Either the Germans are right, in which case this is catastrophic news, especially for the UK, but also much of the world. Which was relying on the cheap easy Oxon vax
Or they are wrong, and this is a catastrophic piece of FAKE news, which will fuel anti-vaxxers, and there should be mass resignation in higher German media and politics
UK still doing about a third of reported European vaccines:
Where's that data coming from? 43% is well over a third. Plus of course "European vaccines" is massively inflated by including the UK in the first place - the UK is doing 78.3% of the EU total - despite being 15.0% of the EU's size.
There is public data about immunogenicity in over 65s here but "the level of immune response that provides protection against COVID-19 is unknown" because there weren't enough people in the sample to judge. I suspect the 8% number is a misinterpretation.
I'd happily have the AZ vaccine but what is remarkable (and a great shame) is the extent to which they messed up their Phase 3 trial. Pfizer and Moderna managed to deliver a clean result without all the caveats and data pooling that AZ have had to to rely on.
Given the mortality rates for older people, to not have enough data to give a conclusive result on your vaccines efficiency for >65yr olds is extraordinary.
The AZ trial does seem to have a heavy whiff of being designed by a PhD student who wanted to answer every question rather than just focusing on how to get regulatory approval.
The trouble with this is that if the EMA gives the go ahead for over 65s next week then it starts up the conspiracy mill, more fodder for anti-vaxxers.
Government sources briefing newspapers on this is a fucking disaster idea. Let the regulator speak for itself, if it decides not to approve over 65s then let it say why in its own words.
The trouble with this is that if the EMA gives the go ahead for over 65s next week then it starts up the conspiracy mill, more fodder for anti-vaxxers.
Government sources briefing newspapers on this is a fucking disaster idea. Let the regulator speak for itself, if it decides not to approve over 65s then let it say why in its own words.
Can't say it looks good on the German government whether it is true or not, that they are leaking it to the papers in this manner for whatever reason.
I suppose some shitty government behaviour is universal.
UK still doing about a third of reported European vaccines:
Where's that data coming from? 43% is well over a third. Plus of course "European vaccines" is massively inflated by including the UK in the first place - the UK is doing 78.3% of the EU total - despite being 15.0% of the EU's size.
The Wall Street Journal has just published this blog post, in which it finally decides to move away from data "are", saying:
Most style guides and dictionaries have come to accept the use of the noun data with either singular or plural verbs, and we hereby join the majority.
As usage has evolved from the word's origin as the Latin plural of datum, singular verbs now are often used to refer to collections of information: Little data is available to support the conclusions. Otherwise, generally continue to use the plural: Data are still being collected.
The Yanks are well known for ruining the English language, this is but one further example.
Referendums revisited.
You're defending Latin grammar, not "the English language".
They are related, see this.
That seems to show that when you combine two things you make a different thing, which necessarily will have different needs and wants.
Are we bound to follow the rules of our parents? Are there any german rules we should be following that we are not at present?
The German Der/Die/Das is something we should NEVER copy.
One of the reasons why the English language is used widely in so many things is that we don't soil our letters with things like umlauts and the accent circumflex.
If the EU were to block exports of vaccine, that would be a hostile act - not just to us, but to many other countries who have purchased vaccines from EU based companies.
And while the political pressures will - I'm sure - be great, I would hope that they will resist the urge.
What if the mutterings about being gazumped after putting down large down payments are true though? I suspect free market principles might be forgotten round here as well if AZ Wales suddenly declared they're out of stock yet large shipments went elsewhere.
And so far they're only demanding transparency, so that the companies can't do that on the quiet. After all, this isn't just some widget, but a public health crisis response financed by large amounts of public money.
The 8% idea appears odd, you'd have to wonder if the UK would have touched it and you'd have to assume some kind of over 65 cohort in the trials.
FYI, here's what I found a bit earlier in the recently published paper on the trials:
While the data presented here show that ChAdOx1 nCov-19 is efficacious against symptomatic disease, with most cases accruing in adults younger than 55 years of age so far, an important public health consideration is the morbidity and mortality of the disease in an older adult population and thus the potential efficacy in this age group. We have reported immunogenicity data showing similar immune responses following vaccination with two doses of ChAdOx1 nCov-19 in older adults, including those older than 70 years of age, when compared with those younger than 55 years.6 As older age groups were recruited later than younger age groups, there has been less time for cases to accrue and as a result, efficacy data in these cohorts are currently limited by the small number of cases, but additional data will be available in future analyses.
So, there were participants of advanced age in the trials, but not enough to determine a specific efficacy value for them; however, the immune response in older patients is reported to be similar to that in younger ones, so you wouldn't expect the resultant level of protection to be wildly different. Another poster has also made the obvious point that a massive drop-off in efficacy between the under 55s and over 55s would be extremely odd.
Beyond that, I think we ought to assume that the MHRA aren't completely useless and have therefore gone over the raw data with a fine toothed comb and determined that the AZN effort ought probably, to the required statistical standards, be good enough to use. Not necessarily as effective as Pfizer, but it doesn't claim to be.
UK still doing about a third of reported European vaccines:
Where's that data coming from? 43% is well over a third. Plus of course "European vaccines" is massively inflated by including the UK in the first place - the UK is doing 78.3% of the EU total - despite being 15.0% of the EU's size.
Remarkable.
How much placebo is included in our numbers?
Do stop dickishly calling it a placebo until you have better than unsubstantiated rumour to back it up.
UK still doing about a third of reported European vaccines:
Where's that data coming from? 43% is well over a third. Plus of course "European vaccines" is massively inflated by including the UK in the first place - the UK is doing 78.3% of the EU total - despite being 15.0% of the EU's size.
Remarkable.
How much placebo is included in our numbers?
It is not even funny to suggest that
Millions have been vaccinated by an approved covid vaccine
The Wall Street Journal has just published this blog post, in which it finally decides to move away from data "are", saying:
Most style guides and dictionaries have come to accept the use of the noun data with either singular or plural verbs, and we hereby join the majority.
As usage has evolved from the word's origin as the Latin plural of datum, singular verbs now are often used to refer to collections of information: Little data is available to support the conclusions. Otherwise, generally continue to use the plural: Data are still being collected.
The Yanks are well known for ruining the English language, this is but one further example.
Referendums revisited.
You're defending Latin grammar, not "the English language".
They are related, see this.
That seems to show that when you combine two things you make a different thing, which necessarily will have different needs and wants.
