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!
It's interesting that the unsubstantiated claim from a German tabloid is just assumed to be correct without question.
A blood mess, if we have a Unionist boycott then I think it will play havoc with the secondary markets like turnout and share of the votes.
Yes to win 90% of the vote on a 35% turnout would be my guess.
At which Boris and the Unionists point and laugh.
If you don't vote, you don't get a say. That's normal politics.
A win is a win is a win.
Either a government acts within its authority or it doesn’t.
An advisory referendum called without alignment with Westminster and boycotted by one side has no power beyond marketing
The advisory referendum worked to perfection for you Tories whe you wanted to take us out from the protection and guarantees of the EU. It was, as you say, just marketing then and continues to be so. This Johnson government is not legitimate.
The EU referendum could have been binding but the Commons chose to make it advisory.
Then several times pretended it was binding with talk of having delegated the decision to the people.
Sure. I don’t believe that properly authorised referenda can be “advisory”. But a Scottish poll without a Section 30 notice isn’t a properly authorised referendum in that sense
(Yes, @Philip_Thompson yada yada they can hold an opinion vote if they want)
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
‘We’ don’t need to, because the experts, the mhra, have looked at the data and are happy. I’m 100 % certain this story will turn out to be a misunderstanding at some point in the chain, several potential examples have already been plausibly posted on here. The mhra are comprised of intelligent, expert in field, scientists with long track records in un picking data from companies. Have faith, and stop spouting rot.
AZN is technically a British-Swedish company the Swedes I suspect will also be furious at this story not just the British and Sweden is still an EU member unlike the UK even if not in the Eurozone
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
None of the published scientific data says AZ is useless. It has been approved for use by a number of countries. The “8%” figure is exceptionally specific and must come from a study somewhere - it does not appear to be in any yet published. If the Germans have data pointing to such a low efficacy rate in under 65s then they need to publish it because it contradicts the position taken by many countries - not just ours. They’re making an extraordinary claim and it’s up to them to back it up.
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?
Yes. I trust the MHRA and all of the publicly released data and peer reviewed papers.
You trust an unnamed political source speaking to a newspaper and not providing the actual data to back up the claims.
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.
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.
I think you’re being a bit naïve there.
On the side of the Atlantic (and Pacific) we never (or almost) use dots above i when spelling "naive".
Maybe this is (at least) one Americanism that TSE can get behind!
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
So wait and find out if they're bullshit before smearing the shit around here. I'm getting quite pissed off with you.
A blood mess, if we have a Unionist boycott then I think it will play havoc with the secondary markets like turnout and share of the votes.
Yes to win 90% of the vote on a 35% turnout would be my guess.
At which Boris and the Unionists point and laugh.
If you don't vote, you don't get a say. That's normal politics.
A win is a win is a win.
Either a government acts within its authority or it doesn’t.
An advisory referendum called without alignment with Westminster and boycotted by one side has no power beyond marketing
The advisory referendum worked to perfection for you Tories whe you wanted to take us out from the protection and guarantees of the EU. It was, as you say, just marketing then and continues to be so. This Johnson government is not legitimate.
The EU referendum could have been binding but the Commons chose to make it advisory.
Then several times pretended it was binding with talk of having delegated the decision to the people.
Sure. I don’t believe that properly authorised referenda can be “advisory”. But a Scottish poll without a Section 30 notice isn’t a properly authorised referendum in that sense
(Yes, @Philip_Thompson yada yada they can hold an opinion vote if they want)
The 2016 EU referendum was advisory.
Was it not properly authorised as a result?
A potential 2022 Scottish Independence referendum would surely be just as legally authorised as the 2016 EU referendum one?
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.
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.
I think you’re being a bit naïve there.
On the side of the Atlantic (and Pacific) we never (or almost) use dots above i when spelling "naive".
Maybe this is (at least) one Americanism that TSE can get behind!
