Howdy, Stranger!

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

Sturgeon’s planned “go it alone” IndyRef2 poses problems for the bookies as well as Boris – politica

1234568

Comments

  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 5,331

    Another benefit of using emails instead of video calls, less chance of your crotchfruit interrupting them.

    I can relate to Axel Hefer so much.

    https://twitter.com/TomHourigan/status/1353800383391531010

    Nicely handled by Richard Quest, I thought.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,637
    Foxy said:
    Is the UK almost out of first dose Pfizer and heavily reliant on a vaccine reports say has no greater effiacy than a placebo?

    Really hope the reports of 8% in over 65's is untrue
  • UK still doing about a third of reported European vaccines:


    Where's that data coming from? 43% is well over a third. Plus of course "European vaccines" is massively inflated by including the UK in the first place - the UK is doing 78.3% of the EU total - despite being 15.0% of the EU's size.

    Remarkable.
  • JonathanDJonathanD Posts: 2,400

    There is public data about immunogenicity in over 65s here but "the level of immune response that provides protection against COVID-19 is unknown" because there weren't enough people in the sample to judge. I suspect the 8% number is a misinterpretation.

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulatory-approval-of-covid-19-vaccine-astrazeneca/information-for-healthcare-professionals-on-covid-19-vaccine-astrazeneca#clinical-particulars

    I'd happily have the AZ vaccine but what is remarkable (and a great shame) is the extent to which they messed up their Phase 3 trial. Pfizer and Moderna managed to deliver a clean result without all the caveats and data pooling that AZ have had to to rely on.

    Given the mortality rates for older people, to not have enough data to give a conclusive result on your vaccines efficiency for >65yr olds is extraordinary.

    The AZ trial does seem to have a heavy whiff of being designed by a PhD student who wanted to answer every question rather than just focusing on how to get regulatory approval.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,528
    The trouble with this is that if the EMA gives the go ahead for over 65s next week then it starts up the conspiracy mill, more fodder for anti-vaxxers.

    Government sources briefing newspapers on this is a fucking disaster idea. Let the regulator speak for itself, if it decides not to approve over 65s then let it say why in its own words.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 59,994
    Is there a bit of friendly cognitive dissonance going on here?

    We can't get it, and therefore it must be shit?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 95,873
    MaxPB said:

    The trouble with this is that if the EMA gives the go ahead for over 65s next week then it starts up the conspiracy mill, more fodder for anti-vaxxers.

    Government sources briefing newspapers on this is a fucking disaster idea. Let the regulator speak for itself, if it decides not to approve over 65s then let it say why in its own words.
    Can't say it looks good on the German government whether it is true or not, that they are leaking it to the papers in this manner for whatever reason.

    I suppose some shitty government behaviour is universal.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,637

    UK still doing about a third of reported European vaccines:


    Where's that data coming from? 43% is well over a third. Plus of course "European vaccines" is massively inflated by including the UK in the first place - the UK is doing 78.3% of the EU total - despite being 15.0% of the EU's size.

    Remarkable.
    How much placebo is included in our numbers?
  • kle4 said:

    Carnyx said:

    kle4 said:

    Carnyx said:

    https://twitter.com/washingtonski/status/1353796533246976000?s=20

    nor can we make public any underlying data

    Really? Data is data.....

    AAAAAAARGH!

    Data are data.
    Meh. That just sounds weird, roll with the times.
    O tempora! O mores!
    The Wall Street Journal has just published this blog post, in which it finally decides to move away from data "are", saying:

    Most style guides and dictionaries have come to accept the use of the noun data with either singular or plural verbs, and we hereby join the majority.

    As usage has evolved from the word's origin as the Latin plural of datum, singular verbs now are often used to refer to collections of information: Little data is available to support the conclusions.
    Otherwise, generally continue to use the plural: Data are still being collected.


    https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/jul/16/data-plural-singular
    The Yanks are well known for ruining the English language, this is but one further example.
    Referendums revisited.

    You're defending Latin grammar, not "the English language".
    They are related, see this.


    That seems to show that when you combine two things you make a different thing, which necessarily will have different needs and wants.

    Are we bound to follow the rules of our parents? Are there any german rules we should be following that we are not at present?
    The German Der/Die/Das is something we should NEVER copy.

    One of the reasons why the English language is used widely in so many things is that we don't soil our letters with things like umlauts and the accent circumflex.
  • GaussianGaussian Posts: 831
    rcs1000 said:

    If the EU were to block exports of vaccine, that would be a hostile act - not just to us, but to many other countries who have purchased vaccines from EU based companies.

    And while the political pressures will - I'm sure - be great, I would hope that they will resist the urge.

    What if the mutterings about being gazumped after putting down large down payments are true though? I suspect free market principles might be forgotten round here as well if AZ Wales suddenly declared they're out of stock yet large shipments went elsewhere.

    And so far they're only demanding transparency, so that the companies can't do that on the quiet. After all, this isn't just some widget, but a public health crisis response financed by large amounts of public money.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905
    Yokes said:

    The 8% idea appears odd, you'd have to wonder if the UK would have touched it and you'd have to assume some kind of over 65 cohort in the trials.

    FYI, here's what I found a bit earlier in the recently published paper on the trials:

    While the data presented here show that ChAdOx1 nCov-19 is efficacious against symptomatic disease, with most cases accruing in adults younger than 55 years of age so far, an important public health consideration is the morbidity and mortality of the disease in an older adult population and thus the potential efficacy in this age group. We have reported immunogenicity data showing similar immune responses following vaccination with two doses of ChAdOx1 nCov-19 in older adults, including those older than 70 years of age, when compared with those younger than 55 years.6 As older age groups were recruited later than younger age groups, there has been less time for cases to accrue and as a result, efficacy data in these cohorts are currently limited by the small number of cases, but additional data will be available in future analyses.

    Source: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)32661-1/fulltext#seccestitle210

    So, there were participants of advanced age in the trials, but not enough to determine a specific efficacy value for them; however, the immune response in older patients is reported to be similar to that in younger ones, so you wouldn't expect the resultant level of protection to be wildly different. Another poster has also made the obvious point that a massive drop-off in efficacy between the under 55s and over 55s would be extremely odd.

    Beyond that, I think we ought to assume that the MHRA aren't completely useless and have therefore gone over the raw data with a fine toothed comb and determined that the AZN effort ought probably, to the required statistical standards, be good enough to use. Not necessarily as effective as Pfizer, but it doesn't claim to be.
  • UK still doing about a third of reported European vaccines:


    Where's that data coming from? 43% is well over a third. Plus of course "European vaccines" is massively inflated by including the UK in the first place - the UK is doing 78.3% of the EU total - despite being 15.0% of the EU's size.

    Remarkable.
    How much placebo is included in our numbers?
    It is not even funny to suggest that

    Millions have been vaccinated by an approved covid vaccine

    Anything else is just irresponsible rumour making
  • kle4 said:

    Carnyx said:

    kle4 said:

    Carnyx said:

    https://twitter.com/washingtonski/status/1353796533246976000?s=20

    nor can we make public any underlying data

    Really? Data is data.....

