Turns out the BBC were right to report that the Oxford Vaccine was 70% effective.
GDBO, they've misled the country and the world, shame on them for raising the hopes of a nation.
No...it definitely can't be said its 70% and definitely not true it is x% prevents symptoms.
"You’ll see reports that the vaccine had 70 percent efficacy, on average; but that’s un-knowable, because we only have numbers on these two regimens, as opposed to everyone in the trials—and how they arrived at those percentages isn’t explained. As far as we know, some of this analysis could hinge on data from just a few sick people."
As explained they mashed together some trials to get the 70% number, but they also disappeared some trial data.
Completely missing the point, I know, but how come we had so many years of negative growth during the Industiral revolution?
33 years of negative growth in the period 1750 -1850 by my count. 44 during the 18th century.
Weird.
Before governments thought they could control the economy, growth was faster but more volatile. Bank owners - with very few exceptions - got regularly wiped out.
Very few?
Well, there's your family. And then a few others who sold out in the Twentieth Century.
Turns out the BBC were right to report that the Oxford Vaccine was 70% effective.
GDBO, they've misled the country and the world, shame on them for raising the hopes of a nation.
No...it definitely can't be said its 70% and definitely not true it is x% prevents symptoms.
"You’ll see reports that the vaccine had 70 percent efficacy, on average; but that’s un-knowable, because we only have numbers on these two regimens, as opposed to everyone in the trials—and how they arrived at those percentages isn’t explained. As far as we know, some of this analysis could hinge on data from just a few sick people."
That’s the Wired article again, which I think is on legal thin ice. Have Oxon responded to it?
1. Betfair may be in difficulties with punters who are currently placing losing bets on Trump in a contest the result of which is already known. When they do settle, they may well face demands for return of their stake money from such losing bets. The punters in question would appear to have a point.
2. Never mind the main market, what about the Vote Tally markets? It says in the rules: ' This market will be settled upon popular vote figures as published by CNN.' Well, CNN have published figures showing Biden's Tally to be well in excess of 75 million, the highest level on which one could bet. So why has this not been settled? (The same considerations apply to the Trump Vote Tally market.)
Wtf are they playing at?
Like others here, I am closing my Betfair account when they have coughed up.
As Nigel Farage might ask, what's the upside in closing your account? Empty it, sure.
Can someone briefly update me on the Oxon full-full / half-full thing? I keep reading snippets on here but it seems to be a very stretched discussion, hard to piece together the responses.
Basically the methodology of the randomisation is potentially unsound. It is hard to be sure as we only have press releases to go on. The licensing bodies will want to look over the original data.
It doesn't mean that the vaccine is a dud, just not yet sufficiently proven.
This is the most concerning...
For example, it has since been revealed that the people who received an initial half-dose—and for whom the vaccine was said to have 90-percent efficacy—included no one over the age of 55.
Makes it very difficult for regulators, when we don't know about that the untested demographic is the one we need to know the level of protection.
What do the regulator and the government do, reserve pfizer and moderna vaccines for oldies? And only allow Oxford for the rest of us plebs.
You give it a restricted label
With the two full dose regime or the half/full combo?
If the 1&1/2 dose version doesn’t have data in oldies you label it for under 55s only
But the data for the under 55s is flawed because of the lack of proper randomisation. You cannot just fix it afterwards.
Are you saying the whole trial is defective? And that we cannot be confident the vaccine works? If so, that is an extremely serious allegation.
Or, are we simply challenging the 90% figure? That’s nothing like as serious, as Oxon themselves soft pedalled on that.
No, the entire trial is not defective, just the bit comparing the two doses. As far as we know the treatment vs placebo was properly randomised, just not the two dosing regimes.
Absolutely. By a landslide and don't forget it or forget why Scott.
Last December, we mostly knew Johnson was terrible, but alternative at the time seemed even worse.
That win is nothing at all to be proud of.
I don't think there was a single seat in the country where the choice was only between Conservative or Labour. My conscience wouldn't allow me to vote for either. Anyone who did was doing it with their eyes wide open. Personally, I don't have any time for excuses along the lines of "but the other side" when there are more than two sides.
For most though the third side is the lib dems and they are the worst choice of all. I would vote for corbyn long before I voted lib dem
Turns out the BBC were right to report that the Oxford Vaccine was 70% effective.
GDBO, they've misled the country and the world, shame on them for raising the hopes of a nation.
No...it definitely can't be said its 70% and definitely not true it is x% prevents symptoms.
"You’ll see reports that the vaccine had 70 percent efficacy, on average; but that’s un-knowable, because we only have numbers on these two regimens, as opposed to everyone in the trials—and how they arrived at those percentages isn’t explained. As far as we know, some of this analysis could hinge on data from just a few sick people."
As explained they mashed together some trials to get the 70% number, but they also disappeared some trial data.
Utterly scandalous, so it is much worse than I thought, there needs to be a criminal investigation into this.
Turns out the BBC were right to report that the Oxford Vaccine was 70% effective.
GDBO, they've misled the country and the world, shame on them for raising the hopes of a nation.
No...it definitely can't be said its 70% and definitely not true it is x% prevents symptoms.
"You’ll see reports that the vaccine had 70 percent efficacy, on average; but that’s un-knowable, because we only have numbers on these two regimens, as opposed to everyone in the trials—and how they arrived at those percentages isn’t explained. As far as we know, some of this analysis could hinge on data from just a few sick people."
That’s the Wired article again, which I think is on legal thin ice. Have Oxon responded to it?
The talk of prevents symptoms is 100% incorrect...as they tested everybody weekly and included asymptomatic positives, so whatever percentage you want to use refers to prevents covid. Pfizer and moderna was prevents symptoms.
Can someone briefly update me on the Oxon full-full / half-full thing? I keep reading snippets on here but it seems to be a very stretched discussion, hard to piece together the responses.
OK.
People given full dose / full dose of the AZN/Oxford vaccine saw efficacy of 60-70%. People given half dose / full dose of vaccine saw efficacy close to 90%.
HOWEVER, the half dose / full dose people were all under 55 (so this may simply be the case that the vaccine is much more efficacious on the young), and the numbers are too small to be certain that this isn't simply a statistical anomoly.
It is worth noting, however, that (AFAUI) none of the people who got the AZN/Oxford vaccine became seriously ill with CV19, and it does not require sub zero storage at all. It is therefore a vaccine that could be useful for (a) the young and (b) emerging markets.
Sure that was my exact understanding, yet people like Foxy and Francis seem to be pouring water on the whole trial.
That strikes me as very serious allegation. And perhaps somewhat unfair?
The Wired article alleges that the way the results have been presented is such that they are not reporting clean data. Instead they've chosen to process it, and present it in the most flattering way possible.
Just doesn't seem right Presidents have such power. I know they do, but still.
In this respect, they are like Kings. This was exactly what the US Constitution was intended to prevent.
Ironically the Royal Prerogative of Mercy is now much more difficult to obtain than a Presidential Pardon which is entirely at the whim of the incumbent. The only difference with Trump is that he didn't wait until his last day in office to let his dodgy mates/family members off like his predecessors.
The headline and standfirst on that Wired article would never make it past the media lawyers I know. Very risky indeed.
I think there are two stand out issues that Oxford / AZ need to address from the arricle. The claim they have mashed together results from trials run under different conditions, and the low proportion of over 55s across all the trials.
It might be first issue is fine and the second just means for the moment this is only authorised for under 55s for now.
Can someone briefly update me on the Oxon full-full / half-full thing? I keep reading snippets on here but it seems to be a very stretched discussion, hard to piece together the responses.
OK.
People given full dose / full dose of the AZN/Oxford vaccine saw efficacy of 60-70%. People given half dose / full dose of vaccine saw efficacy close to 90%.
HOWEVER, the half dose / full dose people were all under 55 (so this may simply be the case that the vaccine is much more efficacious on the young), and the numbers are too small to be certain that this isn't simply a statistical anomoly.
It is worth noting, however, that (AFAUI) none of the people who got the AZN/Oxford vaccine became seriously ill with CV19, and it does not require sub zero storage at all. It is therefore a vaccine that could be useful for (a) the young and (b) emerging markets.
Sure that was my exact understanding, yet people like Foxy and Francis seem to be pouring water on the whole trial.
That strikes me as very serious allegation. And perhaps somewhat unfair?
The Wired article alleges that the way the results have been presented is such that they are not reporting clean data. Instead they've chosen to process it, and present it in the most flattering way possible.
It's a highly partisan article, which is based largely on supposition. The author seems to think that just because she hasn't seen the full data, the statisticians analysing the results haven't. And she seems to be arguing that lack of proof of efficacity (on data she herself argues is incomplete) is proof of inefficacity.
One to file, if not quite in the bin, at most in the 'needs corroboration' pile.
Where the Wired article I think is very naughty is basically claiming well Moderna and Pfizer ran absolutely top notch trials compared to Oxford. But neither Moderna or Pfizer tested for asymptomatic cases, which seems like a big omission if you want the old gold star for your work....as we know a significant proportion of people are symptomatic and it could well be that they can pass the virus on to other people.
Can someone briefly update me on the Oxon full-full / half-full thing? I keep reading snippets on here but it seems to be a very stretched discussion, hard to piece together the responses.
OK.
People given full dose / full dose of the AZN/Oxford vaccine saw efficacy of 60-70%. People given half dose / full dose of vaccine saw efficacy close to 90%.
HOWEVER, the half dose / full dose people were all under 55 (so this may simply be the case that the vaccine is much more efficacious on the young), and the numbers are too small to be certain that this isn't simply a statistical anomoly.
It is worth noting, however, that (AFAUI) none of the people who got the AZN/Oxford vaccine became seriously ill with CV19, and it does not require sub zero storage at all. It is therefore a vaccine that could be useful for (a) the young and (b) emerging markets.
Sure that was my exact understanding, yet people like Foxy and Francis seem to be pouring water on the whole trial.
That strikes me as very serious allegation. And perhaps somewhat unfair?
The Wired article alleges that the way the results have been presented is such that they are not reporting clean data. Instead they've chosen to process it, and present it in the most flattering way possible.
It certainly does make that allegation, indeed it goes rather further than that with the use of language in the headline and standfirst. I’m stunned it got past Wired’s legal team: have Oxon/AZ responded?