Are we bound to follow the rules of our parents? Are there any german rules we should be following that we are not at present?
The thing is TSE's logic doesn't even make sense. Data is an English word that can essentially trace its lineage back to what would have been a collection of datum with Roman times. Now data may be plural for the Romans but they weren't working with data like we are today - and we don't use the word datum. We have adopted the word data to literally mean a collection - it is literally defined as a collection of facts and figures.
A collection is singular. If you're talking about a library as a collection of books you don't "library are . . ."
The Wall Street Journal has just published this blog post, in which it finally decides to move away from data "are", saying:
Most style guides and dictionaries have come to accept the use of the noun data with either singular or plural verbs, and we hereby join the majority.
As usage has evolved from the word's origin as the Latin plural of datum, singular verbs now are often used to refer to collections of information: Little data is available to support the conclusions. Otherwise, generally continue to use the plural: Data are still being collected.
The Yanks are well known for ruining the English language, this is but one further example.
Referendums revisited.
You're defending Latin grammar, not "the English language".
They are related, see this.
That seems to show that when you combine two things you make a different thing, which necessarily will have different needs and wants.
Are we bound to follow the rules of our parents? Are there any german rules we should be following that we are not at present?
The thing is TSE's logic doesn't even make sense. Data is an English word that can essentially trace its lineage back to what would have been a collection of datum with Roman times. Now data may be plural for the Romans but they weren't working with data like we are today - and we don't use the word datum. We have adopted the word data to literally mean a collection - it is literally defined as a collection of facts and figures.
A collection is singular. If you're talking about a library as a collection of books you don't "library are . . ."
Is there a bit of friendly cognitive dissonance going on here?
We can't get it, and therefore it must be shit?
If that is the case then heads need to roll in the German government. Briefing against vaccines is absolutely ridiculous under any circumstances.
If it really is only "8%" efficient for the over 65s then the AZ vaccination programme in the UK is pointless, and we will see very little difference in hospital admissions or fatalities in the UK in early February.
UK still doing about a third of reported European vaccines:
Where's that data coming from? 43% is well over a third. Plus of course "European vaccines" is massively inflated by including the UK in the first place - the UK is doing 78.3% of the EU total - despite being 15.0% of the EU's size.
Remarkable.
The last column is effectively "percent of vaccines done yesterday", and has the UK at 32%. (Albeit I think that number is wrong, because we're doing 400k, aren't we? Indeed the numbers on that chart are very different for us and a number of other countries to the NYTimes ones. So beware.)
UK still doing about a third of reported European vaccines:
Where's that data coming from? 43% is well over a third. Plus of course "European vaccines" is massively inflated by including the UK in the first place - the UK is doing 78.3% of the EU total - despite being 15.0% of the EU's size.
Remarkable.
How much placebo is included in our numbers?
Do stop dickishly calling it a placebo until you have better than unsubstantiated rumour to back it up.
He can't help it, he's another one of those on the list you couldn't sit and have a few pints with and generally have a decent time.
The Wall Street Journal has just published this blog post, in which it finally decides to move away from data "are", saying:
Most style guides and dictionaries have come to accept the use of the noun data with either singular or plural verbs, and we hereby join the majority.
As usage has evolved from the word's origin as the Latin plural of datum, singular verbs now are often used to refer to collections of information: Little data is available to support the conclusions. Otherwise, generally continue to use the plural: Data are still being collected.
The Yanks are well known for ruining the English language, this is but one further example.
Referendums revisited.
You're defending Latin grammar, not "the English language".
They are related, see this.
That seems to show that when you combine two things you make a different thing, which necessarily will have different needs and wants.
Are we bound to follow the rules of our parents? Are there any german rules we should be following that we are not at present?
The German Der/Die/Das is something we should NEVER copy.
One of the reasons why the English language is used widely in so many things is that we don't soil our letters with things like umlauts and the accent circumflex.
Israel - what would we expect in 14 days time, back of envelope:
- Cases: 30% of population were vaccinated 7 days ago, so immune from 10 -> 35%. R suppression up to (0.55/0.9) = 40%. - R now (at 15% suppression) = 0.84 -> expected R around 0.6 (or a case reduction of UP TO 60% reduction per week) in a fortnight. (plus restriction led falls, minus any lack of efficacy). This would be an R noticeably below anything we've seen elsewhere. - Hospitalisations: 22% of the population were immunised 2 weeks ago. That's approximately completing the over 70s and some over 60s on a UK like programme. Let's say 50% fewer hospitalisations relative to the number of cases the week before (based on memory prior work here) - Deaths: 16% of the population were immunised 3 weeks ago. Probably covers the over 80s and many over 70s. Deaths up to 60% down from expected on relative to the number of cases a fortnight before.
Even if the numbers are a bit rough here, the conclusion is we should be seeing something quite marked in Israel in a fortnight's time.
Have they used AZN?
Its all Pfizer in Israel, and second dose on schedule as I understand. That price of ample supplies was to treat to protocol and report all data back.
I wouldn't be too surprised if the AZN was approved by the EMA for the younger age groups. That was indeed what some on here were suggesting in December for the UK. The published AZN data was quite a mess.
It just requires a shift in vaccine policy to immunise key workers etc with it, and concentrate the Pfizer and Moderna on the older age groups.
"Our sources, including members of the government coalition, spoke on the condition of anonymity so we cannot source the story “on the record” nor can we make public any underlying data"
The scientific data are public. They do not belong to anyone. They have been gathered either with public money or through members of the public consenting to take part in trials. There is absolutely no reason to withhold the scientific data.
When a source refuses to provide the data, then that is immediately ***very, very suspicious***. On those grounds alone, the German claim is highly suspect.
If the claim is backed up by solid evidence in the data, why on earth would you not want to release the evidence?
Well, 10 days from initial symptoms Son is still having a thoroughly miserable time of it. Still has a fever which he cannot shake off, vomiting and his oxygen level is at 96 which is at the lower end of normal range. Had a really distressing call from him earlier.
I wish I could do something.
It really is a bitch of a disease.
I am very sorry to hear that. You may have this handled, but if not it might be a nice thing to do to try to ensure he's getting plenty of zinc, and plenty of vitamin D - supplementary is good - dietary is even better. Go with the best brands you can - supermarket supplements are often not very absorbable. We're very lucky to have a lot of choice online now.
If you don't trust my advice on this (no reason why you should), I am sure Foxy would be happy to confirm whether the above is a good idea.
