Arithmetically, I make it that the numbers were probably pretty close to:
half dose/full dose/4 weeks regimen: 30 in placebo (unknown amount serious); 3 in vaccine (none serious) full dose/full dose/2 weeks regimen: 71 in placebo (unknown amount serious); 27 in vaccine (none serious)
The number of cases in the halfdose/full dose/4 weeks regimen is smaller, but comparable to the initial plans for the first interim Pfizer analysis. They do say it's "indications" and indeed the statistical fuzziness is wider, but there are enough cases to be very sure that it's a better outcome than the full dose/full dose regimen. Essentially, it means it's very probably in the 80%-97% range with this dose strategy, I’d guess (real mathematicians please check and refine this guesstimate)
I'm not a statistician, but my calculation was more like 69-97%.
Morning all! Glad to see that the Tories are Determined to kill Granny for Christmas. Ho Ho Ho!
And Labour in Wales, Unionists/SF in NI and the SNP in Scotland. Idiot.
Dear me. Who is the government of the United Kingdom? Feeding their idiot savants in the press CHRISTMAS IS SAVED! So its ok to have Johnny come home from university and have 5 days of festive frolics with Mum, Dad, Granny, Aunt Flo and Uncle Fester. And then 5 days of funerals in January to bury half of them.
And for what? A "shopping binge"? To keep Wetherspoons going?
As I said yesterday. Corrupt, Inept, Arrogant, Hypocritical. The worst government we have ever had and at the worst possible time.
I presume you believe that Sturgeon, Philips, Drakeford have been forced into this by Johnson. In whci case my initial assessment was spot on. Are you expecting Starmer to oppose this?
"Forced" isn't the right word. The devolved administrations have been able to flex the UK approach and set out their own messaging - but this is built on the UK platform which has been chaotic, contradictory and self-defeating. Short of Sturgeon coming and and saying what needs saying - that Westminster haven't a fucking clue what they are doing please ignore them - its difficult to completely change the narrative.
We have one government. And a growing pile of corpses. A bit like with Biden in the US what Starmer says/thinks isn't going to change things when the government rule by edict. Remember the 5 point scale which Shagger managed to put us initially at 3.5 on? Remember the 3 point scale which wasn't strong enough and ended up with regional variations and haggling? Now we apparently have another 3 point scale but different to the last 3 point scale but don't worry because He has Saved Christmas so that you can finally kill your parents.
You're so ott with your prejudices and hate that it's quite pointless to say any more - as others have already made clear this morning.
I'll take your opinion under advisement. OTT? There was a 5 point scale. Which he put at 3.5 on. Widely ridiculed on here at the time There was a 3 point scale. Not enough said Whitty, hence the need for a "lockdown" There was regional variation. And haggling. And Tory MPs saying "no money" for their Greater Manchester seats only to be torpedoed by Downing Street finding the money days later There is a pile of 55,000 corpses. And thats only the official number There is a major worry by the scientists that the unlockdown for Christmas will kill people by the thousand.
But as you say, I am completely over the top in my hate for a government who has presided over this whilst comparable countries get by reasonably unscathed.
Which countries especially in Europe are you using in respect of your last sentence
As I predicted at the start of the lockdown, it was nothing to do with the increasing cases, it was to allow them to announce the vaccine results when the pubs were shut.
Yes you did say this and it clearly has absolutely nothing WHATSOEVER to do with vaccine announcements. Nothing. Nada. Zilch. Zero.
You actually said it was so as to make space for administering the vaccine which is clearly preposterous.
The lockdown was to slow the spread of the virus. Amazing. But true.
As I reported at the time a chap from Porton Down had told me that the Government were going to do this. We went from Raab on the Friday saying we must give time for the tiered approach to work to a full lockdown being annouced on the Saturday. Now the Government are saying that the lockdown will definitely end on the 2nd December and this is before any affect of the lockdown being in the figures. And you think these changes are nothing to do with the Vaccine annoucements?
Yes I'm certain it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with it.
Why would it? There's isn't a single scrap of logic as to why it should make the blindest bit of difference. Contra what you said, it's not like they're about to rush out tomorrow to jab people in the arm. In fact if anything the vaccination programme will only begin once lockdown has ended!!!
This is precisely how conspiracy theories take hold. Two apparently random events are connected by someone without any logic or evidence and then others latch onto it.
Morning all. Not having been been here since mid morning yesterday; @ydoethur how's did the test go?
Personallty, as far the general situation is concerned, Mrs C and I still expect to stay with the plans we've got. We did get some good news about the possibility of going to Thailand, though!
It was vile, thank you for asking. I very much hope I never have to have another.
Hopefully you'll get your (negative) result as quickly as you got your appointment. My test was home collected on a Saturday morning and I had the result by email Monday lunchtime. So tomorrow looks probable.
I had mine on Friday lunchtime, result before breakfast Sunday. Negative despite Mrs Foxy sharing a room with me all week. 🤔
That's interesting in that the efficacy of the vaccine can be tweaked significantly by the methodology used getting effectiveness from 60 odd per cent up to the 90. It may be that the same can be done with the Oxford vaccine.
Okay, that's a bit unfair. Even 70% wouldn't be too bad and up to 90% is very decent but there will always now be the lingering doubt that there's a much better version out there which is 95% effective. And it doesn't use a live virus to boot.
Here we go. You beat me to it.
Fast forward six months and there will be news of people getting the vaccine but still contracting the virus and Starmer will be criticising the government for injecting us with the wrong stuff.
FFS - this is great news this morning.
Depends how its sold. If people in the most dangerous category are told they can have a jab that's got a 70% chance of working I think you'd struggle. Think getting on a plane with a 70% chance of not crashing
The problem is the headline. If you’ve got one vaccine headlined as “70% effective” and one as “95% effective” then individuals are going to demand the latter. And get very angry when told they can’t have it. Doesn’t matter what the detail says.
Once again the media covering themselves in glory. Not.
The 70% figure is completely and utterly irrelevant (not sure why AZ referenced it to be honest)
The Oxford vaccine’s 70% effectiveness comes in poorly compared to Pfizer and Moderna
But 3 months ago we would have been absolutely delighted with this result. A classic case of anchoring thanks to Pfizer announcing their results first.
And also wrong thanks to poor headline reporting - even from the BBC.
And by the way we won't truly know the full efficacy of any of these for some time - although we now stand a very good chance of bringing this under control.
Nor, TBH, will we know the side-effects. I know there are few so far, but I suggest that when one rolls something like this over populations of 50million or so unusual side effects will occur. Wikipedia says that side effects can be categorised as follows: The probability or chance of experiencing side effects are characterised as : Very common, ≥ 1⁄10 Common (frequent), 1⁄100 to 1⁄10 Uncommon (infrequent), 1⁄1000 to 1⁄100 Rare, 1⁄10000 to 1⁄1000 Very rare, < 1⁄10000
Thalidomide waves
Actually, Thalidomide is a very good drug for many things, but not anywhere women of child bearing age. Apparently, hair loss drugs for men are also very dangerous for pregnant women and can even kill cats.
Morning all. Not having been been here since mid morning yesterday; @ydoethur how's did the test go?
Personallty, as far the general situation is concerned, Mrs C and I still expect to stay with the plans we've got. We did get some good news about the possibility of going to Thailand, though!
It was vile, thank you for asking. I very much hope I never have to have another.
Hopefully you'll get your (negative) result as quickly as you got your appointment. My test was home collected on a Saturday morning and I had the result by email Monday lunchtime. So tomorrow looks probable.
I had mine on Friday lunchtime, result before breakfast Sunday. Negative despite Mrs Foxy sharing a room with me all week. 🤔
Given your job the chance that you've had it already, mild or asymptomatic, can't be negligble?
Morning all! Glad to see that the Tories are Determined to kill Granny for Christmas. Ho Ho Ho!
And Labour in Wales, Unionists/SF in NI and the SNP in Scotland. Idiot.
Dear me. Who is the government of the United Kingdom? Feeding their idiot savants in the press CHRISTMAS IS SAVED! So its ok to have Johnny come home from university and have 5 days of festive frolics with Mum, Dad, Granny, Aunt Flo and Uncle Fester. And then 5 days of funerals in January to bury half of them.
And for what? A "shopping binge"? To keep Wetherspoons going?
As I said yesterday. Corrupt, Inept, Arrogant, Hypocritical. The worst government we have ever had and at the worst possible time.
I presume you believe that Sturgeon, Philips, Drakeford have been forced into this by Johnson. In whci case my initial assessment was spot on. Are you expecting Starmer to oppose this?
"Forced" isn't the right word. The devolved administrations have been able to flex the UK approach and set out their own messaging - but this is built on the UK platform which has been chaotic, contradictory and self-defeating. Short of Sturgeon coming and and saying what needs saying - that Westminster haven't a fucking clue what they are doing please ignore them - its difficult to completely change the narrative.
We have one government. And a growing pile of corpses. A bit like with Biden in the US what Starmer says/thinks isn't going to change things when the government rule by edict. Remember the 5 point scale which Shagger managed to put us initially at 3.5 on? Remember the 3 point scale which wasn't strong enough and ended up with regional variations and haggling? Now we apparently have another 3 point scale but different to the last 3 point scale but don't worry because He has Saved Christmas so that you can finally kill your parents.
You're so ott with your prejudices and hate that it's quite pointless to say any more - as others have already made clear this morning.