    AAAAAAARGH!

    Data are data.
    Meh. That just sounds weird, roll with the times.
    O tempora! O mores!
    The Wall Street Journal has just published this blog post, in which it finally decides to move away from data "are", saying:

    Most style guides and dictionaries have come to accept the use of the noun data with either singular or plural verbs, and we hereby join the majority.

    As usage has evolved from the word's origin as the Latin plural of datum, singular verbs now are often used to refer to collections of information: Little data is available to support the conclusions.
    Otherwise, generally continue to use the plural: Data are still being collected.


    https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/jul/16/data-plural-singular
    The Yanks are well known for ruining the English language, this is but one further example.
    Referendums revisited.

    You're defending Latin grammar, not "the English language".
    They are related, see this.


    That seems to show that when you combine two things you make a different thing, which necessarily will have different needs and wants.

    Are we bound to follow the rules of our parents? Are there any german rules we should be following that we are not at present?
    The thing is TSE's logic doesn't even make sense. Data is an English word that can essentially trace its lineage back to what would have been a collection of datum with Roman times. Now data may be plural for the Romans but they weren't working with data like we are today - and we don't use the word datum. We have adopted the word data to literally mean a collection - it is literally defined as a collection of facts and figures.

    A collection is singular. If you're talking about a library as a collection of books you don't "library are . . ."
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,639

    kle4 said:

    Carnyx said:

    kle4 said:

    Carnyx said:

    https://twitter.com/washingtonski/status/1353796533246976000?s=20

    nor can we make public any underlying data

    Really? Data is data.....

    AAAAAAARGH!

    Data are data.
    Meh. That just sounds weird, roll with the times.
    O tempora! O mores!
    The Wall Street Journal has just published this blog post, in which it finally decides to move away from data "are", saying:

    Most style guides and dictionaries have come to accept the use of the noun data with either singular or plural verbs, and we hereby join the majority.

    As usage has evolved from the word's origin as the Latin plural of datum, singular verbs now are often used to refer to collections of information: Little data is available to support the conclusions.
    Otherwise, generally continue to use the plural: Data are still being collected.


    https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/jul/16/data-plural-singular
    The Yanks are well known for ruining the English language, this is but one further example.
    Referendums revisited.

    You're defending Latin grammar, not "the English language".
    They are related, see this.


    That seems to show that when you combine two things you make a different thing, which necessarily will have different needs and wants.

    Are we bound to follow the rules of our parents? Are there any german rules we should be following that we are not at present?
    The thing is TSE's logic doesn't even make sense. Data is an English word that can essentially trace its lineage back to what would have been a collection of datum with Roman times. Now data may be plural for the Romans but they weren't working with data like we are today - and we don't use the word datum. We have adopted the word data to literally mean a collection - it is literally defined as a collection of facts and figures.

    A collection is singular. If you're talking about a library as a collection of books you don't "library are . . ."
    But we do use datum quite a lot.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 59,994
    MaxPB said:

    Is there a bit of friendly cognitive dissonance going on here?

    We can't get it, and therefore it must be shit?
    If that is the case then heads need to roll in the German government. Briefing against vaccines is absolutely ridiculous under any circumstances.
    If it really is only "8%" efficient for the over 65s then the AZ vaccination programme in the UK is pointless, and we will see very little difference in hospital admissions or fatalities in the UK in early February.

    If not..
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 56,929
    edited January 2021

    UK still doing about a third of reported European vaccines:


    Where's that data coming from? 43% is well over a third. Plus of course "European vaccines" is massively inflated by including the UK in the first place - the UK is doing 78.3% of the EU total - despite being 15.0% of the EU's size.

    Remarkable.
    The last column is effectively "percent of vaccines done yesterday", and has the UK at 32%. (Albeit I think that number is wrong, because we're doing 400k, aren't we? Indeed the numbers on that chart are very different for us and a number of other countries to the NYTimes ones. So beware.)
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 59,994
    Yokes said:

    Isn’t this 8% figure swirling around now like - potentially really dangerous misinformation on the kind of scale the Russians partake in.

    If the EU have had a collective hissy fit and this is the result - then that is really, really worrying

    Well just wait until the Chinese rumour mill starts doubling down on the Pfizer vaccine FUD and keeps shouting about Fort Detrick.
    I sometimes wonder if the EU see the UK as a more serious threat to them than China.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,528

    UK still doing about a third of reported European vaccines:


    Where's that data coming from? 43% is well over a third. Plus of course "European vaccines" is massively inflated by including the UK in the first place - the UK is doing 78.3% of the EU total - despite being 15.0% of the EU's size.

    Remarkable.
    How much placebo is included in our numbers?
    Do stop dickishly calling it a placebo until you have better than unsubstantiated rumour to back it up.
    He can't help it, he's another one of those on the list you couldn't sit and have a few pints with and generally have a decent time.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,480

    Pro_Rata said:

    Israel - what would we expect in 14 days time, back of envelope:

    - Cases: 30% of population were vaccinated 7 days ago, so immune from 10 -> 35%. R suppression up to (0.55/0.9) = 40%.
    - R now (at 15% suppression) = 0.84 -> expected R around 0.6 (or a case reduction of UP TO 60% reduction per week) in a fortnight. (plus restriction led falls, minus any lack of efficacy). This would be an R noticeably below anything we've seen elsewhere.
    - Hospitalisations: 22% of the population were immunised 2 weeks ago. That's approximately completing the over 70s and some over 60s on a UK like programme. Let's say 50% fewer hospitalisations relative to the number of cases the week before (based on memory prior work here)
    - Deaths: 16% of the population were immunised 3 weeks ago. Probably covers the over 80s and many over 70s. Deaths up to 60% down from expected on relative to the number of cases a fortnight before.

    Even if the numbers are a bit rough here, the conclusion is we should be seeing something quite marked in Israel in a fortnight's time.

    Have they used AZN?
    Its all Pfizer in Israel, and second dose on schedule as I understand. That price of ample supplies was to treat to protocol and report all data back.

    I wouldn't be too surprised if the AZN was approved by the EMA for the younger age groups. That was indeed what some on here were suggesting in December for the UK. The published AZN data was quite a mess.

    It just requires a shift in vaccine policy to immunise key workers etc with it, and concentrate the Pfizer and Moderna on the older age groups.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 95,873
    ydoethur said:

    algarkirk said:

    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    kle4 said:

    Carnyx said:

    https://twitter.com/washingtonski/status/1353796533246976000?s=20

    nor can we make public any underlying data

    Really? Data is data.....

    AAAAAAARGH!