I believe we can do a lot to fight COVID even if we catch it.
Fasting might be a good idea to strengthen your immune system when you are healthy, but I struggle to see it as a good response when you are already infected.
I was diagnosed with a vit D deficiency years ago, and told to take a supplement. At the sixth month stage a retest showed only modest progress and it took a whole year to get my level back to normal. So I doubt that taking even very high doses of vitamin pills is likely to make much difference during the timespan a virus infection will play out.
I am in semi-agreement - Vitamin D supplements only provide the precursors to Vitamin D, not the substance itself. However, I think for a sufferer, they can't hurt. In the absence of much sunshine, foods rich in Vitamin D would be a good way to go: oily fish, red meat, liver, egg yolks. I don't like liver, but I take liver capsules. There are also mushrooms enriched with natural Vitamin D (from UV).
I also agree, that radical dietary changes once already having a shit time of it aren't necessarily the way to go, but potentially narrowing the window within which you take food, to allow the body to concentrate on its COVID response, isn't a bad thing.
UK still doing about a third of reported European vaccines:
Where's that data coming from? 43% is well over a third. Plus of course "European vaccines" is massively inflated by including the UK in the first place - the UK is doing 78.3% of the EU total - despite being 15.0% of the EU's size.
Remarkable.
The last column is effectively "percent of vaccines done yesterday", and has the UK at 32%. (Albeit I think that number is wrong, because we're doing 400k, aren't we? Indeed the numbers on that chart are very different for us and a number of other countries to the NYTimes ones. So beware.)
221k was our daily figure today wasn't it? For those done yesterday? Or perhaps more realistically Saturday?
It seems to be a daily figures column not a proportion of total column - but there's going to be far more natural variance in daily figures - I suspect the day before when we'd done nearly 500k then the figure would have looked well over 32%
ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 appears to be better tolerated in older adults than in younger adults and has similar immunogenicity across all age groups after a boost dose. Further assessment of the efficacy of this vaccine is warranted in all age groups and individuals with comorbidities.
Anyone tracking AstraZeneca's share price, there could be a killing to be made here.
FWIW I cannot see a successful company with a market capitalisation of $150 billion playing silly beggars offer the Covid vaccine, it would permanently damage their brand.
"Our sources, including members of the government coalition, spoke on the condition of anonymity so we cannot source the story “on the record” nor can we make public any underlying data"
The scientific data are public. They do not belong to anyone. They have been gathered either with public money or through members of the public consenting to take part in trials. There is absolutely no reason to withhold the scientific data.
When a source refuses to provide the data, then that is immediately ***very, very suspicious***. On those grounds alone, the German claim is highly suspect.
If the claim is backed up by solid evidence in the data, why on earth would you not want to release the evidence?
Hopefully it is like all that 'evidence' the Trump team had of electoral fraud that for some reason they couldn't produce in court.
But someone has put this out there, and is standing by it, and even if it is right there's not much good reason to do that and not just wait for the regulator decision.
So someone is behaving inappropriately either way.
Israel - what would we expect in 14 days time, back of envelope:
- Cases: 30% of population were vaccinated 7 days ago, so immune from 10 -> 35%. R suppression up to (0.55/0.9) = 40%. - R now (at 15% suppression) = 0.84 -> expected R around 0.6 (or a case reduction of UP TO 60% reduction per week) in a fortnight. (plus restriction led falls, minus any lack of efficacy). This would be an R noticeably below anything we've seen elsewhere. - Hospitalisations: 22% of the population were immunised 2 weeks ago. That's approximately completing the over 70s and some over 60s on a UK like programme. Let's say 50% fewer hospitalisations relative to the number of cases the week before (based on memory prior work here) - Deaths: 16% of the population were immunised 3 weeks ago. Probably covers the over 80s and many over 70s. Deaths up to 60% down from expected on relative to the number of cases a fortnight before.
Even if the numbers are a bit rough here, the conclusion is we should be seeing something quite marked in Israel in a fortnight's time.
Have they used AZN?
Its all Pfizer in Israel, and second dose on schedule as I understand. That price of ample supplies was to treat to protocol and report all data back.
I wouldn't be too surprised if the AZN was approved by the EMA for the younger age groups. That was indeed what some on here were suggesting in December for the UK. The published AZN data was quite a mess.
It just requires a shift in vaccine policy to immunise key workers etc with it, and concentrate the Pfizer and Moderna on the older age groups.
I thought we are almost out of new first dose Pfizer?
UK still doing about a third of reported European vaccines:
Where's that data coming from? 43% is well over a third. Plus of course "European vaccines" is massively inflated by including the UK in the first place - the UK is doing 78.3% of the EU total - despite being 15.0% of the EU's size.
Remarkable.
The last column is effectively "percent of vaccines done yesterday", and has the UK at 32%. (Albeit I think that number is wrong, because we're doing 400k, aren't we? Indeed the numbers on that chart are very different for us and a number of other countries to the NYTimes ones. So beware.)
221k was our daily figure today wasn't it? For those done yesterday? Or perhaps more realistically Saturday?
It seems to be a daily figures column not a proportion of total column - but there's going to be far more natural variance in daily figures - I suspect the day before when we'd done nearly 500k then the figure would have looked well over 32%
The same table tweeted yesterday or the day before it was something like 70% I think, of reported.
Is there a bit of friendly cognitive dissonance going on here?
We can't get it, and therefore it must be shit?
Its shit in over 65s is what i read is being reported.
We need to know why they are saying that.
I dont know nor do you.
Lets hope its not true
Keep calm, I think this is bollocks, see my post of 9.05pm and the fact earlier on today the EU were so angry that they didn't have enough of this vaccine.
All the evidence is that the Germans and EU are acting like a jilted ex.
Didn't want to go out with her anyway 'cause she's such a bad person.
Is there a bit of friendly cognitive dissonance going on here?
We can't get it, and therefore it must be shit?
If that is the case then heads need to roll in the German government. Briefing against vaccines is absolutely ridiculous under any circumstances.
If it really is only "8%" efficient for the over 65s then the AZ vaccination programme in the UK is pointless, and we will see very little difference in hospital admissions or fatalities in the UK in early February.
If not..
I would expect admissions and fatalities to fall because of the lockdown even if both vaccines were completely ineffective.
Where we will learn is looking at the vaccination histories of admissions in Feb. If there is a significant vaccine failure rate, that is how we will detect it.