I'll take your opinion under advisement. OTT? There was a 5 point scale. Which he put at 3.5 on. Widely ridiculed on here at the time There was a 3 point scale. Not enough said Whitty, hence the need for a "lockdown" There was regional variation. And haggling. And Tory MPs saying "no money" for their Greater Manchester seats only to be torpedoed by Downing Street finding the money days later There is a pile of 55,000 corpses. And thats only the official number There is a major worry by the scientists that the unlockdown for Christmas will kill people by the thousand.
But as you say, I am completely over the top in my hate for a government who has presided over this whilst comparable countries get by reasonably unscathed.
Which countries especially in Europe are you using in respect of your last sentence
"especially in Europe" klaxon. In other words, "please cherry-pick your data to weaken your own point".
Okay, that's a bit unfair. Even 70% wouldn't be too bad and up to 90% is very decent but there will always now be the lingering doubt that there's a much better version out there which is 95% effective. And it doesn't use a live virus to boot.
Morning all! Glad to see that the Tories are Determined to kill Granny for Christmas. Ho Ho Ho!
And Labour in Wales, Unionists/SF in NI and the SNP in Scotland. Idiot.
Dear me. Who is the government of the United Kingdom? Feeding their idiot savants in the press CHRISTMAS IS SAVED! So its ok to have Johnny come home from university and have 5 days of festive frolics with Mum, Dad, Granny, Aunt Flo and Uncle Fester. And then 5 days of funerals in January to bury half of them.
And for what? A "shopping binge"? To keep Wetherspoons going?
As I said yesterday. Corrupt, Inept, Arrogant, Hypocritical. The worst government we have ever had and at the worst possible time.
I presume you believe that Sturgeon, Philips, Drakeford have been forced into this by Johnson. In whci case my initial assessment was spot on. Are you expecting Starmer to oppose this?
"Forced" isn't the right word. The devolved administrations have been able to flex the UK approach and set out their own messaging - but this is built on the UK platform which has been chaotic, contradictory and self-defeating. Short of Sturgeon coming and and saying what needs saying - that Westminster haven't a fucking clue what they are doing please ignore them - its difficult to completely change the narrative.
We have one government. And a growing pile of corpses. A bit like with Biden in the US what Starmer says/thinks isn't going to change things when the government rule by edict. Remember the 5 point scale which Shagger managed to put us initially at 3.5 on? Remember the 3 point scale which wasn't strong enough and ended up with regional variations and haggling? Now we apparently have another 3 point scale but different to the last 3 point scale but don't worry because He has Saved Christmas so that you can finally kill your parents.
You're so ott with your prejudices and hate that it's quite pointless to say any more - as others have already made clear this morning.
I'll take your opinion under advisement. OTT? There was a 5 point scale. Which he put at 3.5 on. Widely ridiculed on here at the time There was a 3 point scale. Not enough said Whitty, hence the need for a "lockdown" There was regional variation. And haggling. And Tory MPs saying "no money" for their Greater Manchester seats only to be torpedoed by Downing Street finding the money days later There is a pile of 55,000 corpses. And thats only the official number There is a major worry by the scientists that the unlockdown for Christmas will kill people by the thousand.
But as you say, I am completely over the top in my hate for a government who has presided over this whilst comparable countries get by reasonably unscathed.
Which countries especially in Europe are you using in respect of your last sentence
"especially in Europe" klaxon. In other words, "please cherry-pick your data to weaken your own point".
Not at all
As we are told so often we are all Europeans and it is fair to compare outcomes within Europe
Morning all! Glad to see that the Tories are Determined to kill Granny for Christmas. Ho Ho Ho!
And Labour in Wales, Unionists/SF in NI and the SNP in Scotland. Idiot.
Dear me. Who is the government of the United Kingdom? Feeding their idiot savants in the press CHRISTMAS IS SAVED! So its ok to have Johnny come home from university and have 5 days of festive frolics with Mum, Dad, Granny, Aunt Flo and Uncle Fester. And then 5 days of funerals in January to bury half of them.
And for what? A "shopping binge"? To keep Wetherspoons going?
As I said yesterday. Corrupt, Inept, Arrogant, Hypocritical. The worst government we have ever had and at the worst possible time.
I presume you believe that Sturgeon, Philips, Drakeford have been forced into this by Johnson. In whci case my initial assessment was spot on. Are you expecting Starmer to oppose this?
"Forced" isn't the right word. The devolved administrations have been able to flex the UK approach and set out their own messaging - but this is built on the UK platform which has been chaotic, contradictory and self-defeating. Short of Sturgeon coming and and saying what needs saying - that Westminster haven't a fucking clue what they are doing please ignore them - its difficult to completely change the narrative.
We have one government. And a growing pile of corpses. A bit like with Biden in the US what Starmer says/thinks isn't going to change things when the government rule by edict. Remember the 5 point scale which Shagger managed to put us initially at 3.5 on? Remember the 3 point scale which wasn't strong enough and ended up with regional variations and haggling? Now we apparently have another 3 point scale but different to the last 3 point scale but don't worry because He has Saved Christmas so that you can finally kill your parents.
You're so ott with your prejudices and hate that it's quite pointless to say any more - as others have already made clear this morning.
I'll take your opinion under advisement. OTT? There was a 5 point scale. Which he put at 3.5 on. Widely ridiculed on here at the time There was a 3 point scale. Not enough said Whitty, hence the need for a "lockdown" There was regional variation. And haggling. And Tory MPs saying "no money" for their Greater Manchester seats only to be torpedoed by Downing Street finding the money days later There is a pile of 55,000 corpses. And thats only the official number There is a major worry by the scientists that the unlockdown for Christmas will kill people by the thousand.
But as you say, I am completely over the top in my hate for a government who has presided over this whilst comparable countries get by reasonably unscathed.
Which countries especially in Europe are you using in respect of your last sentence
Europe? We are an island nation. Who had just left the EU to Take Back Control of our borders.
Which is why we left the borders open and didn't bother with foreign nonsense like mandatory quarantine, come one and come all and bring your pox with you. And as soon as anything lifted lets all be British and fly to Benidorm for a holiday.
Morning all! Glad to see that the Tories are Determined to kill Granny for Christmas. Ho Ho Ho!
And Labour in Wales, Unionists/SF in NI and the SNP in Scotland. Idiot.
Dear me. Who is the government of the United Kingdom? Feeding their idiot savants in the press CHRISTMAS IS SAVED! So its ok to have Johnny come home from university and have 5 days of festive frolics with Mum, Dad, Granny, Aunt Flo and Uncle Fester. And then 5 days of funerals in January to bury half of them.
And for what? A "shopping binge"? To keep Wetherspoons going?
As I said yesterday. Corrupt, Inept, Arrogant, Hypocritical. The worst government we have ever had and at the worst possible time.
I presume you believe that Sturgeon, Philips, Drakeford have been forced into this by Johnson. In whci case my initial assessment was spot on. Are you expecting Starmer to oppose this?
"Forced" isn't the right word. The devolved administrations have been able to flex the UK approach and set out their own messaging - but this is built on the UK platform which has been chaotic, contradictory and self-defeating. Short of Sturgeon coming and and saying what needs saying - that Westminster haven't a fucking clue what they are doing please ignore them - its difficult to completely change the narrative.
We have one government. And a growing pile of corpses. A bit like with Biden in the US what Starmer says/thinks isn't going to change things when the government rule by edict. Remember the 5 point scale which Shagger managed to put us initially at 3.5 on? Remember the 3 point scale which wasn't strong enough and ended up with regional variations and haggling? Now we apparently have another 3 point scale but different to the last 3 point scale but don't worry because He has Saved Christmas so that you can finally kill your parents.
You're so ott with your prejudices and hate that it's quite pointless to say any more - as others have already made clear this morning.
I'll take your opinion under advisement. OTT? There was a 5 point scale. Which he put at 3.5 on. Widely ridiculed on here at the time There was a 3 point scale. Not enough said Whitty, hence the need for a "lockdown" There was regional variation. And haggling. And Tory MPs saying "no money" for their Greater Manchester seats only to be torpedoed by Downing Street finding the money days later There is a pile of 55,000 corpses. And thats only the official number There is a major worry by the scientists that the unlockdown for Christmas will kill people by the thousand.
But as you say, I am completely over the top in my hate for a government who has presided over this whilst comparable countries get by reasonably unscathed.
Which countries especially in Europe are you using in respect of your last sentence
"especially in Europe" klaxon. In other words, "please cherry-pick your data to weaken your own point".
Not at all
As we are told so often we are all Europeans and it is fair to compare outcomes within Europe
Ah, now you're trying to elevate politics above science. That really won't do.
Okay, that's a bit unfair. Even 70% wouldn't be too bad and up to 90% is very decent but there will always now be the lingering doubt that there's a much better version out there which is 95% effective. And it doesn't use a live virus to boot.
Here we go. You beat me to it.
Fast forward six months and there will be news of people getting the vaccine but still contracting the virus and Starmer will be criticising the government for injecting us with the wrong stuff.
FFS - this is great news this morning.
Depends how its sold. If people in the most dangerous category are told they can have a jab that's got a 70% chance of working I think you'd struggle. Think getting on a plane with a 70% chance of not crashing
More like a choice between two planes, one of which has a safety record three times better.
But thankfully there should be enough Pfizer vaccine for people in the highest-risk groups. And the fact that there were no serious cases/hospitalisations in the AstraZeneca trial shouldn't be overlooked.
Listening to the report on the Oxford vaccine it is really great news and yet it seems siren voices are trying to criticise it's efficacy and you do wonder why when we get good news many seem to want it to fail
It is very disappointing that we cannot all rejoice at good news
Er, because two other vaccines are better i.e. more effective.
It's good news but it's not great news. We've backed the wrong horse.