    Data are data.
    Meh. That just sounds weird, roll with the times.
    O tempora! O mores!
    Tempora mutantur, nos et mutamer in illis.
    I think you get a D- for 'mutamer'

    Although I will say it’s worse with Welsh.
    Quite possibly 'VisitWales's worst tourism slogan.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172
    edited January 2021
    "Our sources, including members of the government coalition, spoke on the condition of anonymity so we cannot source the story “on the record” nor can we make public any underlying data"

    The scientific data are public. They do not belong to anyone. They have been gathered either with public money or through members of the public consenting to take part in trials. There is absolutely no reason to withhold the scientific data.

    When a source refuses to provide the data, then that is immediately ***very, very suspicious***. On those grounds alone, the German claim is highly suspect.

    If the claim is backed up by solid evidence in the data, why on earth would you not want to release the evidence?
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,231
    IanB2 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Well, 10 days from initial symptoms Son is still having a thoroughly miserable time of it. Still has a fever which he cannot shake off, vomiting and his oxygen level is at 96 which is at the lower end of normal range. Had a really distressing call from him earlier.

    I wish I could do something.

    It really is a bitch of a disease.

    I am very sorry to hear that. You may have this handled, but if not it might be a nice thing to do to try to ensure he's getting plenty of zinc, and plenty of vitamin D - supplementary is good - dietary is even better. Go with the best brands you can - supermarket supplements are often not very absorbable. We're very lucky to have a lot of choice online now.

    If you don't trust my advice on this (no reason why you should), I am sure Foxy would be happy to confirm whether the above is a good idea.

    I subscribe to Dr. Berg on YT, and he advises the following:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKU2JyIMHrc

    I believe we can do a lot to fight COVID even if we catch it.



    Fasting might be a good idea to strengthen your immune system when you are healthy, but I struggle to see it as a good response when you are already infected.

    I was diagnosed with a vit D deficiency years ago, and told to take a supplement. At the sixth month stage a retest showed only modest progress and it took a whole year to get my level back to normal. So I doubt that taking even very high doses of vitamin pills is likely to make much difference during the timespan a virus infection will play out.
    I am in semi-agreement - Vitamin D supplements only provide the precursors to Vitamin D, not the substance itself. However, I think for a sufferer, they can't hurt. In the absence of much sunshine, foods rich in Vitamin D would be a good way to go: oily fish, red meat, liver, egg yolks. I don't like liver, but I take liver capsules. There are also mushrooms enriched with natural Vitamin D (from UV).

    I also agree, that radical dietary changes once already having a shit time of it aren't necessarily the way to go, but potentially narrowing the window within which you take food, to allow the body to concentrate on its COVID response, isn't a bad thing.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,637

    Is there a bit of friendly cognitive dissonance going on here?

    We can't get it, and therefore it must be shit?
    Its shit in over 65s is what i read is being reported.

    We need to know why they are saying that.

    I dont know nor do you.

    Lets hope its not true
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,154

    Yokes said:

    Isn’t this 8% figure swirling around now like - potentially really dangerous misinformation on the kind of scale the Russians partake in.

    If the EU have had a collective hissy fit and this is the result - then that is really, really worrying

    Well just wait until the Chinese rumour mill starts doubling down on the Pfizer vaccine FUD and keeps shouting about Fort Detrick.
    I sometimes wonder if the EU see the UK as a more serious threat to them than China.
    Well, China didn’t break up the EU.

    Nor did we of course, but we did cause it some damage by trying.
  • rcs1000 said:

    UK still doing about a third of reported European vaccines:


    Where's that data coming from? 43% is well over a third. Plus of course "European vaccines" is massively inflated by including the UK in the first place - the UK is doing 78.3% of the EU total - despite being 15.0% of the EU's size.

    Remarkable.
    The last column is effectively "percent of vaccines done yesterday", and has the UK at 32%. (Albeit I think that number is wrong, because we're doing 400k, aren't we? Indeed the numbers on that chart are very different for us and a number of other countries to the NYTimes ones. So beware.)
    221k was our daily figure today wasn't it? For those done yesterday? Or perhaps more realistically Saturday?

    It seems to be a daily figures column not a proportion of total column - but there's going to be far more natural variance in daily figures - I suspect the day before when we'd done nearly 500k then the figure would have looked well over 32%
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    They didn't get "8%" from The Lancet:

    ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 appears to be better tolerated in older adults than in younger adults and has similar immunogenicity across all age groups after a boost dose. Further assessment of the efficacy of this vaccine is warranted in all age groups and individuals with comorbidities.

    https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)32466-1/fulltext
  • Is there a bit of friendly cognitive dissonance going on here?

    We can't get it, and therefore it must be shit?
    Its shit in over 65s is what i read is being reported.

    We need to know why they are saying that.

    I dont know nor do you.

    Lets hope its not true
    Yes but you are suggesting it is a placebo which is unconscionable in this environment

  • Anyone tracking AstraZeneca's share price, there could be a killing to be made here.

    FWIW I cannot see a successful company with a market capitalisation of $150 billion playing silly beggars offer the Covid vaccine, it would permanently damage their brand.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 95,873

    "Our sources, including members of the government coalition, spoke on the condition of anonymity so we cannot source the story “on the record” nor can we make public any underlying data"

    The scientific data are public. They do not belong to anyone. They have been gathered either with public money or through members of the public consenting to take part in trials. There is absolutely no reason to withhold the scientific data.

    When a source refuses to provide the data, then that is immediately ***very, very suspicious***. On those grounds alone, the German claim is highly suspect.

    If the claim is backed up by solid evidence in the data, why on earth would you not want to release the evidence?

    Hopefully it is like all that 'evidence' the Trump team had of electoral fraud that for some reason they couldn't produce in court.

    But someone has put this out there, and is standing by it, and even if it is right there's not much good reason to do that and not just wait for the regulator decision.

    So someone is behaving inappropriately either way.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,637
    Foxy said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    Israel - what would we expect in 14 days time, back of envelope:

    - Cases: 30% of population were vaccinated 7 days ago, so immune from 10 -> 35%. R suppression up to (0.55/0.9) = 40%.
    - R now (at 15% suppression) = 0.84 -> expected R around 0.6 (or a case reduction of UP TO 60% reduction per week) in a fortnight. (plus restriction led falls, minus any lack of efficacy). This would be an R noticeably below anything we've seen elsewhere.
    - Hospitalisations: 22% of the population were immunised 2 weeks ago. That's approximately completing the over 70s and some over 60s on a UK like programme. Let's say 50% fewer hospitalisations relative to the number of cases the week before (based on memory prior work here)
    - Deaths: 16% of the population were immunised 3 weeks ago. Probably covers the over 80s and many over 70s. Deaths up to 60% down from expected on relative to the number of cases a fortnight before.

    Even if the numbers are a bit rough here, the conclusion is we should be seeing something quite marked in Israel in a fortnight's time.

    Have they used AZN?
    Its all Pfizer in Israel, and second dose on schedule as I understand. That price of ample supplies was to treat to protocol and report all data back.

    I wouldn't be too surprised if the AZN was approved by the EMA for the younger age groups. That was indeed what some on here were suggesting in December for the UK. The published AZN data was quite a mess.

