What’s Trump really up to? – politicalbetting.com

Nigel_Foremain said:

kjh said:

Oh for goodness sake the BBC are saying just about every 5 seconds now and with a banner on the screen that the vaccine is 70 to 90 effective and even saying it is 70% effective but with the 0.5 and 1 dose is 90% effective.

No it is 62 to 90% effective or rises from 62% to 90% with the 0.5/1 dose.

How can they be so useless and cause so much confusion.

Certainly been a bit of a PR disaster for AZ and Oxford. You cannot blame the BBC for reporting the line they have been given by AZ or Oxford (most likely the latter).

So here is the reality, the AZ/Oxford news is REALLY good news. Even if it is 70% efficacious that is still very good, and we should not have issues with supply. If we can vaccinate most of the population with a 70% effective vaccine it is game over for Mr. Covid. As the great woman once said "Just rejoice at that news"!

Stocky said:

kjh said:

Stocky said:

70% or 90% - get that needle in my arm.

Your doing this to wind me up aren't you?

62% or 90%

If it`s 62%, that`s fine, just give me a bit extra to top me up to 90%.

Nigel_Foremain said:

Theuniondivvie said:

MrEd said:

Theuniondivvie said:

MrEd said:

Theuniondivvie said:

MrEd said:

kjh said:

On topic: They must not give Trump a deal. It is the easy option, but it is wrong. It is not only morally wrong it is strategically wrong for the long term.

Any would be dictator needs to know that if they fail the consequences will be harsh (and that goes for people who knowingly facilitated him/her).

Trump has come perilously close to succeeding.

If you prosecute him, all that will happen is that he will be seen as a martyr and reinforce his support.

It will also guarantee that the Republicans will seek to prosecute Biden on whatever grounds when he finishes being President, especially as Trump didn't seek to prosecute Clinton.

GOP lawyers attempting to 'prosecute' Biden should be a good laugh if the quality of their current shenanigans is anything to go by.

If they take control of the House in 2022 and keep the Senate, expect payback for the impeachment hearings.

https://twitter.com/thomasforth/status/1329905159976218625?s=20

Oh, she sounds nuts.

But not that much different from the whole post-2016 "Russia, Russia, Russia" narrative.

And I don't think we have reached this point with Sidney Powell as we did with Robert Mueller. Then there were some fanatical devotees:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/magazine/muellers-report-is-done-is-there-still-a-point-in-having-a-prayer-candle-with-his-image-on-it/2019/05/10/f8aecd98-6506-11e9-a1b6-b29b90efa879_story.html

Do you think Putin's Russia interferes with foreign elections or not? I think they do, and even if they didn't that Trump winning in 2016 was an optimum result for them. I believe Trump winning again would have been optimum for them, the current imbroglio is second best and a Biden landslide would definitely not have turned Vlad's frown upside down. Whether they expended any resources on making stuff happen is a separate issue.

No doubt he is no focussing his attention on the next Scottish Independence referendum. He just loves you Nats and your divisive agendas! How useful are you feeling?

Nigelb said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

kjh said:

Oh for goodness sake the BBC are saying just about every 5 seconds now and with a banner on the screen that the vaccine is 70 to 90 effective and even saying it is 70% effective but with the 0.5 and 1 dose is 90% effective.

No it is 62 to 90% effective or rises from 62% to 90% with the 0.5/1 dose.

How can they be so useless and cause so much confusion.

Certainly been a bit of a PR disaster for AZ and Oxford. You cannot blame the BBC for reporting the line they have been given by AZ or Oxford (most likely the latter).

So here is the reality, the AZ/Oxford news is REALLY good news. Even if it is 70% efficacious that is still very good, and we should not have issues with supply. If we can vaccinate most of the population with a 70% effective vaccine it is game over for Mr. Covid. As the great woman once said "Just rejoice at that news"!

Probably as they were prioritising getting the results out as fast as possible, rather than spending time on how best to spin them. It's a minor problem rather than a disaster.

And there will be further announcements as the rest of the data is processed (and as more results come in - remember they will still be recording any cases which happened after the cutoff date on the 4th November for this report).

FrancisUrquhart said:

Mexicanpete said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Mexicanpete said:

rottenborough said:

No doubt it was "fantastic"

https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1330848824743616512

Can we call it the "Boris vaccine"?

The Johnson Jab....

It is only fair, I saw him in the lab, in his lab-coat inventing it, not six weeks ago.

Actually first weaker dose, the Johnson Jab, the full strength one, the Boris Booster...

contrarian said:

glw said:

MrEd said:

Gallowgate said:

MrEd said:

Theuniondivvie said:

MrEd said:

Theuniondivvie said:

MrEd said:

kjh said:

On topic: They must not give Trump a deal. It is the easy option, but it is wrong. It is not only morally wrong it is strategically wrong for the long term.

Any would be dictator needs to know that if they fail the consequences will be harsh (and that goes for people who knowingly facilitated him/her).

Trump has come perilously close to succeeding.

If you prosecute him, all that will happen is that he will be seen as a martyr and reinforce his support.

It will also guarantee that the Republicans will seek to prosecute Biden on whatever grounds when he finishes being President, especially as Trump didn't seek to prosecute Clinton.

GOP lawyers attempting to 'prosecute' Biden should be a good laugh if the quality of their current shenanigans is anything to go by.

If they take control of the House in 2022 and keep the Senate, expect payback for the impeachment hearings.

https://twitter.com/thomasforth/status/1329905159976218625?s=20

Oh, she sounds nuts.

But not that much different from the whole post-2016 "Russia, Russia, Russia" narrative.

And I don't think we have reached this point with Sidney Powell as we did with Robert Mueller. Then there were some fanatical devotees:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/magazine/muellers-report-is-done-is-there-still-a-point-in-having-a-prayer-candle-with-his-image-on-it/2019/05/10/f8aecd98-6506-11e9-a1b6-b29b90efa879_story.html

I mean it is different, as Russia *did* interfere with the 2016 election. But don't let facts get in the way of a good narrative, as usual.

Oh God, you seriously don't believe that sh1t do you?

So you think the Special Counsel, the entire US intelligence community, and various parts of Congress are all lying?

Do you also think that the Dutch and UK governments who tipped off the US are also lying?

Evidence that would hold up in court, came there none....

DecrepiterJohnL said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

RobD said:

MaxPB said:

The BBC article on it is absolutely terrible, this in particular is factually incorrect:

"Are the results disappointing?
After Pfizer and Moderna both produced vaccines delivering 95% protection from Covid-19, a figure of 70% is still highly effective, but will be seen by some as relatively disappointing.

But this is still a vaccine that can save lives from Covid-19 and is more effective than a seasonal flu jab."

It's not 70%, its 62% and 90% for the two dosage variations and as we've discussed here the 90% variation includes testing for asymptomatic cases where neither of the other two trials did that.

I'd be surprised if whoever wrote that could put their own clothes on in the morning.

The journalist who wrote that supposedly has a degree in Biology....face palm. Obviously missed the modules that covered reading scientific papers of real world medical trials.

Blame AZ's PR department for not writing clear press releases, not the BBC or other news organisations. What AZ says in scientific papers is not the issue here.

https://www.astrazeneca.com/media-centre/press-releases/2020/azd1222hlr.html

MaxPB said:

Flatlander said:

Even there 'here comes the science bit' article is wrong:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-51665497

It says that the Oxford vaccine is '70% effective at preventing Covid symptoms'. NO!!!