It's like saying that we should rejoice that British Sky Broadcasting produced a Squarial when the market i.e. everyone wanted a mini satellite dish instead.
You mark my words ... there will be a massive push for Pfizer and Moderna. And I'm one of them.
He'd know. He was always so accurate with his previous assessments...~
We all need light at the end of the tunnel. Prospects of a vaccine is genuinely fabulous news. All the more reason why the narrative has to be spot on because this is the most dangerous time.
Get the message out there that we've almost beaten it and people relax and stop following the protocols. Which increases the infection and death rates. "One more heave" should be the message - there will be other Christmases - not "we've beaten the pesky scientists who wanted to steal your Christmas."
Okay, that's a bit unfair. Even 70% wouldn't be too bad and up to 90% is very decent but there will always now be the lingering doubt that there's a much better version out there which is 95% effective. And it doesn't use a live virus to boot.
Here we go. You beat me to it.
Fast forward six months and there will be news of people getting the vaccine but still contracting the virus and Starmer will be criticising the government for injecting us with the wrong stuff.
FFS - this is great news this morning.
Depends how its sold. If people in the most dangerous category are told they can have a jab that's got a 70% chance of working I think you'd struggle. Think getting on a plane with a 70% chance of not crashing
More like a choice between two planes, one of which has a safety record three times better.
But thankfully there should be enough Pfizer vaccine for people in the highest-risk groups. And the fact that there were no serious cases/hospitalisations in the AstraZeneca trial shouldn't be overlooked.
On R4 the head of the Jenner Lab suggested that the 1/2 dose first, full dose second might be more effective because the immune system was “primed” before the second dose. Even at the average 70% effectiveness that’s better than the flu jab. Additionally none of the vaccinated developed serious illnesses. 3billion doses available globally in 2021. Not as sexy headlines as Pfizer/Moderna but possibly more effective given distribution challenges.
Wait for complaints of “why are lesser developed countries only getting the shit vaccine - it’s the greedy capitalist puds in America” and ignoring things like cold chain logistics...
Morning all. Not having been been here since mid morning yesterday; @ydoethur how's did the test go?
Personallty, as far the general situation is concerned, Mrs C and I still expect to stay with the plans we've got. We did get some good news about the possibility of going to Thailand, though!
It was vile, thank you for asking. I very much hope I never have to have another.
Hopefully you'll get your (negative) result as quickly as you got your appointment. My test was home collected on a Saturday morning and I had the result by email Monday lunchtime. So tomorrow looks probable.
I had mine on Friday lunchtime, result before breakfast Sunday. Negative despite Mrs Foxy sharing a room with me all week. 🤔
Given your job the chance that you've had it already, mild or asymptomatic, can't be negligble?
I had negative antibodies in July. It's going to be a long week of isolation with coronachondria!
Mrs Foxy pretty much back to normal now. Bossing me about as per usual. 😏
Morning all! Glad to see that the Tories are Determined to kill Granny for Christmas. Ho Ho Ho!
And Labour in Wales, Unionists/SF in NI and the SNP in Scotland. Idiot.
Dear me. Who is the government of the United Kingdom? Feeding their idiot savants in the press CHRISTMAS IS SAVED! So its ok to have Johnny come home from university and have 5 days of festive frolics with Mum, Dad, Granny, Aunt Flo and Uncle Fester. And then 5 days of funerals in January to bury half of them.
And for what? A "shopping binge"? To keep Wetherspoons going?
As I said yesterday. Corrupt, Inept, Arrogant, Hypocritical. The worst government we have ever had and at the worst possible time.
I presume you believe that Sturgeon, Philips, Drakeford have been forced into this by Johnson. In whci case my initial assessment was spot on. Are you expecting Starmer to oppose this?
"Forced" isn't the right word. The devolved administrations have been able to flex the UK approach and set out their own messaging - but this is built on the UK platform which has been chaotic, contradictory and self-defeating. Short of Sturgeon coming and and saying what needs saying - that Westminster haven't a fucking clue what they are doing please ignore them - its difficult to completely change the narrative.
We have one government. And a growing pile of corpses. A bit like with Biden in the US what Starmer says/thinks isn't going to change things when the government rule by edict. Remember the 5 point scale which Shagger managed to put us initially at 3.5 on? Remember the 3 point scale which wasn't strong enough and ended up with regional variations and haggling? Now we apparently have another 3 point scale but different to the last 3 point scale but don't worry because He has Saved Christmas so that you can finally kill your parents.
You're so ott with your prejudices and hate that it's quite pointless to say any more - as others have already made clear this morning.
I'll take your opinion under advisement. OTT? There was a 5 point scale. Which he put at 3.5 on. Widely ridiculed on here at the time There was a 3 point scale. Not enough said Whitty, hence the need for a "lockdown" There was regional variation. And haggling. And Tory MPs saying "no money" for their Greater Manchester seats only to be torpedoed by Downing Street finding the money days later There is a pile of 55,000 corpses. And thats only the official number There is a major worry by the scientists that the unlockdown for Christmas will kill people by the thousand.
But as you say, I am completely over the top in my hate for a government who has presided over this whilst comparable countries get by reasonably unscathed.
Which countries especially in Europe are you using in respect of your last sentence
Europe? We are an island nation. Who had just left the EU to Take Back Control of our borders.
Which is why we left the borders open and didn't bother with foreign nonsense like mandatory quarantine, come one and come all and bring your pox with you. And as soon as anything lifted lets all be British and fly to Benidorm for a holiday.
But if you want a European example - Germany.
And Germany is experiencing serious issues with test and trace and rising numbers
It is the case that most countries are struggling with this virus, apart from the Southern Hemisphere which has had greater experiencing of combating this type of virus
Okay, that's a bit unfair. Even 70% wouldn't be too bad and up to 90% is very decent but there will always now be the lingering doubt that there's a much better version out there which is 95% effective. And it doesn't use a live virus to boot.
Just messes with genetic information instead...
That's the future Charles. Modifying RNA and DNA will be the way all diseases are treated in the future and we will be able pre-emptively to strike cancer. Possibly re-grow limbs and even slow down ageing.
Like all science, there will need to be ethical checks and balances, but if you think RNA technology isn't a phenomenally brilliant scientific breakthrough then you're not Charles. You're Canute.
I don't understand why they've reported the efficacy of the Oxford vaccine as 70%.
It's efficacy is most likely either ~60% with one dosing regime, or ~90% with another, but it's not likely to be ~70%.
They're hardly likely to use a mix of the two regimes when widely deployed - they'll use the best. It's a bizarre framing of the results that make it look a lot less effective, when it's about the same as the others with the optimum dosing strategy.
Okay, that's a bit unfair. Even 70% wouldn't be too bad and up to 90% is very decent but there will always now be the lingering doubt that there's a much better version out there which is 95% effective. And it doesn't use a live virus to boot.
Here we go. You beat me to it.
Fast forward six months and there will be news of people getting the vaccine but still contracting the virus and Starmer will be criticising the government for injecting us with the wrong stuff.
FFS - this is great news this morning.
It is. But I'm still going to try and get the best.
The real trouble will come if some countries permit visa entry with Pfizer and Moderna but not Astra-Zeneca.
I'm being a bit unfair. 'Up to 90%' wouldn't be too bad. It's just that the others got in there before with a more gold star bit of media massage.
One thing that puzzles me - I think Pfizer is is waiting for regulatory approval in the US. Could any delays stop other countries obtaining the Pfizer vaccine?
I doubt Pfizer will apply for approval in other countries until the fda has approved
Listening to the report on the Oxford vaccine it is really great news and yet it seems siren voices are trying to criticise it's efficacy and you do wonder why when we get good news many seem to want it to fail
It is very disappointing that we cannot all rejoice at good news
Er, because two other vaccines are better i.e. more effective.
It's good news but it's not great news. We've backed the wrong horse.
It's like saying that we should rejoice that British Sky Broadcasting produced a Squarial when the market i.e. everyone wanted a mini satellite dish instead.
You mark my words ... there will be a massive push for Pfizer and Moderna. And I'm one of them.
I am not hearing the media suggesting we have backed the wrong horse and as I understand it the Oxford vaccine is more effective than our present flu jab
Okay, that's a bit unfair. Even 70% wouldn't be too bad and up to 90% is very decent but there will always now be the lingering doubt that there's a much better version out there which is 95% effective. And it doesn't use a live virus to boot.
Just messes with genetic information instead...
Not really. mRNA vaccines don't alter DNA - they merely hijack cellular machinery to produce copies of the spike protein.
Okay, that's a bit unfair. Even 70% wouldn't be too bad and up to 90% is very decent but there will always now be the lingering doubt that there's a much better version out there which is 95% effective. And it doesn't use a live virus to boot.
Here we go. You beat me to it.
Fast forward six months and there will be news of people getting the vaccine but still contracting the virus and Starmer will be criticising the government for injecting us with the wrong stuff.
FFS - this is great news this morning.
Depends how its sold. If people in the most dangerous category are told they can have a jab that's got a 70% chance of working I think you'd struggle. Think getting on a plane with a 70% chance of not crashing
More like a choice between two planes, one of which has a safety record three times better.
But thankfully there should be enough Pfizer vaccine for people in the highest-risk groups. And the fact that there were no serious cases/hospitalisations in the AstraZeneca trial shouldn't be overlooked.
Wait, this is all a bit unfair. I don't think anyone's suggesting the vaccine is like a plane crash. Taking the vaccine won't kill you. And even if you're in the 30% who isn't protected, the fact that 70% of those treated will be actually protects you and everyone else.
Additional: sounds like some people think it's actually better than 70%, but I haven't looked into the arguments for that yet, so treat as a placeholder.
