stats with the 70% average figure. That may be a nonsense figure, but if so why put it out there at all?
Why do you think one regimen should be reported and not the other?
I do think someone from AZ needs to get on the phone with the DG and explain this to him in simple words even he can understand. Advertising the 70% number doesn't make sense in vaccine terms, only in trial terms and the trial itself doesn't have any real world bearing because of the dual mode dosages being tested. The BBC are, IMO, feeding anti-vaxxer types at the moment and undermining the confidence people should have in what is going to be a highly effective and easy to distribute vaccine.
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.
GOP lawyers attempting to 'prosecute' Biden should be a good laugh if the quality of their current shenanigans is anything to go by.
If they take control of the House in 2022 and keep the Senate, expect payback for the impeachment hearings.
Do you think Putin's Russia interferes with foreign elections or not? I think they do, and even if they didn't that Trump winning in 2016 was an optimum result for them. I believe Trump winning again would have been optimum for them, the current imbroglio is second best and a Biden landslide would definitely not have turned Vlad's frown upside down. Whether they expended any resources on making stuff happen is a separate issue.
No doubt he is no focussing his attention on the next Scottish Independence referendum. He just loves you Nats and your divisive agendas! How useful are you feeling?
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?
Boris tries to railroad through a deal, Starmer's Labour abstains, Brexit becomes a blue on blue fight. Boris goes from hero to absolute zero. Nobody happy with him. Can't have a "let's send a message to Brussels" election in the middle of Covid, so that route is closed off. Muddle, chaos, confusion most likely.
We go into 2021 with our relationship with the EU still as much of a minefield as it has been for decades.
Starmer has gone on and on about getting a deal - will it be feasible for him to abstain if one if reached to avoid no deal?
Of course not. If no deal is set to be a disaster, Labour will want to say that "we tried to stop it".
There are 364 Conservative MPs. So if there are fewer than about 40 headbangers, BoJo can get the deal through purely on Conservative votes. That's what the government would like, but it might be pushing it. Presumably, the government wouldn't try and withdraw the whip from the rebels in this situation, despite the blatant hypocrisy?
If Labour abstain, that takes the winning post down to 226, and the government can afford 138 rebels. Not quite enough for Boris to lose a party vote of no confidence, but the realpolitik would be that he wouldn't be getting married as Prime Minister.
So, it's hard to see how Labour's numbers are relevant here. The key limiting step is what's going on in the PM's head; can he bring himself to sell the incoming deal to Parliament and the public?
And since he, more than anyone else, brought the UK to this point, including the idea that the UK could get a "cake and eat it" deal, it serves him right that he has to stand up and admit that it's not as simple as that.
Boris will compromise on state aid, Macron will compromise on fishing and a deal will be done within a week or two.
34 Tory rebels voted against May's deal at its final vote, I expect about the same will vote against Boris' deal, plus IDS, however given Boris has a majority of 80 and May had no majority at all Boris will still get it through.
Be careful what you wish for. If they reach a late late show deal which involves us having to do customs checks on 1st January the triumph won't last very long. Sadly due to the shickkickers that you call a government not spending the money on a computer system or hiring customs agents or building customs posts any delay vs the status quo will very quickly collapse the whole system so that nothing moves.
And then lets look way off into the future when all of those grievous errors have been corrected. I still haven't heard a single argument from a loyalist Tory why trying up business in masses of red tape and huge costs is a Good Thing for a Tory government to be doing.
It seems to me that the press have had the temerity to accept what Oxford told them, and add the outrageous spin that 70 is not as big a number as 90. Primary end points are primary end points, guys, and you stick to protocols or what is the point of them. What has happened this morning is that the government has been on the scientists' case and told them to TONE DOWN the science and numeracy in favour of telling people what they want to hear. It is bizarre that this is being championed as a triumph of statistical literacy.
There's a distinction though, the trial was 70% effective across two modes. One had 62% efficacy and one had 90% efficacy. The vaccine that will come to market will be based on the 90% efficacy mode, therefore the vaccine has 90% efficacy. That's why the 90% figure is what should be shouted from the rooftops, more than happy for the 62% to be put out there as well, the 70% figure is actually a statistical phantom because there is no vaccine dosage that will give 70% efficacy.
You really expect British journalists to be able to understand something that nuanced?