It's just so infuriating. We have a potentially incredible vaccine designed and manufactured in the UK and the BBC are completely fucking it up.

I'm really looking forwards to seeing the final data readouts from it and if that 90% figure holds up and what proportion of those who recorded infections were asymptomatic.

LostPassword said:

MaxPB said:

Flatlander said:

Even there 'here comes the science bit' article is wrong:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-51665497

It says that the Oxford vaccine is '70% effective at preventing Covid symptoms'. NO!!!

It's just so infuriating. We have a potentially incredible vaccine designed and manufactured in the UK and the BBC are completely fucking it up.

I'm really looking forwards to seeing the final data readouts from it and if that 90% figure holds up and what proportion of those who recorded infections were asymptomatic.

I'm particularly reassured that they did weekly testing of the trial participants, which gives me a lot more confidence than with the other vaccines.

I fear that the 70% figure will stick, and the idea that we're being given a substandard vaccine will spread, when it might actually be more effective than the others if you do a like-for-like comparison.

rottenborough said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

Mexicanpete said:

Andy_JS said:

"Labour has lost members at a rate of nearly 250 a day since Sir Keir Starmer was elected last spring, with supporters of Jeremy Corbyn leading an exodus from the party.

Membership fell by just under 57,000 people, or 10 per cent, between April and November, according to official figures from its internal elections.

It is the first time that party figures have shown Labour’s membership falling below half a million since 2016, when Mr Corbyn’s leadership prompted a surge of new members."

(£)

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/labour-exodus-in-protest-at-suspension-of-jeremy-corbyn-cnnkzqp97

Bye, bye! They, along with Corbyn are all welcome to join the Conservatives, they delivered them an 80 seat majority after all.

I think most of them have gone Green

I don't care what colour they are, they are all idiots!

Aren't these people of all opinions who are skint now in lockdown economics and so aren't renewing?

Nigel_Foremain said:

HYUFD said:

Andy_JS said:

"Labour has lost members at a rate of nearly 250 a day since Sir Keir Starmer was elected last spring, with supporters of Jeremy Corbyn leading an exodus from the party.

Membership fell by just under 57,000 people, or 10 per cent, between April and November, according to official figures from its internal elections.

It is the first time that party figures have shown Labour’s membership falling below half a million since 2016, when Mr Corbyn’s leadership prompted a surge of new members."

(£)

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/labour-exodus-in-protest-at-suspension-of-jeremy-corbyn-cnnkzqp97

Given Corbyn led Labour to its worst defeat since 1935 last year we can probably safely say that an increase in Labour membership is inversely correlated to its appeal to swing voters, so that might actually be good news for Starmer

One day hopefully the Tories might find a way to get rid of their own swiveleyed entryists from the BNP/UKIP/Brexit parties and we might see a return to a choice between two parties that are actually serious about competent government.

Philip_Thompson said:

"All UK adults could be vaccinated by the Spring" just quoted on BBC News.

Theuniondivvie said:

contrarian said:

Theuniondivvie said:

MrEd said:

Theuniondivvie said:

MrEd said:

Theuniondivvie said:

MrEd said:

kjh said:

On topic: They must not give Trump a deal. It is the easy option, but it is wrong. It is not only morally wrong it is strategically wrong for the long term.

Any would be dictator needs to know that if they fail the consequences will be harsh (and that goes for people who knowingly facilitated him/her).

Trump has come perilously close to succeeding.

If you prosecute him, all that will happen is that he will be seen as a martyr and reinforce his support.

It will also guarantee that the Republicans will seek to prosecute Biden on whatever grounds when he finishes being President, especially as Trump didn't seek to prosecute Clinton.

GOP lawyers attempting to 'prosecute' Biden should be a good laugh if the quality of their current shenanigans is anything to go by.

If they take control of the House in 2022 and keep the Senate, expect payback for the impeachment hearings.

https://twitter.com/thomasforth/status/1329905159976218625?s=20

Oh, she sounds nuts.

But not that much different from the whole post-2016 "Russia, Russia, Russia" narrative.

And I don't think we have reached this point with Sidney Powell as we did with Robert Mueller. Then there were some fanatical devotees:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/magazine/muellers-report-is-done-is-there-still-a-point-in-having-a-prayer-candle-with-his-image-on-it/2019/05/10/f8aecd98-6506-11e9-a1b6-b29b90efa879_story.html

Do you think Putin's Russia interferes with foreign elections or not? I think they do, and even if they didn't that Trump winning in 2016 was an optimum result for them. I believe Trump winning again would have been optimum for them, the current imbroglio is second best and a Biden landslide would definitely not have turned Vlad's frown upside down. Whether they expended any resources on making stuff happen is a separate issue.

You find it difficult to believe Russia doesn;t interfere with foreign elections, even though there isn;t much evidence.

I find it difficult to believe a total no-mark candidate got ten million more votes than the brilliant and charismatic first black president of America, even though right now there isn;t much evidence.

Your double negatives and misuse of semi colons is making your stuff even more unreadable than usual. The idea of you thinking Obama is brillant and charismatic is a good laff tho'.

Philip_Thompson said:

contrarian said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

HYUFD said:

Andy_JS said:

"Labour has lost members at a rate of nearly 250 a day since Sir Keir Starmer was elected last spring, with supporters of Jeremy Corbyn leading an exodus from the party.

Membership fell by just under 57,000 people, or 10 per cent, between April and November, according to official figures from its internal elections.

It is the first time that party figures have shown Labour’s membership falling below half a million since 2016, when Mr Corbyn’s leadership prompted a surge of new members."

(£)

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/labour-exodus-in-protest-at-suspension-of-jeremy-corbyn-cnnkzqp97

Given Corbyn led Labour to its worst defeat since 1935 last year we can probably safely say that an increase in Labour membership is inversely correlated to its appeal to swing voters, so that might actually be good news for Starmer

One day hopefully the Tories might find a way to get rid of their own swiveleyed entryists from the BNP/UKIP/Brexit parties and we might see a return to a choice between two parties that are actually serious about competent government.

We've had two gargantuan recessions in the space of not much more than a decade. 2008 and 2020. In both cases both mainstream parties more or less agreed with the policies that led to these, completely free of entryism.

Entryism is thriving because of the regular giant pile-ups so called 'competent government' is creating. As Trump himself said, I am here because you guys messed up so badly.

The government did not create COVID19.

contrarian said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

HYUFD said:

Andy_JS said:

"Labour has lost members at a rate of nearly 250 a day since Sir Keir Starmer was elected last spring, with supporters of Jeremy Corbyn leading an exodus from the party.

Membership fell by just under 57,000 people, or 10 per cent, between April and November, according to official figures from its internal elections.

It is the first time that party figures have shown Labour’s membership falling below half a million since 2016, when Mr Corbyn’s leadership prompted a surge of new members."

(£)

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/labour-exodus-in-protest-at-suspension-of-jeremy-corbyn-cnnkzqp97

Given Corbyn led Labour to its worst defeat since 1935 last year we can probably safely say that an increase in Labour membership is inversely correlated to its appeal to swing voters, so that might actually be good news for Starmer

One day hopefully the Tories might find a way to get rid of their own swiveleyed entryists from the BNP/UKIP/Brexit parties and we might see a return to a choice between two parties that are actually serious about competent government.