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
Beyond that, the German report is obviously false.
Breathe, then think about this.
It quotes a specific efficacy estimate of 8% for people over 65.
No efficacy value exists in the published phase 3 trial report for older cohorts (moreover, even within that there is no "over 65" group. Participants are grouped into three age cohorts, 18-55, 56-69 and 70+)
There have been no other published trials of the vaccine.
There has been insufficient time to assess the efficacy of the vaccine in older people during the rollout, because it only began recently, most recipients won't have had time to build immunity based on the first shot let alone had the second, and it will take more time after that to discover how many recipients have subsequently fallen ill, and what degree of efficacy this value implies.
The 8% figure cannot, therefore, have any basis in evidence, and neither can any broader suggestion that low efficacy in older people has been proven. Either the report has been fabricated, the source was telling porkies, or the source grossly misinterpreted data with which he/she/they were presented. At a guess, the latter explanation seems the most likely.
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.
If this German stuff is true then surely it means the AZ vaccine is even more efficacious for the under 70s?
Looking at their paper, the age results aren't shown as far as I can see, but they do tell you that ≈ 10% of the 2nd trance of UK trial were 70+. This cohort had 18 cases out of a N of 3744. But if the vaccine is all but useless for the over 70s then maybe most of those cases were of that older age group and the efficiency (which is give as 73% for this cohort) is much higher for the middle aged?
(Yet some would say I would never say that for a poll giving a result I like - I would love that to be the next election result, but midterm polls are worth about as much as a five year old used condom)
“ There is limited information available on efficacy in participants aged 65 or over, although there is nothing to suggest lack of protection. In this subpopulation, there were only two COVID-19 cases in the primary analysis. When considering all cases from dose 1, there were 2 cases on AZD1222 compared to 8 on control (VE=76%), although this result was associated with a wide confidence interval.”
I wouldn’t be surprised if the 95% confidence interval ranged as far down as 8% for that. Someone who can do the stats off the top of their head can tell us.
That's interesting, but I think the article is misunderstanding the numbers. I don't speak Swedish but I'm fairly sure that's not from survey sampling (like our ONS data) but people presenting for tests and tested in hospital. It doesn't mean that 40% of the population had antibodies.
This paper https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.12.24.20248821v1 has some data from blood donors and pregnant women in Stockholm: closer to an unbiased survey, though probably still favouring at-risk groups. That showed 15% antibodies as of 11 December. That would consistent with the IFR of 0.7-0.9% that seems to be the emerging consensus for Western countries.
- 0.4% of the population were vaccinated, as of 3 weeks ago. - 100000 detected cases last week. - So, on average, if the vaccinated were a representative sample and vaccination had no effect, a baseline of 400 patients would have tasted positive in the last week. - AZN is a subsample of that (what order did the EU approve in again?)) - This isn't polling -and the sample won't be representative. The nature of the sample could raise (student nurses, city dwellers, high incidence areas), or lower (older people) the baseline expectation considerably. - Adjusting the baseline right is key. - If 350 student nurses from. Berlin got infected, that's a great result for vaccination. If 200 old people got infected, not so.much.
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.
We've always had cases, fatalities and deaths during and just after lockdown, just at a much lower level.
If restrictions are mildly lifted in February (for example, opening primary schools first) and 2-3 weeks later we start to see an uptick in the over 65s being admitted - that will also tell us something.
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.
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.
Well, yes and no. They have extended the gap to six weeks, as recommended to be the maximum by the WHO and BMA.
Re: the AZ vaccine & its efficacy (or lack thereof) for geezers, one key question is, how long will it take before we find out if what the truth actually is, or is not?
Reckon that experts must be working at (dare I say) warp speed to answer this, urged on by politicos, pundits, investors & the like.
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!
If AZ have any knowledge that there is a known 8% efficacy in over 65s, and have not released that to the market, they would be in a World of Pain.....
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.