It isn't just nuanced, it is plain wrong. Where is anyone getting "The vaccine that will come to market will be based on the 90% efficacy mode" from, when what Pollard said is
"Prof Andrew Pollard, the trial's lead investigator, said he was "really pleased" with the results as "it means we have a vaccine for the world".
However, protection was 90% in an analysis of around 3,000 people given a half-sized first dose and a full-sized second dose.
Prof Pollard said the finding was "intriguing" and would mean "we would have a lot more doses to distribute.""
"intriguing" means "requires further investigation" and "would" means conditionally on the results of investigation.
Wishful thinking is great, but this ooh I know more about science than professional science journalists stuff is less so.
What has actually happened is this: the 62% outcome is the only outcome Oxford can legitimately report *according to the rules of their own trial*. The 90% one is obviously better, but not reportable, but rather than pass over it altogether they tried to fudge it into the stats with the 70% average figure. That may be a nonsense figure, but if so why put it out there at all?
Actually the Prof said they will be submitting the 90% mode to the MHRA. The 90% mode is what the vaccine will be.
"Labour has lost members at a rate of nearly 250 a day since Sir Keir Starmer was elected last spring, with supporters of Jeremy Corbyn leading an exodus from the party.
Membership fell by just under 57,000 people, or 10 per cent, between April and November, according to official figures from its internal elections.
It is the first time that party figures have shown Labour’s membership falling below half a million since 2016, when Mr Corbyn’s leadership prompted a surge of new members."
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.
GOP lawyers attempting to 'prosecute' Biden should be a good laugh if the quality of their current shenanigans is anything to go by.
If they take control of the House in 2022 and keep the Senate, expect payback for the impeachment hearings.
Do you think Putin's Russia interferes with foreign elections or not? I think they do, and even if they didn't that Trump winning in 2016 was an optimum result for them. I believe Trump winning again would have been optimum for them, the current imbroglio is second best and a Biden landslide would definitely not have turned Vlad's frown upside down. Whether they expended any resources on making stuff happen is a separate issue.
You find it difficult to believe Russia doesn;t interfere with foreign elections, even though there isn;t much evidence.
I find it difficult to believe a total no-mark candidate got ten million more votes than the brilliant and charismatic first black president of America, even though right now there isn;t much evidence.
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.
Yes he will be seen to be a martyr - so what?
I don't believe it will result in future presidents being vindictively prosecuted for various reasons:
a) Politicians don't prosecute, the state and federal prosecutors do and politicians should keep out of it. They have to appear to have committed a crime to get prosecuted and it has to be proved to get convicted.
b) Previous presidents have not been prosecuted because no matter how much you dislike them they generally did not break the laws. That will continue.
c) What Trump has been up to is so different to what any previous president has attempted. I mean Nixon is not in the same league and even if he does become a martyr future prospective tyrants have to be deterred. if he gets away with it they won't be.
"Labour has lost members at a rate of nearly 250 a day since Sir Keir Starmer was elected last spring, with supporters of Jeremy Corbyn leading an exodus from the party.
Membership fell by just under 57,000 people, or 10 per cent, between April and November, according to official figures from its internal elections.
It is the first time that party figures have shown Labour’s membership falling below half a million since 2016, when Mr Corbyn’s leadership prompted a surge of new members."
It seems to me that the press have had the temerity to accept what Oxford told them, and add the outrageous spin that 70 is not as big a number as 90. Primary end points are primary end points, guys, and you stick to protocols or what is the point of them. What has happened this morning is that the government has been on the scientists' case and told them to TONE DOWN the science and numeracy in favour of telling people what they want to hear. It is bizarre that this is being championed as a triumph of statistical literacy.
There's a distinction though, the trial was 70% effective across two modes. One had 62% efficacy and one had 90% efficacy. The vaccine that will come to market will be based on the 90% efficacy mode, therefore the vaccine has 90% efficacy. That's why the 90% figure is what should be shouted from the rooftops, more than happy for the 62% to be put out there as well, the 70% figure is actually a statistical phantom because there is no vaccine dosage that will give 70% efficacy.
You really expect British journalists to be able to understand something that nuanced?
It isn't just nuanced, it is plain wrong. Where is anyone getting "The vaccine that will come to market will be based on the 90% efficacy mode" from, when what Pollard said is
"Prof Andrew Pollard, the trial's lead investigator, said he was "really pleased" with the results as "it means we have a vaccine for the world".