Absolutely. By a landslide and don't forget it or forget why Scott.
Last December, we mostly knew Johnson was terrible, but alternative at the time seemed even worse.
That win is nothing at all to be proud of.
I don't think there was a single seat in the country where the choice was only between Conservative or Labour. My conscience wouldn't allow me to vote for either. Anyone who did was doing it with their eyes wide open. Personally, I don't have any time for excuses along the lines of "but the other side" when there are more than two sides.
For most though the third side is the lib dems and they are the worst choice of all. I would vote for corbyn long before I voted lib dem
If that's your preference, fine. But anyone's whose analysis runs "I didn't like Johnson or Corbyn, but I had to vote for one of them" isn't even being honest with themselves. There's no excuse for voting for something you know to be shit if there is an option on the ballot that doesn't look shit to you.
Completely missing the point, I know, but how come we had so many years of negative growth during the Industiral revolution?
33 years of negative growth in the period 1750 -1850 by my count. 44 during the 18th century.
Weird.
Our family’s balance sheet was the same in 1831 and 1927...
So was ours: diddly squat and diddly squat.
We spent rather a lot in the second half of the 19th century
Who is the 'we' though Charles?
Most of us on here in will have had between 32 and 64 ancestors alive in 1831. Which of your ancestors is your 'family', and why?
We have a collective structure - that’s the balance sheet I was referring to. In this case it was Henry, Henry, Charles and Henry at the beginning of the period and Charlie, Henry, Henry and Harry at the end. Does that help clarify matters?
Turns out the BBC were right to report that the Oxford Vaccine was 70% effective.
GDBO, they've misled the country and the world, shame on them for raising the hopes of a nation.
No...it definitely can't be said its 70% and definitely not true it is x% prevents symptoms.
"You’ll see reports that the vaccine had 70 percent efficacy, on average; but that’s un-knowable, because we only have numbers on these two regimens, as opposed to everyone in the trials—and how they arrived at those percentages isn’t explained. As far as we know, some of this analysis could hinge on data from just a few sick people."
That’s the Wired article again, which I think is on legal thin ice. Have Oxon responded to it?
The talk of prevents symptoms is 100% incorrect...as they tested everybody weekly and included asymptomatic positives, so whatever percentage you want to use refers to prevents covid. Pfizer and moderna was prevents symptoms.
“The talk of” - who is this talking? AZ, Oxon or other people?
AIUI no-one in the Oxon vaccine cohort became ill enough to go to hospital, which is a different thing.
Turns out the BBC were right to report that the Oxford Vaccine was 70% effective.
GDBO, they've misled the country and the world, shame on them for raising the hopes of a nation.
No...it definitely can't be said its 70% and definitely not true it is x% prevents symptoms.
"You’ll see reports that the vaccine had 70 percent efficacy, on average; but that’s un-knowable, because we only have numbers on these two regimens, as opposed to everyone in the trials—and how they arrived at those percentages isn’t explained. As far as we know, some of this analysis could hinge on data from just a few sick people."
That’s the Wired article again, which I think is on legal thin ice. Have Oxon responded to it?
I see no legal thin ice. It's a scientific disagreement. I have similar qualms about its rigor, but not that it's at least somewhat effective. What we don't know is how effective.
No, Oxford hasn't responded, and I doubt they will in public. They are no doubt responding to regulators, and in due course reviewers.
The headline and standfirst on that Wired article would never make it past the media lawyers I know. Very risky indeed.
I think there are two stand out issues that Oxford / AZ need to address from the arricle. The claim they have mashed together results from trials run under different conditions, and the low proportion of over 55s across all the trials.
It might be first issue is fine and the second just means for the moment this is only authorised for under 55s for now.
Meta-analysis is statistically valid if done correctly
Turns out the BBC were right to report that the Oxford Vaccine was 70% effective.
GDBO, they've misled the country and the world, shame on them for raising the hopes of a nation.
No...it definitely can't be said its 70% and definitely not true it is x% prevents symptoms.
"You’ll see reports that the vaccine had 70 percent efficacy, on average; but that’s un-knowable, because we only have numbers on these two regimens, as opposed to everyone in the trials—and how they arrived at those percentages isn’t explained. As far as we know, some of this analysis could hinge on data from just a few sick people."
As explained they mashed together some trials to get the 70% number, but they also disappeared some trial data.
Utterly scandalous, so it is much worse than I thought, there needs to be a criminal investigation into this.
Turns out the BBC were right to report that the Oxford Vaccine was 70% effective.
GDBO, they've misled the country and the world, shame on them for raising the hopes of a nation.
No...it definitely can't be said its 70% and definitely not true it is x% prevents symptoms.
"You’ll see reports that the vaccine had 70 percent efficacy, on average; but that’s un-knowable, because we only have numbers on these two regimens, as opposed to everyone in the trials—and how they arrived at those percentages isn’t explained. As far as we know, some of this analysis could hinge on data from just a few sick people."
That’s the Wired article again, which I think is on legal thin ice. Have Oxon responded to it?
The talk of prevents symptoms is 100% incorrect...as they tested everybody weekly and included asymptomatic positives, so whatever percentage you want to use refers to prevents covid. Pfizer and moderna was prevents symptoms.
“The talk of” - who is this talking? AZ, Oxon or other people?
AIUI no-one in the Oxon vaccine cohort became ill enough to go to hospital, which is a different thing.
TSE said the BBC got their report correct. But the much mocked inaccurate reporting included the claim relating to preventing symptoms, which just isn't true, that isn't what their trial(s) looked at. The tested for anybody who contracted COVID, with or without symptoms.
I noticed they have finally edited the main pieces now, but still talk about protection against developing symptoms.
Turns out the BBC were right to report that the Oxford Vaccine was 70% effective.
GDBO, they've misled the country and the world, shame on them for raising the hopes of a nation.
No...it definitely can't be said its 70% and definitely not true it is x% prevents symptoms.
"You’ll see reports that the vaccine had 70 percent efficacy, on average; but that’s un-knowable, because we only have numbers on these two regimens, as opposed to everyone in the trials—and how they arrived at those percentages isn’t explained. As far as we know, some of this analysis could hinge on data from just a few sick people."
As explained they mashed together some trials to get the 70% number, but they also disappeared some trial data.
No they didn’t - they just didn’t put it all in the press release
Where the Wired article I think is very naughty is basically claiming well Moderna and Pfizer ran absolutely top notch trials compared to Oxford. But neither Moderna or Pfizer tested for asymptomatic cases, which seems like a big omission if you want the old gold star for your work....as we know a significant proportion of people are symptomatic and it could well be that they can pass the virus on to other people.
That's not a problem per se. It means you need to be careful about interpreting what the vaccine does. The article is absolutely right about one very important aspect: the terms of success must be defined beforehand. If M or Pf tested for asymptomatic cases but then threw away those result, and only presented the severe-case data, I'd be deeply worried about them.
Turns out the BBC were right to report that the Oxford Vaccine was 70% effective.
GDBO, they've misled the country and the world, shame on them for raising the hopes of a nation.
No...it definitely can't be said its 70% and definitely not true it is x% prevents symptoms.
"You’ll see reports that the vaccine had 70 percent efficacy, on average; but that’s un-knowable, because we only have numbers on these two regimens, as opposed to everyone in the trials—and how they arrived at those percentages isn’t explained. As far as we know, some of this analysis could hinge on data from just a few sick people."
That’s the Wired article again, which I think is on legal thin ice. Have Oxon responded to it?
The talk of prevents symptoms is 100% incorrect...as they tested everybody weekly and included asymptomatic positives, so whatever percentage you want to use refers to prevents covid. Pfizer and moderna was prevents symptoms.
I don't think the asymptomatic data is yet reported. The cases in the Oxford trial appear to be symptomatic ones.
Until the full data is put up for peer review rather than as press releases it is hard to say for sure.
The Wired article raises significant valid concerns, which should all be considered by scientific peer review. That is how the system works and why peer review matters.
Bouncing a vaccine through on inadequate data is potentially very risky. The last thing that we want is an anti-vaxer hysteria.
Can someone briefly update me on the Oxon full-full / half-full thing? I keep reading snippets on here but it seems to be a very stretched discussion, hard to piece together the responses.
OK.
People given full dose / full dose of the AZN/Oxford vaccine saw efficacy of 60-70%. People given half dose / full dose of vaccine saw efficacy close to 90%.
HOWEVER, the half dose / full dose people were all under 55 (so this may simply be the case that the vaccine is much more efficacious on the young), and the numbers are too small to be certain that this isn't simply a statistical anomoly.
It is worth noting, however, that (AFAUI) none of the people who got the AZN/Oxford vaccine became seriously ill with CV19, and it does not require sub zero storage at all. It is therefore a vaccine that could be useful for (a) the young and (b) emerging markets.
Sure that was my exact understanding, yet people like Foxy and Francis seem to be pouring water on the whole trial.
That strikes me as very serious allegation. And perhaps somewhat unfair?
The Wired article alleges that the way the results have been presented is such that they are not reporting clean data. Instead they've chosen to process it, and present it in the most flattering way possible.
It's a highly partisan article, which is based largely on supposition. The author seems to think that just because she hasn't seen the full data, the statisticians analysing the results haven't. And she seems to be arguing that lack of proof of efficacity (on data she herself argues is incomplete) is proof of inefficacity.
One to file, if not quite in the bin, at most in the 'needs corroboration' pile.
My view is the article is heavily “influenced” by Pfizer. They have firm with this kind of shit
Turns out the BBC were right to report that the Oxford Vaccine was 70% effective.
GDBO, they've misled the country and the world, shame on them for raising the hopes of a nation.
No...it definitely can't be said its 70% and definitely not true it is x% prevents symptoms.
"You’ll see reports that the vaccine had 70 percent efficacy, on average; but that’s un-knowable, because we only have numbers on these two regimens, as opposed to everyone in the trials—and how they arrived at those percentages isn’t explained. As far as we know, some of this analysis could hinge on data from just a few sick people."
As explained they mashed together some trials to get the 70% number, but they also disappeared some trial data.