A bloody mess, if we have a Unionist boycott then I think it will play havoc with the secondary markets like turnout and share of the votes.
Yes to win 90% of the vote on a 35% turnout would be my guess.
So? You don't turn up, you don't count.
^ This ^
100% agreed. Always.
Worst case scenario too for No is a half-hearted boycott by No which turns what could have been a marginal victory for No into a legitimate and landslide victory for Yes.
If hypothetically there's a half-hearted boycott by No you could see eg a 75% Yes victory on a 50% turnout. That would be a landslide Yes win and very legitimate globally with that turnout.
This is desperate stuff. A referendum with no constitutional bearing, held by an organisation with no constitutional remit, with no opposition campaign, is not going to be seen as anything more than an utter, utter mess. Let them have it at - trying to oppose it legally would be lending it far more credence than it deserves. And afterwards, those responsible for the waste of public money should be held to account.
No that is desperate.
If its a legal referendum, legally held, using the legal powers of a directly elected Parliament, following an election pledging to hold it using their legal powers . . . then who is going to "hold to account" the government for that?
In a democracy the public holds to account their elected government at the following election. The Scottish voters choose their government this year. Their choice in a democracy.
I have to agree with @Philip_Thompson. Simply, the voters are allowed to change their mind. That's why we have elections every four or five years.
If the UK had voted to Remain in 2016, and then UKIP had won the 2020 General Election, would any of us really have denied their right to call another EU Referendum?
Yes, absolutely.
Referendums on grave constitutional issues are very divisive, embittering and cause chaos for lots of people (as we have all seen). Scottish separation would, moreover, provoke deep recession in the rUK and probably depression and default in Scotland, leading to many years of tumult and pain, and all this after a global pandemic and the enormous strains of Brexit?
These votes should by definition be extremely rare, and Westminster - which governs for the wellbeing of the entire UK - is well within its rights to say it is far too soon to have another Sindyref.
Otherwise, the Scottish government would theoretically be able to call a vote every week. As they have a majority mandate blah blah
And the voters would get sick of them, and would kick them out.
Problem solved.
Would they? Doesn't seem to have been the experience post-2014.
But it's quite ridiculous to extrapolate from having a 2nd Ref 7 years later because of the enormity of Brexit to the notion they will return an SNP govt and hold indy refs - and vote No - the whole time and on a regular basis for decades. Suggest a touch of Scotophobia is informing your analysis.
That's unwarranted. I'm simply concerned at the possibility that, in the event of a second referendum defeat, a very large cohort of Scottish voters - those desperate for independence to the exclusion of everything else, plus those voting SNP because they think they're best for "standing up for Scotland" - will simply put yet another SNP Government straight back into bat at the following parliamentary election, and they'll set about finding an excuse for a third referendum. It's not at all far-fetched to believe that we'll end up stuck in a situation where the Scottish electorate expects to receive huge annual transfer payments and a proportional share of vital national infrastructure spending, whilst simultaneously returning leaders who expect an unending cycle of plebiscites on secession to continue.
The rest of the UK deserves some consideration, some peace and some stability in all of this. If Scotland stays part of the set up then we are unlikely to get it.
I understand the concern but I think it's irrational. The scenario you envisage is not tenable.
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
Beyond that, the German report is obviously false.
Breathe, then think about this.
It quotes a specific efficacy estimate of 8% for people over 65.
No efficacy value exists in the published phase 3 trial report for older cohorts (moreover, even within that there is no "over 65" group. Participants are grouped into three age cohorts, 18-55, 56-69 and 70+)
There have been no other published trials of the vaccine.
There has been insufficient time to assess the efficacy of the vaccine in older people during the rollout, because it only began recently, most recipients won't have had time to build immunity based on the first shot let alone had the second, and it will take more time after that to discover how many recipients have subsequently fallen ill, and what degree of efficacy this value implies.