However, protection was 90% in an analysis of around 3,000 people given a half-sized first dose and a full-sized second dose.
Prof Pollard said the finding was "intriguing" and would mean "we would have a lot more doses to distribute.""
"intriguing" means "requires further investigation" and "would" means conditionally on the results of investigation.
Wishful thinking is great, but this ooh I know more about science than professional science journalists stuff is less so.
What has actually happened is this: the 62% outcome is the only outcome Oxford can legitimately report *according to the rules of their own trial*. The 90% one is obviously better, but not reportable, but rather than pass over it altogether they tried to fudge it into the stats with the 70% average figure. That may be a nonsense figure, but if so why put it out there at all?
Actually the Prof said they will be submitting the 90% mode to the MHRA. The 90% mode is what the vaccine will be.
Yeah, it wouldn't be going to the MHRA if it requires further investigation.
Oh for goodness sake the BBC are saying just about every 5 seconds now and with a banner on the screen that the vaccine is 70 to 90 effective and even saying it is 70% effective but with the 0.5 and 1 dose is 90% effective.
No it is 62 to 90% effective or rises from 62% to 90% with the 0.5/1 dose.
How can they be so useless and cause so much confusion.
Certainly been a bit of a PR disaster for AZ and Oxford. You cannot blame the BBC for reporting the line they have been given by AZ or Oxford (most likely the latter).
So here is the reality, the AZ/Oxford news is REALLY good news. Even if it is 70% efficacious that is still very good, and we should not have issues with supply. If we can vaccinate most of the population with a 70% effective vaccine it is game over for Mr. Covid. As the great woman once said "Just rejoice at that news"!
It seems to me that the press have had the temerity to accept what Oxford told them, and add the outrageous spin that 70 is not as big a number as 90. Primary end points are primary end points, guys, and you stick to protocols or what is the point of them. What has happened this morning is that the government has been on the scientists' case and told them to TONE DOWN the science and numeracy in favour of telling people what they want to hear. It is bizarre that this is being championed as a triumph of statistical literacy.
There's a distinction though, the trial was 70% effective across two modes. One had 62% efficacy and one had 90% efficacy. The vaccine that will come to market will be based on the 90% efficacy mode, therefore the vaccine has 90% efficacy. That's why the 90% figure is what should be shouted from the rooftops, more than happy for the 62% to be put out there as well, the 70% figure is actually a statistical phantom because there is no vaccine dosage that will give 70% efficacy.
You really expect British journalists to be able to understand something that nuanced?
It isn't just nuanced, it is plain wrong. Where is anyone getting "The vaccine that will come to market will be based on the 90% efficacy mode" from, when what Pollard said is
"Prof Andrew Pollard, the trial's lead investigator, said he was "really pleased" with the results as "it means we have a vaccine for the world".
However, protection was 90% in an analysis of around 3,000 people given a half-sized first dose and a full-sized second dose.
Prof Pollard said the finding was "intriguing" and would mean "we would have a lot more doses to distribute.""
"intriguing" means "requires further investigation" and "would" means conditionally on the results of investigation.
Wishful thinking is great, but this ooh I know more about science than professional science journalists stuff is less so.
What has actually happened is this: the 62% outcome is the only outcome Oxford can legitimately report *according to the rules of their own trial*. The 90% one is obviously better, but not reportable, but rather than pass over it altogether they tried to fudge it into the stats with the 70% average figure. That may be a nonsense figure, but if so why put it out there at all?
Why do you think one regimen should be reported and not the other?
Because Pollard thinks so. Saying the 90% result is "intriguing" is tantamount to saying it is not a definitive outcome. I imagine the sample size is relevant.
"Labour has lost members at a rate of nearly 250 a day since Sir Keir Starmer was elected last spring, with supporters of Jeremy Corbyn leading an exodus from the party.
Membership fell by just under 57,000 people, or 10 per cent, between April and November, according to official figures from its internal elections.
It is the first time that party figures have shown Labour’s membership falling below half a million since 2016, when Mr Corbyn’s leadership prompted a surge of new members."
Given Corbyn led Labour to its worst defeat since 1935 last year we can probably safely say that an increase in Labour membership is inversely correlated to its appeal to swing voters, so that might actually be good news for Starmer
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.