    It just requires a shift in vaccine policy to immunise key workers etc with it, and concentrate the Pfizer and Moderna on the older age groups.
    I thought we are almost out of new first dose Pfizer?


    Moderna none till when?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 95,873

    rcs1000 said:

    UK still doing about a third of reported European vaccines:


    Where's that data coming from? 43% is well over a third. Plus of course "European vaccines" is massively inflated by including the UK in the first place - the UK is doing 78.3% of the EU total - despite being 15.0% of the EU's size.

    Remarkable.
    The last column is effectively "percent of vaccines done yesterday", and has the UK at 32%. (Albeit I think that number is wrong, because we're doing 400k, aren't we? Indeed the numbers on that chart are very different for us and a number of other countries to the NYTimes ones. So beware.)
    221k was our daily figure today wasn't it? For those done yesterday? Or perhaps more realistically Saturday?

    It seems to be a daily figures column not a proportion of total column - but there's going to be far more natural variance in daily figures - I suspect the day before when we'd done nearly 500k then the figure would have looked well over 32%
    The same table tweeted yesterday or the day before it was something like 70% I think, of reported.
  • Is there a bit of friendly cognitive dissonance going on here?

    We can't get it, and therefore it must be shit?
    Its shit in over 65s is what i read is being reported.

    We need to know why they are saying that.

    I dont know nor do you.

    Lets hope its not true
    You don't know yet you started calling the AZN a placebo.
  • Is there a bit of friendly cognitive dissonance going on here?

    We can't get it, and therefore it must be shit?
    Its shit in over 65s is what i read is being reported.

    We need to know why they are saying that.

    I dont know nor do you.

    Lets hope its not true
    Keep calm, I think this is bollocks, see my post of 9.05pm and the fact earlier on today the EU were so angry that they didn't have enough of this vaccine.

    All the evidence is that the Germans and EU are acting like a jilted ex.

    Didn't want to go out with her anyway 'cause she's such a bad person.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,637

    Is there a bit of friendly cognitive dissonance going on here?

    We can't get it, and therefore it must be shit?
    Its shit in over 65s is what i read is being reported.

    We need to know why they are saying that.

    I dont know nor do you.

    Lets hope its not true
    Yes but you are suggesting it is a placebo which is unconscionable in this environment

    The report is saying 8% thats worse than some Placebo effects isn't it?
  • There are many more in the disaster column than the UK if it's true.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,480

    MaxPB said:

    Is there a bit of friendly cognitive dissonance going on here?

    We can't get it, and therefore it must be shit?
    If that is the case then heads need to roll in the German government. Briefing against vaccines is absolutely ridiculous under any circumstances.
    If it really is only "8%" efficient for the over 65s then the AZ vaccination programme in the UK is pointless, and we will see very little difference in hospital admissions or fatalities in the UK in early February.

    If not..
    I would expect admissions and fatalities to fall because of the lockdown even if both vaccines were completely ineffective.

    Where we will learn is looking at the vaccination histories of admissions in Feb. If there is a significant vaccine failure rate, that is how we will detect it.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 59,994
    Leon said:

    So, right now, the EU is simultaneously claiming the UK vaccine is basically useless, threatening to sue the UK vaccine maker for non delivery of the "useless" vaccine, and also threatening to stop paid-for exports of a different vaccine from the EU to the UK by Pfizer (a company which is also being harangued by the EU, and sued by Italy).

    Quite gob smacking behaviour.

    Many in the EU still see the UK as a renegade member state.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,231
    Alistair said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Well, 10 days from initial symptoms Son is still having a thoroughly miserable time of it. Still has a fever which he cannot shake off, vomiting and his oxygen level is at 96 which is at the lower end of normal range. Had a really distressing call from him earlier.

    I wish I could do something.

    It really is a bitch of a disease.

    I am very sorry to hear that. You may have this handled, but if not it might be a nice thing to do to try to ensure he's getting plenty of zinc, and plenty of vitamin D - supplementary is good - dietary is even better. Go with the best brands you can - supermarket supplements are often not very absorbable. We're very lucky to have a lot of choice online now.

    If you don't trust my advice on this (no reason why you should), I am sure Foxy would be happy to confirm whether the above is a good idea.

    I subscribe to Dr. Berg on YT, and he advises the following:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKU2JyIMHrc

    I believe we can do a lot to fight COVID even if we catch it.



    The research on Vitamin D and Covid is dangerously mixed.
    How so?
  • Is there a bit of friendly cognitive dissonance going on here?

    We can't get it, and therefore it must be shit?
    Its shit in over 65s is what i read is being reported.

    We need to know why they are saying that.

    I dont know nor do you.

    Lets hope its not true
    Yes but you are suggesting it is a placebo which is unconscionable in this environment

    The report is saying 8% thats worse than some Placebo effects isn't it?
    An UNSUBSTANTIATED report. So STFU.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Charles said:

    A referendum which isn't legally authorised and internationally recognised is absolutely no use at all for the Nats, except to further stoke the already well-stoked grievance machine. They must know this, so there's a huge amount of bluster here.

    From the point of view of the Conservative government, I really can't see any upside to agreeing the referendum. Better to say No, ignore the fuss, and leave it to the next Labour PM to impale himself or herself on the spike.

    If its authorised by the Scottish Parliament - and if the Scottish Parliament has the legal authority to authorise it - then how is that not legally authorised?

    The UK has a proud history of respecting democracy. Is the union more important than that?
    Because the Scottish Parliament’s authority is bounded by the Westminster law.
    The Scottish Parliament's authority extends to almost everything the Scottish Parliament wishes to set a law on - they don't have to apply for Westminster's permission before they pass a bill - apart from reserved matters.

    If the United Kingdom Supreme Court rules that an advisory referendum is not a reserved matter, so the Scottish Parliament has the authority to hold an advisory referendum, then it is a legally authorised referendum.
    We’re talking at cross purposes

    An advisory referendum is fine (subject to ultra vires) I don’t see any issue with it. It’s not binding and has no authority to require Westminster to engage. There is a clear process set out in law for referenda on these topics and the law should be followed
  • Carnyx said:

    kle4 said:

    Carnyx said:

    kle4 said:

    Carnyx said:

    https://twitter.com/washingtonski/status/1353796533246976000?s=20

    nor can we make public any underlying data

    Really? Data is data.....

    AAAAAAARGH!

    Data are data.
    Meh. That just sounds weird, roll with the times.
    O tempora! O mores!
    The Wall Street Journal has just published this blog post, in which it finally decides to move away from data "are", saying:

    Most style guides and dictionaries have come to accept the use of the noun data with either singular or plural verbs, and we hereby join the majority.

    As usage has evolved from the word's origin as the Latin plural of datum, singular verbs now are often used to refer to collections of information: Little data is available to support the conclusions.
    Otherwise, generally continue to use the plural: Data are still being collected.


    https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/jul/16/data-plural-singular
    The Yanks are well known for ruining the English language, this is but one further example.
    Referendums revisited.

