Howdy, Stranger!

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

Some Predictions For 2021 – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,168
edited December 2020 in General
imageSome Predictions For 2021 – politicalbetting.com

(This is the first of several posts this week in which prominent PBers give their predictions for the New Year)

Read the full story here

«1345

Comments

  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,240
    edited December 2020
    Premier.

    Reveillez-vous !!
  • TimTTimT Posts: 6,468
    Moi, j'vais dormir.
  • MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 4,688
    Well you wouldn't have been if my message hadn't mysteriously vanished. It's a fix I tell ya. The machine was rigged. The system makes up posts and deletes others. I won I did.

    Back in the real world I had posted that I liked most of Robert's predictions. The only one with which I have a query is his optimism about the speed of covid's departure. Especially with mutations I think it may stick around a good bit longer than end Q2. Otherwise some great suggestions.

    Now see if this vanishes again. I blame it on Dominion.
  • I see, BJ-like, Mr Smithson has has two prediction posts. I've not yet checked if they're the same predictions in each post...
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,240
    edited December 2020
    Fifth. Ish.

    Nice piece Robert. On the predictions:

    1 - I agree on the rollout - imo it could have its back broken well before Easter in the UK if we get our Rs in gear. Though I'm concerned at the blip downwards in vaccination rate in the last 10 days before Christmas.

    2 - I think the changes to travel/visa arrangements may be a damp squib for many, many people. Arguably making it more difficult to live in 2 countries at once is a win for saving the planet - I'll never forget the Extinction Rebellion demonstrator admitting that she commuted weekly from the Netherlands to London.

    But a small number of people may be seriously affected. And many more applications for Irish passports from those people for whom it is a serious problem.

    3 - Ireland / NI will be a powerful choice of European Headquarters.

    4 - There will be some changes in the insulation industry. Kingspan is a 4bn entrepreneurial Irish Company, and Kingspan is part of 20bn Saint Gobain who own Jewson and others.

    Will they still exist? And what will they get stung for? And is this issue multinational?

    5 - Currently disputed Planning Reforms will happen despite another level of Appeal from the various single issue groups, and that will loosen up repurposing of many buildings - which may help town centres.

    (I'm talking about Use Classes - what you can do with a building, not the politics about the "formula". There has always been a formula to set requirements for local Housing Needs in Local Plans.)

    6 - I would *like* to see Building Regulations inspections tightened up to be a full 100% on new estates, not a sample of a couple of houses.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,209
    That's a bit misleading.

    Moderna & Pfizer/BioNTech are 95% effective in preventing any signs of CV19 infection. AZN is about 66% effective by that measure.

    HOWEVER, AZN also reduces the chance of really serious CV19 by around 95%, and probably reduces your infectiousness quite significantly.

    If everyone has the AZN vaccine, it reduces CV19 to flu season..
    Perhaps bad flu season, but flu season nonetheless.

    But, still, I'd probably want to most vulnerable - or those on the front line - the get the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines.
  • rcs1000 said:

    That's a bit misleading.

    Moderna & Pfizer/BioNTech are 95% effective in preventing any signs of CV19 infection. AZN is about 66% effective by that measure.

    HOWEVER, AZN also reduces the chance of really serious CV19 by around 95%, and probably reduces your infectiousness quite significantly.

    If everyone has the AZN vaccine, it reduces CV19 to flu season..
    Perhaps bad flu season, but flu season nonetheless.

    But, still, I'd probably want to most vulnerable - or those on the front line - the get the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines.
    Does the Times article have actual data? I hope that it backs up Soriot's words: AZN's desire to spin results as more positive than they are (so far) reflects poorly on them.

    I was wondering where the leak about MHRA approval comes from. I've noticed several Oxford sources trying to put subtle pressure on the regulator to approve, and I wonder if the leak is genuine or whether it's an attempt to bounce them. AZN's intervention might be in response to the leak, or it might be further pressure.

    I guess it won't take long to find out, since approval will either happen next week or not, and they must publish soon.

    --AS
  • rcs1000 said:

    That's a bit misleading.

    Moderna & Pfizer/BioNTech are 95% effective in preventing any signs of CV19 infection. AZN is about 66% effective by that measure.

    HOWEVER, AZN also reduces the chance of really serious CV19 by around 95%, and probably reduces your infectiousness quite significantly.

    If everyone has the AZN vaccine, it reduces CV19 to flu season..
    Perhaps bad flu season, but flu season nonetheless.

    But, still, I'd probably want to most vulnerable - or those on the front line - the get the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines.
    I haven’t read the article as it’s £-wall - but the tweeter is a usually reliable source of perspective. Have Pfizer published their results formally?
  • GadflyGadfly Posts: 1,191

    rcs1000 said:

    That's a bit misleading.

    Moderna & Pfizer/BioNTech are 95% effective in preventing any signs of CV19 infection. AZN is about 66% effective by that measure.

    HOWEVER, AZN also reduces the chance of really serious CV19 by around 95%, and probably reduces your infectiousness quite significantly.

    If everyone has the AZN vaccine, it reduces CV19 to flu season..
    Perhaps bad flu season, but flu season nonetheless.

    But, still, I'd probably want to most vulnerable - or those on the front line - the get the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines.
    Does the Times article have actual data? I hope that it backs up Soriot's words
    It appears to quote Soriot twice...

    Astra Zeneca’s chief executive, Pascal Soriot, today reveals that new data will show the vaccine is as effective as the Pfizer and Moderna jabs that have already been approved, protecting 95% of patients, and is “100% effective” in preventing severe illness requiring hospital treatment.

    Then later it says...

    “We think we have figured out the winning formula and how to get efficacy that, after two doses, is up there with everybody else,” said Soriot.

  • Coles Notes on the deal from the Institute for Government

    https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/publication/future-relationship-trade-deal
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,725
    There is one bright moment this morning The Ozzies are struggling against India .....
  • Good morning, everyone.

    Let's hope thing do return to normal. Not sure I'm putting money on it, though.
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 9,165
    edited December 2020
    Not taking it particularly well, but at this stage there's no reason to consider that this is any less likely than the almost comically airy dismissal above in an otherwise solid header, that Brexit will be fine, and 'nothing much will happen'.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,868
    edited December 2020
    The earlier, economic, predictions in the lead aren’t wild, but are pretty much the base case. There is huge pent up demand to return to ‘normal life’, and as vaccines are rolled out within countries, this should soon become possible. Despite the real hardship inflicted on some sectors of the economy, there is a wall of money waiting to be spent - I believe I saw somewhere that £100 bn has been added to savings accounts during the pandemic.

    Sectors will recover at varying speeds, and possibly travel will still be struggling into the summer with new restrictions related to vaccination. But the general short term outlook is very positive, and with a general feeling of exuberance as we are released from this winter, markets are likely to surge. I’d avoid the US which is already at record highs, but elsewhere markets look good value.

    The suggestion that inflation returns in the second half of the year isn’t wild. Demand will be strong but supply will be limited, as production takes time to recover from this year’s disruption. It’s a classic inflation scenario, and only feels weird because we haven’t seen inflation for such a long time. This will likely deliver negative real interest rates and various other economic shocks, and 2021 will probably be a year to sell in May, as per the old adage.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,868
    rcs1000 said:

    That's a bit misleading.

    Moderna & Pfizer/BioNTech are 95% effective in preventing any signs of CV19 infection. AZN is about 66% effective by that measure.

    HOWEVER, AZN also reduces the chance of really serious CV19 by around 95%, and probably reduces your infectiousness quite significantly.

    If everyone has the AZN vaccine, it reduces CV19 to flu season..
    Perhaps bad flu season, but flu season nonetheless.

    But, still, I'd probably want to most vulnerable - or those on the front line - the get the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines.
    I thought Pfizer didn’t test for asymptomatic COVID and so can’t say?
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 5,331
    ‘Nothing much exciting happens in the UK’, excepting 2021 being the year that the union starts to fall apart?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,868
    edited December 2020
    Guardian: Los Angeles is becoming the center of America’s out-of-control coronavirus pandemic in these final days before the new year, with officials warning that a meteoric rise in infections is crushing the healthcare system in one of the country’s largest metropolitan regions.

    LA county has faced an onslaught of terrifying Covid developments in recent days, including a surge in deaths, dire shortages of hospital resources, and fears that doctors will have to make agonizing choices to ration care.

    Officials in LA county estimated that one in 95 residents were currently infectious, and that two residents were dying of Covid every hour. More than 6,000 Covid patients are in the hospital, and intensive care units (ICU) are filled to capacity.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,209
    IanB2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    That's a bit misleading.

    Moderna & Pfizer/BioNTech are 95% effective in preventing any signs of CV19 infection. AZN is about 66% effective by that measure.

    HOWEVER, AZN also reduces the chance of really serious CV19 by around 95%, and probably reduces your infectiousness quite significantly.

    If everyone has the AZN vaccine, it reduces CV19 to flu season..
    Perhaps bad flu season, but flu season nonetheless.

    But, still, I'd probably want to most vulnerable - or those on the front line - the get the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines.
    I thought Pfizer didn’t test for asymptomatic COVID and so can’t say?
    The AZN figures are for symptomatic CV19 only. They haven't released data on asymptomatic infections.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,209
    Gadfly said:

    rcs1000 said:

    That's a bit misleading.

    Moderna & Pfizer/BioNTech are 95% effective in preventing any signs of CV19 infection. AZN is about 66% effective by that measure.

    HOWEVER, AZN also reduces the chance of really serious CV19 by around 95%, and probably reduces your infectiousness quite significantly.

    If everyone has the AZN vaccine, it reduces CV19 to flu season..
    Perhaps bad flu season, but flu season nonetheless.

    But, still, I'd probably want to most vulnerable - or those on the front line - the get the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines.
    Does the Times article have actual data? I hope that it backs up Soriot's words
    It appears to quote Soriot twice...

    Astra Zeneca’s chief executive, Pascal Soriot, today reveals that new data will show the vaccine is as effective as the Pfizer and Moderna jabs that have already been approved, protecting 95% of patients, and is “100% effective” in preventing severe illness requiring hospital treatment.

    Then later it says...

    “We think we have figured out the winning formula and how to get efficacy that, after two doses, is up there with everybody else,” said Soriot.

    To be fair, that's entirely possible. Calculating the precise doses, and dose spacing, to ensure maximum efficacy, while also moving at the greatest possible speed is no easy feat.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,652
    edited December 2020
    My guess is that Scotland moves front and centre next year. Outside of that, in politics the best bets are Andy Street’s re-election in the West Midlands and Sadiq Khan’s in London. They’ll both walk it. We’ll also see the government move decisively against the courts.