So, right now, the EU is simultaneously claiming the UK vaccine is basically useless, threatening to sue the UK vaccine maker for non delivery of the "useless" vaccine, and also threatening to stop paid-for exports of a different vaccine from the EU to the UK by Pfizer (a company which is also being harangued by the EU, and sued by Italy).
Quite gob smacking behaviour.
Many in the EU still see the UK as a renegade member state.
Well, 10 days from initial symptoms Son is still having a thoroughly miserable time of it. Still has a fever which he cannot shake off, vomiting and his oxygen level is at 96 which is at the lower end of normal range. Had a really distressing call from him earlier.
I wish I could do something.
It really is a bitch of a disease.
I am very sorry to hear that. You may have this handled, but if not it might be a nice thing to do to try to ensure he's getting plenty of zinc, and plenty of vitamin D - supplementary is good - dietary is even better. Go with the best brands you can - supermarket supplements are often not very absorbable. We're very lucky to have a lot of choice online now.
If you don't trust my advice on this (no reason why you should), I am sure Foxy would be happy to confirm whether the above is a good idea.
A referendum which isn't legally authorised and internationally recognised is absolutely no use at all for the Nats, except to further stoke the already well-stoked grievance machine. They must know this, so there's a huge amount of bluster here.
From the point of view of the Conservative government, I really can't see any upside to agreeing the referendum. Better to say No, ignore the fuss, and leave it to the next Labour PM to impale himself or herself on the spike.
If its authorised by the Scottish Parliament - and if the Scottish Parliament has the legal authority to authorise it - then how is that not legally authorised?
The UK has a proud history of respecting democracy. Is the union more important than that?
Because the Scottish Parliament’s authority is bounded by the Westminster law.
The Scottish Parliament's authority extends to almost everything the Scottish Parliament wishes to set a law on - they don't have to apply for Westminster's permission before they pass a bill - apart from reserved matters.
If the United Kingdom Supreme Court rules that an advisory referendum is not a reserved matter, so the Scottish Parliament has the authority to hold an advisory referendum, then it is a legally authorised referendum.
We’re talking at cross purposes
An advisory referendum is fine (subject to ultra vires) I don’t see any issue with it. It’s not binding and has no authority to require Westminster to engage. There is a clear process set out in law for referenda on these topics and the law should be followed
The Wall Street Journal has just published this blog post, in which it finally decides to move away from data "are", saying:
Most style guides and dictionaries have come to accept the use of the noun data with either singular or plural verbs, and we hereby join the majority.
As usage has evolved from the word's origin as the Latin plural of datum, singular verbs now are often used to refer to collections of information: Little data is available to support the conclusions. Otherwise, generally continue to use the plural: Data are still being collected.
The Yanks are well known for ruining the English language, this is but one further example.
Referendums revisited.
You're defending Latin grammar, not "the English language".
They are related, see this.
That seems to show that when you combine two things you make a different thing, which necessarily will have different needs and wants.
Are we bound to follow the rules of our parents? Are there any german rules we should be following that we are not at present?
The thing is TSE's logic doesn't even make sense. Data is an English word that can essentially trace its lineage back to what would have been a collection of datum with Roman times. Now data may be plural for the Romans but they weren't working with data like we are today - and we don't use the word datum. We have adopted the word data to literally mean a collection - it is literally defined as a collection of facts and figures.
A collection is singular. If you're talking about a library as a collection of books you don't "library are . . ."
For the English language now the prime definition of data is a collection of facts - in which case the collection is singular - the prime definition of the word is not as plural of datum, the word is a word in its own right. Hence data is.
Anyone tracking AstraZeneca's share price, there could be a killing to be made here.
FWIW I cannot see a successful company with a market capitalisation of $150 billion playing silly beggars offer the Covid vaccine, it would permanently damage their brand.
Tbf, the market has already realised that AZ aren't going to make any money off this given the terms of the deal with Oxford. But agreed that AZ aren't going to have hidden anything for the EMA to suddenly discover.
Oddly just last week the head of the German regulator praised the efficacy of AZ so this would have to be a massive about turn from the EMA.
Fauci in the US also recently said the AZ vaccine looks very good ahead of the expected approval from the FDA.
I get the feeling this is a politician that's seen an 8% number and then taken it out of context, seen the furore today and then decided to say "well it's shit anyway" to their favourite newspaper.
A referendum which isn't legally authorised and internationally recognised is absolutely no use at all for the Nats, except to further stoke the already well-stoked grievance machine. They must know this, so there's a huge amount of bluster here.
From the point of view of the Conservative government, I really can't see any upside to agreeing the referendum. Better to say No, ignore the fuss, and leave it to the next Labour PM to impale himself or herself on the spike.
If its authorised by the Scottish Parliament - and if the Scottish Parliament has the legal authority to authorise it - then how is that not legally authorised?
The UK has a proud history of respecting democracy. Is the union more important than that?
Because the Scottish Parliament’s authority is bounded by the Westminster law.
The Scottish Parliament's authority extends to almost everything the Scottish Parliament wishes to set a law on - they don't have to apply for Westminster's permission before they pass a bill - apart from reserved matters.
If the United Kingdom Supreme Court rules that an advisory referendum is not a reserved matter, so the Scottish Parliament has the authority to hold an advisory referendum, then it is a legally authorised referendum.
We’re talking at cross purposes
An advisory referendum is fine (subject to ultra vires) I don’t see any issue with it. It’s not binding and has no authority to require Westminster to engage. There is a clear process set out in law for referenda on these topics and the law should be followed
There is not a clear process set out in law as referenda have been dealt with very ad hoc, we haven't stabilised to frequently using referenda on an ongoing permanent basis - although Tony Blair and David Cameron tried their best to make it so, it seems.
The Scottish Government are seeking to pass legislation to call a referendum as is arguably their right. If they do, and if it is fine to do so, then it is a legally authorised referendum just as the UK's 2016 referendum was legally authorised.
Is there a bit of friendly cognitive dissonance going on here?
We can't get it, and therefore it must be shit?
Its shit in over 65s is what i read is being reported.
We need to know why they are saying that.
I dont know nor do you.
Lets hope its not true
Keep calm, I think this is bollocks, see my post of 9.05pm and the fact earlier on today the EU were so angry that they didn't have enough of this vaccine.
All the evidence is that the Germans and EU are acting like a jilted ex.