We've had two gargantuan recessions in the space of not much more than a decade. 2008 and 2020. In both cases both mainstream parties more or less agreed with the policies that led to these, completely free of entryism.

Entryism is thriving because of the regular giant pile-ups so called 'competent government' is creating. As Trump himself said, I am here because you guys messed up so badly.

FrancisUrquhart said:

LostPassword said:

MaxPB said:

Flatlander said:

Even there 'here comes the science bit' article is wrong:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-51665497

It says that the Oxford vaccine is '70% effective at preventing Covid symptoms'. NO!!!

It's just so infuriating. We have a potentially incredible vaccine designed and manufactured in the UK and the BBC are completely fucking it up.

I'm really looking forwards to seeing the final data readouts from it and if that 90% figure holds up and what proportion of those who recorded infections were asymptomatic.

I'm particularly reassured that they did weekly testing of the trial participants, which gives me a lot more confidence than with the other vaccines.

I fear that the 70% figure will stick, and the idea that we're being given a substandard vaccine will spread, when it might actually be more effective than the others if you do a like-for-like comparison.

Top of the summary on BBC News website...still...

"A coronavirus vaccine developed by the University of Oxford stops 70% of people from developing symptoms, a large-scale trial shows. Other vaccines showed 95% protection but the Oxford jab is cheaper and easier to store and distribute."

WRONG, WRONG, MFing WRONG on several counts in 2 f##king sentences.

MaxPB said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

LostPassword said:

MaxPB said:

Flatlander said:

Even there 'here comes the science bit' article is wrong:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-51665497

It says that the Oxford vaccine is '70% effective at preventing Covid symptoms'. NO!!!

It's just so infuriating. We have a potentially incredible vaccine designed and manufactured in the UK and the BBC are completely fucking it up.

I'm really looking forwards to seeing the final data readouts from it and if that 90% figure holds up and what proportion of those who recorded infections were asymptomatic.

I'm particularly reassured that they did weekly testing of the trial participants, which gives me a lot more confidence than with the other vaccines.

I fear that the 70% figure will stick, and the idea that we're being given a substandard vaccine will spread, when it might actually be more effective than the others if you do a like-for-like comparison.

Top of the summary on BBC News website...still...

"A coronavirus vaccine developed by the University of Oxford stops 70% of people from developing symptoms, a large-scale trial shows. Other vaccines showed 95% protection but the Oxford jab is cheaper and easier to store and distribute."

WRONG, WRONG, MFing WRONG on several counts in 2 f##king sentences.

That's actually fake news on the BBC. The trial tested for asymptomatic infection as well and symptomatic. Honestly, this is completely undermining what should be a massive piece of good news in the fight against the virus here and elsewhere in the world.

contrarian said:

Philip_Thompson said:

contrarian said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

HYUFD said:

Andy_JS said:

"Labour has lost members at a rate of nearly 250 a day since Sir Keir Starmer was elected last spring, with supporters of Jeremy Corbyn leading an exodus from the party.

Membership fell by just under 57,000 people, or 10 per cent, between April and November, according to official figures from its internal elections.

It is the first time that party figures have shown Labour’s membership falling below half a million since 2016, when Mr Corbyn’s leadership prompted a surge of new members."

(£)

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/labour-exodus-in-protest-at-suspension-of-jeremy-corbyn-cnnkzqp97

Given Corbyn led Labour to its worst defeat since 1935 last year we can probably safely say that an increase in Labour membership is inversely correlated to its appeal to swing voters, so that might actually be good news for Starmer

One day hopefully the Tories might find a way to get rid of their own swiveleyed entryists from the BNP/UKIP/Brexit parties and we might see a return to a choice between two parties that are actually serious about competent government.

We've had two gargantuan recessions in the space of not much more than a decade. 2008 and 2020. In both cases both mainstream parties more or less agreed with the policies that led to these, completely free of entryism.

Entryism is thriving because of the regular giant pile-ups so called 'competent government' is creating. As Trump himself said, I am here because you guys messed up so badly.

The government did not create COVID19.

Indeed but it created the response to it. And it still does. The UK will shrink by 11% this year, probably. Many countries will get away with a smaller rate of contraction.

IshmaelZ said:

MaxPB said:

IshmaelZ said:

MaxPB said:

IshmaelZ said:

RobD said:

MaxPB said:

IshmaelZ said:

It seems to me that the press have had the temerity to accept what Oxford told them, and add the outrageous spin that 70 is not as big a number as 90. Primary end points are primary end points, guys, and you stick to protocols or what is the point of them. What has happened this morning is that the government has been on the scientists' case and told them to TONE DOWN the science and numeracy in favour of telling people what they want to hear. It is bizarre that this is being championed as a triumph of statistical literacy.

There's a distinction though, the trial was 70% effective across two modes. One had 62% efficacy and one had 90% efficacy. The vaccine that will come to market will be based on the 90% efficacy mode, therefore the vaccine has 90% efficacy. That's why the 90% figure is what should be shouted from the rooftops, more than happy for the 62% to be put out there as well, the 70% figure is actually a statistical phantom because there is no vaccine dosage that will give 70% efficacy.

You really expect British journalists to be able to understand something that nuanced?

It isn't just nuanced, it is plain wrong. Where is anyone getting "The vaccine that will come to market will be based on the 90% efficacy mode" from, when what Pollard said is

"Prof Andrew Pollard, the trial's lead investigator, said he was "really pleased" with the results as "it means we have a vaccine for the world".

However, protection was 90% in an analysis of around 3,000 people given a half-sized first dose and a full-sized second dose.

Prof Pollard said the finding was "intriguing" and would mean "we would have a lot more doses to distribute.""

"intriguing" means "requires further investigation" and "would" means conditionally on the results of investigation.

Wishful thinking is great, but this ooh I know more about science than professional science journalists stuff is less so.

What has actually happened is this: the 62% outcome is the only outcome Oxford can legitimately report *according to the rules of their own trial*. The 90% one is obviously better, but not reportable, but rather than pass over it altogether they tried to fudge it into the stats with the 70% average figure. That may be a nonsense figure, but if so why put it out there at all?

Actually the Prof said they will be submitting the 90% mode to the MHRA. The 90% mode is what the vaccine will be.

In which case he has changed his mind since this morning, which is what I was saying. "Would" means something different from "will."

But the half/full mode is statistically significant and it will be submitted for regulatory approval. I don't understand what point you're trying to make here.

That you are, bluntly, making up the facts while giving it large about how hopelessly unscientific the rest of the world is. "Excitingly, we’ve found that one of our dosing regimens may be around 90% effective and if this dosing regime is used, more people could be vaccinated with planned vaccine supply." Pollard. "The vaccine that will come to market will be based on the 90% efficacy mode." You. Are those saying the same thing or different things?

MaxPB said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

MaxPB said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

LostPassword said:

MaxPB said:

Flatlander said:

Even there 'here comes the science bit' article is wrong:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-51665497

It says that the Oxford vaccine is '70% effective at preventing Covid symptoms'. NO!!!

It's just so infuriating. We have a potentially incredible vaccine designed and manufactured in the UK and the BBC are completely fucking it up.