Morning all! Glad to see that the Tories are Determined to kill Granny for Christmas. Ho Ho Ho!
And Labour in Wales, Unionists/SF in NI and the SNP in Scotland. Idiot.
Dear me. Who is the government of the United Kingdom? Feeding their idiot savants in the press CHRISTMAS IS SAVED! So its ok to have Johnny come home from university and have 5 days of festive frolics with Mum, Dad, Granny, Aunt Flo and Uncle Fester. And then 5 days of funerals in January to bury half of them.
And for what? A "shopping binge"? To keep Wetherspoons going?
As I said yesterday. Corrupt, Inept, Arrogant, Hypocritical. The worst government we have ever had and at the worst possible time.
I presume you believe that Sturgeon, Philips, Drakeford have been forced into this by Johnson. In whci case my initial assessment was spot on. Are you expecting Starmer to oppose this?
"Forced" isn't the right word. The devolved administrations have been able to flex the UK approach and set out their own messaging - but this is built on the UK platform which has been chaotic, contradictory and self-defeating. Short of Sturgeon coming and and saying what needs saying - that Westminster haven't a fucking clue what they are doing please ignore them - its difficult to completely change the narrative.
We have one government. And a growing pile of corpses. A bit like with Biden in the US what Starmer says/thinks isn't going to change things when the government rule by edict. Remember the 5 point scale which Shagger managed to put us initially at 3.5 on? Remember the 3 point scale which wasn't strong enough and ended up with regional variations and haggling? Now we apparently have another 3 point scale but different to the last 3 point scale but don't worry because He has Saved Christmas so that you can finally kill your parents.
You're so ott with your prejudices and hate that it's quite pointless to say any more - as others have already made clear this morning.
I'll take your opinion under advisement. OTT? There was a 5 point scale. Which he put at 3.5 on. Widely ridiculed on here at the time There was a 3 point scale. Not enough said Whitty, hence the need for a "lockdown" There was regional variation. And haggling. And Tory MPs saying "no money" for their Greater Manchester seats only to be torpedoed by Downing Street finding the money days later There is a pile of 55,000 corpses. And thats only the official number There is a major worry by the scientists that the unlockdown for Christmas will kill people by the thousand.
But as you say, I am completely over the top in my hate for a government who has presided over this whilst comparable countries get by reasonably unscathed.
Which countries especially in Europe are you using in respect of your last sentence
"especially in Europe" klaxon. In other words, "please cherry-pick your data to weaken your own point".
Not at all
As we are told so often we are all Europeans and it is fair to compare outcomes within Europe
Ah, now you're trying to elevate politics above science. That really won't do.
No, I think he just does not like it when you criticise his beloved Conservative Party. If you had criticised Labour you probably would have received glowing praise....
Okay, that's a bit unfair. Even 70% wouldn't be too bad and up to 90% is very decent but there will always now be the lingering doubt that there's a much better version out there which is 95% effective. And it doesn't use a live virus to boot.
Here we go. You beat me to it.
Fast forward six months and there will be news of people getting the vaccine but still contracting the virus and Starmer will be criticising the government for injecting us with the wrong stuff.
FFS - this is great news this morning.
Depends how its sold. If people in the most dangerous category are told they can have a jab that's got a 70% chance of working I think you'd struggle. Think getting on a plane with a 70% chance of not crashing
More like a choice between two planes, one of which has a safety record three times better.
But thankfully there should be enough Pfizer vaccine for people in the highest-risk groups. And the fact that there were no serious cases/hospitalisations in the AstraZeneca trial shouldn't be overlooked.
There's a difference between safety and effectiveness. And in any event, far too little data (especially considering the half dose regime) to say that the Pfizer vaccine is three times as effective.
Listening to the report on the Oxford vaccine it is really great news and yet it seems siren voices are trying to criticise it's efficacy and you do wonder why when we get good news many seem to want it to fail
It is very disappointing that we cannot all rejoice at good news
Er, because two other vaccines are better i.e. more effective.
It's good news but it's not great news. We've backed the wrong horse.
It's like saying that we should rejoice that British Sky Broadcasting produced a Squarial when the market i.e. everyone wanted a mini satellite dish instead.
You mark my words ... there will be a massive push for Pfizer and Moderna. And I'm one of them.
I am not hearing the media suggesting we have backed the wrong horse and as I understand it the Oxford vaccine is more effective than our present flu jab
AIUI the issue with flu isn't the effectiveness of the vaccine against the chosen strain, but choosing in advance the right strain.
Okay, that's a bit unfair. Even 70% wouldn't be too bad and up to 90% is very decent but there will always now be the lingering doubt that there's a much better version out there which is 95% effective. And it doesn't use a live virus to boot.
Just messes with genetic information instead...
Not really. mRNA vaccines don't alter DNA - they merely hijack cellular machinery to produce copies of the spike protein.
Yes and no. Covid is an RNA virus, so has no DNA. RNA is its genetic material.
Being single stranded, RNA is less stable and more prone to mutation, so perhaps an evolutionary advantage for a virus.
Listening to the report on the Oxford vaccine it is really great news and yet it seems siren voices are trying to criticise it's efficacy and you do wonder why when we get good news many seem to want it to fail
It is very disappointing that we cannot all rejoice at good news
Er, because two other vaccines are better i.e. more effective.
It's good news but it's not great news. We've backed the wrong horse.
It's like saying that we should rejoice that British Sky Broadcasting produced a Squarial when the market i.e. everyone wanted a mini satellite dish instead.
You mark my words ... there will be a massive push for Pfizer and Moderna. And I'm one of them.
So you reckon it’s safer to wait a year for a 95% effective vaccine than 3 months for a 90% one?
Listening to the report on the Oxford vaccine it is really great news and yet it seems siren voices are trying to criticise it's efficacy and you do wonder why when we get good news many seem to want it to fail
It is very disappointing that we cannot all rejoice at good news
Er, because two other vaccines are better i.e. more effective.
It's good news but it's not great news. We've backed the wrong horse.
It's like saying that we should rejoice that British Sky Broadcasting produced a Squarial when the market i.e. everyone wanted a mini satellite dish instead.
You mark my words ... there will be a massive push for Pfizer and Moderna. And I'm one of them.
That's bull. We backed every horse - it's simply that we don't have any domestic companies with the mRNA technology. Be grateful that we have the Oxford vaccine - it puts us in a far better position than most countries.
As for your massive push, you won't get the choice.
Listening to the report on the Oxford vaccine it is really great news and yet it seems siren voices are trying to criticise it's efficacy and you do wonder why when we get good news many seem to want it to fail
It is very disappointing that we cannot all rejoice at good news
Er, because two other vaccines are better i.e. more effective.
It's good news but it's not great news. We've backed the wrong horse.
It's like saying that we should rejoice that British Sky Broadcasting produced a Squarial when the market i.e. everyone wanted a mini satellite dish instead.
You mark my words ... there will be a massive push for Pfizer and Moderna. And I'm one of them.
We didn’t “back the wrong horse”
We backed the best in class in each technological approach.
Turns out mRNA is more efficacious than the Jenner approach (but also has significant disadvantages).
Listening to the report on the Oxford vaccine it is really great news and yet it seems siren voices are trying to criticise it's efficacy and you do wonder why when we get good news many seem to want it to fail
It is very disappointing that we cannot all rejoice at good news
Er, because two other vaccines are better i.e. more effective.
It's good news but it's not great news. We've backed the wrong horse.
It's like saying that we should rejoice that British Sky Broadcasting produced a Squarial when the market i.e. everyone wanted a mini satellite dish instead.
You mark my words ... there will be a massive push for Pfizer and Moderna. And I'm one of them.
I'm fine with the 90% one. Which could, of course, still be 95%+ with more data.
Listening to the report on the Oxford vaccine it is really great news and yet it seems siren voices are trying to criticise it's efficacy and you do wonder why when we get good news many seem to want it to fail
It is very disappointing that we cannot all rejoice at good news
Er, because two other vaccines are better i.e. more effective.
It's good news but it's not great news. We've backed the wrong horse.
It's like saying that we should rejoice that British Sky Broadcasting produced a Squarial when the market i.e. everyone wanted a mini satellite dish instead.
You mark my words ... there will be a massive push for Pfizer and Moderna. And I'm one of them.
That's bull. We backed every horse - it's simply that we don't have any domestic companies with the mRNA technology. Be grateful that we have the Oxford vaccine - it puts us in a far better position than most countries.
As for your massive push, you won't get the choice.
Imperial are developing the mRNA method. Still looking for a PIII partner. Anyway, 90% effective is plenty.
There is still time for the government to be responsible. A "Last Christmas" campaign, as in don't make it your Granny's Last Christmas.
Question - is the game plan that a massive spike in January will distract everyone away from the Brexit fiasco? People will be too busy ill/dying/mourning to get angry that they can't get fresh food in the supermarkets?
If not, then why allow it? Shagger "Battling the scientists to save Christmas" say the newspapers. Save it from what - the science that lifting restrictions for 5 days will kill a whole pile of people?
Okay, that's a bit unfair. Even 70% wouldn't be too bad and up to 90% is very decent but there will always now be the lingering doubt that there's a much better version out there which is 95% effective. And it doesn't use a live virus to boot.
Just messes with genetic information instead...
That's the future Charles. Modifying RNA and DNA will be the way all diseases are treated in the future and we will be able pre-emptively to strike cancer. Possibly re-grow limbs and even slow down ageing.
Like all science, there will need to be ethical checks and balances, but if you think RNA technology isn't a phenomenally brilliant scientific breakthrough then you're not Charles. You're Canute.