The 8% figure cannot, therefore, have any basis in evidence, and neither can any broader suggestion that low efficacy in older people has been proven. Either the report has been fabricated, the source was telling porkies, or the source grossly misinterpreted data with which he/she/they were presented. At a guess, the latter explanation seems the most likely.
Equally though, there can be no evidence of figures over 8%. Without a trial of the vaccine in the over 70's, there really cannot be a statement on efficacy on the primary endpoint, symptomatic disease.
The phase 2 studies on antibody response do show some efficacy, but that is a further step away from clinical efficacy, which is why we do phase 3 studies.
It will be hard to do a phase 3 study in the elderly now, because we have evidence of an efficacious vaccine (Pfizer and Moderna) in that age group. The only thing that realistically we can do is to look at real world cases. AZN started on 4th Jan, so only now are there single dose AZN elderly patients past day 21. We should know by the end of Feb the number of vaccine failures.
A blood mess, if we have a Unionist boycott then I think it will play havoc with the secondary markets like turnout and share of the votes.
Yes to win 90% of the vote on a 35% turnout would be my guess.
At which Boris and the Unionists point and laugh.
If you don't vote, you don't get a say. That's normal politics.
A win is a win is a win.
Either a government acts within its authority or it doesn’t.
An advisory referendum called without alignment with Westminster and boycotted by one side has no power beyond marketing
The advisory referendum worked to perfection for you Tories whe you wanted to take us out from the protection and guarantees of the EU. It was, as you say, just marketing then and continues to be so. This Johnson government is not legitimate.
The EU referendum could have been binding but the Commons chose to make it advisory.
Then several times pretended it was binding with talk of having delegated the decision to the people.
Sure. I don’t believe that properly authorised referenda can be “advisory”. But a Scottish poll without a Section 30 notice isn’t a properly authorised referendum in that sense
(Yes, @Philip_Thompson yada yada they can hold an opinion vote if they want)
The 2016 EU referendum was advisory.
Was it not properly authorised as a result?
A potential 2022 Scottish Independence referendum would surely be just as legally authorised as the 2016 EU referendum one?
The Westminster parliament passed a law authorising the Brexit vote.
In 2014 they agreed a section 30 notice with the Scottish government meaning that the referendum was properly authorised
If the Scottish government holds a referendum without a section 30 notice then it may be legal (I’ve never said it isn’t) but it has no force.
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.
Aiui the Belgian manufacturing feeds the US supply chain as well as the UK, Canada and Israel. Honestly, it would shatter the western alliance IMO and multinationals would have to think twice before locating manufacturing of sensitive goods in the EU.
Oh yes, it would have very serious long term consequences.
Which is why I suspect it probably isn't true. Or is perhaps a case of kite flying, to encourage AZN and Pfizer to redouble their efforts to ramp up production.
Comments
(Yes, @Philip_Thompson yada yada they can hold an opinion vote if they want)
Westminster voting intention:
CON: 42% (+2)
LAB: 37% (-1)
LDEM: 8% (-)
GRN: 4% (-1)
REFUK: 3% (+1)
via
@RedfieldWilton
, 25 Jan
Chgs. w/ 18 Jan
You trust an unnamed political source speaking to a newspaper and not providing the actual data to back up the claims.
Maybe this is (at least) one Americanism that TSE can get behind!
Was it not properly authorised as a result?
A potential 2022 Scottish Independence referendum would surely be just as legally authorised as the 2016 EU referendum one?
I tend to use one dot.
NEW THREAD
Breathe, then think about this.
It quotes a specific efficacy estimate of 8% for people over 65.
No efficacy value exists in the published phase 3 trial report for older cohorts (moreover, even within that there is no "over 65" group. Participants are grouped into three age cohorts, 18-55, 56-69 and 70+)
There have been no other published trials of the vaccine.