    You're defending Latin grammar, not "the English language".
    They are related, see this.


    That seems to show that when you combine two things you make a different thing, which necessarily will have different needs and wants.

    Are we bound to follow the rules of our parents? Are there any german rules we should be following that we are not at present?
    The thing is TSE's logic doesn't even make sense. Data is an English word that can essentially trace its lineage back to what would have been a collection of datum with Roman times. Now data may be plural for the Romans but they weren't working with data like we are today - and we don't use the word datum. We have adopted the word data to literally mean a collection - it is literally defined as a collection of facts and figures.

    A collection is singular. If you're talking about a library as a collection of books you don't "library are . . ."
    But we do use datum quite a lot.
    You may. Most people don't.

    https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?geo=US&q=data,datum

    For the English language now the prime definition of data is a collection of facts - in which case the collection is singular - the prime definition of the word is not as plural of datum, the word is a word in its own right. Hence data is.
  • Is there a bit of friendly cognitive dissonance going on here?

    We can't get it, and therefore it must be shit?
    Its shit in over 65s is what i read is being reported.

    We need to know why they are saying that.

    I dont know nor do you.

    Lets hope its not true
    Yes but you are suggesting it is a placebo which is unconscionable in this environment

    The report is saying 8% thats worse than some Placebo effects isn't it?
    The report is as much use as a Russian bot

    And you are adding to the misinformation in a foolish way

    Time to stop scaring millions on a unconfirmed rumour
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,503
    edited January 2021
    On a happier note, I see Biden has started with +25 approval in the first non-Rasmussen poll (Rasmussen makes it +1).

    https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2021-01/2021_reuters_tracking_-_core_political_presidential_approval_tracker_01_22_2021.pdf
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,528
    edited January 2021

    Anyone tracking AstraZeneca's share price, there could be a killing to be made here.

    FWIW I cannot see a successful company with a market capitalisation of $150 billion playing silly beggars offer the Covid vaccine, it would permanently damage their brand.

    Tbf, the market has already realised that AZ aren't going to make any money off this given the terms of the deal with Oxford. But agreed that AZ aren't going to have hidden anything for the EMA to suddenly discover.

    Oddly just last week the head of the German regulator praised the efficacy of AZ so this would have to be a massive about turn from the EMA.

    Fauci in the US also recently said the AZ vaccine looks very good ahead of the expected approval from the FDA.

    I get the feeling this is a politician that's seen an 8% number and then taken it out of context, seen the furore today and then decided to say "well it's shit anyway" to their favourite newspaper.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    edited January 2021
    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    A referendum which isn't legally authorised and internationally recognised is absolutely no use at all for the Nats, except to further stoke the already well-stoked grievance machine. They must know this, so there's a huge amount of bluster here.

    From the point of view of the Conservative government, I really can't see any upside to agreeing the referendum. Better to say No, ignore the fuss, and leave it to the next Labour PM to impale himself or herself on the spike.

    If its authorised by the Scottish Parliament - and if the Scottish Parliament has the legal authority to authorise it - then how is that not legally authorised?

    The UK has a proud history of respecting democracy. Is the union more important than that?
    Because the Scottish Parliament’s authority is bounded by the Westminster law.
    The Scottish Parliament's authority extends to almost everything the Scottish Parliament wishes to set a law on - they don't have to apply for Westminster's permission before they pass a bill - apart from reserved matters.

    If the United Kingdom Supreme Court rules that an advisory referendum is not a reserved matter, so the Scottish Parliament has the authority to hold an advisory referendum, then it is a legally authorised referendum.
    We’re talking at cross purposes

    An advisory referendum is fine (subject to ultra vires) I don’t see any issue with it. It’s not binding and has no authority to require Westminster to engage. There is a clear process set out in law for referenda on these topics and the law should be followed
    There is not a clear process set out in law as referenda have been dealt with very ad hoc, we haven't stabilised to frequently using referenda on an ongoing permanent basis - although Tony Blair and David Cameron tried their best to make it so, it seems.

    The Scottish Government are seeking to pass legislation to call a referendum as is arguably their right. If they do, and if it is fine to do so, then it is a legally authorised referendum just as the UK's 2016 referendum was legally authorised.
  • RazedabodeRazedabode Posts: 3,027

    Is there a bit of friendly cognitive dissonance going on here?

    We can't get it, and therefore it must be shit?
    Its shit in over 65s is what i read is being reported.

    We need to know why they are saying that.

    I dont know nor do you.

    Lets hope its not true
    Keep calm, I think this is bollocks, see my post of 9.05pm and the fact earlier on today the EU were so angry that they didn't have enough of this vaccine.

    All the evidence is that the Germans and EU are acting like a jilted ex.

    Didn't want to go out with her anyway 'cause she's such a bad person.
    Pretty inexcusable behaviour on their part if that is the reason.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    kle4 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Have to wonder if future vax *J &J? might swerve supplying the EU with the nonsense coming out of the commission at the moment.

    That sounds far too risky for anyone to attempt against a competitor.
    A lot of J&J’s vaccine expertise comes from Crucell and Janssen - both Belgian companies
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,480

    Is there a bit of friendly cognitive dissonance going on here?

    We can't get it, and therefore it must be shit?
    Its shit in over 65s is what i read is being reported.

    We need to know why they are saying that.

    I dont know nor do you.

    Lets hope its not true
    Yes but you are suggesting it is a placebo which is unconscionable in this environment

    The report is saying 8% thats worse than some Placebo effects isn't it?
    No, because there was a placebo arm in the trial.

    I think it was only the cov002 arm that had older patients in it, and that used a meningococcal vaccine as placebo. That is a curious choice (other trials used inert saline). On the one hand a degree of immune response makes for a better placebo, but on the other hand we do know that ANY vaccine has some effect on viral immunity by priming the immune system.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,637

    There are many more in the disaster column than the UK if it's true.
    We would be worst affected.

    We have given a vaccine in Care homes that could be useless


    We are also the only nation not following Pfizer 3 weeks 2nd dose guidance aren't we

  • This episode with the EU is shocking and does their reputation no favours

    I hope all those who hold the EU in such esteem will come on here and condemn their actions

    And it just makes the case for brexit
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,302
    edited January 2021
    MaxPB said:

    Anyone tracking AstraZeneca's share price, there could be a killing to be made here.

    FWIW I cannot see a successful company with a market capitalisation of $150 billion playing silly beggars offer the Covid vaccine, it would permanently damage their brand.

    Tbf, the market has already realised that AZ aren't going to make any money off this given the terms of the deal with Oxford. But agreed that AZ aren't going to have hidden anything for the EMA to suddenly discover.

    Oddly just last week the head of the German regulator praised the efficacy of AZ so this would have to be a massive about turn from the EMA.

    Fauci in the US also recently said the AZ vaccine looks very good ahead of the expected approval from the FDA.