I’ve been working with mRNA companies for about 15 years...
Surely if the AZ one offers 90% if half a dose is provided first then a full does a month later, that is preferable to the others as only 1.5 doses required per person instead of 2 doses and almost identical, very high, effectiveness???
Morning all! Glad to see that the Tories are Determined to kill Granny for Christmas. Ho Ho Ho!
And Labour in Wales, Unionists/SF in NI and the SNP in Scotland. Idiot.
Dear me. Who is the government of the United Kingdom? Feeding their idiot savants in the press CHRISTMAS IS SAVED! So its ok to have Johnny come home from university and have 5 days of festive frolics with Mum, Dad, Granny, Aunt Flo and Uncle Fester. And then 5 days of funerals in January to bury half of them.
And for what? A "shopping binge"? To keep Wetherspoons going?
As I said yesterday. Corrupt, Inept, Arrogant, Hypocritical. The worst government we have ever had and at the worst possible time.
I presume you believe that Sturgeon, Philips, Drakeford have been forced into this by Johnson. In whci case my initial assessment was spot on. Are you expecting Starmer to oppose this?
"Forced" isn't the right word. The devolved administrations have been able to flex the UK approach and set out their own messaging - but this is built on the UK platform which has been chaotic, contradictory and self-defeating. Short of Sturgeon coming and and saying what needs saying - that Westminster haven't a fucking clue what they are doing please ignore them - its difficult to completely change the narrative.
We have one government. And a growing pile of corpses. A bit like with Biden in the US what Starmer says/thinks isn't going to change things when the government rule by edict. Remember the 5 point scale which Shagger managed to put us initially at 3.5 on? Remember the 3 point scale which wasn't strong enough and ended up with regional variations and haggling? Now we apparently have another 3 point scale but different to the last 3 point scale but don't worry because He has Saved Christmas so that you can finally kill your parents.
You're so ott with your prejudices and hate that it's quite pointless to say any more - as others have already made clear this morning.
I'll take your opinion under advisement. OTT? There was a 5 point scale. Which he put at 3.5 on. Widely ridiculed on here at the time There was a 3 point scale. Not enough said Whitty, hence the need for a "lockdown" There was regional variation. And haggling. And Tory MPs saying "no money" for their Greater Manchester seats only to be torpedoed by Downing Street finding the money days later There is a pile of 55,000 corpses. And thats only the official number There is a major worry by the scientists that the unlockdown for Christmas will kill people by the thousand.
But as you say, I am completely over the top in my hate for a government who has presided over this whilst comparable countries get by reasonably unscathed.
Which countries especially in Europe are you using in respect of your last sentence
"especially in Europe" klaxon. In other words, "please cherry-pick your data to weaken your own point".
Not at all
As we are told so often we are all Europeans and it is fair to compare outcomes within Europe
Ah, now you're trying to elevate politics above science. That really won't do.
No, I think he just does not like it when you criticise his beloved Conservative Party. If you had criticised Labour you probably would have received glowing praise....
Right now, I'm not even criticising any party. I'm just saying that we shouldn't cherry pick our comparisons. There are very valid comparisons that can be made with other countries, even those that are populated by - gasp - Asians. But, for some odd reason, they tend to fall by the wayside.
We could learn a lot from South Korea, India, Japan, Iran. Both in terms of good and poor practice.
Surely if the AZ one offers 90% if half a dose is provided first then a full does a month later, that is preferable to the others as only 1.5 doses required per person instead of 2 doses and almost identical, very high, effectiveness???
Okay, that's a bit unfair. Even 70% wouldn't be too bad and up to 90% is very decent but there will always now be the lingering doubt that there's a much better version out there which is 95% effective. And it doesn't use a live virus to boot.
Here we go. You beat me to it.
Fast forward six months and there will be news of people getting the vaccine but still contracting the virus and Starmer will be criticising the government for injecting us with the wrong stuff.
FFS - this is great news this morning.
It is. But I'm still going to try and get the best.
The real trouble will come if some countries permit visa entry with Pfizer and Moderna but not Astra-Zeneca.
I'm being a bit unfair. 'Up to 90%' wouldn't be too bad. It's just that the others got in there before with a more gold star bit of media massage.
One thing that puzzles me - I think Pfizer is is waiting for regulatory approval in the US. Could any delays stop other countries obtaining the Pfizer vaccine?
I doubt Pfizer will apply for approval in other countries until the fda has approved
Why not? Why should the rest of the word be beholden to the US system?
Okay, that's a bit unfair. Even 70% wouldn't be too bad and up to 90% is very decent but there will always now be the lingering doubt that there's a much better version out there which is 95% effective. And it doesn't use a live virus to boot.
Just messes with genetic information instead...
Not really. mRNA vaccines don't alter DNA - they merely hijack cellular machinery to produce copies of the spike protein.
Yes and no. Covid is an RNA virus, so has no DNA. RNA is its genetic material.
Being single stranded, RNA is less stable and more prone to mutation, so perhaps an evolutionary advantage for a virus.
Sure. But Charles said the vaccines mess with genetic information; they don't. Ditto Covid.
If you’re the MHRA and government the correct approach here is to authorise Pfizer, who have completed their trial and the government uses that vaccine for their first phase vaccination targeting anyone who gets a flu jab in normal priority order. Then they wait for the final result from the half-dose full-dose dosing regime to confirm the efficacy compared with the Pfizer vaccine. That will let them decide if the Oxford vaccine can be used for everyone or whether there’ll be (similar to flu) a high priority, low priority vaccine scheme. Their PR has to be spot on here though and I’m worried that this government is mightily crap at messaging and will fuck it up.
Listening to the report on the Oxford vaccine it is really great news and yet it seems siren voices are trying to criticise it's efficacy and you do wonder why when we get good news many seem to want it to fail
It is very disappointing that we cannot all rejoice at good news
Er, because two other vaccines are better i.e. more effective.
It's good news but it's not great news. We've backed the wrong horse.
It's like saying that we should rejoice that British Sky Broadcasting produced a Squarial when the market i.e. everyone wanted a mini satellite dish instead.
You mark my words ... there will be a massive push for Pfizer and Moderna. And I'm one of them.
I'm fine with the 90% one. Which could, of course, still be 95%+ with more data.
Wait til the postal ballots are counted.
The key question for many is which vaccine contains which mind control microchip. I am not sure the Dido Harding mind control system has been fully tested.
Okay, that's a bit unfair. Even 70% wouldn't be too bad and up to 90% is very decent but there will always now be the lingering doubt that there's a much better version out there which is 95% effective. And it doesn't use a live virus to boot.
Just messes with genetic information instead...
Not really. mRNA vaccines don't alter DNA - they merely hijack cellular machinery to produce copies of the spike protein.
Yes and no. Covid is an RNA virus, so has no DNA. RNA is its genetic material.
Being single stranded, RNA is less stable and more prone to mutation, so perhaps an evolutionary advantage for a virus.
Sure. But Charles said the vaccines mess with genetic information; they don't. Ditto Covid.
I think Charles may have been pointing out the potential fake news about each one. The AZ vaccine is 90% effective, they're hardly going to recommend a dosing regime that results in a lower efficacy and the MHRA isn't going approve the 70% method. It shouldn't even be in the headlines, the 90% figure is what we're going to get. 70% is fake news and mRNA vaccines messing with your DNA is as well.
Okay, that's a bit unfair. Even 70% wouldn't be too bad and up to 90% is very decent but there will always now be the lingering doubt that there's a much better version out there which is 95% effective. And it doesn't use a live virus to boot.
Just messes with genetic information instead...
That's the future Charles. Modifying RNA and DNA will be the way all diseases are treated in the future and we will be able pre-emptively to strike cancer. Possibly re-grow limbs and even slow down ageing.
Like all science, there will need to be ethical checks and balances, but if you think RNA technology isn't a phenomenally brilliant scientific breakthrough then you're not Charles. You're Canute.
The first gene therapy drug commercially licensed in the US is pretty expensive. $850 000 per case.
Morning all! Glad to see that the Tories are Determined to kill Granny for Christmas. Ho Ho Ho!
And Labour in Wales, Unionists/SF in NI and the SNP in Scotland. Idiot.
Dear me. Who is the government of the United Kingdom? Feeding their idiot savants in the press CHRISTMAS IS SAVED! So its ok to have Johnny come home from university and have 5 days of festive frolics with Mum, Dad, Granny, Aunt Flo and Uncle Fester. And then 5 days of funerals in January to bury half of them.
And for what? A "shopping binge"? To keep Wetherspoons going?
As I said yesterday. Corrupt, Inept, Arrogant, Hypocritical. The worst government we have ever had and at the worst possible time.
I presume you believe that Sturgeon, Philips, Drakeford have been forced into this by Johnson. In whci case my initial assessment was spot on. Are you expecting Starmer to oppose this?
"Forced" isn't the right word. The devolved administrations have been able to flex the UK approach and set out their own messaging - but this is built on the UK platform which has been chaotic, contradictory and self-defeating. Short of Sturgeon coming and and saying what needs saying - that Westminster haven't a fucking clue what they are doing please ignore them - its difficult to completely change the narrative.
We have one government. And a growing pile of corpses. A bit like with Biden in the US what Starmer says/thinks isn't going to change things when the government rule by edict. Remember the 5 point scale which Shagger managed to put us initially at 3.5 on? Remember the 3 point scale which wasn't strong enough and ended up with regional variations and haggling? Now we apparently have another 3 point scale but different to the last 3 point scale but don't worry because He has Saved Christmas so that you can finally kill your parents.