I'm really looking forwards to seeing the final data readouts from it and if that 90% figure holds up and what proportion of those who recorded infections were asymptomatic.

I'm particularly reassured that they did weekly testing of the trial participants, which gives me a lot more confidence than with the other vaccines.

I fear that the 70% figure will stick, and the idea that we're being given a substandard vaccine will spread, when it might actually be more effective than the others if you do a like-for-like comparison.

Top of the summary on BBC News website...still...

"A coronavirus vaccine developed by the University of Oxford stops 70% of people from developing symptoms, a large-scale trial shows. Other vaccines showed 95% protection but the Oxford jab is cheaper and easier to store and distribute."

WRONG, WRONG, MFing WRONG on several counts in 2 f##king sentences.

That's actually fake news on the BBC. The trial tested for asymptomatic infection as well and symptomatic. Honestly, this is completely undermining what should be a massive piece of good news in the fight against the virus here and elsewhere in the world.

The thing is as well, it won't get corrected and will get shared via social media like the £42bn on moonshot bollocks....and the thing is because of it being so cheap and easy to store, this will be THE vaccine for places like Africa, and it will be all too easy for anti-vax fake news to be spread using real links to the likes of the BBC.

They seem to want to push the narrative of this being a less good but cheaper vaccine. That's the sense I get from reading their coverage of it. It's incredibly irresponsible and the DG needs to be summoned to Downing Street to explain what they're thinking.

contrarian said:

glw said:

MrEd said:

Gallowgate said:

MrEd said:

Theuniondivvie said:

MrEd said:

Theuniondivvie said:

MrEd said:

kjh said:

On topic: They must not give Trump a deal. It is the easy option, but it is wrong. It is not only morally wrong it is strategically wrong for the long term.

Any would be dictator needs to know that if they fail the consequences will be harsh (and that goes for people who knowingly facilitated him/her).

Trump has come perilously close to succeeding.

If you prosecute him, all that will happen is that he will be seen as a martyr and reinforce his support.

It will also guarantee that the Republicans will seek to prosecute Biden on whatever grounds when he finishes being President, especially as Trump didn't seek to prosecute Clinton.

GOP lawyers attempting to 'prosecute' Biden should be a good laugh if the quality of their current shenanigans is anything to go by.

If they take control of the House in 2022 and keep the Senate, expect payback for the impeachment hearings.

https://twitter.com/thomasforth/status/1329905159976218625?s=20

Oh, she sounds nuts.

But not that much different from the whole post-2016 "Russia, Russia, Russia" narrative.

And I don't think we have reached this point with Sidney Powell as we did with Robert Mueller. Then there were some fanatical devotees:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/magazine/muellers-report-is-done-is-there-still-a-point-in-having-a-prayer-candle-with-his-image-on-it/2019/05/10/f8aecd98-6506-11e9-a1b6-b29b90efa879_story.html

I mean it is different, as Russia *did* interfere with the 2016 election. But don't let facts get in the way of a good narrative, as usual.

Oh God, you seriously don't believe that sh1t do you?

So you think the Special Counsel, the entire US intelligence community, and various parts of Congress are all lying?

Do you also think that the Dutch and UK governments who tipped off the US are also lying?

Evidence that would hold up in court, came there none....

contrarian said:

glw said:

MrEd said:

Gallowgate said:

MrEd said:

Theuniondivvie said:

MrEd said:

Theuniondivvie said:

MrEd said:

kjh said:

On topic: They must not give Trump a deal. It is the easy option, but it is wrong. It is not only morally wrong it is strategically wrong for the long term.

Any would be dictator needs to know that if they fail the consequences will be harsh (and that goes for people who knowingly facilitated him/her).

Trump has come perilously close to succeeding.

If you prosecute him, all that will happen is that he will be seen as a martyr and reinforce his support.

It will also guarantee that the Republicans will seek to prosecute Biden on whatever grounds when he finishes being President, especially as Trump didn't seek to prosecute Clinton.

GOP lawyers attempting to 'prosecute' Biden should be a good laugh if the quality of their current shenanigans is anything to go by.

If they take control of the House in 2022 and keep the Senate, expect payback for the impeachment hearings.

https://twitter.com/thomasforth/status/1329905159976218625?s=20

Oh, she sounds nuts.

But not that much different from the whole post-2016 "Russia, Russia, Russia" narrative.

And I don't think we have reached this point with Sidney Powell as we did with Robert Mueller. Then there were some fanatical devotees:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/magazine/muellers-report-is-done-is-there-still-a-point-in-having-a-prayer-candle-with-his-image-on-it/2019/05/10/f8aecd98-6506-11e9-a1b6-b29b90efa879_story.html

I mean it is different, as Russia *did* interfere with the 2016 election. But don't let facts get in the way of a good narrative, as usual.

Oh God, you seriously don't believe that sh1t do you?

So you think the Special Counsel, the entire US intelligence community, and various parts of Congress are all lying?

Do you also think that the Dutch and UK governments who tipped off the US are also lying?

Evidence that would hold up in court, came there none....

FrancisUrquhart said:

Can we get Poundland back open ASAP...

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8977215/Moment-maskless-woman-SPITS-cashier-Waitrose.html

Theuniondivvie said:

CarlottaVance said:

Runs screaming from the room......

https://twitter.com/steve_hawkes/status/1330810143802601472?s=20

Just a little prick, you say?

FrancisUrquhart said:

Gallowgate said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Can we get Poundland back open ASAP...

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8977215/Moment-maskless-woman-SPITS-cashier-Waitrose.html

Poundland is open.

Is it...I didn't know that....you can tell I am a regular shopper there.

IshmaelZ said:

MaxPB said:

IshmaelZ said:

MaxPB said:

IshmaelZ said:

RobD said:

MaxPB said:

IshmaelZ said:

It seems to me that the press have had the temerity to accept what Oxford told them, and add the outrageous spin that 70 is not as big a number as 90. Primary end points are primary end points, guys, and you stick to protocols or what is the point of them. What has happened this morning is that the government has been on the scientists' case and told them to TONE DOWN the science and numeracy in favour of telling people what they want to hear. It is bizarre that this is being championed as a triumph of statistical literacy.

There's a distinction though, the trial was 70% effective across two modes. One had 62% efficacy and one had 90% efficacy. The vaccine that will come to market will be based on the 90% efficacy mode, therefore the vaccine has 90% efficacy. That's why the 90% figure is what should be shouted from the rooftops, more than happy for the 62% to be put out there as well, the 70% figure is actually a statistical phantom because there is no vaccine dosage that will give 70% efficacy.

You really expect British journalists to be able to understand something that nuanced?

It isn't just nuanced, it is plain wrong. Where is anyone getting "The vaccine that will come to market will be based on the 90% efficacy mode" from, when what Pollard said is

"Prof Andrew Pollard, the trial's lead investigator, said he was "really pleased" with the results as "it means we have a vaccine for the world".

However, protection was 90% in an analysis of around 3,000 people given a half-sized first dose and a full-sized second dose.

Prof Pollard said the finding was "intriguing" and would mean "we would have a lot more doses to distribute.""

"intriguing" means "requires further investigation" and "would" means conditionally on the results of investigation.