There has been insufficient time to assess the efficacy of the vaccine in older people during the rollout, because it only began recently, most recipients won't have had time to build immunity based on the first shot let alone had the second, and it will take more time after that to discover how many recipients have subsequently fallen ill, and what degree of efficacy this value implies.
The 8% figure cannot, therefore, have any basis in evidence, and neither can any broader suggestion that low efficacy in older people has been proven. Either the report has been fabricated, the source was telling porkies, or the source grossly misinterpreted data with which he/she/they were presented. At a guess, the latter explanation seems the most likely.
Looking at their paper, the age results aren't shown as far as I can see, but they do tell you that ≈ 10% of the 2nd trance of UK trial were 70+. This cohort had 18 cases out of a N of 3744. But if the vaccine is all but useless for the over 70s then maybe most of those cases were of that older age group and the efficiency (which is give as 73% for this cohort) is much higher for the middle aged?
Or am I being stupid as it late at night?
(Yet some would say I would never say that for a poll giving a result I like - I would love that to be the next election result, but midterm polls are worth about as much as a five year old used condom)
“ There is limited information available on efficacy in participants aged 65 or over, although there is nothing to suggest lack of protection. In this subpopulation, there were only two COVID-19 cases in the primary analysis. When considering all cases from dose 1, there were 2 cases on AZD1222 compared to 8 on control (VE=76%), although this result was associated with a wide confidence interval.”
I wouldn’t be surprised if the 95% confidence interval ranged as far down as 8% for that. Someone who can do the stats off the top of their head can tell us.
I'm sure its playing a part in how fast new infections are falling in and around London.
This paper
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.12.24.20248821v1
has some data from blood donors and pregnant women in Stockholm: closer to an unbiased survey, though probably still favouring at-risk groups. That showed 15% antibodies as of 11 December. That would consistent with the IFR of 0.7-0.9% that seems to be the emerging consensus for Western countries.
--AS
- 0.4% of the population were vaccinated, as of 3 weeks ago.
- 100000 detected cases last week.
- So, on average, if the vaccinated were a representative sample and vaccination had no effect, a baseline of 400 patients would have tasted positive in the last week.
- AZN is a subsample of that (what order did the EU approve in again?))
- This isn't polling -and the sample won't be representative. The nature of the sample could raise (student nurses, city dwellers, high incidence areas), or lower (older people) the baseline expectation considerably.
- Adjusting the baseline right is key.
- If 350 student nurses from. Berlin got infected, that's a great result for vaccination. If 200 old people got infected, not so.much.
If restrictions are mildly lifted in February (for example, opening primary schools first) and 2-3 weeks later we start to see an uptick in the over 65s being admitted - that will also tell us something.
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2021-01-denmark-covid-vaccination-dose.html
Reckon that experts must be working at (dare I say) warp speed to answer this, urged on by politicos, pundits, investors & the like.
But just how long will - and should - it take?
2) Some placebo effects are greater than 8% (not a lie)
3)Until we know 1) is a lie we should be very worried (not a lie)
Some PB Tories want to stop 1) being repeated I am sure it will not be once it is properly refuted.
Why havent AZN done so? and yes I know thats a question
The phase 2 studies on antibody response do show some efficacy, but that is a further step away from clinical efficacy, which is why we do phase 3 studies.
It will be hard to do a phase 3 study in the elderly now, because we have evidence of an efficacious vaccine (Pfizer and Moderna) in that age group. The only thing that realistically we can do is to look at real world cases. AZN started on 4th Jan, so only now are there single dose AZN elderly patients past day 21. We should know by the end of Feb the number of vaccine failures.
In 2014 they agreed a section 30 notice with the Scottish government meaning that the referendum was properly authorised
If the Scottish government holds a referendum without a section 30 notice then it may be legal (I’ve never said it isn’t) but it has no force.
Which is why I suspect it probably isn't true. Or is perhaps a case of kite flying, to encourage AZN and Pfizer to redouble their efforts to ramp up production.