You're so ott with your prejudices and hate that it's quite pointless to say any more - as others have already made clear this morning.
I'll take your opinion under advisement. OTT? There was a 5 point scale. Which he put at 3.5 on. Widely ridiculed on here at the time There was a 3 point scale. Not enough said Whitty, hence the need for a "lockdown" There was regional variation. And haggling. And Tory MPs saying "no money" for their Greater Manchester seats only to be torpedoed by Downing Street finding the money days later There is a pile of 55,000 corpses. And thats only the official number There is a major worry by the scientists that the unlockdown for Christmas will kill people by the thousand.
But as you say, I am completely over the top in my hate for a government who has presided over this whilst comparable countries get by reasonably unscathed.
Which countries especially in Europe are you using in respect of your last sentence
"especially in Europe" klaxon. In other words, "please cherry-pick your data to weaken your own point".
Not at all
As we are told so often we are all Europeans and it is fair to compare outcomes within Europe
Ah, now you're trying to elevate politics above science. That really won't do.
No, I think he just does not like it when you criticise his beloved Conservative Party. If you had criticised Labour you probably would have received glowing praise....
Right now, I'm not even criticising any party. I'm just saying that we shouldn't cherry pick our comparisons. There are very valid comparisons that can be made with other countries, even those that are populated by - gasp - Asians. But, for some odd reason, they tend to fall by the wayside.
We could learn a lot from South Korea, India, Japan, Iran. Both in terms of good and poor practice.
The original post referred to “comparable countries”. Of course comparisons can be made to those you list, but I’d argue France, Germany, Italy, Spain and possibly Belgium would be “comparable countries” while Japan, India etc are too different
Okay, that's a bit unfair. Even 70% wouldn't be too bad and up to 90% is very decent but there will always now be the lingering doubt that there's a much better version out there which is 95% effective. And it doesn't use a live virus to boot.
Here we go. You beat me to it.
Fast forward six months and there will be news of people getting the vaccine but still contracting the virus and Starmer will be criticising the government for injecting us with the wrong stuff.
FFS - this is great news this morning.
It is. But I'm still going to try and get the best.
The real trouble will come if some countries permit visa entry with Pfizer and Moderna but not Astra-Zeneca.
I'm being a bit unfair. 'Up to 90%' wouldn't be too bad. It's just that the others got in there before with a more gold star bit of media massage.
One thing that puzzles me - I think Pfizer is is waiting for regulatory approval in the US. Could any delays stop other countries obtaining the Pfizer vaccine?
I doubt Pfizer will apply for approval in other countries until the fda has approved
Why not? Why should the rest of the word be beholden to the US system?
Because a lot of countries will ask “ What does the FDA say?”
Okay, that's a bit unfair. Even 70% wouldn't be too bad and up to 90% is very decent but there will always now be the lingering doubt that there's a much better version out there which is 95% effective. And it doesn't use a live virus to boot.
Here we go. You beat me to it.
Fast forward six months and there will be news of people getting the vaccine but still contracting the virus and Starmer will be criticising the government for injecting us with the wrong stuff.
FFS - this is great news this morning.
It is. But I'm still going to try and get the best.
The real trouble will come if some countries permit visa entry with Pfizer and Moderna but not Astra-Zeneca.
I'm being a bit unfair. 'Up to 90%' wouldn't be too bad. It's just that the others got in there before with a more gold star bit of media massage.
One thing that puzzles me - I think Pfizer is is waiting for regulatory approval in the US. Could any delays stop other countries obtaining the Pfizer vaccine?
I doubt Pfizer will apply for approval in other countries until the fda has approved
Why not? Why should the rest of the word be beholden to the US system?
Resources. Until they were digitised the paperwork for a regulatory approval filled a small van.
Get one major approval and then file with everyone else
Okay, that's a bit unfair. Even 70% wouldn't be too bad and up to 90% is very decent but there will always now be the lingering doubt that there's a much better version out there which is 95% effective. And it doesn't use a live virus to boot.
Here we go. You beat me to it.
Fast forward six months and there will be news of people getting the vaccine but still contracting the virus and Starmer will be criticising the government for injecting us with the wrong stuff.
FFS - this is great news this morning.
It is. But I'm still going to try and get the best.
The real trouble will come if some countries permit visa entry with Pfizer and Moderna but not Astra-Zeneca.
I'm being a bit unfair. 'Up to 90%' wouldn't be too bad. It's just that the others got in there before with a more gold star bit of media massage.
One thing that puzzles me - I think Pfizer is is waiting for regulatory approval in the US. Could any delays stop other countries obtaining the Pfizer vaccine?
I doubt Pfizer will apply for approval in other countries until the fda has approved
Why not? Why should the rest of the word be beholden to the US system?
Because a lot of countries will ask “ What does the FDA say?”
Sure, other countries will be interested in the opinion of the FDA. That`s different from a country not being able to make their own judgements and purchasing decisions outside of FDA authorisation if they want to.
It’s the the planet of the apes all over again. Where is Charlton Heston?
Tell me, though. Does man, that marvel of the universe, that glorious paradox who sent me to the stars, still make war against his brother? Keep his neighbour's children starving?
Listening to the report on the Oxford vaccine it is really great news and yet it seems siren voices are trying to criticise it's efficacy and you do wonder why when we get good news many seem to want it to fail
It is very disappointing that we cannot all rejoice at good news
Er, because two other vaccines are better i.e. more effective.
It's good news but it's not great news. We've backed the wrong horse.
It's like saying that we should rejoice that British Sky Broadcasting produced a Squarial when the market i.e. everyone wanted a mini satellite dish instead.
You mark my words ... there will be a massive push for Pfizer and Moderna. And I'm one of them.
That's bull. We backed every horse - it's simply that we don't have any domestic companies with the mRNA technology. Be grateful that we have the Oxford vaccine - it puts us in a far better position than most countries.
As for your massive push, you won't get the choice.
Imperial are developing the mRNA method. Still looking for a PIII partner. Anyway, 90% effective is plenty.
Sure - but it's a university research effort. And the government did back it to the tune of £41m back in April.
Moderna had been working on mRNA therapeutics, and the associated manufacturing and delivery technology for years (which failed, before they shifted to vaccine development). My point, which I've made before, is that, in an emergency, governments have to back what's already there. You can put in place the infrastructure for next time around, but it takes much longer to build from scratch.
Listening to the report on the Oxford vaccine it is really great news and yet it seems siren voices are trying to criticise it's efficacy and you do wonder why when we get good news many seem to want it to fail
It is very disappointing that we cannot all rejoice at good news
Er, because two other vaccines are better i.e. more effective.
It's good news but it's not great news. We've backed the wrong horse.
It's like saying that we should rejoice that British Sky Broadcasting produced a Squarial when the market i.e. everyone wanted a mini satellite dish instead.
You mark my words ... there will be a massive push for Pfizer and Moderna. And I'm one of them.
I'm fine with the 90% one. Which could, of course, still be 95%+ with more data.
Wait til the postal ballots are counted.
The key question for many is which vaccine contains which mind control microchip. I am not sure the Dido Harding mind control system has been fully tested.
Don't worry, we have a new range of tinfoil lined MAGA hats, which protect against the vaccine mind control chips.
Okay, that's a bit unfair. Even 70% wouldn't be too bad and up to 90% is very decent but there will always now be the lingering doubt that there's a much better version out there which is 95% effective. And it doesn't use a live virus to boot.
Here we go. You beat me to it.
Fast forward six months and there will be news of people getting the vaccine but still contracting the virus and Starmer will be criticising the government for injecting us with the wrong stuff.
FFS - this is great news this morning.
It is. But I'm still going to try and get the best.
The real trouble will come if some countries permit visa entry with Pfizer and Moderna but not Astra-Zeneca.
I'm being a bit unfair. 'Up to 90%' wouldn't be too bad. It's just that the others got in there before with a more gold star bit of media massage.
One thing that puzzles me - I think Pfizer is is waiting for regulatory approval in the US. Could any delays stop other countries obtaining the Pfizer vaccine?
I doubt Pfizer will apply for approval in other countries until the fda has approved
Why not? Why should the rest of the word be beholden to the US system?
Resources. Until they were digitised the paperwork for a regulatory approval filled a small van.
Get one major approval and then file with everyone else
Hasn't Pfizer also applied for emergency use with the MHRA as well? They're expected to receive it in the first week of December.
Okay, that's a bit unfair. Even 70% wouldn't be too bad and up to 90% is very decent but there will always now be the lingering doubt that there's a much better version out there which is 95% effective. And it doesn't use a live virus to boot.
Just messes with genetic information instead...
Not really. mRNA vaccines don't alter DNA - they merely hijack cellular machinery to produce copies of the spike protein.
Yes and no. Covid is an RNA virus, so has no DNA. RNA is its genetic material.
Being single stranded, RNA is less stable and more prone to mutation, so perhaps an evolutionary advantage for a virus.
Sure. But Charles said the vaccines mess with genetic information; they don't. Ditto Covid.
It was an irritated response to @Mysticrose flapping around, not a comment on these specific vaccines. I haven’t been close enough to the PFE or Moderna programmes to look in detail
Listening to the report on the Oxford vaccine it is really great news and yet it seems siren voices are trying to criticise it's efficacy and you do wonder why when we get good news many seem to want it to fail
It is very disappointing that we cannot all rejoice at good news
Er, because two other vaccines are better i.e. more effective.
It's good news but it's not great news. We've backed the wrong horse.
It's like saying that we should rejoice that British Sky Broadcasting produced a Squarial when the market i.e. everyone wanted a mini satellite dish instead.