    I get the feeling this is a politician that's seen an 8% number and then taken it out of context, seen the furore today and then decided to say "well it's shit anyway" to their favourite newspaper.
    I did text a senior NHS bod this story, his view is that someone has misunderstood the numbers, like it only gives an 8% efficacy after < 3 days after first dose or something.

    If there's one thing we've learned during the plague is that journalists are pretty innumerate.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216

    Is there a bit of friendly cognitive dissonance going on here?

    We can't get it, and therefore it must be shit?
    I'm sure its got nothing to do with this:


  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 59,994
    MHRA. It looks like there is a subsample risk for the over 65s, but I'd be astonished if the MoE was that great. I mean, on the sample they got they got high seroconversion rates of 100% after the 2nd dose:

    "The number of COVID-19 cases (2) in 660 participants ≥65 years old were too few to draw
    conclusions on efficacy. However, in this subpopulation, immunogenicity data are available, see
    below.

    Following vaccination with COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca, in participants who were seronegative at
    baseline, seroconversion (as measured by a ≥4 fold increase from baseline in S-binding antibodies)
    was demonstrated in ≥98% of participants at 28 days after the first dose and >99% at 28 days after the
    second. Higher S-binding antibodies were observed with increasing dose interval (Table 3).

    High seroconversion rates were observed in older adults (≥65 years) after the first (97.8%; N=136) and
    the second recommended dose (100.0%; N=111). The increase in S-binding antibodies was lower for
    participants ≥65 years old (28 days after second dose: GMT=20,727.02 [N=116, 95% CI: 17,646.6;
    24,345.2]) when compared to participants aged 18-64 years (28 days after second dose:
    GMT=30,695.30 [N=703, 95% CI: 28,496.2; 33,064.1]). The majority of participants ≥65 years old
    had a dose interval of <6 weeks, which may have contributed to the lower titres observed. "

    https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/951851/uk-clean-spc-covid-19-vaccine-astrazeneca-reg174.pdf
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,541
    There is a third option - that the paper is, in good faith, reporting German government sources who just got it wrong
  • There are many more in the disaster column than the UK if it's true.
    We would be worst affected.

    We have given a vaccine in Care homes that could be useless


    We are also the only nation not following Pfizer 3 weeks 2nd dose guidance aren't we

    You need to take a rest from your keyboard to be honest
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 59,994

    There’s also the possibility that a scenario like this could have happened:

    “There were so few cases in over-65s that if we looked at them alone, the error bars would be huge”

    “Error bars”

    “Yes. The confidence interval could go to between 8% and [insert absurdly large percentage here]”

    “It could be as low as 8%?”

    ... and a statistically inept minister runs off to give an anonymous briefing.

    Very true.
  • GaussianGaussian Posts: 831

    kle4 said:

    Carnyx said:

    kle4 said:

    Carnyx said:

    https://twitter.com/washingtonski/status/1353796533246976000?s=20

    nor can we make public any underlying data

    Really? Data is data.....

    AAAAAAARGH!

    Data are data.
    Meh. That just sounds weird, roll with the times.
    O tempora! O mores!
    The Wall Street Journal has just published this blog post, in which it finally decides to move away from data "are", saying:

    Most style guides and dictionaries have come to accept the use of the noun data with either singular or plural verbs, and we hereby join the majority.

    As usage has evolved from the word's origin as the Latin plural of datum, singular verbs now are often used to refer to collections of information: Little data is available to support the conclusions.
    Otherwise, generally continue to use the plural: Data are still being collected.


    https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/jul/16/data-plural-singular
    The Yanks are well known for ruining the English language, this is but one further example.
    Referendums revisited.

    You're defending Latin grammar, not "the English language".
    They are related, see this.


    That seems to show that when you combine two things you make a different thing, which necessarily will have different needs and wants.

    Are we bound to follow the rules of our parents? Are there any german rules we should be following that we are not at present?
    The German Der/Die/Das is something we should NEVER copy.

    One of the reasons why the English language is used widely in so many things is that we don't soil our letters with things like umlauts and the accent circumflex.
    Old English did have the equivalent of der/die/das, and also noun declensions and verb conjugations as in German. Which is unsurprising given the common root of the languages. It's just that English has been much better at dropping such unnecessary grammatical frippery.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 95,873
    DougSeal said:

    There is a third option - that the paper is, in good faith, reporting German government sources who just got it wrong
    Totally irresponsible government, a much better outcome.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,480
    MaxPB said:

    Anyone tracking AstraZeneca's share price, there could be a killing to be made here.

    FWIW I cannot see a successful company with a market capitalisation of $150 billion playing silly beggars offer the Covid vaccine, it would permanently damage their brand.

    Oddly just last week the head of the German regulator praised the efficacy of AZ so this would have to be a massive about turn from the EMA.

    No, it is perfectly possible to say AZN is moderately effective in younger age groups, but unproven effectiveness in older age groups.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    So, right now, the EU is simultaneously claiming the UK vaccine is basically useless, threatening to sue the UK vaccine maker for non delivery of the "useless" vaccine, and also threatening to stop paid-for exports of a different vaccine from the EU to the UK by Pfizer (a company which is also being harangued by the EU, and sued by Italy).

    Quite gob smacking behaviour.

    That Pfizer supply also feeds into the US supply chain so it's not just the UK and Israel they're threatening here, it's the US and Pfizer is an American company.
    Only because the US Congress expropriated and sold it to the brother in law of the congressman who proposed the bill...
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,541
    This

    There are many more in the disaster column than the UK if it's true.
    We would be worst affected.

    We have given a vaccine in Care homes that could be useless


    We are also the only nation not following Pfizer 3 weeks 2nd dose guidance aren't we

    We’ll hear from the company soon enough I am sure. If untrue they cannot let this go unchallenged.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 59,994
    MaxPB said:

    UK still doing about a third of reported European vaccines:


    Where's that data coming from? 43% is well over a third. Plus of course "European vaccines" is massively inflated by including the UK in the first place - the UK is doing 78.3% of the EU total - despite being 15.0% of the EU's size.

    Remarkable.
    How much placebo is included in our numbers?
    Do stop dickishly calling it a placebo until you have better than unsubstantiated rumour to back it up.
    He can't help it, he's another one of those on the list you couldn't sit and have a few pints with and generally have a decent time.
    I've had a pint with @bigjohnowls

    He's alright.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    edited January 2021

    UK still doing about a third of reported European vaccines:


    Where's that data coming from?
    Sorry - forgot the link: https://www.politico.eu/coronavirus-in-europe/
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,401
    In the second week of January 2021, 40% of those tested in Sweden had antibodies to covid.

    https://sebastianrushworth.com/2021/01/25/heres-a-graph-they-dont-want-you-to-see/
  • glwglw Posts: 9,871

    Anyone tracking AstraZeneca's share price, there could be a killing to be made here.

    FWIW I cannot see a successful company with a market capitalisation of $150 billion playing silly beggars offer the Covid vaccine, it would permanently damage their brand.