    On the economy, I think the recovery will be patchy. There is huge pent up demand, but it is not evenly spread - either geographically or demographically. Work from homers and the retired will have cash to burn. Others not so much. I hope my sister can hang on with her pub until springtime. If she can she’ll make a mint as it’s mostly a music venue and a lot of people in London are going to want to go to gigs. I also think the end of FoM is going to push up house prices in many coastal communities - something of a mixed blessing given many purchasers will be second homers or holiday let companies.

    Brexit means more red tape and higher costs, so many export-led UK businesses will have to work to tighter margins or make sacrifices elsewhere. But this will have a cumulative rather than immediate effect so will not be massively apparent. As many others have said, a slow puncture rather than a car crash. Possession of an Irish passport becomes a golden ticket in the UK on 1st January.

    All in all, 2021 should be a good year for the Tories. But they may find they are running out of kilter with the economy as the next general election approaches.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,462

    ‘Nothing much exciting happens in the UK’, excepting 2021 being the year that the union starts to fall apart?

    If there's a feelgood factor, post nationwide vaccination, won't that mean that even Scots are less unhappy with the political status quo?
  • rcs1000 said:

    IanB2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    That's a bit misleading.

    Moderna & Pfizer/BioNTech are 95% effective in preventing any signs of CV19 infection. AZN is about 66% effective by that measure.

    HOWEVER, AZN also reduces the chance of really serious CV19 by around 95%, and probably reduces your infectiousness quite significantly.

    If everyone has the AZN vaccine, it reduces CV19 to flu season..
    Perhaps bad flu season, but flu season nonetheless.

    But, still, I'd probably want to most vulnerable - or those on the front line - the get the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines.
    I thought Pfizer didn’t test for asymptomatic COVID and so can’t say?
    The AZN figures are for symptomatic CV19 only. They haven't released data on asymptomatic infections.
    Some of the [AZN] trials included in this pooled analysis collected weekly nasal swabs from participants to try to determine if the vaccine reduced asymptomatic infections, which would not come to light otherwise. This makes it unique among the Covid-19 vaccine trials.

    The early findings suggested the low dose, full dose regimen may have reduced the number of asymptomatic cases. Reducing the number of unknowingly infected people in a population could cut back on transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, which causes Covid-19. But lead author Andrew Pollard, director of the Oxford vaccine group, suggested more data are needed to see if this effect is real.


    https://www.statnews.com/2020/12/08/detailed-data-on-astrazeneca-oxford-covid-19-vaccine-show-it-has-moderate-efficacy/
  • Annalena Baerbock is certainly a name to conjure with.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,868
    rcs1000 said:

    IanB2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    That's a bit misleading.

    Moderna & Pfizer/BioNTech are 95% effective in preventing any signs of CV19 infection. AZN is about 66% effective by that measure.

    HOWEVER, AZN also reduces the chance of really serious CV19 by around 95%, and probably reduces your infectiousness quite significantly.

    If everyone has the AZN vaccine, it reduces CV19 to flu season..
    Perhaps bad flu season, but flu season nonetheless.

    But, still, I'd probably want to most vulnerable - or those on the front line - the get the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines.
    I thought Pfizer didn’t test for asymptomatic COVID and so can’t say?
    The AZN figures are for symptomatic CV19 only. They haven't released data on asymptomatic infections.
    I think it’s the other way around. AZN’s data on asymptomatic carriers is why their headline figure initially looked low, and it is the other vaccines that may not have this data.
  • GadflyGadfly Posts: 1,191
    IanB2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    IanB2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    That's a bit misleading.

    Moderna & Pfizer/BioNTech are 95% effective in preventing any signs of CV19 infection. AZN is about 66% effective by that measure.

    HOWEVER, AZN also reduces the chance of really serious CV19 by around 95%, and probably reduces your infectiousness quite significantly.

    If everyone has the AZN vaccine, it reduces CV19 to flu season..
    Perhaps bad flu season, but flu season nonetheless.

    But, still, I'd probably want to most vulnerable - or those on the front line - the get the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines.
    I thought Pfizer didn’t test for asymptomatic COVID and so can’t say?
    The AZN figures are for symptomatic CV19 only. They haven't released data on asymptomatic infections.
    I think it’s the other way around. AZN’s data on asymptomatic carriers is why their headline figure initially looked low, and it is the other vaccines that may not have this data.
    That was my understanding too.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,599
    edited December 2020

    The Oxford vaccine is a truly magnificent achievement. A genuine game changer. It’s hard to overstate just what a big deal it is.

    The simple handling required, and the huge production capacity available, should mean that all the non-vulnerable groups who want the vaccine should be able to get it within a couple of months. If we can get everyone who works in close proximity to others vaccinated in Q1, then infection rates should drop like a stone.

    It will also be a great vaccine for the third world, who can’t deal with the refrigeration costs of the other vaccines.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,710
    IanB2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    IanB2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    That's a bit misleading.

    Moderna & Pfizer/BioNTech are 95% effective in preventing any signs of CV19 infection. AZN is about 66% effective by that measure.

    HOWEVER, AZN also reduces the chance of really serious CV19 by around 95%, and probably reduces your infectiousness quite significantly.

    If everyone has the AZN vaccine, it reduces CV19 to flu season..
    Perhaps bad flu season, but flu season nonetheless.

    But, still, I'd probably want to most vulnerable - or those on the front line - the get the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines.
    I thought Pfizer didn’t test for asymptomatic COVID and so can’t say?
    The AZN figures are for symptomatic CV19 only. They haven't released data on asymptomatic infections.
    I think it’s the other way around. AZN’s data on asymptomatic carriers is why their headline figure initially looked low, and it is the other vaccines that may not have this data.
    The Lancet publication on the Oxford vaccine is on symptomatic cases (131). I haven't yet seen the asymptomatic data published.

    https://www.astrazeneca.com/media-centre/press-releases/2020/azd1222-oxford-phase-iii-trials-interim-analysis-results-published-in-the-lancet.html
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,675
    2021 remains a volatile year and unevenly spread, therefore predictions very difficult. There will be a number of prominent losers as the economic aftermath. Hard to see all the redundancies being rehired immediately. Meanwhile, no doubt others will trumpet great success and recovery.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,209
    IanB2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    IanB2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    That's a bit misleading.

    Moderna & Pfizer/BioNTech are 95% effective in preventing any signs of CV19 infection. AZN is about 66% effective by that measure.

    HOWEVER, AZN also reduces the chance of really serious CV19 by around 95%, and probably reduces your infectiousness quite significantly.

    If everyone has the AZN vaccine, it reduces CV19 to flu season..
    Perhaps bad flu season, but flu season nonetheless.

    But, still, I'd probably want to most vulnerable - or those on the front line - the get the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines.
    I thought Pfizer didn’t test for asymptomatic COVID and so can’t say?
    The AZN figures are for symptomatic CV19 only. They haven't released data on asymptomatic infections.
    I think it’s the other way around. AZN’s data on asymptomatic carriers is why their headline figure initially looked low, and it is the other vaccines that may not have this data.
    That's simply not true. The press release was very specific about it being symptomatic CV19 infections.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,868
    Sandpit said:

    The Oxford vaccine is a truly magnificent achievement. A genuine game changer. It’s hard to overstate just what a big deal it is.

    The simple handling required, and the huge production capacity available, should mean that all the non-vulnerable groups who want the vaccine should be able to get it within a couple of months. If we can get everyone who works in close proximity to others vaccinated in Q1, then infection rates should drop like a stone.

    It will also be a great vaccine for the third world, who can’t deal with the refrigeration costs of the other vaccines.
    Yes, the detail in the Times article suggests teachers may be moved up into a priority category - if only to avoid the embarrassment of having to close schools again
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,209
    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    IanB2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    That's a bit misleading.

    Moderna & Pfizer/BioNTech are 95% effective in preventing any signs of CV19 infection. AZN is about 66% effective by that measure.

    HOWEVER, AZN also reduces the chance of really serious CV19 by around 95%, and probably reduces your infectiousness quite significantly.

    If everyone has the AZN vaccine, it reduces CV19 to flu season..
    Perhaps bad flu season, but flu season nonetheless.

    But, still, I'd probably want to most vulnerable - or those on the front line - the get the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines.
    I thought Pfizer didn’t test for asymptomatic COVID and so can’t say?
    The AZN figures are for symptomatic CV19 only. They haven't released data on asymptomatic infections.
    I think it’s the other way around. AZN’s data on asymptomatic carriers is why their headline figure initially looked low, and it is the other vaccines that may not have this data.
    The Lancet publication on the Oxford vaccine is on symptomatic cases (131). I haven't yet seen the asymptomatic data published.

    https://www.astrazeneca.com/media-centre/press-releases/2020/azd1222-oxford-phase-iii-trials-interim-analysis-results-published-in-the-lancet.html
    Thank you.

    While they collected data on asymptomatic collections, that has not been released. (Which is, in itself, mildly suspicious.)
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,865

    The Oxford vaccine is a truly magnificent achievement. A genuine game changer. It’s hard to overstate just what a big deal it is.

    Yes, it could help us see the back of this by the end of April. With all of the logistical issues we wouldn't be able to achieve that with the Pfizer vaccine alone. Assuming Soriot is right and the MHRA is set to approve a 90-95% effective version of the vaccine then it really could be the silver bullet we're all waiting for.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,868
    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    IanB2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    That's a bit misleading.

    Moderna & Pfizer/BioNTech are 95% effective in preventing any signs of CV19 infection. AZN is about 66% effective by that measure.

    HOWEVER, AZN also reduces the chance of really serious CV19 by around 95%, and probably reduces your infectiousness quite significantly.

    If everyone has the AZN vaccine, it reduces CV19 to flu season..
    Perhaps bad flu season, but flu season nonetheless.

    But, still, I'd probably want to most vulnerable - or those on the front line - the get the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines.
    I thought Pfizer didn’t test for asymptomatic COVID and so can’t say?
    The AZN figures are for symptomatic CV19 only. They haven't released data on asymptomatic infections.
    I think it’s the other way around. AZN’s data on asymptomatic carriers is why their headline figure initially looked low, and it is the other vaccines that may not have this data.
    The Lancet publication on the Oxford vaccine is on symptomatic cases (131). I haven't yet seen the asymptomatic data published.

    https://www.astrazeneca.com/media-centre/press-releases/2020/azd1222-oxford-phase-iii-trials-interim-analysis-results-published-in-the-lancet.html
    This early Bloomberg release appears to rely on some data on aymptomatic

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-08/astra-shot-better-at-stopping-covid-than-slowing-transmission
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,209
    IanB2 said:

    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    IanB2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    That's a bit misleading.