You mark my words ... there will be a massive push for Pfizer and Moderna. And I'm one of them.
I'm fine with the 90% one. Which could, of course, still be 95%+ with more data.
Wait til the postal ballots are counted.
The key question for many is which vaccine contains which mind control microchip. I am not sure the Dido Harding mind control system has been fully tested.
Don't worry, we have a new range of tinfoil lined MAGA hats, which protect against the vaccine mind control chips.
What use is a hat for MAGA mind control? You need tinfoil underpants or something that wraps foil around gut instinct.
Morning all! Glad to see that the Tories are Determined to kill Granny for Christmas. Ho Ho Ho!
And Labour in Wales, Unionists/SF in NI and the SNP in Scotland. Idiot.
Dear me. Who is the government of the United Kingdom? Feeding their idiot savants in the press CHRISTMAS IS SAVED! So its ok to have Johnny come home from university and have 5 days of festive frolics with Mum, Dad, Granny, Aunt Flo and Uncle Fester. And then 5 days of funerals in January to bury half of them.
And for what? A "shopping binge"? To keep Wetherspoons going?
As I said yesterday. Corrupt, Inept, Arrogant, Hypocritical. The worst government we have ever had and at the worst possible time.
I presume you believe that Sturgeon, Philips, Drakeford have been forced into this by Johnson. In whci case my initial assessment was spot on. Are you expecting Starmer to oppose this?
"Forced" isn't the right word. The devolved administrations have been able to flex the UK approach and set out their own messaging - but this is built on the UK platform which has been chaotic, contradictory and self-defeating. Short of Sturgeon coming and and saying what needs saying - that Westminster haven't a fucking clue what they are doing please ignore them - its difficult to completely change the narrative.
We have one government. And a growing pile of corpses. A bit like with Biden in the US what Starmer says/thinks isn't going to change things when the government rule by edict. Remember the 5 point scale which Shagger managed to put us initially at 3.5 on? Remember the 3 point scale which wasn't strong enough and ended up with regional variations and haggling? Now we apparently have another 3 point scale but different to the last 3 point scale but don't worry because He has Saved Christmas so that you can finally kill your parents.
You're so ott with your prejudices and hate that it's quite pointless to say any more - as others have already made clear this morning.
I'll take your opinion under advisement. OTT? There was a 5 point scale. Which he put at 3.5 on. Widely ridiculed on here at the time There was a 3 point scale. Not enough said Whitty, hence the need for a "lockdown" There was regional variation. And haggling. And Tory MPs saying "no money" for their Greater Manchester seats only to be torpedoed by Downing Street finding the money days later There is a pile of 55,000 corpses. And thats only the official number There is a major worry by the scientists that the unlockdown for Christmas will kill people by the thousand.
But as you say, I am completely over the top in my hate for a government who has presided over this whilst comparable countries get by reasonably unscathed.
Which countries especially in Europe are you using in respect of your last sentence
"especially in Europe" klaxon. In other words, "please cherry-pick your data to weaken your own point".
Not at all
As we are told so often we are all Europeans and it is fair to compare outcomes within Europe
Ah, now you're trying to elevate politics above science. That really won't do.
No, I think he just does not like it when you criticise his beloved Conservative Party. If you had criticised Labour you probably would have received glowing praise....
Right now, I'm not even criticising any party. I'm just saying that we shouldn't cherry pick our comparisons. There are very valid comparisons that can be made with other countries, even those that are populated by - gasp - Asians. But, for some odd reason, they tend to fall by the wayside.
We could learn a lot from South Korea, India, Japan, Iran. Both in terms of good and poor practice.
The original post referred to “comparable countries”. Of course comparisons can be made to those you list, but I’d argue France, Germany, Italy, Spain and possibly Belgium would be “comparable countries” while Japan, India etc are too different
I restate my point that as an island nation we had the far easier ability to control its influx than any of these countries did. And yet Germany shut its borders for a while and we did not. Thats Germany supposedly a supplicant of Brussels unable to close its borders closing its borders whilst newly free and sovereign UK did not.
Why is that? Borders and Care Homes are the two biggies - the maliciously stupid decisions that killed thousands. Shut the border and impose quarantine. Don't force care homes to take Covid-unknown and Covid-positive patients back into the home. Binary decisions. Got wrong.
Don't understand why AZ even reported the 70% figure. It's unnecessarily confusing.
Because it's the was they decided at the start that they'd assess efficacy - doing something different when you've seen the results is a fundamental mistake in clinical trials, like saying you don't like a poll result but the Scottish subsample suggests a much better outcome. Further examination of the data gives a "hint" that doing it differently might give a 90% result, but that needs a separate trial IMO.
It's not a question of blame - we invested in a very serious effort and normally 70% would be a great result. Ity turns out that something else would be even better, but that's nobody's fault. What would be totally unacceptable would be to push out the Oxford vaccine now without further testing of the new hypothesis. Let's use the Pfizer/Modema vaccine for now.
Don't understand why AZ even reported the 70% figure. It's unnecessarily confusing.
Because it's the was they decided at the start that they'd assess efficacy - doing something different when you've seen the results is a fundamental mistake in clinical trials, like saying you don't like a poll result but the Scottish subsample suggests a much better outcome. Further examination of the data gives a "hint" that doing it differently might give a 90% result, but that needs a separate trial IMO.
It's not a question of blame - we invested in a very serious effort and normally 70% would be a great result. Ity turns out that something else would be even better, but that's nobody's fault. What would be totally unacceptable would be to push out the Oxford vaccine now without further testing of the new hypothesis. Let's use the Pfizer/Modema vaccine for now.
"What would be totally unacceptable would be to push out the Oxford vaccine now" - there we go - see my post earlier - you beat Starmer to the politicking Nick!
Listening to the report on the Oxford vaccine it is really great news and yet it seems siren voices are trying to criticise it's efficacy and you do wonder why when we get good news many seem to want it to fail
It is very disappointing that we cannot all rejoice at good news
Er, because two other vaccines are better i.e. more effective.
It's good news but it's not great news. We've backed the wrong horse.
It's like saying that we should rejoice that British Sky Broadcasting produced a Squarial when the market i.e. everyone wanted a mini satellite dish instead.
You mark my words ... there will be a massive push for Pfizer and Moderna. And I'm one of them.
That's bull. We backed every horse - it's simply that we don't have any domestic companies with the mRNA technology. Be grateful that we have the Oxford vaccine - it puts us in a far better position than most countries.
As for your massive push, you won't get the choice.
What makes you say that? We've ordered lots of the Pfizer vaccine and some of the Modema, so can get on with using that for the vlunerable and frontline staff.
Listening to the report on the Oxford vaccine it is really great news and yet it seems siren voices are trying to criticise it's efficacy and you do wonder why when we get good news many seem to want it to fail
It is very disappointing that we cannot all rejoice at good news
Er, because two other vaccines are better i.e. more effective.
It's good news but it's not great news. We've backed the wrong horse.
It's like saying that we should rejoice that British Sky Broadcasting produced a Squarial when the market i.e. everyone wanted a mini satellite dish instead.
You mark my words ... there will be a massive push for Pfizer and Moderna. And I'm one of them.
That's bull. We backed every horse - it's simply that we don't have any domestic companies with the mRNA technology. Be grateful that we have the Oxford vaccine - it puts us in a far better position than most countries.
As for your massive push, you won't get the choice.
Imperial are developing the mRNA method. Still looking for a PIII partner. Anyway, 90% effective is plenty.
Sure - but it's a university research effort. And the government did back it to the tune of £41m back in April.
Moderna had been working on mRNA therapeutics, and the associated manufacturing and delivery technology for years (which failed, before they shifted to vaccine development). My point, which I've made before, is that, in an emergency, governments have to back what's already there. You can put in place the infrastructure for next time around, but it takes much longer to build from scratch.
I completely agree, we've got 99m doses of 95%, 94% and 90% effective vaccines due before the end of April. It's a very strong portfolio and another champagne moment for the vaccine taskforce.
What worries me is that by April a few countries (UK, US, Japan, Canada) will have their effective R down to 0 due to vaccination programmes. Where does that leave other vaccone candidates. Between these three there is around 2bn in global manufacturing capacity, that's nowhere near enough to see the back of this virus. We need other credible candidates to come through and I can only see J&J as having the ability to complete a PIII trial because they've already started during a second wave, loads of countries won't have a third wave.
I’m slightly concerned by the smallish sample size in the dose that has 90% efficacy. They clearly weren’t expecting that dose to be as effective so only gave it to 3000 people compared to >17k who got the full dose. That should slightly dampen our expectations. Anything between 70% and 90% is still worthwhile and good (especially as an inexpensive mass jab you can produce billions of doses of) but it’s not going to go down well when the government bangs on about being world beating and delivers the population a “second class” innoculation.
Don't understand why AZ even reported the 70% figure. It's unnecessarily confusing.
Because it's the was they decided at the start that they'd assess efficacy - doing something different when you've seen the results is a fundamental mistake in clinical trials, like saying you don't like a poll result but the Scottish subsample suggests a much better outcome. Further examination of the data gives a "hint" that doing it differently might give a 90% result, but that needs a separate trial IMO.
It's not a question of blame - we invested in a very serious effort and normally 70% would be a great result. Ity turns out that something else would be even better, but that's nobody's fault. What would be totally unacceptable would be to push out the Oxford vaccine now without further testing of the new hypothesis. Let's use the Pfizer/Modema vaccine for now.
There aren't enough doses of Pfizer or Moderna to go round. Even at the lower efficacy of ~60% it would be worth using the Oxford vaccine as an interim measure (assuming the safety data passes) until something better is available.