    It's not just the company, the MHRA and Indian authorities have approved the vaccine, and have not raised any similar concerns. Given we are targetting the very groups the German press are reporting the vaccine is ineffective for, I find it hard to believe that the MHRA has come to a radically different view based upon the same data.
  • JonathanDJonathanD Posts: 2,400

    They didn't get "8%" from The Lancet:

    ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 appears to be better tolerated in older adults than in younger adults and has similar immunogenicity across all age groups after a boost dose. Further assessment of the efficacy of this vaccine is warranted in all age groups and individuals with comorbidities.

    https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)32466-1/fulltext

    I think that just relates to the initial anti-body response induced by the vaccine and not to the reduction in infection/severity it leads to when people are exposed to Covid.

    Antibody response was strongest when the two doses were furthest apart - which makes sense of the government choosing a 12 week gap and allows them to make a virtue out of a necessity. The worry would be that since the initial Phase 3 trial data was released, further data has been show to the EMA that confirms the lower estimates of the AZ vaccine rather than the higher or even average estimates.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 95,873

    Is there a bit of friendly cognitive dissonance going on here?

    We can't get it, and therefore it must be shit?
    Its shit in over 65s is what i read is being reported.

    We need to know why they are saying that.

    I dont know nor do you.

    Lets hope its not true
    Yes but you are suggesting it is a placebo which is unconscionable in this environment

    The report is saying 8% thats worse than some Placebo effects isn't it?
    Give it a rest.

    PB would be better off without posters repeating a lie in the form of a question.

    --AS
    Absolutely, I'm much more subtle when repeating my lies.
  • There’s also the possibility that a scenario like this could have happened:

    “There were so few cases in over-65s that if we looked at them alone, the error bars would be huge”

    “Error bars”

    “Yes. The confidence interval could go to between 8% and [insert absurdly large percentage here]”

    “It could be as low as 8%?”

    ... and a statistically inept minister runs off to give an anonymous briefing.

    Error bars. The most important thing I teach in A Level physics.
  • kle4 said:
    Julia wouldn't know scepticism if it kicked her in the chin.

    She swallows whatever anti-restriction, covid-denial BS she can find wholeheartedly, unflinchingly and without and semblance of scepticism. She's a zealot not a sceptic.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,174
    Two hours ago: the EU says its unacceptable that they cant get enough supply of the AZ vaccine.
    Now: anonymous German government sources say the vaccine only has an 8% efficacy with over 65s.
  • This episode with the EU is shocking and does their reputation no favours

    I hope all those who hold the EU in such esteem will come on here and condemn their actions

    And it just makes the case for brexit

    Who actually holds the EU in great esteem? I can't think of anyone on here who loves the EU institutions.

    You are confusing a realpolitik decision that EU membership is better than Brexit, and in particular for most, much better than this version of Brexit, with a love of EU structures that does not exist.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 59,994
    Foxy said:

    MaxPB said:

    Is there a bit of friendly cognitive dissonance going on here?

    We can't get it, and therefore it must be shit?
    If that is the case then heads need to roll in the German government. Briefing against vaccines is absolutely ridiculous under any circumstances.
    If it really is only "8%" efficient for the over 65s then the AZ vaccination programme in the UK is pointless, and we will see very little difference in hospital admissions or fatalities in the UK in early February.

    If not..
    I would expect admissions and fatalities to fall because of the lockdown even if both vaccines were completely ineffective.

    Where we will learn is looking at the vaccination histories of admissions in Feb. If there is a significant vaccine failure rate, that is how we will detect it.
    Yes, of course but there's still an effect over and above lockdown - if the vaccine works - as Israel is showing.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,637
    Foxy said:

    MaxPB said:

    Anyone tracking AstraZeneca's share price, there could be a killing to be made here.

    FWIW I cannot see a successful company with a market capitalisation of $150 billion playing silly beggars offer the Covid vaccine, it would permanently damage their brand.

    Oddly just last week the head of the German regulator praised the efficacy of AZ so this would have to be a massive about turn from the EMA.

    No, it is perfectly possible to say AZN is moderately effective in younger age groups, but unproven effectiveness in older age groups.
    So why have we used millions of the effective in oldies Pfizer in people under 65 and millions of potentially useless AZN to over 80s?

    We really need to re evaluate quickly unless these reports are BS
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,528
    JonathanD said:

    They didn't get "8%" from The Lancet:

    ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 appears to be better tolerated in older adults than in younger adults and has similar immunogenicity across all age groups after a boost dose. Further assessment of the efficacy of this vaccine is warranted in all age groups and individuals with comorbidities.

    https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)32466-1/fulltext

    I think that just relates to the initial anti-body response induced by the vaccine and not to the reduction in infection/severity it leads to when people are exposed to Covid.

    Antibody response was strongest when the two doses were furthest apart - which makes sense of the government choosing a 12 week gap and allows them to make a virtue out of a necessity. The worry would be that since the initial Phase 3 trial data was released, further data has been show to the EMA that confirms the lower estimates of the AZ vaccine rather than the higher or even average estimates.
    I actually think our 12 week gap policy is based on that information of AZ having much higher efficacy with a 9-12 week gap.
  • Riots and looting in Holland again tonight.
  • kle4 said:

    Is there a bit of friendly cognitive dissonance going on here?

    We can't get it, and therefore it must be shit?
    Its shit in over 65s is what i read is being reported.

    We need to know why they are saying that.

    I dont know nor do you.

    Lets hope its not true
    Yes but you are suggesting it is a placebo which is unconscionable in this environment

    The report is saying 8% thats worse than some Placebo effects isn't it?
    Give it a rest.

    PB would be better off without posters repeating a lie in the form of a question.

    --AS
    Absolutely, I'm much more subtle when repeating my lies.
    Hmm, I doubt the truth of this statement... ; )

    --AS
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 59,994

    Is there a bit of friendly cognitive dissonance going on here?

    We can't get it, and therefore it must be shit?
    Its shit in over 65s is what i read is being reported.

    We need to know why they are saying that.

    I dont know nor do you.

    Lets hope its not true
    Keep calm, I think this is bollocks, see my post of 9.05pm and the fact earlier on today the EU were so angry that they didn't have enough of this vaccine.

    All the evidence is that the Germans and EU are acting like a jilted ex.

    Didn't want to go out with her anyway 'cause she's such a bad person.
    At what point does Merkel get absolutely wasted and drunkenly dial Boris's voicemail at 2am, telling him she still loves him and begging for him to come back?
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,528

    Foxy said:

    MaxPB said:

    Is there a bit of friendly cognitive dissonance going on here?

    We can't get it, and therefore it must be shit?
    If that is the case then heads need to roll in the German government. Briefing against vaccines is absolutely ridiculous under any circumstances.
    If it really is only "8%" efficient for the over 65s then the AZ vaccination programme in the UK is pointless, and we will see very little difference in hospital admissions or fatalities in the UK in early February.

    If not..
    I would expect admissions and fatalities to fall because of the lockdown even if both vaccines were completely ineffective.