    Moderna & Pfizer/BioNTech are 95% effective in preventing any signs of CV19 infection. AZN is about 66% effective by that measure.

    HOWEVER, AZN also reduces the chance of really serious CV19 by around 95%, and probably reduces your infectiousness quite significantly.

    If everyone has the AZN vaccine, it reduces CV19 to flu season..
    Perhaps bad flu season, but flu season nonetheless.

    But, still, I'd probably want to most vulnerable - or those on the front line - the get the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines.
    I thought Pfizer didn’t test for asymptomatic COVID and so can’t say?
    The AZN figures are for symptomatic CV19 only. They haven't released data on asymptomatic infections.
    I think it’s the other way around. AZN’s data on asymptomatic carriers is why their headline figure initially looked low, and it is the other vaccines that may not have this data.
    The Lancet publication on the Oxford vaccine is on symptomatic cases (131). I haven't yet seen the asymptomatic data published.

    https://www.astrazeneca.com/media-centre/press-releases/2020/azd1222-oxford-phase-iii-trials-interim-analysis-results-published-in-the-lancet.html
    This early Bloomberg release appears to rely on some data on aymptomatic

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-08/astra-shot-better-at-stopping-covid-than-slowing-transmission
    I think we should trust the actual press release from the company, over a Bloomberg story.

    It's a question of Occam's razor.
  • GadflyGadfly Posts: 1,191
    rcs1000 said:

    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    IanB2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    That's a bit misleading.

    Moderna & Pfizer/BioNTech are 95% effective in preventing any signs of CV19 infection. AZN is about 66% effective by that measure.

    HOWEVER, AZN also reduces the chance of really serious CV19 by around 95%, and probably reduces your infectiousness quite significantly.

    If everyone has the AZN vaccine, it reduces CV19 to flu season..
    Perhaps bad flu season, but flu season nonetheless.

    But, still, I'd probably want to most vulnerable - or those on the front line - the get the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines.
    I thought Pfizer didn’t test for asymptomatic COVID and so can’t say?
    The AZN figures are for symptomatic CV19 only. They haven't released data on asymptomatic infections.
    I think it’s the other way around. AZN’s data on asymptomatic carriers is why their headline figure initially looked low, and it is the other vaccines that may not have this data.
    The Lancet publication on the Oxford vaccine is on symptomatic cases (131). I haven't yet seen the asymptomatic data published.

    https://www.astrazeneca.com/media-centre/press-releases/2020/azd1222-oxford-phase-iii-trials-interim-analysis-results-published-in-the-lancet.html
    Thank you.

    While they collected data on asymptomatic collections, that has not been released. (Which is, in itself, mildly suspicious.)
    I suspect that two studies are being mixed up.

    "The study also measured protection against asymptomatic infection by asking volunteers to do regular swabs to check if they had Covid without feeling unwell.

    More of these cases were seen in the group that did not receive the vaccine."

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55228422
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483

    My guess is that Scotland moves front and centre next year. Outside of that, in politics the best bets are Andy Street’s re-election in the West Midlands and Sadiq Khan’s in London. They’ll both walk it. We’ll also see the government move decisively against the courts.

    On the economy, I think the recovery will be patchy. There is huge pent up demand, but it is not evenly spread - either geographically or demographically. Work from homers and the retired will have cash to burn. Others not so much. I hope my sister can hang on with her pub until springtime. If she can she’ll make a mint as it’s mostly a music venue and a lot of people in London are going to want to go to gigs. I also think the end of FoM is going to push up house prices in many coastal communities - something of a mixed blessing given many purchasers will be second homers or holiday let companies.

    Brexit means more red tape and higher costs, so many export-led UK businesses will have to work to tighter margins or make sacrifices elsewhere. But this will have a cumulative rather than immediate effect so will not be massively apparent. As many others have said, a slow puncture rather than a car crash. Possession of an Irish passport becomes a golden ticket in the UK on 1st January.

    All in all, 2021 should be a good year for the Tories. But they may find they are running out of kilter with the economy as the next general election approaches.

    The tories have nothing to worry about whilst labour offer nothing caught between modernizing and the embedded loony left. Unless they ditch Len and unite and start seeing themselves as the party of fair distribution of the benefits of efficiency improvements rather than expecting inflation based pay rises.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,868
    rcs1000 said:

    IanB2 said:

    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    IanB2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    That's a bit misleading.

    Moderna & Pfizer/BioNTech are 95% effective in preventing any signs of CV19 infection. AZN is about 66% effective by that measure.

    HOWEVER, AZN also reduces the chance of really serious CV19 by around 95%, and probably reduces your infectiousness quite significantly.

    If everyone has the AZN vaccine, it reduces CV19 to flu season..
    Perhaps bad flu season, but flu season nonetheless.

    But, still, I'd probably want to most vulnerable - or those on the front line - the get the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines.
    I thought Pfizer didn’t test for asymptomatic COVID and so can’t say?
    The AZN figures are for symptomatic CV19 only. They haven't released data on asymptomatic infections.
    I think it’s the other way around. AZN’s data on asymptomatic carriers is why their headline figure initially looked low, and it is the other vaccines that may not have this data.
    The Lancet publication on the Oxford vaccine is on symptomatic cases (131). I haven't yet seen the asymptomatic data published.

    https://www.astrazeneca.com/media-centre/press-releases/2020/azd1222-oxford-phase-iii-trials-interim-analysis-results-published-in-the-lancet.html
    This early Bloomberg release appears to rely on some data on aymptomatic

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-08/astra-shot-better-at-stopping-covid-than-slowing-transmission
    I think we should trust the actual press release from the company, over a Bloomberg story.

    It's a question of Occam's razor.
    This is from the BMJ:

    "The Oxford and AstraZeneca covid-19 vaccine prevented some asymptomatic covid-19 infections in phase III trials, but the effect was mainly seen in the group who received a half dose first, followed by a full dose, the peer reviewed efficacy results have shown.1

    The study, published in the Lancet, found that vaccine efficacy against asymptomatic transmission was 59% in the group that received a half dose followed by a standard dose (seven cases among 1120 participants versus 17 cases among 1127 participants in the control group), but just 4% in the group that received two standard doses (22 among 2168 participants versus 23 among 2223 for the control). The researchers said, however, that as this was a secondary outcome, additional confirmation was still required."
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,413
    My prediction

    By 31 December 2021 PB remainers will still be banging on about Brexit
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,421
    edited December 2020

    My guess is that Scotland moves front and centre next year. Outside of that, in politics the best bets are Andy Street’s re-election in the West Midlands and Sadiq Khan’s in London. They’ll both walk it. We’ll also see the government move decisively against the courts.

    On the economy, I think the recovery will be patchy. There is huge pent up demand, but it is not evenly spread - either geographically or demographically. Work from homers and the retired will have cash to burn. Others not so much. I hope my sister can hang on with her pub until springtime. If she can she’ll make a mint as it’s mostly a music venue and a lot of people in London are going to want to go to gigs. I also think the end of FoM is going to push up house prices in many coastal communities - something of a mixed blessing given many purchasers will be second homers or holiday let companies.

    Brexit means more red tape and higher costs, so many export-led UK businesses will have to work to tighter margins or make sacrifices elsewhere. But this will have a cumulative rather than immediate effect so will not be massively apparent. As many others have said, a slow puncture rather than a car crash. Possession of an Irish passport becomes a golden ticket in the UK on 1st January.

    All in all, 2021 should be a good year for the Tories. But they may find they are running out of kilter with the economy as the next general election approaches.

    Not sure about your bets. Paddypower are offering 5-1 for Tories - most seats in Wales and Smarkets 32/5. Given Skybet’s 10/3 looks closer to the correct odds to me, arguably those are the best bets in terms of value to me.

    The key point to remember is that what is likely to happen is a three way split in the vote, with Plaid, Labour and the Tories all hovering between 15 and 25. With things that close, quite marginal differential turnout could see Labour ambushed in a number of places (Bridgend, especially if Carwyn Jones retires, looks very vulnerable, and I wouldn’t rule out a major shock in Llanelli) while it seems very likely the former UKIP vote will be hoovered up by the Blues.

    If there is a market on only those three parties to hold seats in the Assembly, any price would be good there. The Liberal Democrats will almost certainly lose Brecon and Radnor, and have few opportunities on the list that Plaid cannot exploit more effectively. This election will therefore mark the more or less formal end of Liberalism in Wales after a very proud tradition of 162 years of unbroken representation at a national level. Whatever Farage’s ego trip party is calling itself this week is not likely to cut through now Brexit is effectively over for the bulk of the populace.

    By June 2021 there will be a Labour/Plaid coalition of some sort. There will have to be, as neither Price nor Drakeford will in practice be willing to work with the Tories - it would piss off too many of their supporters. It is therefore frustrating that there is no market on Next First Minister. Plaid will almost certainly demand one of their own as FM as the price (no pun intended, for once) of their support in any formal arrangement. This is particularly true as between the disaster that is his management of Wales in many areas, most prominently but not solely Covid and with his key ally Corbyn completely removed, Drakeford is an increasingly isolated and abject figure even within Labour (if they come second in terms of seats, Vaughan Gething will be on manoeuvres).

    I don’t think Price will be able to get himself to FM (although the Tories might offer him that, Labour will not) but Elin Jones, Rhun ab Iorwerth and even Helen Mary Jones might be possible alternatives. Elin Jones in particular has the experience and cross-party support, while Rhun ab Iorwerth has the national profile given his status as a bilingual television presenter for many years. So it is frustrating there is no market for next FM.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,710
    IanB2 said:

    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    IanB2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    That's a bit misleading.

    Moderna & Pfizer/BioNTech are 95% effective in preventing any signs of CV19 infection. AZN is about 66% effective by that measure.

    HOWEVER, AZN also reduces the chance of really serious CV19 by around 95%, and probably reduces your infectiousness quite significantly.

    If everyone has the AZN vaccine, it reduces CV19 to flu season..
    Perhaps bad flu season, but flu season nonetheless.