No they didn’t - they just didn’t put it all in the press release
Can someone briefly update me on the Oxon full-full / half-full thing? I keep reading snippets on here but it seems to be a very stretched discussion, hard to piece together the responses.
OK.
People given full dose / full dose of the AZN/Oxford vaccine saw efficacy of 60-70%. People given half dose / full dose of vaccine saw efficacy close to 90%.
HOWEVER, the half dose / full dose people were all under 55 (so this may simply be the case that the vaccine is much more efficacious on the young), and the numbers are too small to be certain that this isn't simply a statistical anomoly.
It is worth noting, however, that (AFAUI) none of the people who got the AZN/Oxford vaccine became seriously ill with CV19, and it does not require sub zero storage at all. It is therefore a vaccine that could be useful for (a) the young and (b) emerging markets.
Sure that was my exact understanding, yet people like Foxy and Francis seem to be pouring water on the whole trial.
That strikes me as very serious allegation. And perhaps somewhat unfair?
The Wired article alleges that the way the results have been presented is such that they are not reporting clean data. Instead they've chosen to process it, and present it in the most flattering way possible.
It's a highly partisan article, which is based largely on supposition.
Have you read the internet before??
Although while I agree that its a poor article it does seem remarkable that AZ / Oxford despite being the first to start Phase 3 appear to have less data and a less coherent trial than their competitors.
Per CNN, Trump is meeting "Republican lawmakers" from Pennsylvania at the White House tonight.
Maybe he is going for a last ditch appeal to get them to appoint Trump electors? Doesn't matter how unlikely or crazy it may seem, he is still entirely capable of doing so.
Turns out the BBC were right to report that the Oxford Vaccine was 70% effective.
GDBO, they've misled the country and the world, shame on them for raising the hopes of a nation.
No...it definitely can't be said its 70% and definitely not true it is x% prevents symptoms.
"You’ll see reports that the vaccine had 70 percent efficacy, on average; but that’s un-knowable, because we only have numbers on these two regimens, as opposed to everyone in the trials—and how they arrived at those percentages isn’t explained. As far as we know, some of this analysis could hinge on data from just a few sick people."
That’s the Wired article again, which I think is on legal thin ice. Have Oxon responded to it?
I see no legal thin ice. It's a scientific disagreement. I have similar qualms about its rigor, but not that it's at least somewhat effective. What we don't know is how effective.
No, Oxford hasn't responded, and I doubt they will in public. They are no doubt responding to regulators, and in due course reviewers.
--AS
Read the Wired headline.
I’m not going write it here as it’s (potentially) repeating a libel and I don’t want to risk getting Mike into any trouble.
Where the Wired article I think is very naughty is basically claiming well Moderna and Pfizer ran absolutely top notch trials compared to Oxford. But neither Moderna or Pfizer tested for asymptomatic cases, which seems like a big omission if you want the old gold star for your work....as we know a significant proportion of people are symptomatic and it could well be that they can pass the virus on to other people.
That's not a problem per se. It means you need to be careful about interpreting what the vaccine does. The article is absolutely right about one very important aspect: the terms of success must be defined beforehand. If M or Pf tested for asymptomatic cases but then threw away those result, and only presented the severe-case data, I'd be deeply worried about them.
No, but I think the aspect of the Oxford trial to test weekly was "gold standard" work. Given what we know about COVID, it seems like something you should do, even if eventually your claims centre only around stopping symptoms.
If you took the Wired journalist negative spin on Oxford approach and flipped it to the Pfizer / Moderna one, you could make some claim of "don't ask, don't tell" about possible positive cases of COVID in their trials....as plenty of people probably have had COVID but only later went hmm was a bit odd that other week, felt a little bit crappy, food tasted a bit rubbish, but I am better now, never mind.
Can someone briefly update me on the Oxon full-full / half-full thing? I keep reading snippets on here but it seems to be a very stretched discussion, hard to piece together the responses.
OK.
People given full dose / full dose of the AZN/Oxford vaccine saw efficacy of 60-70%. People given half dose / full dose of vaccine saw efficacy close to 90%.
HOWEVER, the half dose / full dose people were all under 55 (so this may simply be the case that the vaccine is much more efficacious on the young), and the numbers are too small to be certain that this isn't simply a statistical anomoly.
It is worth noting, however, that (AFAUI) none of the people who got the AZN/Oxford vaccine became seriously ill with CV19, and it does not require sub zero storage at all. It is therefore a vaccine that could be useful for (a) the young and (b) emerging markets.
Sure that was my exact understanding, yet people like Foxy and Francis seem to be pouring water on the whole trial.
That strikes me as very serious allegation. And perhaps somewhat unfair?
The Wired article alleges that the way the results have been presented is such that they are not reporting clean data. Instead they've chosen to process it, and present it in the most flattering way possible.
It's a highly partisan article, which is based largely on supposition.
Have you read the internet before??
Although while I agree that its a poor article it does seem remarkable that AZ / Oxford despite being the first to start Phase 3 appear to have less data and a less coherent trial than their competitors.
Trump should get the credit for Pfizer and Moderna getting faster results. He arranged for the US to be a hotbed of rishing infections through the autumn.
Turns out the BBC were right to report that the Oxford Vaccine was 70% effective.
GDBO, they've misled the country and the world, shame on them for raising the hopes of a nation.
No...it definitely can't be said its 70% and definitely not true it is x% prevents symptoms.
"You’ll see reports that the vaccine had 70 percent efficacy, on average; but that’s un-knowable, because we only have numbers on these two regimens, as opposed to everyone in the trials—and how they arrived at those percentages isn’t explained. As far as we know, some of this analysis could hinge on data from just a few sick people."
That’s the Wired article again, which I think is on legal thin ice. Have Oxon responded to it?
The talk of prevents symptoms is 100% incorrect...as they tested everybody weekly and included asymptomatic positives, so whatever percentage you want to use refers to prevents covid. Pfizer and moderna was prevents symptoms.
“The talk of” - who is this talking? AZ, Oxon or other people?
AIUI no-one in the Oxon vaccine cohort became ill enough to go to hospital, which is a different thing.
TSE said the BBC got their report correct. But the much mocked inaccurate reporting included the claim relating to preventing symptoms, which just isn't true, that isn't what their trial(s) looked at. The tested for anybody who contracted COVID, with or without symptoms.
I noticed they have finally edited the main pieces now.
They tested, but was efficacy measured with respect to positive test or symptomatic infection? The trial registration said the latter.
There's too much speculation here. We don't know enough to comment.
Turns out the BBC were right to report that the Oxford Vaccine was 70% effective.
GDBO, they've misled the country and the world, shame on them for raising the hopes of a nation.
No...it definitely can't be said its 70% and definitely not true it is x% prevents symptoms.
"You’ll see reports that the vaccine had 70 percent efficacy, on average; but that’s un-knowable, because we only have numbers on these two regimens, as opposed to everyone in the trials—and how they arrived at those percentages isn’t explained. As far as we know, some of this analysis could hinge on data from just a few sick people."
That’s the Wired article again, which I think is on legal thin ice. Have Oxon responded to it?
The talk of prevents symptoms is 100% incorrect...as they tested everybody weekly and included asymptomatic positives, so whatever percentage you want to use refers to prevents covid. Pfizer and moderna was prevents symptoms.
I don't think the asymptomatic data is yet reported. The cases in the Oxford trial appear to be symptomatic ones.
Until the full data is put up for peer review rather than as press releases it is hard to say for sure.
The Wired article raises significant valid concerns, which should all be considered by scientific peer review. That is how the system works and why peer review matters.
Bouncing a vaccine through on inadequate data is potentially very risky. The last thing that we want is an anti-vaxer hysteria.
Yes, I agree with all of this. And, notably, it will be evaluated by regulators and in peer review. Not by some people on the internet (many of whom have been getting this back-asswards since Monday's press release).
You learn something new every day. Today I've learned that Sir Richard Doll's 1950s discovery that smoking was the major cause of the huge increase in lung cancer wasn't valid because that wasn't what he was trying to test.
Turns out the BBC were right to report that the Oxford Vaccine was 70% effective.
GDBO, they've misled the country and the world, shame on them for raising the hopes of a nation.
No...it definitely can't be said its 70% and definitely not true it is x% prevents symptoms.
"You’ll see reports that the vaccine had 70 percent efficacy, on average; but that’s un-knowable, because we only have numbers on these two regimens, as opposed to everyone in the trials—and how they arrived at those percentages isn’t explained. As far as we know, some of this analysis could hinge on data from just a few sick people."
As explained they mashed together some trials to get the 70% number, but they also disappeared some trial data.
No they didn’t - they just didn’t put it all in the press release
That is the claim made by the Wired article.
I know.
I also know AZ and they are a scientifically rigorous organisation
The reason it is worth watching is not for the royal soap opera but for the politics. It is an entertaining romp through our political history from Churchill onwards.
Turns out the BBC were right to report that the Oxford Vaccine was 70% effective.
GDBO, they've misled the country and the world, shame on them for raising the hopes of a nation.
No...it definitely can't be said its 70% and definitely not true it is x% prevents symptoms.
"You’ll see reports that the vaccine had 70 percent efficacy, on average; but that’s un-knowable, because we only have numbers on these two regimens, as opposed to everyone in the trials—and how they arrived at those percentages isn’t explained. As far as we know, some of this analysis could hinge on data from just a few sick people."
As explained they mashed together some trials to get the 70% number, but they also disappeared some trial data.
Utterly scandalous, so it is much worse than I thought, there needs to be a criminal investigation into this.
For what crime?
--AS
Attempted genocide.
Trying to convince the UK populace to take their pandemic ending medicine when the numbers don't back that up is tantamount to genocide.
Turns out the BBC were right to report that the Oxford Vaccine was 70% effective.
GDBO, they've misled the country and the world, shame on them for raising the hopes of a nation.
No...it definitely can't be said its 70% and definitely not true it is x% prevents symptoms.
"You’ll see reports that the vaccine had 70 percent efficacy, on average; but that’s un-knowable, because we only have numbers on these two regimens, as opposed to everyone in the trials—and how they arrived at those percentages isn’t explained. As far as we know, some of this analysis could hinge on data from just a few sick people."
As explained they mashed together some trials to get the 70% number, but they also disappeared some trial data.