GOP lawyers attempting to 'prosecute' Biden should be a good laugh if the quality of their current shenanigans is anything to go by.
If they take control of the House in 2022 and keep the Senate, expect payback for the impeachment hearings.
Do you think Putin's Russia interferes with foreign elections or not? I think they do, and even if they didn't that Trump winning in 2016 was an optimum result for them. I believe Trump winning again would have been optimum for them, the current imbroglio is second best and a Biden landslide would definitely not have turned Vlad's frown upside down. Whether they expended any resources on making stuff happen is a separate issue.
You find it difficult to believe Russia doesn;t interfere with foreign elections, even though there isn;t much evidence.
I find it difficult to believe a total no-mark candidate got ten million more votes than the brilliant and charismatic first black president of America, even though right now there isn;t much evidence.
There is evidence. The evidence is the turnout. The evidence is the votes that have happened. The evidence is the people who voted.
As for why Biden got more the answer is clear, he was running against incumbent Trump - which Obama never did. Had Obama ran against incumbent Trump then he'd have got more votes too.
Oh for goodness sake the BBC are saying just about every 5 seconds now and with a banner on the screen that the vaccine is 70 to 90 effective and even saying it is 70% effective but with the 0.5 and 1 dose is 90% effective.
No it is 62 to 90% effective or rises from 62% to 90% with the 0.5/1 dose.
How can they be so useless and cause so much confusion.
Certainly been a bit of a PR disaster for AZ and Oxford. You cannot blame the BBC for reporting the line they have been given by AZ or Oxford (most likely the latter).
So here is the reality, the AZ/Oxford news is REALLY good news. Even if it is 70% efficacious that is still very good, and we should not have issues with supply. If we can vaccinate most of the population with a 70% effective vaccine it is game over for Mr. Covid. As the great woman once said "Just rejoice at that news"!
It seems to me that the press have had the temerity to accept what Oxford told them, and add the outrageous spin that 70 is not as big a number as 90. Primary end points are primary end points, guys, and you stick to protocols or what is the point of them. What has happened this morning is that the government has been on the scientists' case and told them to TONE DOWN the science and numeracy in favour of telling people what they want to hear. It is bizarre that this is being championed as a triumph of statistical literacy.
There's a distinction though, the trial was 70% effective across two modes. One had 62% efficacy and one had 90% efficacy. The vaccine that will come to market will be based on the 90% efficacy mode, therefore the vaccine has 90% efficacy. That's why the 90% figure is what should be shouted from the rooftops, more than happy for the 62% to be put out there as well, the 70% figure is actually a statistical phantom because there is no vaccine dosage that will give 70% efficacy.
You really expect British journalists to be able to understand something that nuanced?
It isn't just nuanced, it is plain wrong. Where is anyone getting "The vaccine that will come to market will be based on the 90% efficacy mode" from, when what Pollard said is
"Prof Andrew Pollard, the trial's lead investigator, said he was "really pleased" with the results as "it means we have a vaccine for the world".
However, protection was 90% in an analysis of around 3,000 people given a half-sized first dose and a full-sized second dose.
Prof Pollard said the finding was "intriguing" and would mean "we would have a lot more doses to distribute.""
"intriguing" means "requires further investigation" and "would" means conditionally on the results of investigation.
Wishful thinking is great, but this ooh I know more about science than professional science journalists stuff is less so.
What has actually happened is this: the 62% outcome is the only outcome Oxford can legitimately report *according to the rules of their own trial*. The 90% one is obviously better, but not reportable, but rather than pass over it altogether they tried to fudge it into the stats with the 70% average figure. That may be a nonsense figure, but if so why put it out there at all?
Why do you think one regimen should be reported and not the other?
Because Pollard thinks so. Saying the 90% result is "intriguing" is tantamount to saying it is not a definitive outcome. I imagine the sample size is relevant.
Pollard doesn't say so.
Pollard explicitly said the 90% is significant and will be submitting that to the MHRA.
"Labour has lost members at a rate of nearly 250 a day since Sir Keir Starmer was elected last spring, with supporters of Jeremy Corbyn leading an exodus from the party.
Membership fell by just under 57,000 people, or 10 per cent, between April and November, according to official figures from its internal elections.