There's no need to wait for a trial to be repeated of the better dosing regime.
Listening to the report on the Oxford vaccine it is really great news and yet it seems siren voices are trying to criticise it's efficacy and you do wonder why when we get good news many seem to want it to fail
It is very disappointing that we cannot all rejoice at good news
Er, because two other vaccines are better i.e. more effective.
It's good news but it's not great news. We've backed the wrong horse.
It's like saying that we should rejoice that British Sky Broadcasting produced a Squarial when the market i.e. everyone wanted a mini satellite dish instead.
You mark my words ... there will be a massive push for Pfizer and Moderna. And I'm one of them.
I'm fine with the 90% one. Which could, of course, still be 95%+ with more data.
Wait til the postal ballots are counted.
The key question for many is which vaccine contains which mind control microchip. I am not sure the Dido Harding mind control system has been fully tested.
Absolutely nothing to worry about. The Dido Harding mind control chip won't work.
Don't understand why AZ even reported the 70% figure. It's unnecessarily confusing.
Because it's the was they decided at the start that they'd assess efficacy - doing something different when you've seen the results is a fundamental mistake in clinical trials, like saying you don't like a poll result but the Scottish subsample suggests a much better outcome. Further examination of the data gives a "hint" that doing it differently might give a 90% result, but that needs a separate trial IMO.
It's not a question of blame - we invested in a very serious effort and normally 70% would be a great result. Ity turns out that something else would be even better, but that's nobody's fault. What would be totally unacceptable would be to push out the Oxford vaccine now without further testing of the new hypothesis. Let's use the Pfizer/Modema vaccine for now.
70% ain't bad for a single dose regime, and possibly milder disease in who gets it despite.
Quite reasonable to roll out while awaiting the 2 stage trial result.
I agree that changing the outcome measure after looking at the data is not good science.
Don't understand why AZ even reported the 70% figure. It's unnecessarily confusing.
Because it's the was they decided at the start that they'd assess efficacy - doing something different when you've seen the results is a fundamental mistake in clinical trials, like saying you don't like a poll result but the Scottish subsample suggests a much better outcome. Further examination of the data gives a "hint" that doing it differently might give a 90% result, but that needs a separate trial IMO.
It's not a question of blame - we invested in a very serious effort and normally 70% would be a great result. Ity turns out that something else would be even better, but that's nobody's fault. What would be totally unacceptable would be to push out the Oxford vaccine now without further testing of the new hypothesis. Let's use the Pfizer/Modema vaccine for now.
But the trial is set up for different dosing regimes and the half/full method showed 90% efficacy. That's hard data for the MHRA to work from.
Listening to the report on the Oxford vaccine it is really great news and yet it seems siren voices are trying to criticise it's efficacy and you do wonder why when we get good news many seem to want it to fail
It is very disappointing that we cannot all rejoice at good news
Er, because two other vaccines are better i.e. more effective.
It's good news but it's not great news. We've backed the wrong horse.
It's like saying that we should rejoice that British Sky Broadcasting produced a Squarial when the market i.e. everyone wanted a mini satellite dish instead.
You mark my words ... there will be a massive push for Pfizer and Moderna. And I'm one of them.
I'm fine with the 90% one. Which could, of course, still be 95%+ with more data.
Wait til the postal ballots are counted.
The key question for many is which vaccine contains which mind control microchip. I am not sure the Dido Harding mind control system has been fully tested.
Absolutely nothing to worry about. The Dido Harding mind control chip won't work.
Or will we get brain push notifications 24/7? Do we want Matt Hancock appearing more often in our dreams? The people have a right to know.
Don't understand why AZ even reported the 70% figure. It's unnecessarily confusing.
Because it's the was they decided at the start that they'd assess efficacy - doing something different when you've seen the results is a fundamental mistake in clinical trials, like saying you don't like a poll result but the Scottish subsample suggests a much better outcome. Further examination of the data gives a "hint" that doing it differently might give a 90% result, but that needs a separate trial IMO.
It's not a question of blame - we invested in a very serious effort and normally 70% would be a great result. Ity turns out that something else would be even better, but that's nobody's fault. What would be totally unacceptable would be to push out the Oxford vaccine now without further testing of the new hypothesis. Let's use the Pfizer/Modema vaccine for now.
TBF, it's a bit more than a hint. They have a decent number of cases to go on.
Comments
It’s dosing regime - very very different
The 70% figure is completely and utterly irrelevant (not sure why AZ referenced it to be honest)
Actually, Thalidomide is a very good drug for many things, but not anywhere women of child bearing age. Apparently, hair loss drugs for men are also very dangerous for pregnant women and can even kill cats.
In other words, "please cherry-pick your data to weaken your own point".
https://twitter.com/JonLambe/status/1330782120860545025?s=20
As we are told so often we are all Europeans and it is fair to compare outcomes within Europe
Which is why we left the borders open and didn't bother with foreign nonsense like mandatory quarantine, come one and come all and bring your pox with you. And as soon as anything lifted lets all be British and fly to Benidorm for a holiday.
But if you want a European example - Germany.
But thankfully there should be enough Pfizer vaccine for people in the highest-risk groups. And the fact that there were no serious cases/hospitalisations in the AstraZeneca trial shouldn't be overlooked.
It's good news but it's not great news. We've backed the wrong horse.
It's like saying that we should rejoice that British Sky Broadcasting produced a Squarial when the market i.e. everyone wanted a mini satellite dish instead.
You mark my words ... there will be a massive push for Pfizer and Moderna. And I'm one of them.
We all need light at the end of the tunnel. Prospects of a vaccine is genuinely fabulous news. All the more reason why the narrative has to be spot on because this is the most dangerous time.
Get the message out there that we've almost beaten it and people relax and stop following the protocols. Which increases the infection and death rates. "One more heave" should be the message - there will be other Christmases - not "we've beaten the pesky scientists who wanted to steal your Christmas."
Mrs Foxy pretty much back to normal now. Bossing me about as per usual. 😏
It is the case that most countries are struggling with this virus, apart from the Southern Hemisphere which has had greater experiencing of combating this type of virus
Like all science, there will need to be ethical checks and balances, but if you think RNA technology isn't a phenomenally brilliant scientific breakthrough then you're not Charles. You're Canute.
It's efficacy is most likely either ~60% with one dosing regime, or ~90% with another, but it's not likely to be ~70%.
They're hardly likely to use a mix of the two regimes when widely deployed - they'll use the best. It's a bizarre framing of the results that make it look a lot less effective, when it's about the same as the others with the optimum dosing strategy.
mRNA vaccines don't alter DNA - they merely hijack cellular machinery to produce copies of the spike protein.
Interesting editorial choices.
Vacuous crap.
Have a good day everyone
Additional: sounds like some people think it's actually better than 70%, but I haven't looked into the arguments for that yet, so treat as a placeholder.
And in any event, far too little data (especially considering the half dose regime) to say that the Pfizer vaccine is three times as effective.
Being single stranded, RNA is less stable and more prone to mutation, so perhaps an evolutionary advantage for a virus.
We backed every horse - it's simply that we don't have any domestic companies with the mRNA technology. Be grateful that we have the Oxford vaccine - it puts us in a far better position than most countries.
As for your massive push, you won't get the choice.
We backed the best in class in each technological approach.
Turns out mRNA is more efficacious than the Jenner approach (but also has significant disadvantages).
It’s called the “portfolio effect”
Question - is the game plan that a massive spike in January will distract everyone away from the Brexit fiasco? People will be too busy ill/dying/mourning to get angry that they can't get fresh food in the supermarkets?
If not, then why allow it? Shagger "Battling the scientists to save Christmas" say the newspapers. Save it from what - the science that lifting restrictions for 5 days will kill a whole pile of people?
We could learn a lot from South Korea, India, Japan, Iran. Both in terms of good and poor practice.
But Charles said the vaccines mess with genetic information; they don't.
Ditto Covid.
The key question for many is which vaccine contains which mind control microchip. I am not sure the Dido Harding mind control system has been fully tested.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/03/spark-therapeutics-luxturna-gene-therapy-will-cost-about-850000.html
Get one major approval and then file with everyone else
Moderna had been working on mRNA therapeutics, and the associated manufacturing and delivery technology for years (which failed, before they shifted to vaccine development).
My point, which I've made before, is that, in an emergency, governments have to back what's already there. You can put in place the infrastructure for next time around, but it takes much longer to build from scratch.
Why is that? Borders and Care Homes are the two biggies - the maliciously stupid decisions that killed thousands. Shut the border and impose quarantine. Don't force care homes to take Covid-unknown and Covid-positive patients back into the home. Binary decisions. Got wrong.
It's not a question of blame - we invested in a very serious effort and normally 70% would be a great result. Ity turns out that something else would be even better, but that's nobody's fault. What would be totally unacceptable would be to push out the Oxford vaccine now without further testing of the new hypothesis. Let's use the Pfizer/Modema vaccine for now.
Hopefully this damn menace will soon be over.
What worries me is that by April a few countries (UK, US, Japan, Canada) will have their effective R down to 0 due to vaccination programmes. Where does that leave other vaccone candidates. Between these three there is around 2bn in global manufacturing capacity, that's nowhere near enough to see the back of this virus. We need other credible candidates to come through and I can only see J&J as having the ability to complete a PIII trial because they've already started during a second wave, loads of countries won't have a third wave.
There's no need to wait for a trial to be repeated of the better dosing regime.
Quite reasonable to roll out while awaiting the 2 stage trial result.
I agree that changing the outcome measure after looking at the data is not good science.