No they didn’t - they just didn’t put it all in the press release
Indeed! There are a lot of very serious allegations being bandied about on PB this evening, very serious indeed.
The headline and standfirst on that Wired article would never make it past the media lawyers I know. Very risky indeed.
I think there are two stand out issues that Oxford / AZ need to address from the arricle. The claim they have mashed together results from trials run under different conditions, and the low proportion of over 55s across all the trials.
It might be first issue is fine and the second just means for the moment this is only authorised for under 55s for now.
Meta-analysis is statistically valid if done correctly
Yes, but we cannot judge whether it has been on what is so far published.
As I recall, 2 separate trials are required for FDA* licensing, and each has to prove efficacy. We don't know yet if that is the case.
*Other countries also apply this rule, though often piggyback approval on whether the FDA approves.
They don't, 34 Tory rebels voted against May's deal at the final vote, if the same voted against Boris' Deal plus every opposition MP it would still pass
Turns out the BBC were right to report that the Oxford Vaccine was 70% effective.
GDBO, they've misled the country and the world, shame on them for raising the hopes of a nation.
No...it definitely can't be said its 70% and definitely not true it is x% prevents symptoms.
"You’ll see reports that the vaccine had 70 percent efficacy, on average; but that’s un-knowable, because we only have numbers on these two regimens, as opposed to everyone in the trials—and how they arrived at those percentages isn’t explained. As far as we know, some of this analysis could hinge on data from just a few sick people."
As explained they mashed together some trials to get the 70% number, but they also disappeared some trial data.
Utterly scandalous, so it is much worse than I thought, there needs to be a criminal investigation into this.
For what crime?
--AS
Attempted genocide.
Trying to convince the UK populace to take their pandemic ending medicine when the numbers don't back that up is tantamount to genocide.
Turns out the BBC were right to report that the Oxford Vaccine was 70% effective.
GDBO, they've misled the country and the world, shame on them for raising the hopes of a nation.
No...it definitely can't be said its 70% and definitely not true it is x% prevents symptoms.
"You’ll see reports that the vaccine had 70 percent efficacy, on average; but that’s un-knowable, because we only have numbers on these two regimens, as opposed to everyone in the trials—and how they arrived at those percentages isn’t explained. As far as we know, some of this analysis could hinge on data from just a few sick people."
As explained they mashed together some trials to get the 70% number, but they also disappeared some trial data.
No they didn’t - they just didn’t put it all in the press release
That is the claim made by the Wired article.
I know.
I also know AZ and they are a scientifically rigorous organisation
Yes, of course they are. But AZ have not yet published enough to confirm what they say.
Turns out the BBC were right to report that the Oxford Vaccine was 70% effective.
GDBO, they've misled the country and the world, shame on them for raising the hopes of a nation.
No...it definitely can't be said its 70% and definitely not true it is x% prevents symptoms.
"You’ll see reports that the vaccine had 70 percent efficacy, on average; but that’s un-knowable, because we only have numbers on these two regimens, as opposed to everyone in the trials—and how they arrived at those percentages isn’t explained. As far as we know, some of this analysis could hinge on data from just a few sick people."
That’s the Wired article again, which I think is on legal thin ice. Have Oxon responded to it?
I see no legal thin ice. It's a scientific disagreement. I have similar qualms about its rigor, but not that it's at least somewhat effective. What we don't know is how effective.
No, Oxford hasn't responded, and I doubt they will in public. They are no doubt responding to regulators, and in due course reviewers.
--AS
Read the Wired headline.
I’m not going write it here as it’s (potentially) repeating a libel and I don’t want to risk getting Mike into any trouble.
Read the headline then share your thoughts.
I've read the article. Nothing actionable, nor close to it. For one thing, exactly whom does it libel?
The headline and standfirst on that Wired article would never make it past the media lawyers I know. Very risky indeed.
I think there are two stand out issues that Oxford / AZ need to address from the arricle. The claim they have mashed together results from trials run under different conditions, and the low proportion of over 55s across all the trials.
It might be first issue is fine and the second just means for the moment this is only authorised for under 55s for now.
Meta-analysis is statistically valid if done correctly
Yes, but we cannot judge whether it has been on what is so far published.
As I recall, 2 separate trials are required for FDA* licensing, and each has to prove efficacy. We don't know yet if that is the case.
*Other countries also apply this rule, though often piggyback approval on whether the FDA approves.
FDA regularly allows a single trial approval especially for unmet medical needs.
FFS we’ve had a press release. We’ve not had the proper peer reviewed report
You learn something new every day. Today I've learned that Sir Richard Doll's 1950s discovery that smoking was the major cause of the huge increase in lung cancer wasn't valid because that wasn't what he was trying to test.
Yes, and Mendel falsified his pea genetic experiments. Both were right though.
Fantastic news if so, and a dry crisp outlook on the forecast - opens up opportunities for winter pints and meeting mates under the outdoor heaters.
It’s appalling news for pubs. Look at the rules. It makes it very difficult indeed to do business. Daughter is dreading being in Tier 2 because of the constraints. She will have to ring all her existing bookings and see if they can / want to continue. And bear in mind that she cannot turn a blind eye to people claiming to be one household/one support bubble when she knows they aren’t because of the risk of a fine which would wipe out what little she has left.
Plus the rules increase her costs because of the need for table service.
If it cannot be Tier 1 it would be better to be in Tier 3.
The government really has hung the hospitality industry out to dry.
It is so hard seeing your child being in tears at seeing their hard work being rendered pointless. What makes it worse is that in this district, Covid has been very low for months and months. This area is being bundled in with places like Carlisle which are over 2 hours away, much like Manchester. It feels constantly like being punished for something you haven’t done.
That is saddening to hear. Is there any chance you will get Tier 1 status?
None at all. Newsnight was reporting that nowhere will be in Tier 1 even though that was the tier we were in before and even though cases have been low.
Turns out the BBC were right to report that the Oxford Vaccine was 70% effective.
GDBO, they've misled the country and the world, shame on them for raising the hopes of a nation.
No...it definitely can't be said its 70% and definitely not true it is x% prevents symptoms.
"You’ll see reports that the vaccine had 70 percent efficacy, on average; but that’s un-knowable, because we only have numbers on these two regimens, as opposed to everyone in the trials—and how they arrived at those percentages isn’t explained. As far as we know, some of this analysis could hinge on data from just a few sick people."
That’s the Wired article again, which I think is on legal thin ice. Have Oxon responded to it?
The talk of prevents symptoms is 100% incorrect...as they tested everybody weekly and included asymptomatic positives, so whatever percentage you want to use refers to prevents covid. Pfizer and moderna was prevents symptoms.
“The talk of” - who is this talking? AZ, Oxon or other people?
AIUI no-one in the Oxon vaccine cohort became ill enough to go to hospital, which is a different thing.
TSE said the BBC got their report correct. But the much mocked inaccurate reporting included the claim relating to preventing symptoms, which just isn't true, that isn't what their trial(s) looked at. The tested for anybody who contracted COVID, with or without symptoms.
I noticed they have finally edited the main pieces now, but still talk about protection against developing symptoms.
Yes, the way that was reported was clearly wrong because as you say AZ chalked an asymptomatic infection up as - rightly - an infection.
But it wasn’t AZ/Oxon doing that misreporting, it was journalists mangling it.
All the hoohah over the Wired article won't matter a jot really. The Oxford vaccine will either be approved or not.
If the UK authorities approve it that's good enough for me thank-you very much.
What risk would you put on the vaccine being approved due to a political thumb on the scales?
Zero.
I wouldn't have followed this up with any answer such as "very low", but now I have to ask: what mechanisms are there to ensure that attempts at political pressure will be successfully rebuffed?
They don't, 34 Tory rebels voted against May's deal at the final vote, if the same voted against Boris' Deal plus every opposition MP it would still pass
Can someone confirm that any Deal absolutely does need to pass a Commons vote? I thought I read somewhere that it was not necessary but I may have dreamt that.
Fantastic news if so, and a dry crisp outlook on the forecast - opens up opportunities for winter pints and meeting mates under the outdoor heaters.
It’s appalling news for pubs. Look at the rules. It makes it very difficult indeed to do business. Daughter is dreading being in Tier 2 because of the constraints. She will have to ring all her existing bookings and see if they can / want to continue. And bear in mind that she cannot turn a blind eye to people claiming to be one household/one support bubble when she knows they aren’t because of the risk of a fine which would wipe out what little she has left.
Plus the rules increase her costs because of the need for table service.
If it cannot be Tier 1 it would be better to be in Tier 3.
The government really has hung the hospitality industry out to dry.
It is so hard seeing your child being in tears at seeing their hard work being rendered pointless. What makes it worse is that in this district, Covid has been very low for months and months. This area is being bundled in with places like Carlisle which are over 2 hours away, much like Manchester. It feels constantly like being punished for something you haven’t done.
That is saddening to hear. Is there any chance you will get Tier 1 status?
None at all. Newsnight was reporting that nowhere will be in Tier 1 even though that was the tier we were in before and even though cases have been low.
I am seriously concerned about the prospects for places like those of your daughter. I hope she can fashion a living from Tier 2 - there might be loopholes somewhere (such as separating groups across two tables)?
Fantastic news if so, and a dry crisp outlook on the forecast - opens up opportunities for winter pints and meeting mates under the outdoor heaters.
It’s appalling news for pubs. Look at the rules. It makes it very difficult indeed to do business. Daughter is dreading being in Tier 2 because of the constraints. She will have to ring all her existing bookings and see if they can / want to continue. And bear in mind that she cannot turn a blind eye to people claiming to be one household/one support bubble when she knows they aren’t because of the risk of a fine which would wipe out what little she has left.
Plus the rules increase her costs because of the need for table service.
If it cannot be Tier 1 it would be better to be in Tier 3.
The government really has hung the hospitality industry out to dry.
It is so hard seeing your child being in tears at seeing their hard work being rendered pointless. What makes it worse is that in this district, Covid has been very low for months and months. This area is being bundled in with places like Carlisle which are over 2 hours away, much like Manchester. It feels constantly like being punished for something you haven’t done.
That is saddening to hear. Is there any chance you will get Tier 1 status?
None at all. Newsnight was reporting that nowhere will be in Tier 1 even though that was the tier we were in before and even though cases have been low.