Didn't want to go out with her anyway 'cause she's such a bad person.
Pretty inexcusable behaviour on their part if that is the reason.
Is there a bit of friendly cognitive dissonance going on here?
We can't get it, and therefore it must be shit?
Its shit in over 65s is what i read is being reported.
We need to know why they are saying that.
I dont know nor do you.
Lets hope its not true
Yes but you are suggesting it is a placebo which is unconscionable in this environment
The report is saying 8% thats worse than some Placebo effects isn't it?
No, because there was a placebo arm in the trial.
I think it was only the cov002 arm that had older patients in it, and that used a meningococcal vaccine as placebo. That is a curious choice (other trials used inert saline). On the one hand a degree of immune response makes for a better placebo, but on the other hand we do know that ANY vaccine has some effect on viral immunity by priming the immune system.
Anyone tracking AstraZeneca's share price, there could be a killing to be made here.
FWIW I cannot see a successful company with a market capitalisation of $150 billion playing silly beggars offer the Covid vaccine, it would permanently damage their brand.
Tbf, the market has already realised that AZ aren't going to make any money off this given the terms of the deal with Oxford. But agreed that AZ aren't going to have hidden anything for the EMA to suddenly discover.
Oddly just last week the head of the German regulator praised the efficacy of AZ so this would have to be a massive about turn from the EMA.
Fauci in the US also recently said the AZ vaccine looks very good ahead of the expected approval from the FDA.
I get the feeling this is a politician that's seen an 8% number and then taken it out of context, seen the furore today and then decided to say "well it's shit anyway" to their favourite newspaper.
I did text a senior NHS bod this story, his view is that someone has misunderstood the numbers, like it only gives an 8% efficacy after < 3 days after first dose or something.
If there's one thing we've learned during the plague is that journalists are pretty innumerate.
Israel - what would we expect in 14 days time, back of envelope:
- Cases: 30% of population were vaccinated 7 days ago, so immune from 10 -> 35%. R suppression up to (0.55/0.9) = 40%. - R now (at 15% suppression) = 0.84 -> expected R around 0.6 (or a case reduction of UP TO 60% reduction per week) in a fortnight. (plus restriction led falls, minus any lack of efficacy). This would be an R noticeably below anything we've seen elsewhere. - Hospitalisations: 22% of the population were immunised 2 weeks ago. That's approximately completing the over 70s and some over 60s on a UK like programme. Let's say 50% fewer hospitalisations relative to the number of cases the week before (based on memory prior work here) - Deaths: 16% of the population were immunised 3 weeks ago. Probably covers the over 80s and many over 70s. Deaths up to 60% down from expected on relative to the number of cases a fortnight before.
Even if the numbers are a bit rough here, the conclusion is we should be seeing something quite marked in Israel in a fortnight's time.
Have they used AZN?
Its all Pfizer in Israel, and second dose on schedule as I understand. That price of ample supplies was to treat to protocol and report all data back.
I wouldn't be too surprised if the AZN was approved by the EMA for the younger age groups. That was indeed what some on here were suggesting in December for the UK. The published AZN data was quite a mess.
It just requires a shift in vaccine policy to immunise key workers etc with it, and concentrate the Pfizer and Moderna on the older age groups.
I thought we are almost out of new first dose Pfizer?
Moderna none till when?
We have 40m total Pfizer doses on order, we haven't even reached 20m done in total let alone 20m Pfizer doses done. You've become a walking talking fake news machine.
MHRA. It looks like there is a subsample risk for the over 65s, but I'd be astonished if the MoE was that great. I mean, on the sample they got they got high seroconversion rates of 100% after the 2nd dose:
"The number of COVID-19 cases (2) in 660 participants ≥65 years old were too few to draw conclusions on efficacy. However, in this subpopulation, immunogenicity data are available, see below.
Following vaccination with COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca, in participants who were seronegative at baseline, seroconversion (as measured by a ≥4 fold increase from baseline in S-binding antibodies) was demonstrated in ≥98% of participants at 28 days after the first dose and >99% at 28 days after the second. Higher S-binding antibodies were observed with increasing dose interval (Table 3).
High seroconversion rates were observed in older adults (≥65 years) after the first (97.8%; N=136) and the second recommended dose (100.0%; N=111). The increase in S-binding antibodies was lower for participants ≥65 years old (28 days after second dose: GMT=20,727.02 [N=116, 95% CI: 17,646.6; 24,345.2]) when compared to participants aged 18-64 years (28 days after second dose: GMT=30,695.30 [N=703, 95% CI: 28,496.2; 33,064.1]). The majority of participants ≥65 years old had a dose interval of <6 weeks, which may have contributed to the lower titres observed. "
The Wall Street Journal has just published this blog post, in which it finally decides to move away from data "are", saying:
Most style guides and dictionaries have come to accept the use of the noun data with either singular or plural verbs, and we hereby join the majority.
As usage has evolved from the word's origin as the Latin plural of datum, singular verbs now are often used to refer to collections of information: Little data is available to support the conclusions. Otherwise, generally continue to use the plural: Data are still being collected.
The Yanks are well known for ruining the English language, this is but one further example.
Referendums revisited.
You're defending Latin grammar, not "the English language".
They are related, see this.
That seems to show that when you combine two things you make a different thing, which necessarily will have different needs and wants.
Are we bound to follow the rules of our parents? Are there any german rules we should be following that we are not at present?
The German Der/Die/Das is something we should NEVER copy.
One of the reasons why the English language is used widely in so many things is that we don't soil our letters with things like umlauts and the accent circumflex.
Old English did have the equivalent of der/die/das, and also noun declensions and verb conjugations as in German. Which is unsurprising given the common root of the languages. It's just that English has been much better at dropping such unnecessary grammatical frippery.
Anyone tracking AstraZeneca's share price, there could be a killing to be made here.
FWIW I cannot see a successful company with a market capitalisation of $150 billion playing silly beggars offer the Covid vaccine, it would permanently damage their brand.
Oddly just last week the head of the German regulator praised the efficacy of AZ so this would have to be a massive about turn from the EMA.
No, it is perfectly possible to say AZN is moderately effective in younger age groups, but unproven effectiveness in older age groups.
So, right now, the EU is simultaneously claiming the UK vaccine is basically useless, threatening to sue the UK vaccine maker for non delivery of the "useless" vaccine, and also threatening to stop paid-for exports of a different vaccine from the EU to the UK by Pfizer (a company which is also being harangued by the EU, and sued by Italy).