    But, still, I'd probably want to most vulnerable - or those on the front line - the get the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines.
    I thought Pfizer didn’t test for asymptomatic COVID and so can’t say?
    The AZN figures are for symptomatic CV19 only. They haven't released data on asymptomatic infections.
    I think it’s the other way around. AZN’s data on asymptomatic carriers is why their headline figure initially looked low, and it is the other vaccines that may not have this data.
    The Lancet publication on the Oxford vaccine is on symptomatic cases (131). I haven't yet seen the asymptomatic data published.

    https://www.astrazeneca.com/media-centre/press-releases/2020/azd1222-oxford-phase-iii-trials-interim-analysis-results-published-in-the-lancet.html
    This early Bloomberg release appears to rely on some data on aymptomatic

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-08/astra-shot-better-at-stopping-covid-than-slowing-transmission
    Yes, that is new to me, but the asymptomatic data is rather disappointing in it, showing 27 asymptomatic cases in the vaccine group and 40 in the placebo arm, of 6 000 participants. Such a modest reduction in asymptomatic cases suggests that those vaccinated with the Oxford* vaccine are still possible vectors of transmission.

    *quite likely with other vaccines too.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,204
    Sandpit said:

    IanB2 said:

    Sandpit said:

    The Oxford vaccine is a truly magnificent achievement. A genuine game changer. It’s hard to overstate just what a big deal it is.

    The simple handling required, and the huge production capacity available, should mean that all the non-vulnerable groups who want the vaccine should be able to get it within a couple of months. If we can get everyone who works in close proximity to others vaccinated in Q1, then infection rates should drop like a stone.

    It will also be a great vaccine for the third world, who can’t deal with the refrigeration costs of the other vaccines.
    Yes, the detail in the Times article suggests teachers may be moved up into a priority category - if only to avoid the embarrassment of having to close schools again
    Teachers, factory workers, retail and hospitality workers, delivery drivers etc should all be priorities for the Oxford vaccine, while they work through the vulnerable groups with the Pfizer one.
    Can 39 year old accountants be bumped up the queue ?
    Asking for a friend.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,421
    Pulpstar said:

    Sandpit said:

    IanB2 said:

    Sandpit said:

    The Oxford vaccine is a truly magnificent achievement. A genuine game changer. It’s hard to overstate just what a big deal it is.

    The simple handling required, and the huge production capacity available, should mean that all the non-vulnerable groups who want the vaccine should be able to get it within a couple of months. If we can get everyone who works in close proximity to others vaccinated in Q1, then infection rates should drop like a stone.

    It will also be a great vaccine for the third world, who can’t deal with the refrigeration costs of the other vaccines.
    Yes, the detail in the Times article suggests teachers may be moved up into a priority category - if only to avoid the embarrassment of having to close schools again
    Teachers, factory workers, retail and hospitality workers, delivery drivers etc should all be priorities for the Oxford vaccine, while they work through the vulnerable groups with the Pfizer one.
    Can 39 year old accountants be bumped up the queue ?
    Asking for a friend.
    No, the cost/benefit analysis doesn’t add up.

    Ah, my coat...
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,710

    My prediction

    By 31 December 2021 PB remainers will still be banging on about Brexit

    Pretty nailed on.

    Meanwhile PB Leavers will go very quiet on sunlit uplands...🌄
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,421
    Foxy said:

    My prediction

    By 31 December 2021 PB remainers will still be banging on about Brexit

    Pretty nailed on.

    Meanwhile PB Leavers will go very quiet on sunlit uplands...🌄
    Are you suggesting they will not want to talk about any moor?
  • nichomar said:

    My guess is that Scotland moves front and centre next year. Outside of that, in politics the best bets are Andy Street’s re-election in the West Midlands and Sadiq Khan’s in London. They’ll both walk it. We’ll also see the government move decisively against the courts.

    On the economy, I think the recovery will be patchy. There is huge pent up demand, but it is not evenly spread - either geographically or demographically. Work from homers and the retired will have cash to burn. Others not so much. I hope my sister can hang on with her pub until springtime. If she can she’ll make a mint as it’s mostly a music venue and a lot of people in London are going to want to go to gigs. I also think the end of FoM is going to push up house prices in many coastal communities - something of a mixed blessing given many purchasers will be second homers or holiday let companies.

    Brexit means more red tape and higher costs, so many export-led UK businesses will have to work to tighter margins or make sacrifices elsewhere. But this will have a cumulative rather than immediate effect so will not be massively apparent. As many others have said, a slow puncture rather than a car crash. Possession of an Irish passport becomes a golden ticket in the UK on 1st January.

    All in all, 2021 should be a good year for the Tories. But they may find they are running out of kilter with the economy as the next general election approaches.

    The tories have nothing to worry about whilst labour offer nothing caught between modernizing and the embedded loony left. Unless they ditch Len and unite and start seeing themselves as the party of fair distribution of the benefits of efficiency improvements rather than expecting inflation based pay rises.
    While I agree with you on what Labour should do, I think the country is deeply divided and that in the absence of a genuinely repellant leader such as it had in 2019 this is likely to mean Labour can pretty much count on doing a lot better in the next GE. While there is no chance of a majority, a minority Labour government is quite possible.

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,421
    IanB2 said:

    Sandpit said:

    The Oxford vaccine is a truly magnificent achievement. A genuine game changer. It’s hard to overstate just what a big deal it is.

    The simple handling required, and the huge production capacity available, should mean that all the non-vulnerable groups who want the vaccine should be able to get it within a couple of months. If we can get everyone who works in close proximity to others vaccinated in Q1, then infection rates should drop like a stone.

    It will also be a great vaccine for the third world, who can’t deal with the refrigeration costs of the other vaccines.
    Yes, the detail in the Times article suggests teachers may be moved up into a priority category - if only to avoid the embarrassment of having to close schools again
    They’re not going to close schools merely because staff haven’t been vaccinated.

    Please remember this is a government that has effectively forbidden staff to isolate if in contact with infected students, and made some bizarre leaps of logic to do so, because otherwise schools would have had to shut.
  • Mr. Observer, I'm inclined to agree, provided Starmer can lead Labour back to vague sanity and avoid a full-blown civil war.

    I will be watching his devolution policies with a keen eye. My suspicion is they'll end up being bullshit to carve England into pieces.
  • Foxy said:

    My prediction

    By 31 December 2021 PB remainers will still be banging on about Brexit

    Pretty nailed on.

    Meanwhile PB Leavers will go very quiet on sunlit uplands...🌄
    No, they will be quoting 2021 GDP growth to proclaim Brexit a success, ignoring the more obvious impact of covid in 2020 in that growth number.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,710
    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    My prediction

    By 31 December 2021 PB remainers will still be banging on about Brexit

    Pretty nailed on.

    Meanwhile PB Leavers will go very quiet on sunlit uplands...🌄
    Are you suggesting they will not want to talk about any moor?
    I think that they will steppe away from their grandiose promises.
  • approaches. Not sure about your bets. Paddypower are offering 5-1 for Tories - most seats in Wales and Smarkets 32/5. Given Skybet’s 10/3 looks closer to the correct odds to me, arguably those are the best bets in terms of value to me.

    The key point to remember is that what is likely to happen is a three way split in the vote, with Plaid, Labour and the Tories all hovering between 15 and 25. With things that close, quite marginal differential turnout could see Labour ambushed in a number of places (Bridgend, especially if Carwyn Jones retires, looks very vulnerable, and I wouldn’t rule out a major shock in Llanelli) while it seems very likely the former UKIP vote will be hoovered up by the Blues.

    If there is a market on only those three parties to hold seats in the Assembly, any price would be good there. The Liberal Democrats will almost certainly lose Brecon and Radnor, and have few opportunities on the list that Plaid cannot exploit more effectively. This election will therefore mark the more or less formal end of Liberalism in Wales after a very proud tradition of 162 years of unbroken representation at a national level. Whatever Farage’s ego trip party is calling itself this week is not likely to cut through now Brexit is effectively over for the bulk of the populace.

    By June 2021 there will be a Labour/Plaid coalition of some sort. There will have to be, as neither Price nor Drakeford will in practice be willing to work with the Tories - it would piss off too many of their supporters. It is therefore frustrating that there is no market on Next First Minister. Plaid will almost certainly demand one of their own as FM as the price (no pun intended, for once) of their support in any formal arrangement. This is particularly true as between the disaster that is his management of Wales in many areas, most prominently but not solely Covid and with his key ally Corbyn completely removed, Drakeford is an increasingly isolated and abject figure even within Labour (if they come second in terms of seats, Vaughan Gething will be on manoeuvres).

    I don’t think Price will be able to get himself to FM (although the Tories might offer him that, Labour will not) but Elin Jones, Rhun ab Iorwerth and even Helen Mary Jones might be possible alternatives. Elin Jones in particular has the experience and cross-party support, while Rhun ab Iorwerth has the national profile given his status as a bilingual television presenter for many years. So it is frustrating there is no market for next FM.

    Value bets are very different to sure fire ones!

  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,751
    "Normality comes back quicker than anyone expects. ... by the end of 2Q. By late summer, CV19 has almost entirely faded from sight. Indeed…"

    I think "entirely faded from sight" is hyperbolic, remembering that the world is wider than the Western world, and remembering the ever-present danger of the virus evolving in a way that may at least reduce the effectiveness of vaccines.

    On the other hand, I think that within that timescale the vaccines should bring to an end the "crisis phase" of the pandemic, in which infection is in danger of running out of control.

    It's what happens in the next couple of months in the UK that worries me. I hope a full lockdown will be capable of controlling the new variant, but it's not clear. There is a possibility that the NHS may be unable to cope, and that there will be a lot of unnecessary deaths.
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483
    The use of the vaccine technology in cancer Treatment is well underway, looking effective but by god it’s a bastard for wiping you out as they determine required dosages, cycle frequency and length. It’s currently expensive but no evidence of rationing in Spain. I’ve been given till the 14/1 as a break as it’s achieved it’s objective of stopping growth and spread. Where next? No idea but six months ago there were no ‘other’ options apart from palliative care and now there appears to be. Lucky to be part of the trial although I may be reading to much into what’s happening.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,421

    Foxy said:

    My prediction

    By 31 December 2021 PB remainers will still be banging on about Brexit

    Pretty nailed on.

    Meanwhile PB Leavers will go very quiet on sunlit uplands...🌄
    No, they will be quoting 2021 GDP growth to proclaim Brexit a success, ignoring the more obvious impact of covid in 2020 in that growth number.
    One key issue next year is going to be what happens with the triple lock.

    Do the Tories ditch it, break their manifesto promise and piss off a large chunk of their voters?

    Or do they keep it, ensuring that the worst financial hit of the pandemic goes on the young?