Cornwall is likely to be in Tier 1 tomorrow, maybe Suffolk, unlikely anywhere else
Turns out the BBC were right to report that the Oxford Vaccine was 70% effective.
GDBO, they've misled the country and the world, shame on them for raising the hopes of a nation.
No...it definitely can't be said its 70% and definitely not true it is x% prevents symptoms.
"You’ll see reports that the vaccine had 70 percent efficacy, on average; but that’s un-knowable, because we only have numbers on these two regimens, as opposed to everyone in the trials—and how they arrived at those percentages isn’t explained. As far as we know, some of this analysis could hinge on data from just a few sick people."
That’s the Wired article again, which I think is on legal thin ice. Have Oxon responded to it?
I see no legal thin ice. It's a scientific disagreement. I have similar qualms about its rigor, but not that it's at least somewhat effective. What we don't know is how effective.
No, Oxford hasn't responded, and I doubt they will in public. They are no doubt responding to regulators, and in due course reviewers.
--AS
Read the Wired headline.
I’m not going write it here as it’s (potentially) repeating a libel and I don’t want to risk getting Mike into any trouble.
Read the headline then share your thoughts.
I've read the article. Nothing actionable, nor close to it. For one thing, exactly whom does it libel?
They don't, 34 Tory rebels voted against May's deal at the final vote, if the same voted against Boris' Deal plus every opposition MP it would still pass
Can someone confirm that any Deal absolutely does need to pass a Commons vote? I thought I read somewhere that it was not necessary but I may have dreamt that.
Ministers can ratify any UK-EU treaty (which is what the final agreement would be) under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 (CRAG), which requires it to be laid before Parliament. It then automatically becomes law if MPs don’t vote against it within 21 days of the date of laying.
However, the Government is under no obligation to call a vote on any treaty – it removed its previous commitment to hold a vote on the final UK-EU treaty from the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, which was passed in January.
But the Government will almost certainly have to pass primary legislation to implement the resulting UK-EU treaty into domestic UK law.
This would need to pass through both Houses before December 31. And, this is where it could get difficult for the PM. One Tory source told me: "For Brexiteers, the overwhelmingly important issue is UK sovereignty.
"If that is not preserved in the final agreement, I have no doubt we will vote against the treaty in whatever vote is called – either under CRAG (if there is one) or for the final domestic implementing legislation."
All the hoohah over the Wired article won't matter a jot really. The Oxford vaccine will either be approved or not.
If the UK authorities approve it that's good enough for me thank-you very much.
What risk would you put on the vaccine being approved due to a political thumb on the scales?
Zero.
I wouldn't have followed this up with any answer such as "very low", but now I have to ask: what mechanisms are there to ensure that attempts at political pressure will be successfully rebuffed?
My confidence stems from the fact that the approval bodies are populated by scientists and my experience of scientists is that they don't bow to non-scientific pressure.
Turns out the BBC were right to report that the Oxford Vaccine was 70% effective.
GDBO, they've misled the country and the world, shame on them for raising the hopes of a nation.
No...it definitely can't be said its 70% and definitely not true it is x% prevents symptoms.
"You’ll see reports that the vaccine had 70 percent efficacy, on average; but that’s un-knowable, because we only have numbers on these two regimens, as opposed to everyone in the trials—and how they arrived at those percentages isn’t explained. As far as we know, some of this analysis could hinge on data from just a few sick people."
As explained they mashed together some trials to get the 70% number, but they also disappeared some trial data.
No they didn’t - they just didn’t put it all in the press release
That is the claim made by the Wired article.
I know.
I also know AZ and they are a scientifically rigorous organisation
Hopefully they will publish all the data shortly and put it all to rest.
Turns out the BBC were right to report that the Oxford Vaccine was 70% effective.
GDBO, they've misled the country and the world, shame on them for raising the hopes of a nation.
No...it definitely can't be said its 70% and definitely not true it is x% prevents symptoms.
"You’ll see reports that the vaccine had 70 percent efficacy, on average; but that’s un-knowable, because we only have numbers on these two regimens, as opposed to everyone in the trials—and how they arrived at those percentages isn’t explained. As far as we know, some of this analysis could hinge on data from just a few sick people."
That’s the Wired article again, which I think is on legal thin ice. Have Oxon responded to it?
The talk of prevents symptoms is 100% incorrect...as they tested everybody weekly and included asymptomatic positives, so whatever percentage you want to use refers to prevents covid. Pfizer and moderna was prevents symptoms.
“The talk of” - who is this talking? AZ, Oxon or other people?
AIUI no-one in the Oxon vaccine cohort became ill enough to go to hospital, which is a different thing.
TSE said the BBC got their report correct. But the much mocked inaccurate reporting included the claim relating to preventing symptoms, which just isn't true, that isn't what their trial(s) looked at. The tested for anybody who contracted COVID, with or without symptoms.
I noticed they have finally edited the main pieces now, but still talk about protection against developing symptoms.
Yes, the way that was reported was clearly wrong because as you say AZ chalked an asymptomatic infection up as - rightly - an infection.
But it wasn’t AZ/Oxon doing that misreporting, it was journalists mangling it.
I don't think that correct. As I understand it they had to be symptomatic cases to reach the interim analysis trigger point. The asymptomatic data will follow, presumably.
I wish people would stop with the flag waving. It is appropriate at Prom concerts but not in science.
They don't, 34 Tory rebels voted against May's deal at the final vote, if the same voted against Boris' Deal plus every opposition MP it would still pass
Can someone confirm that any Deal absolutely does need to pass a Commons vote? I thought I read somewhere that it was not necessary but I may have dreamt that.
From the linked Telegraph article in this thread:-
Ministers can ratify any UK-EU treaty (which is what the final agreement would be) under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 (CRAG), which requires it to be laid before Parliament. It then automatically becomes law if MPs don’t vote against it within 21 days of the date of laying.
Turns out the BBC were right to report that the Oxford Vaccine was 70% effective.
GDBO, they've misled the country and the world, shame on them for raising the hopes of a nation.
No...it definitely can't be said its 70% and definitely not true it is x% prevents symptoms.
"You’ll see reports that the vaccine had 70 percent efficacy, on average; but that’s un-knowable, because we only have numbers on these two regimens, as opposed to everyone in the trials—and how they arrived at those percentages isn’t explained. As far as we know, some of this analysis could hinge on data from just a few sick people."
That’s the Wired article again, which I think is on legal thin ice. Have Oxon responded to it?
I see no legal thin ice. It's a scientific disagreement. I have similar qualms about its rigor, but not that it's at least somewhat effective. What we don't know is how effective.
No, Oxford hasn't responded, and I doubt they will in public. They are no doubt responding to regulators, and in due course reviewers.
--AS
Read the Wired headline.
I’m not going write it here as it’s (potentially) repeating a libel and I don’t want to risk getting Mike into any trouble.
Read the headline then share your thoughts.
I've read the article. Nothing actionable, nor close to it. For one thing, exactly whom does it libel?
--AS
Read the headline.
I refer the honorable gentleman/lady to the reply I gave some moments ago.
I think you're getting a bit overexcited. He's not finished, he'll probably be with us for years.
There are also only 21 members of the ERG, with a majority of 80 Boris can afford for every one to defect to Farage's new Party and vote against him on the EU trade deal and lockdown and the new tiers and even if every opposition MP votes against him too he would still get his legislation through.
The fact Boris has a majority of 80 is why he is the most powerful Tory PM since Thatcher and the most powerful PM overall since Blair, May was in a totally different scenario with no majority at all
Turns out the BBC were right to report that the Oxford Vaccine was 70% effective.
GDBO, they've misled the country and the world, shame on them for raising the hopes of a nation.
No...it definitely can't be said its 70% and definitely not true it is x% prevents symptoms.
"You’ll see reports that the vaccine had 70 percent efficacy, on average; but that’s un-knowable, because we only have numbers on these two regimens, as opposed to everyone in the trials—and how they arrived at those percentages isn’t explained. As far as we know, some of this analysis could hinge on data from just a few sick people."
As explained they mashed together some trials to get the 70% number, but they also disappeared some trial data.
Utterly scandalous, so it is much worse than I thought, there needs to be a criminal investigation into this.
For what crime?
--AS
Attempted genocide.
Trying to convince the UK populace to take their pandemic ending medicine when the numbers don't back that up is tantamount to genocide.
I really hope I missed the sarcasm.
--AS
Sarcasm from me? Disobliging comments about the University of Oxford from me?
They don't, 34 Tory rebels voted against May's deal at the final vote, if the same voted against Boris' Deal plus every opposition MP it would still pass
Can someone confirm that any Deal absolutely does need to pass a Commons vote? I thought I read somewhere that it was not necessary but I may have dreamt that.
Ministers can ratify any UK-EU treaty (which is what the final agreement would be) under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 (CRAG), which requires it to be laid before Parliament. It then automatically becomes law if MPs don’t vote against it within 21 days of the date of laying.
However, the Government is under no obligation to call a vote on any treaty – it removed its previous commitment to hold a vote on the final UK-EU treaty from the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, which was passed in January.
But the Government will almost certainly have to pass primary legislation to implement the resulting UK-EU treaty into domestic UK law.
This would need to pass through both Houses before December 31. And, this is where it could get difficult for the PM. One Tory source told me: "For Brexiteers, the overwhelmingly important issue is UK sovereignty.
"If that is not preserved in the final agreement, I have no doubt we will vote against the treaty in whatever vote is called – either under CRAG (if there is one) or for the final domestic implementing legislation."
Thank-you. So I wasn't completely imagining it then.
If a deal is agreed and Johnson doesn't fancy putting it to the HoC, I cannot see Labour voting down the necessary legislation, the absence of which would lead to legal chaos.
BBC will give Marcus Rashford a special award for his efforts to end child food poverty after he missed out on Sports Personality of the Year shortlist. The striker will also be the subject of a BBC documentary as the player tries to 'understand the effects of food poverty and how Covid-19 has contributed to the issue'.
They don't, 34 Tory rebels voted against May's deal at the final vote, if the same voted against Boris' Deal plus every opposition MP it would still pass
Can someone confirm that any Deal absolutely does need to pass a Commons vote? I thought I read somewhere that it was not necessary but I may have dreamt that.