Quite gob smacking behaviour.
That Pfizer supply also feeds into the US supply chain so it's not just the UK and Israel they're threatening here, it's the US and Pfizer is an American company.
Only because the US Congress expropriated and sold it to the brother in law of the congressman who proposed the bill...
UK still doing about a third of reported European vaccines:
Where's that data coming from? 43% is well over a third. Plus of course "European vaccines" is massively inflated by including the UK in the first place - the UK is doing 78.3% of the EU total - despite being 15.0% of the EU's size.
Remarkable.
How much placebo is included in our numbers?
Do stop dickishly calling it a placebo until you have better than unsubstantiated rumour to back it up.
He can't help it, he's another one of those on the list you couldn't sit and have a few pints with and generally have a decent time.
Anyone tracking AstraZeneca's share price, there could be a killing to be made here.
FWIW I cannot see a successful company with a market capitalisation of $150 billion playing silly beggars offer the Covid vaccine, it would permanently damage their brand.
It's not just the company, the MHRA and Indian authorities have approved the vaccine, and have not raised any similar concerns. Given we are targetting the very groups the German press are reporting the vaccine is ineffective for, I find it hard to believe that the MHRA has come to a radically different view based upon the same data.
If a member of her Government has gone running to brief a paper anonymously based on misunderstood scientific data, I wonder if ex-research scientist Angela Merkel will go completely Bursar on them.
ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 appears to be better tolerated in older adults than in younger adults and has similar immunogenicity across all age groups after a boost dose. Further assessment of the efficacy of this vaccine is warranted in all age groups and individuals with comorbidities.
I think that just relates to the initial anti-body response induced by the vaccine and not to the reduction in infection/severity it leads to when people are exposed to Covid.
Antibody response was strongest when the two doses were furthest apart - which makes sense of the government choosing a 12 week gap and allows them to make a virtue out of a necessity. The worry would be that since the initial Phase 3 trial data was released, further data has been show to the EMA that confirms the lower estimates of the AZ vaccine rather than the higher or even average estimates.
Julia wouldn't know scepticism if it kicked her in the chin.
She swallows whatever anti-restriction, covid-denial BS she can find wholeheartedly, unflinchingly and without and semblance of scepticism. She's a zealot not a sceptic.
Two hours ago: the EU says its unacceptable that they cant get enough supply of the AZ vaccine. Now: anonymous German government sources say the vaccine only has an 8% efficacy with over 65s.
This episode with the EU is shocking and does their reputation no favours
I hope all those who hold the EU in such esteem will come on here and condemn their actions
And it just makes the case for brexit
Who actually holds the EU in great esteem? I can't think of anyone on here who loves the EU institutions.
You are confusing a realpolitik decision that EU membership is better than Brexit, and in particular for most, much better than this version of Brexit, with a love of EU structures that does not exist.
Is there a bit of friendly cognitive dissonance going on here?
We can't get it, and therefore it must be shit?
If that is the case then heads need to roll in the German government. Briefing against vaccines is absolutely ridiculous under any circumstances.
If it really is only "8%" efficient for the over 65s then the AZ vaccination programme in the UK is pointless, and we will see very little difference in hospital admissions or fatalities in the UK in early February.
If not..
I would expect admissions and fatalities to fall because of the lockdown even if both vaccines were completely ineffective.
Where we will learn is looking at the vaccination histories of admissions in Feb. If there is a significant vaccine failure rate, that is how we will detect it.
Yes, of course but there's still an effect over and above lockdown - if the vaccine works - as Israel is showing.
Anyone tracking AstraZeneca's share price, there could be a killing to be made here.
FWIW I cannot see a successful company with a market capitalisation of $150 billion playing silly beggars offer the Covid vaccine, it would permanently damage their brand.
Oddly just last week the head of the German regulator praised the efficacy of AZ so this would have to be a massive about turn from the EMA.
No, it is perfectly possible to say AZN is moderately effective in younger age groups, but unproven effectiveness in older age groups.
So why have we used millions of the effective in oldies Pfizer in people under 65 and millions of potentially useless AZN to over 80s?
We really need to re evaluate quickly unless these reports are BS
ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 appears to be better tolerated in older adults than in younger adults and has similar immunogenicity across all age groups after a boost dose. Further assessment of the efficacy of this vaccine is warranted in all age groups and individuals with comorbidities.
I think that just relates to the initial anti-body response induced by the vaccine and not to the reduction in infection/severity it leads to when people are exposed to Covid.
Antibody response was strongest when the two doses were furthest apart - which makes sense of the government choosing a 12 week gap and allows them to make a virtue out of a necessity. The worry would be that since the initial Phase 3 trial data was released, further data has been show to the EMA that confirms the lower estimates of the AZ vaccine rather than the higher or even average estimates.
I actually think our 12 week gap policy is based on that information of AZ having much higher efficacy with a 9-12 week gap.
Is there a bit of friendly cognitive dissonance going on here?
We can't get it, and therefore it must be shit?
Its shit in over 65s is what i read is being reported.
We need to know why they are saying that.
I dont know nor do you.
Lets hope its not true
Keep calm, I think this is bollocks, see my post of 9.05pm and the fact earlier on today the EU were so angry that they didn't have enough of this vaccine.
All the evidence is that the Germans and EU are acting like a jilted ex.
Didn't want to go out with her anyway 'cause she's such a bad person.
At what point does Merkel get absolutely wasted and drunkenly dial Boris's voicemail at 2am, telling him she still loves him and begging for him to come back?
Is there a bit of friendly cognitive dissonance going on here?
We can't get it, and therefore it must be shit?
If that is the case then heads need to roll in the German government. Briefing against vaccines is absolutely ridiculous under any circumstances.
If it really is only "8%" efficient for the over 65s then the AZ vaccination programme in the UK is pointless, and we will see very little difference in hospital admissions or fatalities in the UK in early February.
If not..
I would expect admissions and fatalities to fall because of the lockdown even if both vaccines were completely ineffective.
Where we will learn is looking at the vaccination histories of admissions in Feb. If there is a significant vaccine failure rate, that is how we will detect it.
Yes, of course but there's still an effect over and above lockdown - if the vaccine works - as Israel is showing.
We're still around 6 weeks away from being able to make any sense of AZ single jab effects from the cureen 3-4m that have had one.
ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 appears to be better tolerated in older adults than in younger adults and has similar immunogenicity across all age groups after a boost dose. Further assessment of the efficacy of this vaccine is warranted in all age groups and individuals with comorbidities.
I think that just relates to the initial anti-body response induced by the vaccine and not to the reduction in infection/severity it leads to when people are exposed to Covid.
Antibody response was strongest when the two doses were furthest apart - which makes sense of the government choosing a 12 week gap and allows them to make a virtue out of a necessity. The worry would be that since the initial Phase 3 trial data was released, further data has been show to the EMA that confirms the lower estimates of the AZ vaccine rather than the higher or even average estimates.
I actually think our 12 week gap policy is based on that information of AZ having much higher efficacy with a 9-12 week gap.
Pfizer should not be 12 weeks according to Pfizer the WHO and everybody else except us.
Anyone tracking AstraZeneca's share price, there could be a killing to be made here.
FWIW I cannot see a successful company with a market capitalisation of $150 billion playing silly beggars offer the Covid vaccine, it would permanently damage their brand.
Oddly just last week the head of the German regulator praised the efficacy of AZ so this would have to be a massive about turn from the EMA.
No, it is perfectly possible to say AZN is moderately effective in younger age groups, but unproven effectiveness in older age groups.
So why have we used millions of the effective in oldies Pfizer in people under 65 and millions of potentially useless AZN to over 80s?
We really need to re evaluate quickly unless these reports are BS
Everyone is saying these reports are BS. Someone misunderstand or misrepresenting the data.
The scientific data is publicly available and nobody has found this 8% anywhere in the data. Don't you think if it was really only 8% efficacious then someone would have found that within the data and highlighted it?
Yet some "off the record" "anonymous" "my data is not available" briefing is supposed to be taken seriously?
Anyone tracking AstraZeneca's share price, there could be a killing to be made here.
FWIW I cannot see a successful company with a market capitalisation of $150 billion playing silly beggars offer the Covid vaccine, it would permanently damage their brand.
Oddly just last week the head of the German regulator praised the efficacy of AZ so this would have to be a massive about turn from the EMA.
No, it is perfectly possible to say AZN is moderately effective in younger age groups, but unproven effectiveness in older age groups.
So why have we used millions of the effective in oldies Pfizer in people under 65 and millions of potentially useless AZN to over 80s?
We really need to re evaluate quickly unless these reports are BS
You are still using the highly irresponsible language of 'potentially useless AZN'
It is just not acceptable
And for your information my wife and I had the Pfizer vaccine last Saturday
ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 appears to be better tolerated in older adults than in younger adults and has similar immunogenicity across all age groups after a boost dose. Further assessment of the efficacy of this vaccine is warranted in all age groups and individuals with comorbidities.
I think that just relates to the initial anti-body response induced by the vaccine and not to the reduction in infection/severity it leads to when people are exposed to Covid.
Antibody response was strongest when the two doses were furthest apart - which makes sense of the government choosing a 12 week gap and allows them to make a virtue out of a necessity. The worry would be that since the initial Phase 3 trial data was released, further data has been show to the EMA that confirms the lower estimates of the AZ vaccine rather than the higher or even average estimates.
I actually think our 12 week gap policy is based on that information of AZ having much higher efficacy with a 9-12 week gap.
Pfizer should not be 12 weeks according to Pfizer the WHO and everybody else except us.
Is there a bit of friendly cognitive dissonance going on here?
We can't get it, and therefore it must be shit?
If that is the case then heads need to roll in the German government. Briefing against vaccines is absolutely ridiculous under any circumstances.
If it really is only "8%" efficient for the over 65s then the AZ vaccination programme in the UK is pointless, and we will see very little difference in hospital admissions or fatalities in the UK in early February.
If not..
I would expect admissions and fatalities to fall because of the lockdown even if both vaccines were completely ineffective.
Where we will learn is looking at the vaccination histories of admissions in Feb. If there is a significant vaccine failure rate, that is how we will detect it.
Yes, of course but there's still an effect over and above lockdown - if the vaccine works - as Israel is showing.
It will be hard to separate the two. Israel is on its third lockdown too.
Anyone tracking AstraZeneca's share price, there could be a killing to be made here.
FWIW I cannot see a successful company with a market capitalisation of $150 billion playing silly beggars offer the Covid vaccine, it would permanently damage their brand.
Oddly just last week the head of the German regulator praised the efficacy of AZ so this would have to be a massive about turn from the EMA.
No, it is perfectly possible to say AZN is moderately effective in younger age groups, but unproven effectiveness in older age groups.
So why have we used millions of the effective in oldies Pfizer in people under 65 and millions of potentially useless AZN to over 80s?
We really need to re evaluate quickly unless these reports are BS
Everyone is saying these reports are BS. Someone misunderstand or misrepresenting the data.
The scientific data is publicly available and nobody has found this 8% anywhere in the data. Don't you think if it was really only 8% efficacious then someone would have found that within the data and highlighted it?
Yet some "off the record" "anonymous" "my data is not available" briefing is supposed to be taken seriously?
Codswallop!
Hope you are right.
Are you happy to continue using AZN in over 80s until its clarified?
Comments
https://twitter.com/javame/status/1353806277131067392?s=20
Or they are wrong, and this is a catastrophic piece of FAKE news, which will fuel anti-vaxxers, and there should be mass resignation in higher German media and politics
Deadly serious, either way
Really hope the reports of 8% in over 65's is untrue
Remarkable.
Given the mortality rates for older people, to not have enough data to give a conclusive result on your vaccines efficiency for >65yr olds is extraordinary.
The AZ trial does seem to have a heavy whiff of being designed by a PhD student who wanted to answer every question rather than just focusing on how to get regulatory approval.
Government sources briefing newspapers on this is a fucking disaster idea. Let the regulator speak for itself, if it decides not to approve over 65s then let it say why in its own words.
We can't get it, and therefore it must be shit?
I suppose some shitty government behaviour is universal.
One of the reasons why the English language is used widely in so many things is that we don't soil our letters with things like umlauts and the accent circumflex.
And so far they're only demanding transparency, so that the companies can't do that on the quiet. After all, this isn't just some widget, but a public health crisis response financed by large amounts of public money.