    Incidentally, I expect them to choose option b, but I don’t think it’s quite as straightforward a tradeoff as they believe. How many parents will be in the unfortunate @Cyclefree’s position and seeking to support children going through financial shit due to Covid? I’m guessing it will be a lot. And they won’t be happy about that...
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,421
    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    My prediction

    By 31 December 2021 PB remainers will still be banging on about Brexit

    Pretty nailed on.

    Meanwhile PB Leavers will go very quiet on sunlit uplands...🌄
    Are you suggesting they will not want to talk about any moor?
    I think that they will steppe away from their grandiose promises.
    Although there will be many grouses if things go wrong.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,220

    rcs1000 said:

    That's a bit misleading.

    Moderna & Pfizer/BioNTech are 95% effective in preventing any signs of CV19 infection. AZN is about 66% effective by that measure.

    HOWEVER, AZN also reduces the chance of really serious CV19 by around 95%, and probably reduces your infectiousness quite significantly.

    If everyone has the AZN vaccine, it reduces CV19 to flu season..
    Perhaps bad flu season, but flu season nonetheless.

    But, still, I'd probably want to most vulnerable - or those on the front line - the get the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines.
    I haven’t read the article as it’s £-wall - but the tweeter is a usually reliable source of perspective. Have Pfizer published their results formally?
    He’s an epidemiologist (and one of the earliest to raise the alarm in the US), but not a virologist, and he does have a tendency to get overexcited about stuff outside of his expertise.

    I’m hopeful for the AZN vaccine, but want to see any updated results published.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,220

    Not taking it particularly well, but at this stage there's no reason to consider that this is any less likely than the almost comically airy dismissal above in an otherwise solid header, that Brexit will be fine, and 'nothing much will happen'.
    Robert did preface his predictions with a health warning.
    Unlike Adonis.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,421
    edited December 2020
    Chris said:

    "Normality comes back quicker than anyone expects. ... by the end of 2Q. By late summer, CV19 has almost entirely faded from sight. Indeed…"

    I think "entirely faded from sight" is hyperbolic, remembering that the world is wider than the Western world, and remembering the ever-present danger of the virus evolving in a way that may at least reduce the effectiveness of vaccines.

    On the other hand, I think that within that timescale the vaccines should bring to an end the "crisis phase" of the pandemic, in which infection is in danger of running out of control.

    It's what happens in the next couple of months in the UK that worries me. I hope a full lockdown will be capable of controlling the new variant, but it's not clear. There is a possibility that the NHS may be unable to cope, and that there will be a lot of unnecessary deaths.

    There is still a major debate going on about schools in Westminster.

    Given that the government have literally bet everything on keeping schools open, to the extent that there is a possible prosecution incoming for major breaches of the Health and Safety at Work act, that suggests that even they are also extremely worried.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,599
    edited December 2020
    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    My prediction

    By 31 December 2021 PB remainers will still be banging on about Brexit

    Pretty nailed on.

    Meanwhile PB Leavers will go very quiet on sunlit uplands...🌄
    No, they will be quoting 2021 GDP growth to proclaim Brexit a success, ignoring the more obvious impact of covid in 2020 in that growth number.
    One key issue next year is going to be what happens with the triple lock.

    Do the Tories ditch it, break their manifesto promise and piss off a large chunk of their voters?

    Or do they keep it, ensuring that the worst financial hit of the pandemic goes on the young?

    Incidentally, I expect them to choose option b, but I don’t think it’s quite as straightforward a tradeoff as they believe. How many parents will be in the unfortunate @Cyclefree’s position and seeking to support children going through financial shit due to Covid? I’m guessing it will be a lot. And they won’t be happy about that...
    There’s going to be a whole raft of things that get screwed by growth and inflation being at 5-6%, as we may well see in 2021. As well as pensions, there’s an awful lot of public sector pay awards and welfare benefits that are index-linked in one way or another.

    There will probably have to be primary legislation to defer what would be seen as excessive rises in spending, as a result of a temporary spike in growth and inflation caused by coming out of a sharp recession.

    Personally I think they have to go with option A, and eat the unpopularity and rebellion in the short term. There’s really no room for increases in public spending until the finances are back under control, with the exception of infrastructure investment that creates jobs.
  • Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    IanB2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    That's a bit misleading.

    Moderna & Pfizer/BioNTech are 95% effective in preventing any signs of CV19 infection. AZN is about 66% effective by that measure.

    HOWEVER, AZN also reduces the chance of really serious CV19 by around 95%, and probably reduces your infectiousness quite significantly.

    If everyone has the AZN vaccine, it reduces CV19 to flu season..
    Perhaps bad flu season, but flu season nonetheless.

    But, still, I'd probably want to most vulnerable - or those on the front line - the get the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines.
    I thought Pfizer didn’t test for asymptomatic COVID and so can’t say?
    The AZN figures are for symptomatic CV19 only. They haven't released data on asymptomatic infections.
    I think it’s the other way around. AZN’s data on asymptomatic carriers is why their headline figure initially looked low, and it is the other vaccines that may not have this data.
    The Lancet publication on the Oxford vaccine is on symptomatic cases (131). I haven't yet seen the asymptomatic data published.

    https://www.astrazeneca.com/media-centre/press-releases/2020/azd1222-oxford-phase-iii-trials-interim-analysis-results-published-in-the-lancet.html
    This early Bloomberg release appears to rely on some data on aymptomatic

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-08/astra-shot-better-at-stopping-covid-than-slowing-transmission
    Yes, that is new to me, but the asymptomatic data is rather disappointing in it, showing 27 asymptomatic cases in the vaccine group and 40 in the placebo arm, of 6 000 participants. Such a modest reduction in asymptomatic cases suggests that those vaccinated with the Oxford* vaccine are still possible vectors of transmission.

    *quite likely with other vaccines too.
    That's a daft stupid statistic that doesn't take into account that it's also removing most of the symptomatic cases as well entirely. Relatively speaking Oxford is doing quite well there.

    As a counter example there's nothing to say that the Pfizer vaccine as a contrast couldn't simply turn most the symptomatic cases into asymptomatic resulting in actually *more* asymptomatic in the vaccine arm than control arm.

    For the true stopping of infections being passed on it'd make more statistical sense to add up both the asymptomatic and symptomatic cases in both arms and compare.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,751
    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    IanB2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    That's a bit misleading.

    Moderna & Pfizer/BioNTech are 95% effective in preventing any signs of CV19 infection. AZN is about 66% effective by that measure.

    HOWEVER, AZN also reduces the chance of really serious CV19 by around 95%, and probably reduces your infectiousness quite significantly.

    If everyone has the AZN vaccine, it reduces CV19 to flu season..
    Perhaps bad flu season, but flu season nonetheless.

    But, still, I'd probably want to most vulnerable - or those on the front line - the get the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines.
    I thought Pfizer didn’t test for asymptomatic COVID and so can’t say?
    The AZN figures are for symptomatic CV19 only. They haven't released data on asymptomatic infections.
    I think it’s the other way around. AZN’s data on asymptomatic carriers is why their headline figure initially looked low, and it is the other vaccines that may not have this data.
    The Lancet publication on the Oxford vaccine is on symptomatic cases (131). I haven't yet seen the asymptomatic data published.

    https://www.astrazeneca.com/media-centre/press-releases/2020/azd1222-oxford-phase-iii-trials-interim-analysis-results-published-in-the-lancet.html
    This early Bloomberg release appears to rely on some data on aymptomatic

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-08/astra-shot-better-at-stopping-covid-than-slowing-transmission
    Yes, that is new to me, but the asymptomatic data is rather disappointing in it, showing 27 asymptomatic cases in the vaccine group and 40 in the placebo arm, of 6 000 participants. Such a modest reduction in asymptomatic cases suggests that those vaccinated with the Oxford* vaccine are still possible vectors of transmission.

    *quite likely with other vaccines too.
    I don't know whether I'm missing something here, but the Lancet publication several weeks ago certainly included data on asymptomatic cases.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,421
    Sandpit said:

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    My prediction

    By 31 December 2021 PB remainers will still be banging on about Brexit

    Pretty nailed on.

    Meanwhile PB Leavers will go very quiet on sunlit uplands...🌄
    No, they will be quoting 2021 GDP growth to proclaim Brexit a success, ignoring the more obvious impact of covid in 2020 in that growth number.
    One key issue next year is going to be what happens with the triple lock.

    Do the Tories ditch it, break their manifesto promise and piss off a large chunk of their voters?

    Or do they keep it, ensuring that the worst financial hit of the pandemic goes on the young?

    Incidentally, I expect them to choose option b, but I don’t think it’s quite as straightforward a tradeoff as they believe. How many parents will be in the unfortunate @Cyclefree’s position and seeking to support children going through financial shit due to Covid? I’m guessing it will be a lot. And they won’t be happy about that...
    There’s going to be a whole raft of things that get screwed by growth and inflation being at 5-6%, as we may well see in 2021. As well as pensions, there’s an awful lot of public sector pay awards and welfare benefits that are index-linked in one way or another.

    There will probably have to be primary legislation to defer what would be seen as excessive rises in spending, as a result of a temporary spike in growth and inflation caused by coming out of a sharp recession.
    But it never looks good. Remember the Sun’s headline of how the 75p annual increase in pension under Brown would literally buy a bag of peanuts?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,421
    edited December 2020
    Chris said:

    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    IanB2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    That's a bit misleading.

    Moderna & Pfizer/BioNTech are 95% effective in preventing any signs of CV19 infection. AZN is about 66% effective by that measure.

    HOWEVER, AZN also reduces the chance of really serious CV19 by around 95%, and probably reduces your infectiousness quite significantly.

    If everyone has the AZN vaccine, it reduces CV19 to flu season..
    Perhaps bad flu season, but flu season nonetheless.

    But, still, I'd probably want to most vulnerable - or those on the front line - the get the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines.
    I thought Pfizer didn’t test for asymptomatic COVID and so can’t say?
    The AZN figures are for symptomatic CV19 only. They haven't released data on asymptomatic infections.
    I think it’s the other way around. AZN’s data on asymptomatic carriers is why their headline figure initially looked low, and it is the other vaccines that may not have this data.
    The Lancet publication on the Oxford vaccine is on symptomatic cases (131). I haven't yet seen the asymptomatic data published.

    https://www.astrazeneca.com/media-centre/press-releases/2020/azd1222-oxford-phase-iii-trials-interim-analysis-results-published-in-the-lancet.html
    This early Bloomberg release appears to rely on some data on aymptomatic

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-08/astra-shot-better-at-stopping-covid-than-slowing-transmission
    Yes, that is new to me, but the asymptomatic data is rather disappointing in it, showing 27 asymptomatic cases in the vaccine group and 40 in the placebo arm, of 6 000 participants. Such a modest reduction in asymptomatic cases suggests that those vaccinated with the Oxford* vaccine are still possible vectors of transmission.