Wishful thinking is great, but this ooh I know more about science than professional science journalists stuff is less so.

What has actually happened is this: the 62% outcome is the only outcome Oxford can legitimately report *according to the rules of their own trial*. The 90% one is obviously better, but not reportable, but rather than pass over it altogether they tried to fudge it into the stats with the 70% average figure. That may be a nonsense figure, but if so why put it out there at all?

Actually the Prof said they will be submitting the 90% mode to the MHRA. The 90% mode is what the vaccine will be.

In which case he has changed his mind since this morning, which is what I was saying. "Would" means something different from "will."

But the half/full mode is statistically significant and it will be submitted for regulatory approval. I don't understand what point you're trying to make here.

That you are, bluntly, making up the facts while giving it large about how hopelessly unscientific the rest of the world is. "Excitingly, we’ve found that one of our dosing regimens may be around 90% effective and if this dosing regime is used, more people could be vaccinated with planned vaccine supply." Pollard. "The vaccine that will come to market will be based on the 90% efficacy mode." You. Are those saying the same thing or different things?

RobD said:

Theuniondivvie said:

CarlottaVance said:

Runs screaming from the room......

https://twitter.com/steve_hawkes/status/1330810143802601472?s=20

Just a little prick, you say?

A little one followed by a slightly bigger one was found to be more effective.

kamski said:

contrarian said:

glw said:

MrEd said:

Gallowgate said:

MrEd said:

Theuniondivvie said:

MrEd said:

Theuniondivvie said:

MrEd said:

kjh said:

On topic: They must not give Trump a deal. It is the easy option, but it is wrong. It is not only morally wrong it is strategically wrong for the long term.

Any would be dictator needs to know that if they fail the consequences will be harsh (and that goes for people who knowingly facilitated him/her).

Trump has come perilously close to succeeding.

If you prosecute him, all that will happen is that he will be seen as a martyr and reinforce his support.

It will also guarantee that the Republicans will seek to prosecute Biden on whatever grounds when he finishes being President, especially as Trump didn't seek to prosecute Clinton.

GOP lawyers attempting to 'prosecute' Biden should be a good laugh if the quality of their current shenanigans is anything to go by.

If they take control of the House in 2022 and keep the Senate, expect payback for the impeachment hearings.

https://twitter.com/thomasforth/status/1329905159976218625?s=20

Oh, she sounds nuts.

But not that much different from the whole post-2016 "Russia, Russia, Russia" narrative.

And I don't think we have reached this point with Sidney Powell as we did with Robert Mueller. Then there were some fanatical devotees:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/magazine/muellers-report-is-done-is-there-still-a-point-in-having-a-prayer-candle-with-his-image-on-it/2019/05/10/f8aecd98-6506-11e9-a1b6-b29b90efa879_story.html

I mean it is different, as Russia *did* interfere with the 2016 election. But don't let facts get in the way of a good narrative, as usual.

Oh God, you seriously don't believe that sh1t do you?

So you think the Special Counsel, the entire US intelligence community, and various parts of Congress are all lying?

Do you also think that the Dutch and UK governments who tipped off the US are also lying?

Evidence that would hold up in court, came there none....

contrarian said:

glw said:

MrEd said:

Gallowgate said:

MrEd said:

Theuniondivvie said:

MrEd said:

Theuniondivvie said:

MrEd said:

kjh said:

On topic: They must not give Trump a deal. It is the easy option, but it is wrong. It is not only morally wrong it is strategically wrong for the long term.

Any would be dictator needs to know that if they fail the consequences will be harsh (and that goes for people who knowingly facilitated him/her).

Trump has come perilously close to succeeding.

If you prosecute him, all that will happen is that he will be seen as a martyr and reinforce his support.

It will also guarantee that the Republicans will seek to prosecute Biden on whatever grounds when he finishes being President, especially as Trump didn't seek to prosecute Clinton.

GOP lawyers attempting to 'prosecute' Biden should be a good laugh if the quality of their current shenanigans is anything to go by.

If they take control of the House in 2022 and keep the Senate, expect payback for the impeachment hearings.

https://twitter.com/thomasforth/status/1329905159976218625?s=20

Oh, she sounds nuts.

But not that much different from the whole post-2016 "Russia, Russia, Russia" narrative.

And I don't think we have reached this point with Sidney Powell as we did with Robert Mueller. Then there were some fanatical devotees:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/magazine/muellers-report-is-done-is-there-still-a-point-in-having-a-prayer-candle-with-his-image-on-it/2019/05/10/f8aecd98-6506-11e9-a1b6-b29b90efa879_story.html

I mean it is different, as Russia *did* interfere with the 2016 election. But don't let facts get in the way of a good narrative, as usual.

Oh God, you seriously don't believe that sh1t do you?

So you think the Special Counsel, the entire US intelligence community, and various parts of Congress are all lying?

Do you also think that the Dutch and UK governments who tipped off the US are also lying?

Evidence that would hold up in court, came there none....

Of course that's not true. Do you really believe the crap you write or are you just a wind-up merchant?

contrarian said:

BluestBlue said:

contrarian said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

HYUFD said:

Andy_JS said:

"Labour has lost members at a rate of nearly 250 a day since Sir Keir Starmer was elected last spring, with supporters of Jeremy Corbyn leading an exodus from the party.

Membership fell by just under 57,000 people, or 10 per cent, between April and November, according to official figures from its internal elections.

It is the first time that party figures have shown Labour’s membership falling below half a million since 2016, when Mr Corbyn’s leadership prompted a surge of new members."

(£)

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/labour-exodus-in-protest-at-suspension-of-jeremy-corbyn-cnnkzqp97

Given Corbyn led Labour to its worst defeat since 1935 last year we can probably safely say that an increase in Labour membership is inversely correlated to its appeal to swing voters, so that might actually be good news for Starmer

One day hopefully the Tories might find a way to get rid of their own swiveleyed entryists from the BNP/UKIP/Brexit parties and we might see a return to a choice between two parties that are actually serious about competent government.

We've had two gargantuan recessions in the space of not much more than a decade. 2008 and 2020. In both cases both mainstream parties more or less agreed with the policies that led to these, completely free of entryism.

Entryism is thriving because of the regular giant pile-ups so called 'competent government' is creating. As Trump himself said, I am here because you guys messed up so badly.

And now he's gone because he messed up so badly. This was a thoroughly winnable election for him, but he committed one unforced error after another this year.

Not to mention that his pro-Wall Street staff and policies are indistinguishable from those that led to the 2008 crash, so I'm not sure how things would have been different under him.

Our economy will shrink ten per cent plus this year and our debt will soar. We will bear the scars for decades.

America are looking at a three per cent contraction.

Theuniondivvie said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Theuniondivvie said:

MrEd said:

Theuniondivvie said:

MrEd said:

Theuniondivvie said:

MrEd said:

kjh said:

On topic: They must not give Trump a deal. It is the easy option, but it is wrong. It is not only morally wrong it is strategically wrong for the long term.

Any would be dictator needs to know that if they fail the consequences will be harsh (and that goes for people who knowingly facilitated him/her).

Trump has come perilously close to succeeding.

If you prosecute him, all that will happen is that he will be seen as a martyr and reinforce his support.

It will also guarantee that the Republicans will seek to prosecute Biden on whatever grounds when he finishes being President, especially as Trump didn't seek to prosecute Clinton.