Ministers can ratify any UK-EU treaty (which is what the final agreement would be) under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 (CRAG), which requires it to be laid before Parliament. It then automatically becomes law if MPs don’t vote against it within 21 days of the date of laying.
However, the Government is under no obligation to call a vote on any treaty – it removed its previous commitment to hold a vote on the final UK-EU treaty from the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, which was passed in January.
But the Government will almost certainly have to pass primary legislation to implement the resulting UK-EU treaty into domestic UK law.
This would need to pass through both Houses before December 31. And, this is where it could get difficult for the PM. One Tory source told me: "For Brexiteers, the overwhelmingly important issue is UK sovereignty.
"If that is not preserved in the final agreement, I have no doubt we will vote against the treaty in whatever vote is called – either under CRAG (if there is one) or for the final domestic implementing legislation."
Boris learning what all leaders learn - you cannot please the Brexiteers.
BBC will give Marcus Rashford a special award for his efforts to end child food poverty after he missed out on Sports Personality of the Year shortlist
Turns out the BBC were right to report that the Oxford Vaccine was 70% effective.
GDBO, they've misled the country and the world, shame on them for raising the hopes of a nation.
No...it definitely can't be said its 70% and definitely not true it is x% prevents symptoms.
"You’ll see reports that the vaccine had 70 percent efficacy, on average; but that’s un-knowable, because we only have numbers on these two regimens, as opposed to everyone in the trials—and how they arrived at those percentages isn’t explained. As far as we know, some of this analysis could hinge on data from just a few sick people."
As explained they mashed together some trials to get the 70% number, but they also disappeared some trial data.
Utterly scandalous, so it is much worse than I thought, there needs to be a criminal investigation into this.
For what crime?
--AS
Attempted genocide.
Trying to convince the UK populace to take their pandemic ending medicine when the numbers don't back that up is tantamount to genocide.
I really hope I missed the sarcasm.
--AS
Sarcasm from me? Disobliging comments about the University of Oxford from me?
That is so unlike me.
I've often wondered what it is you have against England's oldest University. They didn't see fit to award you a 2:2, did they? Or did they decide that your interests would better be served at a smaller or larger institution?
Turns out the BBC were right to report that the Oxford Vaccine was 70% effective.
GDBO, they've misled the country and the world, shame on them for raising the hopes of a nation.
No...it definitely can't be said its 70% and definitely not true it is x% prevents symptoms.
"You’ll see reports that the vaccine had 70 percent efficacy, on average; but that’s un-knowable, because we only have numbers on these two regimens, as opposed to everyone in the trials—and how they arrived at those percentages isn’t explained. As far as we know, some of this analysis could hinge on data from just a few sick people."
That’s the Wired article again, which I think is on legal thin ice. Have Oxon responded to it?
The talk of prevents symptoms is 100% incorrect...as they tested everybody weekly and included asymptomatic positives, so whatever percentage you want to use refers to prevents covid. Pfizer and moderna was prevents symptoms.
I don't think the asymptomatic data is yet reported. The cases in the Oxford trial appear to be symptomatic ones.
From the original AZ press release
"In addition, weekly swabbing are done for detection of infection and assessment of vaccine efficacy against infection."
Turns out the BBC were right to report that the Oxford Vaccine was 70% effective.
GDBO, they've misled the country and the world, shame on them for raising the hopes of a nation.
No...it definitely can't be said its 70% and definitely not true it is x% prevents symptoms.
"You’ll see reports that the vaccine had 70 percent efficacy, on average; but that’s un-knowable, because we only have numbers on these two regimens, as opposed to everyone in the trials—and how they arrived at those percentages isn’t explained. As far as we know, some of this analysis could hinge on data from just a few sick people."
That’s the Wired article again, which I think is on legal thin ice. Have Oxon responded to it?
The talk of prevents symptoms is 100% incorrect...as they tested everybody weekly and included asymptomatic positives, so whatever percentage you want to use refers to prevents covid. Pfizer and moderna was prevents symptoms.
“The talk of” - who is this talking? AZ, Oxon or other people?
AIUI no-one in the Oxon vaccine cohort became ill enough to go to hospital, which is a different thing.
TSE said the BBC got their report correct. But the much mocked inaccurate reporting included the claim relating to preventing symptoms, which just isn't true, that isn't what their trial(s) looked at. The tested for anybody who contracted COVID, with or without symptoms.
I noticed they have finally edited the main pieces now, but still talk about protection against developing symptoms.
Yes, the way that was reported was clearly wrong because as you say AZ chalked an asymptomatic infection up as - rightly - an infection.
But it wasn’t AZ/Oxon doing that misreporting, it was journalists mangling it.
I don't think that correct. As I understand it they had to be symptomatic cases to reach the interim analysis trigger point. The asymptomatic data will follow, presumably.
I wish people would stop with the flag waving. It is appropriate at Prom concerts but not in science.
Depends which flag is being waved. People haven't even stopped Brexitsplaining/Remainsplaining when it comes to vaccine acquisition, let alone other matters.
They don't, 34 Tory rebels voted against May's deal at the final vote, if the same voted against Boris' Deal plus every opposition MP it would still pass
Can someone confirm that any Deal absolutely does need to pass a Commons vote? I thought I read somewhere that it was not necessary but I may have dreamt that.
From the linked Telegraph article in this thread:-
Ministers can ratify any UK-EU treaty (which is what the final agreement would be) under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 (CRAG), which requires it to be laid before Parliament. It then automatically becomes law if MPs don’t vote against it within 21 days of the date of laying.
Turns out the BBC were right to report that the Oxford Vaccine was 70% effective.
GDBO, they've misled the country and the world, shame on them for raising the hopes of a nation.
No...it definitely can't be said its 70% and definitely not true it is x% prevents symptoms.
"You’ll see reports that the vaccine had 70 percent efficacy, on average; but that’s un-knowable, because we only have numbers on these two regimens, as opposed to everyone in the trials—and how they arrived at those percentages isn’t explained. As far as we know, some of this analysis could hinge on data from just a few sick people."
As explained they mashed together some trials to get the 70% number, but they also disappeared some trial data.
Utterly scandalous, so it is much worse than I thought, there needs to be a criminal investigation into this.
For what crime?
--AS
Attempted genocide.
Trying to convince the UK populace to take their pandemic ending medicine when the numbers don't back that up is tantamount to genocide.
I really hope I missed the sarcasm.
--AS
Sarcasm from me? Disobliging comments about the University of Oxford from me?
That is so unlike me.
I've often wondered what it is you have against England's oldest University. They didn't see fit to award you a 2:2, did they? Or did they decide that your interests would better be served at a smaller or larger institution?
--AS
I decided to apply to England finest university, you know the one with many more Nobel Laureates than the other place.
All the hoohah over the Wired article won't matter a jot really. The Oxford vaccine will either be approved or not.
If the UK authorities approve it that's good enough for me thank-you very much.
What risk would you put on the vaccine being approved due to a political thumb on the scales?
Zero.
I wouldn't have followed this up with any answer such as "very low", but now I have to ask: what mechanisms are there to ensure that attempts at political pressure will be successfully rebuffed?
My confidence stems from the fact that the approval bodies are populated by scientists and my experience of scientists is that they don't bow to non-scientific pressure.
Turns out the BBC were right to report that the Oxford Vaccine was 70% effective.
GDBO, they've misled the country and the world, shame on them for raising the hopes of a nation.
No...it definitely can't be said its 70% and definitely not true it is x% prevents symptoms.
"You’ll see reports that the vaccine had 70 percent efficacy, on average; but that’s un-knowable, because we only have numbers on these two regimens, as opposed to everyone in the trials—and how they arrived at those percentages isn’t explained. As far as we know, some of this analysis could hinge on data from just a few sick people."
That’s the Wired article again, which I think is on legal thin ice. Have Oxon responded to it?
The talk of prevents symptoms is 100% incorrect...as they tested everybody weekly and included asymptomatic positives, so whatever percentage you want to use refers to prevents covid. Pfizer and moderna was prevents symptoms.
“The talk of” - who is this talking? AZ, Oxon or other people?
AIUI no-one in the Oxon vaccine cohort became ill enough to go to hospital, which is a different thing.
TSE said the BBC got their report correct. But the much mocked inaccurate reporting included the claim relating to preventing symptoms, which just isn't true, that isn't what their trial(s) looked at. The tested for anybody who contracted COVID, with or without symptoms.
I noticed they have finally edited the main pieces now, but still talk about protection against developing symptoms.
Yes, the way that was reported was clearly wrong because as you say AZ chalked an asymptomatic infection up as - rightly - an infection.
But it wasn’t AZ/Oxon doing that misreporting, it was journalists mangling it.
I don't think that correct. As I understand it they had to be symptomatic cases to reach the interim analysis trigger point. The asymptomatic data will follow, presumably.
I wish people would stop with the flag waving. It is appropriate at Prom concerts but not in science.
...says the man whose icon has as its background a, er... waving flag.
You learn something new every day. Today I've learned that Sir Richard Doll's 1950s discovery that smoking was the major cause of the huge increase in lung cancer wasn't valid because that wasn't what he was trying to test.
Depends what you mean by valid, but most people seem to have thought his findings were highly suggestive but needed the confirmation which they got a few years later from the British doctors survey. Of course the better something works the less you need to mess about with RCTs and stuff to prove it works, but protocols are what they are and need to be complied with, if only because the FDA says so.
Turns out the BBC were right to report that the Oxford Vaccine was 70% effective.
GDBO, they've misled the country and the world, shame on them for raising the hopes of a nation.
No...it definitely can't be said its 70% and definitely not true it is x% prevents symptoms.
"You’ll see reports that the vaccine had 70 percent efficacy, on average; but that’s un-knowable, because we only have numbers on these two regimens, as opposed to everyone in the trials—and how they arrived at those percentages isn’t explained. As far as we know, some of this analysis could hinge on data from just a few sick people."
As explained they mashed together some trials to get the 70% number, but they also disappeared some trial data.
Utterly scandalous, so it is much worse than I thought, there needs to be a criminal investigation into this.
For what crime?
--AS
Attempted genocide.