    *quite likely with other vaccines too.
    I don't know whether I'm missing something here, but the Lancet publication several weeks ago certainly included data on asymptomatic cases.
    Has the data actually been published in a reputable journal?

    If not, I think we should suspend judgement for now.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,710

    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    IanB2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    That's a bit misleading.

    Moderna & Pfizer/BioNTech are 95% effective in preventing any signs of CV19 infection. AZN is about 66% effective by that measure.

    HOWEVER, AZN also reduces the chance of really serious CV19 by around 95%, and probably reduces your infectiousness quite significantly.

    If everyone has the AZN vaccine, it reduces CV19 to flu season..
    Perhaps bad flu season, but flu season nonetheless.

    But, still, I'd probably want to most vulnerable - or those on the front line - the get the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines.
    I thought Pfizer didn’t test for asymptomatic COVID and so can’t say?
    The AZN figures are for symptomatic CV19 only. They haven't released data on asymptomatic infections.
    I think it’s the other way around. AZN’s data on asymptomatic carriers is why their headline figure initially looked low, and it is the other vaccines that may not have this data.
    The Lancet publication on the Oxford vaccine is on symptomatic cases (131). I haven't yet seen the asymptomatic data published.

    https://www.astrazeneca.com/media-centre/press-releases/2020/azd1222-oxford-phase-iii-trials-interim-analysis-results-published-in-the-lancet.html
    This early Bloomberg release appears to rely on some data on aymptomatic

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-08/astra-shot-better-at-stopping-covid-than-slowing-transmission
    Yes, that is new to me, but the asymptomatic data is rather disappointing in it, showing 27 asymptomatic cases in the vaccine group and 40 in the placebo arm, of 6 000 participants. Such a modest reduction in asymptomatic cases suggests that those vaccinated with the Oxford* vaccine are still possible vectors of transmission.

    *quite likely with other vaccines too.
    That's a daft stupid statistic that doesn't take into account that it's also removing most of the symptomatic cases as well entirely. Relatively speaking Oxford is doing quite well there.

    As a counter example there's nothing to say that the Pfizer vaccine as a contrast couldn't simply turn most the symptomatic cases into asymptomatic resulting in actually *more* asymptomatic in the vaccine arm than control arm.

    For the true stopping of infections being passed on it'd make more statistical sense to add up both the asymptomatic and symptomatic cases in both arms and compare.
    Yes, and the numbers in the asymptomatic testing arm are rather small. I didn't see a figure for number of symptomatic cases in the sub-study, just the overall one.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,751
    ydoethur said:

    Chris said:

    "Normality comes back quicker than anyone expects. ... by the end of 2Q. By late summer, CV19 has almost entirely faded from sight. Indeed…"

    I think "entirely faded from sight" is hyperbolic, remembering that the world is wider than the Western world, and remembering the ever-present danger of the virus evolving in a way that may at least reduce the effectiveness of vaccines.

    On the other hand, I think that within that timescale the vaccines should bring to an end the "crisis phase" of the pandemic, in which infection is in danger of running out of control.

    It's what happens in the next couple of months in the UK that worries me. I hope a full lockdown will be capable of controlling the new variant, but it's not clear. There is a possibility that the NHS may be unable to cope, and that there will be a lot of unnecessary deaths.

    There is still a major debate going on about schools in Westminster.

    Given that the government have literally bet everything on keeping schools open, to the extent that there is a possible prosecution incoming for major breaches of the Health and Safety at Work act, that suggests that even they are also extremely worried.
    I think they will just have to close the schools for a time, at least in the south east. The infection rates in the focal area of the new variant are horrific.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,599
    edited December 2020
    ydoethur said:

    Sandpit said:

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    My prediction

    By 31 December 2021 PB remainers will still be banging on about Brexit

    Pretty nailed on.

    Meanwhile PB Leavers will go very quiet on sunlit uplands...🌄
    No, they will be quoting 2021 GDP growth to proclaim Brexit a success, ignoring the more obvious impact of covid in 2020 in that growth number.
    One key issue next year is going to be what happens with the triple lock.

    Do the Tories ditch it, break their manifesto promise and piss off a large chunk of their voters?

    Or do they keep it, ensuring that the worst financial hit of the pandemic goes on the young?

    Incidentally, I expect them to choose option b, but I don’t think it’s quite as straightforward a tradeoff as they believe. How many parents will be in the unfortunate @Cyclefree’s position and seeking to support children going through financial shit due to Covid? I’m guessing it will be a lot. And they won’t be happy about that...
    There’s going to be a whole raft of things that get screwed by growth and inflation being at 5-6%, as we may well see in 2021. As well as pensions, there’s an awful lot of public sector pay awards and welfare benefits that are index-linked in one way or another.

    There will probably have to be primary legislation to defer what would be seen as excessive rises in spending, as a result of a temporary spike in growth and inflation caused by coming out of a sharp recession.
    But it never looks good. Remember the Sun’s headline of how the 75p annual increase in pension under Brown would literally buy a bag of peanuts?
    Yes, they really need to avoid banana-skins like that. A freeze is actually better politically, than a derisory increase that can be relentlessly mocked by the opposition and media.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,220
    .

    My prediction

    By 31 December 2021 PB remainers will still be banging on about Brexit

    Well you don’t seem to be able to leave it alone this morning.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 36,001
    IshmaelZ said:

    What a strange post. If you thought Brexit was a great, worthwhile and significant achievement surely you would relish the opportunity to assess and discuss its actual effects in the first year of its practical enactment? "We don't talk about that" is not something people say about things of which they are in any way proud.

    Not only will they not want to talk about it, increasingly Brexiteers will "forget" voting for it...
  • Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    IanB2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    That's a bit misleading.

    Moderna & Pfizer/BioNTech are 95% effective in preventing any signs of CV19 infection. AZN is about 66% effective by that measure.

    HOWEVER, AZN also reduces the chance of really serious CV19 by around 95%, and probably reduces your infectiousness quite significantly.

    If everyone has the AZN vaccine, it reduces CV19 to flu season..
    Perhaps bad flu season, but flu season nonetheless.

    But, still, I'd probably want to most vulnerable - or those on the front line - the get the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines.
    I thought Pfizer didn’t test for asymptomatic COVID and so can’t say?
    The AZN figures are for symptomatic CV19 only. They haven't released data on asymptomatic infections.
    I think it’s the other way around. AZN’s data on asymptomatic carriers is why their headline figure initially looked low, and it is the other vaccines that may not have this data.
    The Lancet publication on the Oxford vaccine is on symptomatic cases (131). I haven't yet seen the asymptomatic data published.

    https://www.astrazeneca.com/media-centre/press-releases/2020/azd1222-oxford-phase-iii-trials-interim-analysis-results-published-in-the-lancet.html
    This early Bloomberg release appears to rely on some data on aymptomatic

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-08/astra-shot-better-at-stopping-covid-than-slowing-transmission
    Yes, that is new to me, but the asymptomatic data is rather disappointing in it, showing 27 asymptomatic cases in the vaccine group and 40 in the placebo arm, of 6 000 participants. Such a modest reduction in asymptomatic cases suggests that those vaccinated with the Oxford* vaccine are still possible vectors of transmission.

    *quite likely with other vaccines too.
    That's a daft stupid statistic that doesn't take into account that it's also removing most of the symptomatic cases as well entirely. Relatively speaking Oxford is doing quite well there.

    As a counter example there's nothing to say that the Pfizer vaccine as a contrast couldn't simply turn most the symptomatic cases into asymptomatic resulting in actually *more* asymptomatic in the vaccine arm than control arm.

    For the true stopping of infections being passed on it'd make more statistical sense to add up both the asymptomatic and symptomatic cases in both arms and compare.
    Yes, and the numbers in the asymptomatic testing arm are rather small. I didn't see a figure for number of symptomatic cases in the sub-study, just the overall one.
    I actually recall reading that data in the Lancet a few weeks ago. I'll drop that info in here if I have the time. When I read it I looked at the 90% subset and I think it works out at 70% total don't have asymptomatic or symptomatic. (Don't quote me on this, going off my memory and quick calculations at the time).

    If we assume that 20% have had or will have had the virus by the end of the vaccines, I believe to achieve 60% herd immunity threshold you need to vaccinate about 65% of people to drop R under everything normal below 1.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,462
    I'm not yet sure that January 2021 will pass without some serious problems, even widespread violence, in the USA.
  • Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    IanB2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    That's a bit misleading.

    Moderna & Pfizer/BioNTech are 95% effective in preventing any signs of CV19 infection. AZN is about 66% effective by that measure.

    HOWEVER, AZN also reduces the chance of really serious CV19 by around 95%, and probably reduces your infectiousness quite significantly.

    If everyone has the AZN vaccine, it reduces CV19 to flu season..
    Perhaps bad flu season, but flu season nonetheless.

    But, still, I'd probably want to most vulnerable - or those on the front line - the get the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines.
    I thought Pfizer didn’t test for asymptomatic COVID and so can’t say?
    The AZN figures are for symptomatic CV19 only. They haven't released data on asymptomatic infections.
    I think it’s the other way around. AZN’s data on asymptomatic carriers is why their headline figure initially looked low, and it is the other vaccines that may not have this data.
    The Lancet publication on the Oxford vaccine is on symptomatic cases (131). I haven't yet seen the asymptomatic data published.

    https://www.astrazeneca.com/media-centre/press-releases/2020/azd1222-oxford-phase-iii-trials-interim-analysis-results-published-in-the-lancet.html
    This early Bloomberg release appears to rely on some data on aymptomatic

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-08/astra-shot-better-at-stopping-covid-than-slowing-transmission
    Yes, that is new to me, but the asymptomatic data is rather disappointing in it, showing 27 asymptomatic cases in the vaccine group and 40 in the placebo arm, of 6 000 participants. Such a modest reduction in asymptomatic cases suggests that those vaccinated with the Oxford* vaccine are still possible vectors of transmission.

    *quite likely with other vaccines too.
    That's a daft stupid statistic that doesn't take into account that it's also removing most of the symptomatic cases as well entirely. Relatively speaking Oxford is doing quite well there.