GOP lawyers attempting to 'prosecute' Biden should be a good laugh if the quality of their current shenanigans is anything to go by.

If they take control of the House in 2022 and keep the Senate, expect payback for the impeachment hearings.

https://twitter.com/thomasforth/status/1329905159976218625?s=20

Oh, she sounds nuts.

But not that much different from the whole post-2016 "Russia, Russia, Russia" narrative.

And I don't think we have reached this point with Sidney Powell as we did with Robert Mueller. Then there were some fanatical devotees:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/magazine/muellers-report-is-done-is-there-still-a-point-in-having-a-prayer-candle-with-his-image-on-it/2019/05/10/f8aecd98-6506-11e9-a1b6-b29b90efa879_story.html

Do you think Putin's Russia interferes with foreign elections or not? I think they do, and even if they didn't that Trump winning in 2016 was an optimum result for them. I believe Trump winning again would have been optimum for them, the current imbroglio is second best and a Biden landslide would definitely not have turned Vlad's frown upside down. Whether they expended any resources on making stuff happen is a separate issue.

No doubt he is no focussing his attention on the next Scottish Independence referendum. He just loves you Nats and your divisive agendas! How useful are you feeling?

'Cameron's plea to Putin: help me stop Salmond'

https://tinyurl.com/y2bqodrh

Haha, arglefarglebargle

You'll never get over being on the same side as Nigel Farage, Nick Griffin, George Galloway, Boris Johnson and all the other British Nationalists, will you?

FrancisUrquhart said:

Can we get Poundland back open ASAP...

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8977215/Moment-maskless-woman-SPITS-cashier-Waitrose.html

Philip_Thompson said:

contrarian said:

BluestBlue said:

contrarian said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

HYUFD said:

Andy_JS said:

"Labour has lost members at a rate of nearly 250 a day since Sir Keir Starmer was elected last spring, with supporters of Jeremy Corbyn leading an exodus from the party.

Membership fell by just under 57,000 people, or 10 per cent, between April and November, according to official figures from its internal elections.

It is the first time that party figures have shown Labour’s membership falling below half a million since 2016, when Mr Corbyn’s leadership prompted a surge of new members."

(£)

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/labour-exodus-in-protest-at-suspension-of-jeremy-corbyn-cnnkzqp97

Given Corbyn led Labour to its worst defeat since 1935 last year we can probably safely say that an increase in Labour membership is inversely correlated to its appeal to swing voters, so that might actually be good news for Starmer

One day hopefully the Tories might find a way to get rid of their own swiveleyed entryists from the BNP/UKIP/Brexit parties and we might see a return to a choice between two parties that are actually serious about competent government.

We've had two gargantuan recessions in the space of not much more than a decade. 2008 and 2020. In both cases both mainstream parties more or less agreed with the policies that led to these, completely free of entryism.

Entryism is thriving because of the regular giant pile-ups so called 'competent government' is creating. As Trump himself said, I am here because you guys messed up so badly.

And now he's gone because he messed up so badly. This was a thoroughly winnable election for him, but he committed one unforced error after another this year.

Not to mention that his pro-Wall Street staff and policies are indistinguishable from those that led to the 2008 crash, so I'm not sure how things would have been different under him.

Our economy will shrink ten per cent plus this year and our debt will soar. We will bear the scars for decades.

America are looking at a three per cent contraction.

That's not true. America measures its GDP differently to how we do but actually the data available so far appears to indicate the real economic data is quite comparable.

Our debt hasn't soared either. Our QE has soared but we don't pay interest on that. If you want to talk about soaring debt you might want to look at how debt levels have changed in the USA under Trump's whole term.

Carnyx said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Theuniondivvie said:

MrEd said:

Theuniondivvie said:

MrEd said:

Theuniondivvie said:

MrEd said:

kjh said:

On topic: They must not give Trump a deal. It is the easy option, but it is wrong. It is not only morally wrong it is strategically wrong for the long term.

Any would be dictator needs to know that if they fail the consequences will be harsh (and that goes for people who knowingly facilitated him/her).

Trump has come perilously close to succeeding.

If you prosecute him, all that will happen is that he will be seen as a martyr and reinforce his support.

It will also guarantee that the Republicans will seek to prosecute Biden on whatever grounds when he finishes being President, especially as Trump didn't seek to prosecute Clinton.

GOP lawyers attempting to 'prosecute' Biden should be a good laugh if the quality of their current shenanigans is anything to go by.

If they take control of the House in 2022 and keep the Senate, expect payback for the impeachment hearings.

https://twitter.com/thomasforth/status/1329905159976218625?s=20

Oh, she sounds nuts.

But not that much different from the whole post-2016 "Russia, Russia, Russia" narrative.

And I don't think we have reached this point with Sidney Powell as we did with Robert Mueller. Then there were some fanatical devotees:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/magazine/muellers-report-is-done-is-there-still-a-point-in-having-a-prayer-candle-with-his-image-on-it/2019/05/10/f8aecd98-6506-11e9-a1b6-b29b90efa879_story.html

Do you think Putin's Russia interferes with foreign elections or not? I think they do, and even if they didn't that Trump winning in 2016 was an optimum result for them. I believe Trump winning again would have been optimum for them, the current imbroglio is second best and a Biden landslide would definitely not have turned Vlad's frown upside down. Whether they expended any resources on making stuff happen is a separate issue.

No doubt he is no focussing his attention on the next Scottish Independence referendum. He just loves you Nats and your divisive agendas! How useful are you feeling?

'Cameron's plea to Putin: help me stop Salmond'

https://tinyurl.com/y2bqodrh

Haha, arglefarglebargle

You'll never get over being on the same side as Nigel Farage, Nick Griffin, George Galloway, Boris Johnson and all the other British Nationalists, will you?

Did you see the latest news about HM the Q in 2014? Apparently the D of Y let the cat out of the bag rather.

noneoftheabove said:

Lots of talk about the UK foreign aid budget recently. I'd suggest using the 2021 aid budget to offer the UK vaccine free to any country in the world who wants it instead of how it is normally distributed. Would be fantastic PR for the UK and probably make a bigger difference than normal foreign aid spend.

Gallowgate said:

contrarian said:

Philip_Thompson said:

contrarian said:

BluestBlue said:

contrarian said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

HYUFD said:

Andy_JS said:

"Labour has lost members at a rate of nearly 250 a day since Sir Keir Starmer was elected last spring, with supporters of Jeremy Corbyn leading an exodus from the party.

Membership fell by just under 57,000 people, or 10 per cent, between April and November, according to official figures from its internal elections.

It is the first time that party figures have shown Labour’s membership falling below half a million since 2016, when Mr Corbyn’s leadership prompted a surge of new members."

(£)

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/labour-exodus-in-protest-at-suspension-of-jeremy-corbyn-cnnkzqp97

Given Corbyn led Labour to its worst defeat since 1935 last year we can probably safely say that an increase in Labour membership is inversely correlated to its appeal to swing voters, so that might actually be good news for Starmer

One day hopefully the Tories might find a way to get rid of their own swiveleyed entryists from the BNP/UKIP/Brexit parties and we might see a return to a choice between two parties that are actually serious about competent government.