It is the first time that party figures have shown Labour’s membership falling below half a million since 2016, when Mr Corbyn’s leadership prompted a surge of new members."
Great idea, with the bonus that the injecting nurse's spiel would be identical to one of his classic chat-up lines: 'Now you may feel a little prick...'
You know I'm happy if I'm taking the piss out of Boris
It seems to me that the press have had the temerity to accept what Oxford told them, and add the outrageous spin that 70 is not as big a number as 90. Primary end points are primary end points, guys, and you stick to protocols or what is the point of them. What has happened this morning is that the government has been on the scientists' case and told them to TONE DOWN the science and numeracy in favour of telling people what they want to hear. It is bizarre that this is being championed as a triumph of statistical literacy.
There's a distinction though, the trial was 70% effective across two modes. One had 62% efficacy and one had 90% efficacy. The vaccine that will come to market will be based on the 90% efficacy mode, therefore the vaccine has 90% efficacy. That's why the 90% figure is what should be shouted from the rooftops, more than happy for the 62% to be put out there as well, the 70% figure is actually a statistical phantom because there is no vaccine dosage that will give 70% efficacy.
You really expect British journalists to be able to understand something that nuanced?
It isn't just nuanced, it is plain wrong. Where is anyone getting "The vaccine that will come to market will be based on the 90% efficacy mode" from, when what Pollard said is
"Prof Andrew Pollard, the trial's lead investigator, said he was "really pleased" with the results as "it means we have a vaccine for the world".
However, protection was 90% in an analysis of around 3,000 people given a half-sized first dose and a full-sized second dose.
Prof Pollard said the finding was "intriguing" and would mean "we would have a lot more doses to distribute.""
"intriguing" means "requires further investigation" and "would" means conditionally on the results of investigation.
Wishful thinking is great, but this ooh I know more about science than professional science journalists stuff is less so.
What has actually happened is this: the 62% outcome is the only outcome Oxford can legitimately report *according to the rules of their own trial*. The 90% one is obviously better, but not reportable, but rather than pass over it altogether they tried to fudge it into the stats with the 70% average figure. That may be a nonsense figure, but if so why put it out there at all?
Actually the Prof said they will be submitting the 90% mode to the MHRA. The 90% mode is what the vaccine will be.
In which case he has changed his mind since this morning, which is what I was saying. "Would" means something different from "will."
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.
GOP lawyers attempting to 'prosecute' Biden should be a good laugh if the quality of their current shenanigans is anything to go by.
If they take control of the House in 2022 and keep the Senate, expect payback for the impeachment hearings.
Great idea, with the bonus that the injecting nurse's spiel would be identical to one of his classic chat-up lines: 'Now you may feel a little prick...'
You know I'm happy if I'm taking the piss out of Boris
Eco data shows we are heading for a double dip recession, brought on by the second lockdown
Oh for goodness sake the BBC are saying just about every 5 seconds now and with a banner on the screen that the vaccine is 70 to 90 effective and even saying it is 70% effective but with the 0.5 and 1 dose is 90% effective.
No it is 62 to 90% effective or rises from 62% to 90% with the 0.5/1 dose.
How can they be so useless and cause so much confusion.
Certainly been a bit of a PR disaster for AZ and Oxford. You cannot blame the BBC for reporting the line they have been given by AZ or Oxford (most likely the latter).
So here is the reality, the AZ/Oxford news is REALLY good news. Even if it is 70% efficacious that is still very good, and we should not have issues with supply. If we can vaccinate most of the population with a 70% effective vaccine it is game over for Mr. Covid. As the great woman once said "Just rejoice at that news"!
I agree it is excellent news indeed. It looks like it may well be 90% and there is lots of extra good news as well re the fact that it won't take as much vaccine so more to go around, those who get Covid anyway seem not to be too unwell, etc, etc.
All excellent.
Just F***ing BBC reporting every f***ng 5 seconds.
"Labour has lost members at a rate of nearly 250 a day since Sir Keir Starmer was elected last spring, with supporters of Jeremy Corbyn leading an exodus from the party.
Membership fell by just under 57,000 people, or 10 per cent, between April and November, according to official figures from its internal elections.
It is the first time that party figures have shown Labour’s membership falling below half a million since 2016, when Mr Corbyn’s leadership prompted a surge of new members."
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.