    Where we will learn is looking at the vaccination histories of admissions in Feb. If there is a significant vaccine failure rate, that is how we will detect it.
    Yes, of course but there's still an effect over and above lockdown - if the vaccine works - as Israel is showing.
    We're still around 6 weeks away from being able to make any sense of AZ single jab effects from the cureen 3-4m that have had one.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,637
    MaxPB said:

    JonathanD said:

    They didn't get "8%" from The Lancet:

    ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 appears to be better tolerated in older adults than in younger adults and has similar immunogenicity across all age groups after a boost dose. Further assessment of the efficacy of this vaccine is warranted in all age groups and individuals with comorbidities.

    https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)32466-1/fulltext

    I think that just relates to the initial anti-body response induced by the vaccine and not to the reduction in infection/severity it leads to when people are exposed to Covid.

    Antibody response was strongest when the two doses were furthest apart - which makes sense of the government choosing a 12 week gap and allows them to make a virtue out of a necessity. The worry would be that since the initial Phase 3 trial data was released, further data has been show to the EMA that confirms the lower estimates of the AZ vaccine rather than the higher or even average estimates.
    I actually think our 12 week gap policy is based on that information of AZ having much higher efficacy with a 9-12 week gap.
    Pfizer should not be 12 weeks according to Pfizer the WHO and everybody else except us.

    Taking back control to miss-use vaccine
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,706
    Anyone with a couple of spare minutes here is a questionaire that my son had done for his modern studies class
    TIA
    https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSeS1F1uD7tiIDmtpxcfW8gqSbXJviKJbMEZTWESNFZqMcpXcA/viewform?usp=sf_link
  • Foxy said:

    MaxPB said:

    Anyone tracking AstraZeneca's share price, there could be a killing to be made here.

    FWIW I cannot see a successful company with a market capitalisation of $150 billion playing silly beggars offer the Covid vaccine, it would permanently damage their brand.

    Oddly just last week the head of the German regulator praised the efficacy of AZ so this would have to be a massive about turn from the EMA.

    No, it is perfectly possible to say AZN is moderately effective in younger age groups, but unproven effectiveness in older age groups.
    So why have we used millions of the effective in oldies Pfizer in people under 65 and millions of potentially useless AZN to over 80s?

    We really need to re evaluate quickly unless these reports are BS
    Everyone is saying these reports are BS. Someone misunderstand or misrepresenting the data.

    The scientific data is publicly available and nobody has found this 8% anywhere in the data. Don't you think if it was really only 8% efficacious then someone would have found that within the data and highlighted it?

    Yet some "off the record" "anonymous" "my data is not available" briefing is supposed to be taken seriously?

    Codswallop!
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 62,749
    edited January 2021

    Foxy said:

    MaxPB said:

    Anyone tracking AstraZeneca's share price, there could be a killing to be made here.

    FWIW I cannot see a successful company with a market capitalisation of $150 billion playing silly beggars offer the Covid vaccine, it would permanently damage their brand.

    Oddly just last week the head of the German regulator praised the efficacy of AZ so this would have to be a massive about turn from the EMA.

    No, it is perfectly possible to say AZN is moderately effective in younger age groups, but unproven effectiveness in older age groups.
    So why have we used millions of the effective in oldies Pfizer in people under 65 and millions of potentially useless AZN to over 80s?

    We really need to re evaluate quickly unless these reports are BS
    You are still using the highly irresponsible language of 'potentially useless AZN'

    It is just not acceptable

    And for your information my wife and I had the Pfizer vaccine last Saturday
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,528

    MaxPB said:

    JonathanD said:

    They didn't get "8%" from The Lancet:

    ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 appears to be better tolerated in older adults than in younger adults and has similar immunogenicity across all age groups after a boost dose. Further assessment of the efficacy of this vaccine is warranted in all age groups and individuals with comorbidities.

    https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)32466-1/fulltext

    I think that just relates to the initial anti-body response induced by the vaccine and not to the reduction in infection/severity it leads to when people are exposed to Covid.

    Antibody response was strongest when the two doses were furthest apart - which makes sense of the government choosing a 12 week gap and allows them to make a virtue out of a necessity. The worry would be that since the initial Phase 3 trial data was released, further data has been show to the EMA that confirms the lower estimates of the AZ vaccine rather than the higher or even average estimates.
    I actually think our 12 week gap policy is based on that information of AZ having much higher efficacy with a 9-12 week gap.
    Pfizer should not be 12 weeks according to Pfizer the WHO and everybody else except us.

    Taking back control to miss-use vaccine
    Denmark have replicated our policy as well.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,480

    Foxy said:

    MaxPB said:

    Is there a bit of friendly cognitive dissonance going on here?

    We can't get it, and therefore it must be shit?
    If that is the case then heads need to roll in the German government. Briefing against vaccines is absolutely ridiculous under any circumstances.
    If it really is only "8%" efficient for the over 65s then the AZ vaccination programme in the UK is pointless, and we will see very little difference in hospital admissions or fatalities in the UK in early February.

    If not..
    I would expect admissions and fatalities to fall because of the lockdown even if both vaccines were completely ineffective.

    Where we will learn is looking at the vaccination histories of admissions in Feb. If there is a significant vaccine failure rate, that is how we will detect it.
    Yes, of course but there's still an effect over and above lockdown - if the vaccine works - as Israel is showing.
    It will be hard to separate the two. Israel is on its third lockdown too.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,174

    Riots and looting in Holland again tonight.

    Sounds like it's mostly young people who don't like the curfew.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,637

    Foxy said:

    MaxPB said:

    Anyone tracking AstraZeneca's share price, there could be a killing to be made here.

    FWIW I cannot see a successful company with a market capitalisation of $150 billion playing silly beggars offer the Covid vaccine, it would permanently damage their brand.

    Oddly just last week the head of the German regulator praised the efficacy of AZ so this would have to be a massive about turn from the EMA.

    No, it is perfectly possible to say AZN is moderately effective in younger age groups, but unproven effectiveness in older age groups.
    So why have we used millions of the effective in oldies Pfizer in people under 65 and millions of potentially useless AZN to over 80s?

    We really need to re evaluate quickly unless these reports are BS
    Everyone is saying these reports are BS. Someone misunderstand or misrepresenting the data.

    The scientific data is publicly available and nobody has found this 8% anywhere in the data. Don't you think if it was really only 8% efficacious then someone would have found that within the data and highlighted it?

    Yet some "off the record" "anonymous" "my data is not available" briefing is supposed to be taken seriously?

    Codswallop!
    Hope you are right.

    Are you happy to continue using AZN in over 80s until its clarified?
  • glwglw Posts: 9,871

    There’s also the possibility that a scenario like this could have happened:

    “There were so few cases in over-65s that if we looked at them alone, the error bars would be huge”

    “Error bars”

    “Yes. The confidence interval could go to between 8% and [insert absurdly large percentage here]”

    “It could be as low as 8%?”

    ... and a statistically inept minister runs off to give an anonymous briefing.

    That sounds quite probable.
This discussion has been closed.