We've had two gargantuan recessions in the space of not much more than a decade. 2008 and 2020. In both cases both mainstream parties more or less agreed with the policies that led to these, completely free of entryism.

Entryism is thriving because of the regular giant pile-ups so called 'competent government' is creating. As Trump himself said, I am here because you guys messed up so badly.

And now he's gone because he messed up so badly. This was a thoroughly winnable election for him, but he committed one unforced error after another this year.

Not to mention that his pro-Wall Street staff and policies are indistinguishable from those that led to the 2008 crash, so I'm not sure how things would have been different under him.

Our economy will shrink ten per cent plus this year and our debt will soar. We will bear the scars for decades.

America are looking at a three per cent contraction.

That's not true. America measures its GDP differently to how we do but actually the data available so far appears to indicate the real economic data is quite comparable.

Our debt hasn't soared either. Our QE has soared but we don't pay interest on that. If you want to talk about soaring debt you might want to look at how debt levels have changed in the USA under Trump's whole term.

I'm with Heneghan. The epidemic ended in June and what we have seen since is nothing more than a giant exercise to vindicate the government's policies and those of its utterly discredited sage team.

An exercise that has seen massive and unnecessary damage to our economy.

Of course there was always a big economic hit. But its far, far larger than it needed to be.

The state of this take...

noneoftheabove said:

Lots of talk about the UK foreign aid budget recently. I'd suggest using the 2021 aid budget to offer the UK vaccine free to any country in the world who wants it instead of how it is normally distributed. Would be fantastic PR for the UK and probably make a bigger difference than normal foreign aid spend.

contrarian said:

Philip_Thompson said:

contrarian said:

BluestBlue said:

contrarian said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

HYUFD said:

Andy_JS said:

"Labour has lost members at a rate of nearly 250 a day since Sir Keir Starmer was elected last spring, with supporters of Jeremy Corbyn leading an exodus from the party.

Membership fell by just under 57,000 people, or 10 per cent, between April and November, according to official figures from its internal elections.

It is the first time that party figures have shown Labour’s membership falling below half a million since 2016, when Mr Corbyn’s leadership prompted a surge of new members."

(£)

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/labour-exodus-in-protest-at-suspension-of-jeremy-corbyn-cnnkzqp97

Given Corbyn led Labour to its worst defeat since 1935 last year we can probably safely say that an increase in Labour membership is inversely correlated to its appeal to swing voters, so that might actually be good news for Starmer

One day hopefully the Tories might find a way to get rid of their own swiveleyed entryists from the BNP/UKIP/Brexit parties and we might see a return to a choice between two parties that are actually serious about competent government.

We've had two gargantuan recessions in the space of not much more than a decade. 2008 and 2020. In both cases both mainstream parties more or less agreed with the policies that led to these, completely free of entryism.

Entryism is thriving because of the regular giant pile-ups so called 'competent government' is creating. As Trump himself said, I am here because you guys messed up so badly.

And now he's gone because he messed up so badly. This was a thoroughly winnable election for him, but he committed one unforced error after another this year.

Not to mention that his pro-Wall Street staff and policies are indistinguishable from those that led to the 2008 crash, so I'm not sure how things would have been different under him.

Our economy will shrink ten per cent plus this year and our debt will soar. We will bear the scars for decades.

America are looking at a three per cent contraction.

That's not true. America measures its GDP differently to how we do but actually the data available so far appears to indicate the real economic data is quite comparable.

Our debt hasn't soared either. Our QE has soared but we don't pay interest on that. If you want to talk about soaring debt you might want to look at how debt levels have changed in the USA under Trump's whole term.

I'm with Heneghan. The epidemic ended in June and what we have seen since is nothing more than a giant exercise to vindicate the government's policies and those of its utterly discredited sage team.

An exercise that has seen massive and unnecessary damage to our economy.

Of course there was always a big economic hit. But its far, far larger than it needed to be.

RobD said:

noneoftheabove said:

Lots of talk about the UK foreign aid budget recently. I'd suggest using the 2021 aid budget to offer the UK vaccine free to any country in the world who wants it instead of how it is normally distributed. Would be fantastic PR for the UK and probably make a bigger difference than normal foreign aid spend.

Yeah, and given how cheap it is it probably wouldn't take up a huge fraction of the budget.

Chris said:

Gaussian said:

Chris said:

Gaussian said:

Malmesbury said:

RobD said:

OnboardG1 said:

Oxford just held a press briefing where Prof Pollard said he’s happy that the 90% sub sample is large and robust enough to take to the regulators. That’s good news and allays some of the confusion earlier about hints of this and that.

Sub samples, on PB??

*Statistically significant* sub samples.

It's not just a subsample though, but a cherry-picked subsample. Hopefully they are adjusting the significance thresholds accordingly.

I don't understand why you say it's "cherry picked".

They used two different regimens, and have reported separate results for each. What would have been the point of using two different regimens, if they weren't planning to analyse them separately? If it had been an _unplanned_ analysis, you could obviously describe it as "cherry picked". But if they weren't planning to analyse the results of this regimen, why would they have used it?

It's cherry-picked because we're picking the 90% subsample over the 62% one, without knowing why they should be different. The statistical analysis has to account for the possibility that the 90% subsample is only better by luck. (No I don't know how to do it.)

As an analogy, let's say you do a hundred coin tosses, 50 before sunset and 50 after. Before sunset you happen to get 30 heads and 20 tails, and the other way round after, so 50/50 overall. You might conclude that you can increase your chances to get heads to 60% by tossing your coin before sunset, but that's obviously nonsense.

I'm afraid that still makes no sense to me. There are two regimens, and results have been given for both of them. It's possible the difference is owing to chance, but it doesn't look very likely to me, because there's a relatively small overlap between the confidence intervals.

Certainly you can't say "the vaccine has 90%" efficacy, any more than you can say it has 62% efficacy. But you can say that about the two regimens separately - though as I already said, they should give confidence intervals to reflect the statistical uncertainty.

dixiedean said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/unherd/status/1330760550045933568?s=20

Henry VIII should never have privatised the monasteries.

He argues academics are the new clergy, tech executives the new nobility and almost everyone else back to being the third estate

And none too convincingly.

Carnyx said:

Mexicanpete said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Theuniondivvie said:

MrEd said:

Theuniondivvie said:

MrEd said:

Theuniondivvie said:

MrEd said:

kjh said:

On topic: They must not give Trump a deal. It is the easy option, but it is wrong. It is not only morally wrong it is strategically wrong for the long term.

Any would be dictator needs to know that if they fail the consequences will be harsh (and that goes for people who knowingly facilitated him/her).

Trump has come perilously close to succeeding.

If you prosecute him, all that will happen is that he will be seen as a martyr and reinforce his support.

It will also guarantee that the Republicans will seek to prosecute Biden on whatever grounds when he finishes being President, especially as Trump didn't seek to prosecute Clinton.

GOP lawyers attempting to 'prosecute' Biden should be a good laugh if the quality of their current shenanigans is anything to go by.

If they take control of the House in 2022 and keep the Senate, expect payback for the impeachment hearings.

https://twitter.com/thomasforth/status/1329905159976218625?s=20

Oh, she sounds nuts.

But not that much different from the whole post-2016 "Russia, Russia, Russia" narrative.