    As a counter example there's nothing to say that the Pfizer vaccine as a contrast couldn't simply turn most the symptomatic cases into asymptomatic resulting in actually *more* asymptomatic in the vaccine arm than control arm.

    For the true stopping of infections being passed on it'd make more statistical sense to add up both the asymptomatic and symptomatic cases in both arms and compare.
    Yes, and the numbers in the asymptomatic testing arm are rather small. I didn't see a figure for number of symptomatic cases in the sub-study, just the overall one.
    I actually recall reading that data in the Lancet a few weeks ago. I'll drop that info in here if I have the time. When I read it I looked at the 90% subset and I think it works out at 70% total don't have asymptomatic or symptomatic. (Don't quote me on this, going off my memory and quick calculations at the time).

    If we assume that 20% have had or will have had the virus by the end of the vaccines, I believe to achieve 60% herd immunity threshold you need to vaccinate about 65% of people to drop R under everything normal below 1.
    Just to clarify, I mean not having asymptomatic or symptomatic is 70% efficiency total on the half dose full dose.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,751
    ydoethur said:

    Chris said:

    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    IanB2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    That's a bit misleading.

    Moderna & Pfizer/BioNTech are 95% effective in preventing any signs of CV19 infection. AZN is about 66% effective by that measure.

    HOWEVER, AZN also reduces the chance of really serious CV19 by around 95%, and probably reduces your infectiousness quite significantly.

    If everyone has the AZN vaccine, it reduces CV19 to flu season..
    Perhaps bad flu season, but flu season nonetheless.

    But, still, I'd probably want to most vulnerable - or those on the front line - the get the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines.
    I thought Pfizer didn’t test for asymptomatic COVID and so can’t say?
    The AZN figures are for symptomatic CV19 only. They haven't released data on asymptomatic infections.
    I think it’s the other way around. AZN’s data on asymptomatic carriers is why their headline figure initially looked low, and it is the other vaccines that may not have this data.
    The Lancet publication on the Oxford vaccine is on symptomatic cases (131). I haven't yet seen the asymptomatic data published.

    https://www.astrazeneca.com/media-centre/press-releases/2020/azd1222-oxford-phase-iii-trials-interim-analysis-results-published-in-the-lancet.html
    This early Bloomberg release appears to rely on some data on aymptomatic

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-08/astra-shot-better-at-stopping-covid-than-slowing-transmission
    Yes, that is new to me, but the asymptomatic data is rather disappointing in it, showing 27 asymptomatic cases in the vaccine group and 40 in the placebo arm, of 6 000 participants. Such a modest reduction in asymptomatic cases suggests that those vaccinated with the Oxford* vaccine are still possible vectors of transmission.

    *quite likely with other vaccines too.
    I don't know whether I'm missing something here, but the Lancet publication several weeks ago certainly included data on asymptomatic cases.
    Has the data actually been published in a reputable journal?

    If not, I think we should suspend judgement for now.
    The peer-reviewed publication in the Lancet on 8 December is here:
    https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)32661-1/fulltext

    That has 29 against 40 for the asymptomatic cases (Table 2).
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,421
    Chris said:

    ydoethur said:

    Chris said:

    "Normality comes back quicker than anyone expects. ... by the end of 2Q. By late summer, CV19 has almost entirely faded from sight. Indeed…"

    I think "entirely faded from sight" is hyperbolic, remembering that the world is wider than the Western world, and remembering the ever-present danger of the virus evolving in a way that may at least reduce the effectiveness of vaccines.

    On the other hand, I think that within that timescale the vaccines should bring to an end the "crisis phase" of the pandemic, in which infection is in danger of running out of control.

    It's what happens in the next couple of months in the UK that worries me. I hope a full lockdown will be capable of controlling the new variant, but it's not clear. There is a possibility that the NHS may be unable to cope, and that there will be a lot of unnecessary deaths.

    There is still a major debate going on about schools in Westminster.

    Given that the government have literally bet everything on keeping schools open, to the extent that there is a possible prosecution incoming for major breaches of the Health and Safety at Work act, that suggests that even they are also extremely worried.
    I think they will just have to close the schools for a time, at least in the south east. The infection rates in the focal area of the new variant are horrific.
    There are in fact several very good arguments for keeping them closed in January:

    1) It would help bring the infection rate under control again;

    2) With schools closed, they could be used as vaccine centres if the AZN vaccine is approved, and speed up the rollout of the vaccine that way;

    3) It would provide some certainty in terms of planning and delivery;

    4) It would also mean that there’s a fighting chance that not every secondary school will simultaneously be plunged into bankruptcy due to higher costs and a staffing crisis due to every teacher thinking ‘fuck this for a game of soldiers’ in May.

    And arguments against:

    1) Remote learning is a very poor substitute even for the pale shadow of education we’re able to provide right now;

    2) Not every child has access to it, and many of those that do have no suitable space to work at home;

    3) Vulnerable children and those on free school meals suffer disproportionately when not able to go to school;

    4) It would mean cancelling exams - although truthfully this is a meaningless argument as any government with half a brain cell would have cancelled them already.

    The issue is that in putting forward the arguments in favour of staying open the government is ignoring the crucial point - now we have an end date, and it’s in the near future, it’s better to keep tight restrictions for a short time than have the utter chaos of on/off opening, closing, isolating, confusion that we have had up to now for longer. There are ways round arguments 2 and 3 against, although it would mean sacrificing argument 2 in favour. So the logical course is at least to look at blended learning.


    But I am perfectly certain they won’t do it unless an actual gun is pointed at their heads.

    And ultimately that’s not because they care about children - they don’t - but because they are too cowardly to admit they have failed in what they tried to do.
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 4,042
    Some brave predictions there, so serious respect for putting them in black and white for the world to see.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,421
    Chris said:

    ydoethur said:

    Chris said:

    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    IanB2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    That's a bit misleading.

    Moderna & Pfizer/BioNTech are 95% effective in preventing any signs of CV19 infection. AZN is about 66% effective by that measure.

    HOWEVER, AZN also reduces the chance of really serious CV19 by around 95%, and probably reduces your infectiousness quite significantly.

    If everyone has the AZN vaccine, it reduces CV19 to flu season..
    Perhaps bad flu season, but flu season nonetheless.

    But, still, I'd probably want to most vulnerable - or those on the front line - the get the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines.
    I thought Pfizer didn’t test for asymptomatic COVID and so can’t say?
    The AZN figures are for symptomatic CV19 only. They haven't released data on asymptomatic infections.
    I think it’s the other way around. AZN’s data on asymptomatic carriers is why their headline figure initially looked low, and it is the other vaccines that may not have this data.
    The Lancet publication on the Oxford vaccine is on symptomatic cases (131). I haven't yet seen the asymptomatic data published.

    https://www.astrazeneca.com/media-centre/press-releases/2020/azd1222-oxford-phase-iii-trials-interim-analysis-results-published-in-the-lancet.html
    This early Bloomberg release appears to rely on some data on aymptomatic

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-08/astra-shot-better-at-stopping-covid-than-slowing-transmission
    Yes, that is new to me, but the asymptomatic data is rather disappointing in it, showing 27 asymptomatic cases in the vaccine group and 40 in the placebo arm, of 6 000 participants. Such a modest reduction in asymptomatic cases suggests that those vaccinated with the Oxford* vaccine are still possible vectors of transmission.

    *quite likely with other vaccines too.
    I don't know whether I'm missing something here, but the Lancet publication several weeks ago certainly included data on asymptomatic cases.
    Has the data actually been published in a reputable journal?

    If not, I think we should suspend judgement for now.
    The peer-reviewed publication in the Lancet on 8 December is here:
    https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)32661-1/fulltext

    That has 29 against 40 for the asymptomatic cases (Table 2).
    Yes, I noticed it was in the Lancet. That’s why I asked if it was in a reputable journal.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,204
    Chris said:

    ydoethur said:

    Chris said:

    "Normality comes back quicker than anyone expects. ... by the end of 2Q. By late summer, CV19 has almost entirely faded from sight. Indeed…"

    I think "entirely faded from sight" is hyperbolic, remembering that the world is wider than the Western world, and remembering the ever-present danger of the virus evolving in a way that may at least reduce the effectiveness of vaccines.

    On the other hand, I think that within that timescale the vaccines should bring to an end the "crisis phase" of the pandemic, in which infection is in danger of running out of control.

    It's what happens in the next couple of months in the UK that worries me. I hope a full lockdown will be capable of controlling the new variant, but it's not clear. There is a possibility that the NHS may be unable to cope, and that there will be a lot of unnecessary deaths.

    There is still a major debate going on about schools in Westminster.

    Given that the government have literally bet everything on keeping schools open, to the extent that there is a possible prosecution incoming for major breaches of the Health and Safety at Work act, that suggests that even they are also extremely worried.
    I think they will just have to close the schools for a time, at least in the south east. The infection rates in the focal area of the new variant are horrific.
    Christmas surge to come yet
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,751
    ydoethur said:

    Chris said:

    ydoethur said:

    Chris said:

    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    IanB2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    That's a bit misleading.

    Moderna & Pfizer/BioNTech are 95% effective in preventing any signs of CV19 infection. AZN is about 66% effective by that measure.

    HOWEVER, AZN also reduces the chance of really serious CV19 by around 95%, and probably reduces your infectiousness quite significantly.

    If everyone has the AZN vaccine, it reduces CV19 to flu season..
    Perhaps bad flu season, but flu season nonetheless.

    But, still, I'd probably want to most vulnerable - or those on the front line - the get the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines.
    I thought Pfizer didn’t test for asymptomatic COVID and so can’t say?
    The AZN figures are for symptomatic CV19 only. They haven't released data on asymptomatic infections.
    I think it’s the other way around. AZN’s data on asymptomatic carriers is why their headline figure initially looked low, and it is the other vaccines that may not have this data.
    The Lancet publication on the Oxford vaccine is on symptomatic cases (131). I haven't yet seen the asymptomatic data published.

    https://www.astrazeneca.com/media-centre/press-releases/2020/azd1222-oxford-phase-iii-trials-interim-analysis-results-published-in-the-lancet.html
    This early Bloomberg release appears to rely on some data on aymptomatic

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-08/astra-shot-better-at-stopping-covid-than-slowing-transmission
    Yes, that is new to me, but the asymptomatic data is rather disappointing in it, showing 27 asymptomatic cases in the vaccine group and 40 in the placebo arm, of 6 000 participants. Such a modest reduction in asymptomatic cases suggests that those vaccinated with the Oxford* vaccine are still possible vectors of transmission.