Trying to convince the UK populace to take their pandemic ending medicine when the numbers don't back that up is tantamount to genocide.
I really hope I missed the sarcasm.
--AS
Sarcasm from me? Disobliging comments about the University of Oxford from me?
That is so unlike me.
I've often wondered what it is you have against England's oldest University. They didn't see fit to award you a 2:2, did they? Or did they decide that your interests would better be served at a smaller or larger institution?
--AS
I decided to apply to England finest university, you know the one with many more Nobel Laureates than the other place.
Oh, my condolences. I hope it didn't hold you back in your career.
Turns out the BBC were right to report that the Oxford Vaccine was 70% effective.
GDBO, they've misled the country and the world, shame on them for raising the hopes of a nation.
No...it definitely can't be said its 70% and definitely not true it is x% prevents symptoms.
"You’ll see reports that the vaccine had 70 percent efficacy, on average; but that’s un-knowable, because we only have numbers on these two regimens, as opposed to everyone in the trials—and how they arrived at those percentages isn’t explained. As far as we know, some of this analysis could hinge on data from just a few sick people."
That’s the Wired article again, which I think is on legal thin ice. Have Oxon responded to it?
I see no legal thin ice. It's a scientific disagreement. I have similar qualms about its rigor, but not that it's at least somewhat effective. What we don't know is how effective.
No, Oxford hasn't responded, and I doubt they will in public. They are no doubt responding to regulators, and in due course reviewers.
--AS
Read the Wired headline.
I’m not going write it here as it’s (potentially) repeating a libel and I don’t want to risk getting Mike into any trouble.
Read the headline then share your thoughts.
I've read the article. Nothing actionable, nor close to it. For one thing, exactly whom does it libel?
--AS
Read the headline.
I refer the honorable gentleman/lady to the reply I gave some moments ago.
--AS
Okay, without my writing out the whole sentence, what does the phrase “isn’t up to snuff” mean to you?
All the hoohah over the Wired article won't matter a jot really. The Oxford vaccine will either be approved or not.
If the UK authorities approve it that's good enough for me thank-you very much.
What risk would you put on the vaccine being approved due to a political thumb on the scales?
Zero.
I wouldn't have followed this up with any answer such as "very low", but now I have to ask: what mechanisms are there to ensure that attempts at political pressure will be successfully rebuffed?
My confidence stems from the fact that the approval bodies are populated by scientists and my experience of scientists is that they don't bow to non-scientific pressure.
Turns out the BBC were right to report that the Oxford Vaccine was 70% effective.
GDBO, they've misled the country and the world, shame on them for raising the hopes of a nation.
No...it definitely can't be said its 70% and definitely not true it is x% prevents symptoms.
"You’ll see reports that the vaccine had 70 percent efficacy, on average; but that’s un-knowable, because we only have numbers on these two regimens, as opposed to everyone in the trials—and how they arrived at those percentages isn’t explained. As far as we know, some of this analysis could hinge on data from just a few sick people."
That’s the Wired article again, which I think is on legal thin ice. Have Oxon responded to it?
I see no legal thin ice. It's a scientific disagreement. I have similar qualms about its rigor, but not that it's at least somewhat effective. What we don't know is how effective.
No, Oxford hasn't responded, and I doubt they will in public. They are no doubt responding to regulators, and in due course reviewers.
--AS
Read the Wired headline.
I’m not going write it here as it’s (potentially) repeating a libel and I don’t want to risk getting Mike into any trouble.
Read the headline then share your thoughts.
I've read the article. Nothing actionable, nor close to it. For one thing, exactly whom does it libel?
--AS
Read the headline.
I refer the honorable gentleman/lady to the reply I gave some moments ago.
--AS
Okay, without my writing out the whole sentence, what does the phrase “isn’t up to snuff” mean to you?
'Isn't up to snuff' is the motto of the University of Oxford.
Turns out the BBC were right to report that the Oxford Vaccine was 70% effective.
GDBO, they've misled the country and the world, shame on them for raising the hopes of a nation.
Did they? Their own press release and Professor used the 70% headline figure. The 90% was advanced as a possibility.
Yet people are now trashing the whole trial.
The BBC also used the 70% figure, yet two people on here spent the entire day trashing the BBC for not using the 90% figure - and trashing those of us who were defending the BBC on the basis of the Astrozeneca press release.
All the hoohah over the Wired article won't matter a jot really. The Oxford vaccine will either be approved or not.
If the UK authorities approve it that's good enough for me thank-you very much.
What risk would you put on the vaccine being approved due to a political thumb on the scales?
Zero.
I wouldn't have followed this up with any answer such as "very low", but now I have to ask: what mechanisms are there to ensure that attempts at political pressure will be successfully rebuffed?
My confidence stems from the fact that the approval bodies are populated by scientists and my experience of scientists is that they don't bow to non-scientific pressure.
Wakefield
Deeply misguided (or worse) but not sure he was bowing to political pressure.
Turns out the BBC were right to report that the Oxford Vaccine was 70% effective.
GDBO, they've misled the country and the world, shame on them for raising the hopes of a nation.
No...it definitely can't be said its 70% and definitely not true it is x% prevents symptoms.
"You’ll see reports that the vaccine had 70 percent efficacy, on average; but that’s un-knowable, because we only have numbers on these two regimens, as opposed to everyone in the trials—and how they arrived at those percentages isn’t explained. As far as we know, some of this analysis could hinge on data from just a few sick people."
That’s the Wired article again, which I think is on legal thin ice. Have Oxon responded to it?
The talk of prevents symptoms is 100% incorrect...as they tested everybody weekly and included asymptomatic positives, so whatever percentage you want to use refers to prevents covid. Pfizer and moderna was prevents symptoms.
“The talk of” - who is this talking? AZ, Oxon or other people?
AIUI no-one in the Oxon vaccine cohort became ill enough to go to hospital, which is a different thing.
TSE said the BBC got their report correct. But the much mocked inaccurate reporting included the claim relating to preventing symptoms, which just isn't true, that isn't what their trial(s) looked at. The tested for anybody who contracted COVID, with or without symptoms.
I noticed they have finally edited the main pieces now.
They tested, but was efficacy measured with respect to positive test or symptomatic infection? The trial registration said the latter.
There's too much speculation here. We don't know enough to comment.
Turns out the BBC were right to report that the Oxford Vaccine was 70% effective.
GDBO, they've misled the country and the world, shame on them for raising the hopes of a nation.
No...it definitely can't be said its 70% and definitely not true it is x% prevents symptoms.
"You’ll see reports that the vaccine had 70 percent efficacy, on average; but that’s un-knowable, because we only have numbers on these two regimens, as opposed to everyone in the trials—and how they arrived at those percentages isn’t explained. As far as we know, some of this analysis could hinge on data from just a few sick people."
That’s the Wired article again, which I think is on legal thin ice. Have Oxon responded to it?
The talk of prevents symptoms is 100% incorrect...as they tested everybody weekly and included asymptomatic positives, so whatever percentage you want to use refers to prevents covid. Pfizer and moderna was prevents symptoms.
I don't think the asymptomatic data is yet reported. The cases in the Oxford trial appear to be symptomatic ones.
Until the full data is put up for peer review rather than as press releases it is hard to say for sure.
The Wired article raises significant valid concerns, which should all be considered by scientific peer review. That is how the system works and why peer review matters.
Bouncing a vaccine through on inadequate data is potentially very risky. The last thing that we want is an anti-vaxer hysteria.
Yes, I agree with all of this. And, notably, it will be evaluated by regulators and in peer review. Not by some people on the internet (many of whom have been getting this back-asswards since Monday's press release).
--AS
Agreed. It’s also likely that they are still processing data ? And of course continue to accrue data as the trial continues.
Turns out the BBC were right to report that the Oxford Vaccine was 70% effective.
GDBO, they've misled the country and the world, shame on them for raising the hopes of a nation.
No...it definitely can't be said its 70% and definitely not true it is x% prevents symptoms.
"You’ll see reports that the vaccine had 70 percent efficacy, on average; but that’s un-knowable, because we only have numbers on these two regimens, as opposed to everyone in the trials—and how they arrived at those percentages isn’t explained. As far as we know, some of this analysis could hinge on data from just a few sick people."
As explained they mashed together some trials to get the 70% number, but they also disappeared some trial data.
Utterly scandalous, so it is much worse than I thought, there needs to be a criminal investigation into this.
For what crime?
--AS
Attempted genocide.
Trying to convince the UK populace to take their pandemic ending medicine when the numbers don't back that up is tantamount to genocide.
I really hope I missed the sarcasm.
--AS
Sarcasm from me? Disobliging comments about the University of Oxford from me?
That is so unlike me.
I've often wondered what it is you have against England's oldest University. They didn't see fit to award you a 2:2, did they? Or did they decide that your interests would better be served at a smaller or larger institution?
--AS
I decided to apply to England finest university, you know the one with many more Nobel Laureates than the other place.
Oh, my condolences. I hope it didn't hold you back in your career.
--AS
Only my legendary modesty has held me back in life.
Turns out the BBC were right to report that the Oxford Vaccine was 70% effective.
GDBO, they've misled the country and the world, shame on them for raising the hopes of a nation.
Did they? Their own press release and Professor used the 70% headline figure. The 90% was advanced as a possibility.
Yet people are now trashing the whole trial.
The BBC also used the 70% figure, yet two people on here spent the entire day trashing the BBC for not using the 90% figure - and trashing those of us who were defending the BBC on the basis of the Astrozeneca press release.
What's the point of the BBC News is they are just going to copy and paste the headline from a press release? It isn't an excuse. The point of the media is to check out stories and get the facts.
The same way as they kept using the day of death announcement stats provided by the government, when it soon became clear to everybody they were misleading due to the delay in reporting / backfilling and should not be reported in that way.
Turns out the BBC were right to report that the Oxford Vaccine was 70% effective.
GDBO, they've misled the country and the world, shame on them for raising the hopes of a nation.
No...it definitely can't be said its 70% and definitely not true it is x% prevents symptoms.
"You’ll see reports that the vaccine had 70 percent efficacy, on average; but that’s un-knowable, because we only have numbers on these two regimens, as opposed to everyone in the trials—and how they arrived at those percentages isn’t explained. As far as we know, some of this analysis could hinge on data from just a few sick people."