GOP lawyers attempting to 'prosecute' Biden should be a good laugh if the quality of their current shenanigans is anything to go by.
If they take control of the House in 2022 and keep the Senate, expect payback for the impeachment hearings.
It seems to me that the press have had the temerity to accept what Oxford told them, and add the outrageous spin that 70 is not as big a number as 90. Primary end points are primary end points, guys, and you stick to protocols or what is the point of them. What has happened this morning is that the government has been on the scientists' case and told them to TONE DOWN the science and numeracy in favour of telling people what they want to hear. It is bizarre that this is being championed as a triumph of statistical literacy.
There's a distinction though, the trial was 70% effective across two modes. One had 62% efficacy and one had 90% efficacy. The vaccine that will come to market will be based on the 90% efficacy mode, therefore the vaccine has 90% efficacy. That's why the 90% figure is what should be shouted from the rooftops, more than happy for the 62% to be put out there as well, the 70% figure is actually a statistical phantom because there is no vaccine dosage that will give 70% efficacy.
You really expect British journalists to be able to understand something that nuanced?
It isn't just nuanced, it is plain wrong. Where is anyone getting "The vaccine that will come to market will be based on the 90% efficacy mode" from, when what Pollard said is
"Prof Andrew Pollard, the trial's lead investigator, said he was "really pleased" with the results as "it means we have a vaccine for the world".
However, protection was 90% in an analysis of around 3,000 people given a half-sized first dose and a full-sized second dose.
Prof Pollard said the finding was "intriguing" and would mean "we would have a lot more doses to distribute.""
"intriguing" means "requires further investigation" and "would" means conditionally on the results of investigation.
Wishful thinking is great, but this ooh I know more about science than professional science journalists stuff is less so.
What has actually happened is this: the 62% outcome is the only outcome Oxford can legitimately report *according to the rules of their own trial*. The 90% one is obviously better, but not reportable, but rather than pass over it altogether they tried to fudge it into the stats with the 70% average figure. That may be a nonsense figure, but if so why put it out there at all?
Actually the Prof said they will be submitting the 90% mode to the MHRA. The 90% mode is what the vaccine will be.
In which case he has changed his mind since this morning, which is what I was saying. "Would" means something different from "will."
But the half/full mode is statistically significant and it will be submitted for regulatory approval. I don't understand what point you're trying to make here.
Comments
@williamglenn's video last night showed how various celebs openly called for Republican electors to ignore the 2016 result in their states and so ignore their electorates.
Didn't really see many of the usual suspects here condemning that.
But, that's fine, because it was for the "right" reason. And, as many on here still seem to believe, like Gallowgate, the laughable nonsense re Putin helping Trump in 2016. Any reason why Putin didn't help him then in 2020?
Help me, science types!
Which makes you exactly like Sidney Powell's acolytes.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-51665497
It says that the Oxford vaccine is '70% effective at preventing Covid symptoms'. NO!!!
Bit late of course for the likes of @FrancisUrquhart's folks as the damage has to be undone. MysticRose earlier on self-organised him/herself into the same category and has decided to go for the quality jab. Choice would be a fine thing.
So there are two immediate questions:
1 Will this batch of Brexit rebels be de-whipped? (Logically, they probably should, but I can't imagine for a second that they will.)
2 (The crucial one.) Will Boris be able to sign up to the incoming compromise? (I don't know what's going on in his head. His complete lack of shame is probably an asset in this situation.)
"I mean it is different, as Russia *did* interfere with the 2016 election. But don't let facts get in the way of a good narrative, as usual."
I make a few posts and you sh8t your nappies.
I'm really looking forwards to seeing the final data readouts from it and if that 90% figure holds up and what proportion of those who recorded infections were asymptomatic.
https://www.atsjournals.org/doi/full/10.1165/ajrcmb.24.5.f207
PS same question to you as I put to @Anabobazina - do you condemn the celebs in 2016 who openly called for Republican EC voters to ignore their states' votes and not vote for Trump as per @williamglenn's posting of the video?
As an analogy, let's say you do a hundred coin tosses, 50 before sunset and 50 after. Before sunset you happen to get 30 heads and 20 tails, and the other way round after, so 50/50 overall. You might conclude that you can increase your chances to get heads to 60% by tossing your coin before sunset, but that's obviously nonsense.