    *quite likely with other vaccines too.
    I don't know whether I'm missing something here, but the Lancet publication several weeks ago certainly included data on asymptomatic cases.
    Has the data actually been published in a reputable journal?

    If not, I think we should suspend judgement for now.
    The peer-reviewed publication in the Lancet on 8 December is here:
    https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)32661-1/fulltext

    That has 29 against 40 for the asymptomatic cases (Table 2).
    Yes, I noticed it was in the Lancet. That’s why I asked if it was in a reputable journal.
    ydoethur said:

    Chris said:

    ydoethur said:

    Chris said:

    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    IanB2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    That's a bit misleading.

    Moderna & Pfizer/BioNTech are 95% effective in preventing any signs of CV19 infection. AZN is about 66% effective by that measure.

    HOWEVER, AZN also reduces the chance of really serious CV19 by around 95%, and probably reduces your infectiousness quite significantly.

    If everyone has the AZN vaccine, it reduces CV19 to flu season..
    Perhaps bad flu season, but flu season nonetheless.

    But, still, I'd probably want to most vulnerable - or those on the front line - the get the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines.
    I thought Pfizer didn’t test for asymptomatic COVID and so can’t say?
    The AZN figures are for symptomatic CV19 only. They haven't released data on asymptomatic infections.
    I think it’s the other way around. AZN’s data on asymptomatic carriers is why their headline figure initially looked low, and it is the other vaccines that may not have this data.
    The Lancet publication on the Oxford vaccine is on symptomatic cases (131). I haven't yet seen the asymptomatic data published.

    https://www.astrazeneca.com/media-centre/press-releases/2020/azd1222-oxford-phase-iii-trials-interim-analysis-results-published-in-the-lancet.html
    This early Bloomberg release appears to rely on some data on aymptomatic

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-08/astra-shot-better-at-stopping-covid-than-slowing-transmission
    Yes, that is new to me, but the asymptomatic data is rather disappointing in it, showing 27 asymptomatic cases in the vaccine group and 40 in the placebo arm, of 6 000 participants. Such a modest reduction in asymptomatic cases suggests that those vaccinated with the Oxford* vaccine are still possible vectors of transmission.

    *quite likely with other vaccines too.
    I don't know whether I'm missing something here, but the Lancet publication several weeks ago certainly included data on asymptomatic cases.
    Has the data actually been published in a reputable journal?

    If not, I think we should suspend judgement for now.
    The peer-reviewed publication in the Lancet on 8 December is here:
    https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)32661-1/fulltext

    That has 29 against 40 for the asymptomatic cases (Table 2).
    Yes, I noticed it was in the Lancet. That’s why I asked if it was in a reputable journal.
    Why do I always regret wasting my time posting here?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,600
    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    My prediction

    By 31 December 2021 PB remainers will still be banging on about Brexit

    Pretty nailed on.

    Meanwhile PB Leavers will go very quiet on sunlit uplands...🌄
    No, they will be quoting 2021 GDP growth to proclaim Brexit a success, ignoring the more obvious impact of covid in 2020 in that growth number.
    One key issue next year is going to be what happens with the triple lock.

    Do the Tories ditch it, break their manifesto promise and piss off a large chunk of their voters?

    Or do they keep it, ensuring that the worst financial hit of the pandemic goes on the young?

    Incidentally, I expect them to choose option b, but I don’t think it’s quite as straightforward a tradeoff as they believe. How many parents will be in the unfortunate @Cyclefree’s position and seeking to support children going through financial shit due to Covid? I’m guessing it will be a lot. And they won’t be happy about that...
    I said back around March that he triple lock would be a casualty of Covid. The Govt. has perfect cover - the manifesto commitment is (along with everything else) subject to the very small-print caveat "subject always to the country not being buggered by unforeseen factors such as tsunami, meteor strike or plague...."

    The raft of Covid-fighting measures taken, impacting liberty and the nation's finances, were to protect those of pension age. Sorry pensioners, but you are going to have to make your contribution to righting the nation's finances too. It can't be left to your grand-kids and their kids alone to climb out the black hole. That would not be fair.

    And that will leave to some grumbles, from those who always grumble. But no great wailing of "broken promises" from the wider electorate. Becasue they will it is equitable. I really think Boris can sell that. (Although he may leave the job to Rishi....!)
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,380

    My prediction

    By 31 December 2021 PB remainers will still be banging on about Brexit

    What a silly and antagonistic point to make.

    If Robert's predictions are correct we will wonder why we didn't Brexit years ago.

    After the de-mob happy spending spree is over, I believe what comes next will be very difficult, not just in the UK but across the world.
  • CiceroCicero Posts: 3,080
    Nigelb said:

    .

    My prediction

    By 31 December 2021 PB remainers will still be banging on about Brexit

    Well you don’t seem to be able to leave it alone this morning.
    Judging by the inevitable cries of "betrayal" from the fishing industry it won't just be the Remainers. In fact, of course, Brexit is not an event, it is a process. Now finally, after nearly five years, we have a start point, the debate over whether we diverge or converge will continue. That debate will probably blur the difference between old Remainers and old Leavers, but given the polling support for the EU, and the deep anger in UK Plc about the entire handling of the issues, I think we will end up close to where we were. We were in but opted out, we will end up out, but opted in.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,599

    I'm not yet sure that January 2021 will pass without some serious problems, even widespread violence, in the USA.

    Looks like Los Angeles County has run out of ICU beds, with the Christmas rush still to come. 30k positive cases in the past two days, in the one county.
    https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-12-26/overwhelmed-l-a-hospitals-brace-for-post-christmas-covid-wave
  • glwglw Posts: 9,908
    On the Oxford vaccine, Sir John Bell said that the data looked better than ever a few days ago. So hopefully the latest stories are correct.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,421
    edited December 2020
    Chris said:

    ydoethur said:

    Yes, I noticed it was in the Lancet. That’s why I asked if it was in a reputable journal.

    Why do I always regret wasting my time posting here?
    The Lancet was heavily involved in the MMR scandal, and kept promoting the pseudoscience around it long past the time when it had been conclusively demonstrated to be fraudulent. That did a huge amount of wholly unnecessary damage to vaccines in general. Indeed, it’s where much of the resistance to Covid vaccines originates. They have to the best of my knowledge neither apologised for nor withdrawn their statements on it.

    I am therefore quite comfortable in saying they are not reputable. And while I like the figures they publish here, and cited them myself a few weeks back with a rider that they couldn’t be trusted given the source, I am not going to bet the house on anything published in them.

    So again - has it been published by a reputable journal?
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 36,001
    https://twitter.com/soniasodha/status/1343120787855781888

    The dismantling of the union as a result of Brexit is going to be a key talking point this year whatever else happens
  • Scott_xP said:
    Blairite bashes Brexit deal? If only it had been as good a deal as when Tony Blair gave away half our rebate for nothing in return. This is a classic of the Remainer genre - the deal is bad because it doesn't have us as integrated with Brussels as Remainers want it.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    Since the presidential election 100,000+ have died of Covid in the USA.

    Unemployment cheques run out for people today, eviction ban ends and there is a government shutdown on Monday.

    The GOP are going for a burn it all down approach.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,421
    Alistair said:

    Since the presidential election 100,000+ have died of Covid in the USA.

    Unemployment cheques run out for people today, eviction ban ends and there is a government shutdown on Monday.

    The GOP are going for a burn it all down approach.

    Out of curiosity, do they expect this to have no effect on the runoffs in Georgia?

    Or are they just so dumb they haven’t thought of those?
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 3,080
    Good morning, everybody. Thought-provoking article, @rcs1000, thank you.

    Seeing into the future isn't my strong point but here are a few suggestions about possibilities, based on what we've experienced through this pandemic.

    The assumption is we want to be better prepared for the next one. So:

    1) Bring back National Service! Only this time, for staffing the Health Service and Care Homes rather than the armed forces. Set up an equivalent to the TA, so that people train for those roles alongside their ordinary jobs. Perhaps impossible to develop much above a basic level of expertise but even that could be useful, given that in the early days they were talking about redeploying air stewards to help out.

    2) Expand training facilities for medicine/nursing. Since applications are always over-subscribed there are certainly enough people who want to take it up.

    3) Provide facilities for quarantining people. That might mean hotels having action plans for turning themselves into isolation accommodation. Keep addressing the need for quarantine in a pandemic, so that (like smoking & drink-driving) public opinion will start to exert its own pressure.

    4) Probably most important, be prepared to learn from other countries that handled it better than we did.

  • The UK was frozen out of influence by the creation of the Eurozone. Decision making started with the Franco-German summit before every EU meeting, then moved to the Eurozone bloc (where France and Germany already dominated), then the rest of the EU were left to feebly rubber stamp or to protest and show their impotence. The UK usually chose the former but under Cameron we tried the latter and suddenly it was obvious the Emperor had no clothes. Brexit was inevitable by that point.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 36,001
    ydoethur said:

    Out of curiosity, do they expect this to have no effect on the runoffs in Georgia?

    Or are they just so dumb they haven’t thought of those?

    https://twitter.com/SamWangPhD/status/1343002800654053376
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,421
    Nigelb said:

    .

    ydoethur said:

    Chris said:



    The peer-reviewed publication in the Lancet on 8 December is here:
    https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)32661-1/fulltext

    That has 29 against 40 for the asymptomatic cases (Table 2).

    The Lancet was heavily involved in the MMR scandal, and kept promoting the pseudoscience around it long past the time when it had been conclusively demonstrated to be fraudulent. That did a huge amount of wholly unnecessary damage to vaccines in general. Indeed, it’s where much of the resistance to Covid vaccines originates. They have to the best of my knowledge neither apologised for nor withdrawn their statements on it.

    I am therefore quite comfortable in saying they are not reputable. And while I like the figures they publish here, and cited them myself a few weeks back with a rider that they couldn’t be trusted given the source, I am not going to bet the house on anything published in them.

    So again - has it been published by a reputable journal?
    I think you need to distinguish between the journal and those who wrote the paper.
    While it may be arguable that the Lancet is no longer a publication which has the reputation to add weight to a dubious paper, solid science is not tarnished simply by appearing in it.
    That is not the case. There are journals, and publishing houses for the matter of that, where appearing in them is taken as a sign nowhere better would accept it, for whatever reason. It therefore does damage the credibility of the authors and their work.

    It shouldn’t, in an ideal world. But the first thing any PhD student looking to publish is taught is to pick their publishers carefully.
This discussion has been closed.