As explained they mashed together some trials to get the 70% number, but they also disappeared some trial data.
Utterly scandalous, so it is much worse than I thought, there needs to be a criminal investigation into this.
For what crime?
--AS
Attempted genocide.
Trying to convince the UK populace to take their pandemic ending medicine when the numbers don't back that up is tantamount to genocide.
I really hope I missed the sarcasm.
--AS
Sarcasm from me? Disobliging comments about the University of Oxford from me?
That is so unlike me.
I've often wondered what it is you have against England's oldest University. They didn't see fit to award you a 2:2, did they? Or did they decide that your interests would better be served at a smaller or larger institution?
--AS
I decided to apply to England finest university, you know the one with many more Nobel Laureates than the other place.
Wasn’t Britain’s worst ever PM, as discussed in the last thread, an alumnus ?
All the hoohah over the Wired article won't matter a jot really. The Oxford vaccine will either be approved or not.
If the UK authorities approve it that's good enough for me thank-you very much.
What risk would you put on the vaccine being approved due to a political thumb on the scales?
Zero.
I wouldn't have followed this up with any answer such as "very low", but now I have to ask: what mechanisms are there to ensure that attempts at political pressure will be successfully rebuffed?
My confidence stems from the fact that the approval bodies are populated by scientists and my experience of scientists is that they don't bow to non-scientific pressure.
Wakefield
Deeply misguided (or worse) but not sure he was bowing to political pressure.
Not political pressure in that case, but a conflict of interest. The point is a broad one: scientists are human and susceptible to threats, flattery, cognitive biases, bribery, and so on. It's robust systems that prevent abuses and regulatory capture, not faith in the nobility and honesty of individuals. Such systems might well be in place, but I do not know what they are.
Turns out the BBC were right to report that the Oxford Vaccine was 70% effective.
GDBO, they've misled the country and the world, shame on them for raising the hopes of a nation.
No...it definitely can't be said its 70% and definitely not true it is x% prevents symptoms.
"You’ll see reports that the vaccine had 70 percent efficacy, on average; but that’s un-knowable, because we only have numbers on these two regimens, as opposed to everyone in the trials—and how they arrived at those percentages isn’t explained. As far as we know, some of this analysis could hinge on data from just a few sick people."
That’s the Wired article again, which I think is on legal thin ice. Have Oxon responded to it?
The talk of prevents symptoms is 100% incorrect...as they tested everybody weekly and included asymptomatic positives, so whatever percentage you want to use refers to prevents covid. Pfizer and moderna was prevents symptoms.
I don't think the asymptomatic data is yet reported. The cases in the Oxford trial appear to be symptomatic ones.
From the original AZ press release
"In addition, weekly swabbing are done for detection of infection and assessment of vaccine efficacy against infection."
Yes, but we don't know if that is what was reported. The trial protocol seems to define cases as symptomatic ones.
Which is why we need a proper paper, not just press releases, or @Charles assuring us that they are good eggs, because he went to school with some of them🙄
Comments
"You’ll see reports that the vaccine had 70 percent efficacy, on average; but that’s un-knowable, because we only have numbers on these two regimens, as opposed to everyone in the trials—and how they arrived at those percentages isn’t explained. As far as we know, some of this analysis could hinge on data from just a few sick people."
As explained they mashed together some trials to get the 70% number, but they also disappeared some trial data.
Yet people are now trashing the whole trial.
Biden 1.05
Democrats 1.05
Biden PV 1.03
Biden PV 49-51.9% 1.03
Trump PV 46-48.9% 1.04
Trump ECV 210-239 1.07
Biden ECV 300-329 1.07
Biden ECV Hcap -48.5 1.03
Biden ECV Hcap -63.5 1.05
Trump ECV Hcap +81.5 1.02
AZ Dem 1.03
GA Dem 1.05
MI Dem 1.03
NV Dem 1.03
PA Dem 1.05
WI Dem 1.03
Trump to leave before end of term NO 1.1
Trump exit date 2021 1.08
It seemed only fair. And in exchange, we get free entrance to all the museums in Washington DC.
https://twitter.com/heraldscotland/status/1331734411990106114
One to file, if not quite in the bin, at most in the 'needs corroboration' pile.
https://twitter.com/Telegraph/status/1331740055438811137
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/nov/25/most-of-england-will-enter-two-toughest-tiers-when-lockdown-is-lifted?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
But anyone's whose analysis runs "I didn't like Johnson or Corbyn, but I had to vote for one of them" isn't even being honest with themselves. There's no excuse for voting for something you know to be shit if there is an option on the ballot that doesn't look shit to you.
AIUI no-one in the Oxon vaccine cohort became ill enough to go to hospital, which is a different thing.
No, Oxford hasn't responded, and I doubt they will in public. They are no doubt responding to regulators, and in due course reviewers.
--AS
--AS
I noticed they have finally edited the main pieces now, but still talk about protection against developing symptoms.
If the UK authorities approve it that's good enough for me thank-you very much.
The article is absolutely right about one very important aspect: the terms of success must be defined beforehand. If M or Pf tested for asymptomatic cases but then threw away those result, and only presented the severe-case data, I'd be deeply worried about them.
Until the full data is put up for peer review rather than as press releases it is hard to say for sure.
The Wired article raises significant valid concerns, which should all be considered by scientific peer review. That is how the system works and why peer review matters.
Bouncing a vaccine through on inadequate data is potentially very risky. The last thing that we want is an anti-vaxer hysteria.
Have you read the internet before??
Although while I agree that its a poor article it does seem remarkable that AZ / Oxford despite being the first to start Phase 3 appear to have less data and a less coherent trial than their competitors.
Per CNN, Trump is meeting "Republican lawmakers" from Pennsylvania at the White House tonight.
Maybe he is going for a last ditch appeal to get them to appoint Trump electors? Doesn't matter how unlikely or crazy it may seem, he is still entirely capable of doing so.
I’m not going write it here as it’s (potentially) repeating a libel and I don’t want to risk getting Mike into any trouble.
Read the headline then share your thoughts.
If you took the Wired journalist negative spin on Oxford approach and flipped it to the Pfizer / Moderna one, you could make some claim of "don't ask, don't tell" about possible positive cases of COVID in their trials....as plenty of people probably have had COVID but only later went hmm was a bit odd that other week, felt a little bit crappy, food tasted a bit rubbish, but I am better now, never mind.
There's too much speculation here. We don't know enough to comment. Yes, I agree with all of this. And, notably, it will be evaluated by regulators and in peer review. Not by some people on the internet (many of whom have been getting this back-asswards since Monday's press release).
--AS
I also know AZ and they are a scientifically rigorous organisation
The reason it is worth watching is not for the royal soap opera but for the politics. It is an entertaining romp through our political history from Churchill onwards.
Trying to convince the UK populace to take their pandemic ending medicine when the numbers don't back that up is tantamount to genocide.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/nov/25/germany-to-decide-next-round-of-covid-restrictions
As I recall, 2 separate trials are required for FDA* licensing, and each has to prove efficacy. We don't know yet if that is the case.
*Other countries also apply this rule, though often piggyback approval on whether the FDA approves.
Unless they are mates of Boris, they aren't going to get much are they?
https://twitter.com/danbloom1/status/1331718420568666112
--AS
--AS
FFS we’ve had a press release. We’ve not had the proper peer reviewed report
But it wasn’t AZ/Oxon doing that misreporting, it was journalists mangling it.
what mechanisms are there to ensure that attempts at political pressure will be successfully rebuffed?
However, the Government is under no obligation to call a vote on any treaty – it removed its previous commitment to hold a vote on the final UK-EU treaty from the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, which was passed in January.
But the Government will almost certainly have to pass primary legislation to implement the resulting UK-EU treaty into domestic UK law.
This would need to pass through both Houses before December 31. And, this is where it could get difficult for the PM. One Tory source told me: "For Brexiteers, the overwhelmingly important issue is UK sovereignty.
"If that is not preserved in the final agreement, I have no doubt we will vote against the treaty in whatever vote is called – either under CRAG (if there is one) or for the final domestic implementing legislation."
I wish people would stop with the flag waving. It is appropriate at Prom concerts but not in science.
Ministers can ratify any UK-EU treaty (which is what the final agreement would be) under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 (CRAG), which requires it to be laid before Parliament. It then automatically becomes law if MPs don’t vote against it within 21 days of the date of laying.
However, the Government is under no obligation to call a vote on any treaty – it removed its previous commitment to hold a vote on the final UK-EU treaty from the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, which was passed in January.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/11/25/european-research-group-warns-will-vote-against-uk-eu-deal-sovereignty/
I refer the honorable gentleman/lady to the reply I gave some moments ago.
--AS
The fact Boris has a majority of 80 is why he is the most powerful Tory PM since Thatcher and the most powerful PM overall since Blair, May was in a totally different scenario with no majority at all
That is so unlike me.
If a deal is agreed and Johnson doesn't fancy putting it to the HoC, I cannot see Labour voting down the necessary legislation, the absence of which would lead to legal chaos.
BBC will give Marcus Rashford a special award for his efforts to end child food poverty after he missed out on Sports Personality of the Year shortlist. The striker will also be the subject of a BBC documentary as the player tries to 'understand the effects of food poverty and how Covid-19 has contributed to the issue'.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8988041/Marcus-Rashford-receives-award-free-school-meals-campaign.html
--AS
From the original AZ press release
"In addition, weekly swabbing are done for detection of infection and assessment of vaccine efficacy against infection."
https://www.astrazeneca.com/media-centre/press-releases/2020/azd1222hlr.html
--AS
It’s also likely that they are still processing data ?
And of course continue to accrue data as the trial continues.
The same way as they kept using the day of death announcement stats provided by the government, when it soon became clear to everybody they were misleading due to the delay in reporting / backfilling and should not be reported in that way.
The point is a broad one: scientists are human and susceptible to threats, flattery, cognitive biases, bribery, and so on. It's robust systems that prevent abuses and regulatory capture, not faith in the nobility and honesty of individuals.
Such systems might well be in place, but I do not know what they are.
Which is why we need a proper paper, not just press releases, or @Charles assuring us that they are good eggs, because he went to school with some of them🙄