And I don't think we have reached this point with Sidney Powell as we did with Robert Mueller. Then there were some fanatical devotees:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/magazine/muellers-report-is-done-is-there-still-a-point-in-having-a-prayer-candle-with-his-image-on-it/2019/05/10/f8aecd98-6506-11e9-a1b6-b29b90efa879_story.html

Do you think Putin's Russia interferes with foreign elections or not? I think they do, and even if they didn't that Trump winning in 2016 was an optimum result for them. I believe Trump winning again would have been optimum for them, the current imbroglio is second best and a Biden landslide would definitely not have turned Vlad's frown upside down. Whether they expended any resources on making stuff happen is a separate issue.

No doubt he is no focussing his attention on the next Scottish Independence referendum. He just loves you Nats and your divisive agendas! How useful are you feeling?

'Cameron's plea to Putin: help me stop Salmond'

https://tinyurl.com/y2bqodrh

Salmond's plea to Putin "Gi's a job!" And he duly obliged.

That's Scouser, not Scots.

I have my own views on the matter, as fanmously does Ms Sturgeon, but in fairness that was after he had left government and elected office. And also he did not get a job. His firm provided the show to RT to broadcast. Not the same thing.

Philip_Thompson said:

contrarian said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

HYUFD said:

Andy_JS said:

"Labour has lost members at a rate of nearly 250 a day since Sir Keir Starmer was elected last spring, with supporters of Jeremy Corbyn leading an exodus from the party.

Membership fell by just under 57,000 people, or 10 per cent, between April and November, according to official figures from its internal elections.

It is the first time that party figures have shown Labour’s membership falling below half a million since 2016, when Mr Corbyn’s leadership prompted a surge of new members."

(£)

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/labour-exodus-in-protest-at-suspension-of-jeremy-corbyn-cnnkzqp97

Given Corbyn led Labour to its worst defeat since 1935 last year we can probably safely say that an increase in Labour membership is inversely correlated to its appeal to swing voters, so that might actually be good news for Starmer

One day hopefully the Tories might find a way to get rid of their own swiveleyed entryists from the BNP/UKIP/Brexit parties and we might see a return to a choice between two parties that are actually serious about competent government.

We've had two gargantuan recessions in the space of not much more than a decade. 2008 and 2020. In both cases both mainstream parties more or less agreed with the policies that led to these, completely free of entryism.

Entryism is thriving because of the regular giant pile-ups so called 'competent government' is creating. As Trump himself said, I am here because you guys messed up so badly.

The government did not create COVID19.

Theuniondivvie said:

Carnyx said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Theuniondivvie said:

MrEd said:

Theuniondivvie said:

MrEd said:

Theuniondivvie said:

MrEd said:

kjh said:

On topic: They must not give Trump a deal. It is the easy option, but it is wrong. It is not only morally wrong it is strategically wrong for the long term.

Any would be dictator needs to know that if they fail the consequences will be harsh (and that goes for people who knowingly facilitated him/her).

Trump has come perilously close to succeeding.

If you prosecute him, all that will happen is that he will be seen as a martyr and reinforce his support.

It will also guarantee that the Republicans will seek to prosecute Biden on whatever grounds when he finishes being President, especially as Trump didn't seek to prosecute Clinton.

GOP lawyers attempting to 'prosecute' Biden should be a good laugh if the quality of their current shenanigans is anything to go by.

If they take control of the House in 2022 and keep the Senate, expect payback for the impeachment hearings.

https://twitter.com/thomasforth/status/1329905159976218625?s=20

Oh, she sounds nuts.

But not that much different from the whole post-2016 "Russia, Russia, Russia" narrative.

And I don't think we have reached this point with Sidney Powell as we did with Robert Mueller. Then there were some fanatical devotees:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/magazine/muellers-report-is-done-is-there-still-a-point-in-having-a-prayer-candle-with-his-image-on-it/2019/05/10/f8aecd98-6506-11e9-a1b6-b29b90efa879_story.html

Do you think Putin's Russia interferes with foreign elections or not? I think they do, and even if they didn't that Trump winning in 2016 was an optimum result for them. I believe Trump winning again would have been optimum for them, the current imbroglio is second best and a Biden landslide would definitely not have turned Vlad's frown upside down. Whether they expended any resources on making stuff happen is a separate issue.

No doubt he is no focussing his attention on the next Scottish Independence referendum. He just loves you Nats and your divisive agendas! How useful are you feeling?

'Cameron's plea to Putin: help me stop Salmond'

https://tinyurl.com/y2bqodrh

Haha, arglefarglebargle

You'll never get over being on the same side as Nigel Farage, Nick Griffin, George Galloway, Boris Johnson and all the other British Nationalists, will you?

Did you see the latest news about HM the Q in 2014? Apparently the D of Y let the cat out of the bag rather.

Is that the interview with Lionel Barber? If what he said is true HMQ goes very much down in my estimation, the rest are of course still mediocre no marks, or worse in Andrew's case.

DavidL said:

Chris said:

MaxPB said:

Chris said:

MaxPB said:

Northern_Al said:

MaxPB said:

The BBC article on it is absolutely terrible, this in particular is factually incorrect:

"Are the results disappointing?
After Pfizer and Moderna both produced vaccines delivering 95% protection from Covid-19, a figure of 70% is still highly effective, but will be seen by some as relatively disappointing.

But this is still a vaccine that can save lives from Covid-19 and is more effective than a seasonal flu jab."

It's not 70%, its 62% and 90% for the two dosage variations and as we've discussed here the 90% variation includes testing for asymptomatic cases where neither of the other two trials did that.

But to be fair to the BBC, this is what Astrazeneca's own press release says, so it's not unreasonable to cite the average efficacy. It's not 'fake news' as you previously said.

One dosing regimen (n=2,741) showed vaccine efficacy of 90% when AZD1222 was given as a half dose, followed by a full dose at least one month apart, and another dosing regimen (n=8,895) showed 62% efficacy when given as two full doses at least one month apart. The combined analysis from both dosing regimens (n=11,636) resulted in an average efficacy of 70%.

It's fake news because we're not going to have the full/full dose available. The half/full dose method will be used and it's 90% effective. AZ are registering full trial results scientifically, that's what they have to do. It's up to the media to provide proper context and the Guardian, Sky, the Mail and others all got it right this morning with the numbers and yet the BBC used hugely irresponsible wording in their headline.

This vaccine prevents 90% of symptomatic and asymptomatic COVID, the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines prevent 95% of symptomatic COVID. Those are the facts.

I think you do need to give a confidence interval rather than just the observed efficacy. The confidence interval is a lot wider for the 90% group than for Pfizer or Moderna.

But it's wider still for the 62% group, because the observed efficacy was so much lower, despite the larger number of participants.

It would be interesting to see what the CI is for each of those dosages trialled, but yes I agree. We don't have the full data to calculate them yet and I'm very interested to see what they are.

I am only a mathematician, not a statistician, so don't take this as gospel, but the figures I get (assuming the splits were 3-30 and 27-71) are:
Half-full: expected efficacy: 87%, confidence interval (95%): 69-97%
Full-full: expected efficacy: 61%, confidence interval (95%): 41-76%

On those figures the choice of regimen looks like a "no-brainer".

No, no, I want more. Full-full has more so its got to better. I will not be cheated with half doses. Do they not have enough? etc etc.