Half-full: expected efficacy: 87%, confidence interval (95%): 69-97%
Full-full: expected efficacy: 61%, confidence interval (95%): 41-76%
On those figures the choice of regimen looks like a "no-brainer".
https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1330848824743616512
Even then, yes, it does look like a no brainer.
All those in the Chinese paper appeared to have quite low levels of virus, I think ?
Ct > 34
Certainly you can't say "the vaccine has 90%" efficacy, any more than you can say it has 62% efficacy. But you can say that about the two regimens separately - though as I already said, they should give confidence intervals to reflect the statistical uncertainty.
If you tosses two different coins and one coin gave heads 62% of the time and a different coin gave heads 90% of the time then I'd certainly consider that the second coin might be weighted different to the first!
Obviously not rolling out their 90%, I mean 95%, I mean 99% effective vaccine out fast enough.
@Andy_Cooke
Wonderful - thanks for the explanation!
No it is 62 to 90% effective or rises from 62% to 90% with the 0.5/1 dose.
How can they be so useless and cause so much confusion.
It works well enough to end this pandemic, and we've got lots of it. That's all we really need to know.
"Prof Andrew Pollard, the trial's lead investigator, said he was "really pleased" with the results as "it means we have a vaccine for the world".
However, protection was 90% in an analysis of around 3,000 people given a half-sized first dose and a full-sized second dose.
Prof Pollard said the finding was "intriguing" and would mean "we would have a lot more doses to distribute.""
"intriguing" means "requires further investigation" and "would" means conditionally on the results of investigation.
Wishful thinking is great, but this ooh I know more about science than professional science journalists stuff is less so.
What has actually happened is this: the 62% outcome is the only outcome Oxford can legitimately report *according to the rules of their own trial*. The 90% one is obviously better, but not reportable, but rather than pass over it altogether they tried to fudge it into the stats with the 70% average figure. That may be a nonsense figure, but if so why put it out there at all?
(It still amazes me how rubbish people are at setting up video conference rooms, given how many times they have to use them at the moment. A decent webcam on a stand, and lapel mic that plugs into the computer can be had for less than £100. A ‘podcast studio’ setup with a pair of pro cameras, desktop mic and PC comes in at less than a couple of grand. Almost everyone forgets the lights).
And then lets look way off into the future when all of those grievous errors have been corrected. I still haven't heard a single argument from a loyalist Tory why trying up business in masses of red tape and huge costs is a Good Thing for a Tory government to be doing.
Membership fell by just under 57,000 people, or 10 per cent, between April and November, according to official figures from its internal elections.
It is the first time that party figures have shown Labour’s membership falling below half a million since 2016, when Mr Corbyn’s leadership prompted a surge of new members."
(£)
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/labour-exodus-in-protest-at-suspension-of-jeremy-corbyn-cnnkzqp97
I find it difficult to believe a total no-mark candidate got ten million more votes than the brilliant and charismatic first black president of America, even though right now there isn;t much evidence.
I don't believe it will result in future presidents being vindictively prosecuted for various reasons:
a) Politicians don't prosecute, the state and federal prosecutors do and politicians should keep out of it. They have to appear to have committed a crime to get prosecuted and it has to be proved to get convicted.
b) Previous presidents have not been prosecuted because no matter how much you dislike them they generally did not break the laws. That will continue.
c) What Trump has been up to is so different to what any previous president has attempted. I mean Nixon is not in the same league and even if he does become a martyr future prospective tyrants have to be deterred. if he gets away with it they won't be.
So here is the reality, the AZ/Oxford news is REALLY good news. Even if it is 70% efficacious that is still very good, and we should not have issues with supply. If we can vaccinate most of the population with a 70% effective vaccine it is game over for Mr. Covid. As the great woman once said "Just rejoice at that news"!
Hopefully he won't do this while been stood 5m away from his iPhone this time...
As for why Biden got more the answer is clear, he was running against incumbent Trump - which Obama never did. Had Obama ran against incumbent Trump then he'd have got more votes too.
62% or 90%
Pollard explicitly said the 90% is significant and will be submitting that to the MHRA.
You know I'm happy if I'm taking the piss out of Boris
Do you also think that the Dutch and UK governments who tipped off the US are also lying?
The 'Boris breakdown?'
All excellent.
Just F***ing BBC reporting every f***ng 5 seconds.