While the data presented here show that ChAdOx1 nCov-19 is efficacious against symptomatic disease, with most cases accruing in adults younger than 55 years of age so far, an important public health consideration is the morbidity and mortality of the disease in an older adult population and thus the potential efficacy in this age group. We have reported immunogenicity data showing similar immune responses following vaccination with two doses of ChAdOx1 nCov-19 in older adults, including those older than 70 years of age, when compared with those younger than 55 years.6 As older age groups were recruited later than younger age groups, there has been less time for cases to accrue and as a result, efficacy data in these cohorts are currently limited by the small number of cases, but additional data will be available in future analyses.
Source: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)32661-1/fulltext#seccestitle210
So, there were participants of advanced age in the trials, but not enough to determine a specific efficacy value for them; however, the immune response in older patients is reported to be similar to that in younger ones, so you wouldn't expect the resultant level of protection to be wildly different. Another poster has also made the obvious point that a massive drop-off in efficacy between the under 55s and over 55s would be extremely odd.
Beyond that, I think we ought to assume that the MHRA aren't completely useless and have therefore gone over the raw data with a fine toothed comb and determined that the AZN effort ought probably, to the required statistical standards, be good enough to use. Not necessarily as effective as Pfizer, but it doesn't claim to be.
Millions have been vaccinated by an approved covid vaccine
Anything else is just irresponsible rumour making
A collection is singular. If you're talking about a library as a collection of books you don't "library are . . ."
If not..
I wouldn't be too surprised if the AZN was approved by the EMA for the younger age groups. That was indeed what some on here were suggesting in December for the UK. The published AZN data was quite a mess.
It just requires a shift in vaccine policy to immunise key workers etc with it, and concentrate the Pfizer and Moderna on the older age groups.
The scientific data are public. They do not belong to anyone. They have been gathered either with public money or through members of the public consenting to take part in trials. There is absolutely no reason to withhold the scientific data.
When a source refuses to provide the data, then that is immediately ***very, very suspicious***. On those grounds alone, the German claim is highly suspect.
If the claim is backed up by solid evidence in the data, why on earth would you not want to release the evidence?
I also agree, that radical dietary changes once already having a shit time of it aren't necessarily the way to go, but potentially narrowing the window within which you take food, to allow the body to concentrate on its COVID response, isn't a bad thing.
We need to know why they are saying that.
I dont know nor do you.
Lets hope its not true
Nor did we of course, but we did cause it some damage by trying.
It seems to be a daily figures column not a proportion of total column - but there's going to be far more natural variance in daily figures - I suspect the day before when we'd done nearly 500k then the figure would have looked well over 32%
ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 appears to be better tolerated in older adults than in younger adults and has similar immunogenicity across all age groups after a boost dose. Further assessment of the efficacy of this vaccine is warranted in all age groups and individuals with comorbidities.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)32466-1/fulltext
FWIW I cannot see a successful company with a market capitalisation of $150 billion playing silly beggars offer the Covid vaccine, it would permanently damage their brand.
But someone has put this out there, and is standing by it, and even if it is right there's not much good reason to do that and not just wait for the regulator decision.
So someone is behaving inappropriately either way.
Moderna none till when?
https://twitter.com/Yascha_Mounk/status/1353806913394368512
All the evidence is that the Germans and EU are acting like a jilted ex.
Didn't want to go out with her anyway 'cause she's such a bad person.
Where we will learn is looking at the vaccination histories of admissions in Feb. If there is a significant vaccine failure rate, that is how we will detect it.
An advisory referendum is fine (subject to ultra vires) I don’t see any issue with it. It’s not binding and has no authority to require Westminster to engage. There is a clear process set out in law for referenda on these topics and the law should be followed
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?geo=US&q=data,datum
For the English language now the prime definition of data is a collection of facts - in which case the collection is singular - the prime definition of the word is not as plural of datum, the word is a word in its own right. Hence data is.
And you are adding to the misinformation in a foolish way
Time to stop scaring millions on a unconfirmed rumour
https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2021-01/2021_reuters_tracking_-_core_political_presidential_approval_tracker_01_22_2021.pdf
Oddly just last week the head of the German regulator praised the efficacy of AZ so this would have to be a massive about turn from the EMA.
Fauci in the US also recently said the AZ vaccine looks very good ahead of the expected approval from the FDA.
I get the feeling this is a politician that's seen an 8% number and then taken it out of context, seen the furore today and then decided to say "well it's shit anyway" to their favourite newspaper.
The Scottish Government are seeking to pass legislation to call a referendum as is arguably their right. If they do, and if it is fine to do so, then it is a legally authorised referendum just as the UK's 2016 referendum was legally authorised.
“There were so few cases in over-65s that if we looked at them alone, the error bars would be huge”
“Error bars”
“Yes. The confidence interval could go to between 8% and [insert absurdly large percentage here]”
“It could be as low as 8%?”
... and a statistically inept minister runs off to give an anonymous briefing.
I think it was only the cov002 arm that had older patients in it, and that used a meningococcal vaccine as placebo. That is a curious choice (other trials used inert saline). On the one hand a degree of immune response makes for a better placebo, but on the other hand we do know that ANY vaccine has some effect on viral immunity by priming the immune system.
We have given a vaccine in Care homes that could be useless
We are also the only nation not following Pfizer 3 weeks 2nd dose guidance aren't we
I hope all those who hold the EU in such esteem will come on here and condemn their actions
And it just makes the case for brexit
https://twitter.com/TomChivers/status/1353622817904975878
If there's one thing we've learned during the plague is that journalists are pretty innumerate.
PB would be better off without posters repeating a lie in the form of a question.
--AS
"The number of COVID-19 cases (2) in 660 participants ≥65 years old were too few to draw
conclusions on efficacy. However, in this subpopulation, immunogenicity data are available, see
below.
Following vaccination with COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca, in participants who were seronegative at
baseline, seroconversion (as measured by a ≥4 fold increase from baseline in S-binding antibodies)
was demonstrated in ≥98% of participants at 28 days after the first dose and >99% at 28 days after the
second. Higher S-binding antibodies were observed with increasing dose interval (Table 3).
High seroconversion rates were observed in older adults (≥65 years) after the first (97.8%; N=136) and
the second recommended dose (100.0%; N=111). The increase in S-binding antibodies was lower for
participants ≥65 years old (28 days after second dose: GMT=20,727.02 [N=116, 95% CI: 17,646.6;
24,345.2]) when compared to participants aged 18-64 years (28 days after second dose:
GMT=30,695.30 [N=703, 95% CI: 28,496.2; 33,064.1]). The majority of participants ≥65 years old
had a dose interval of <6 weeks, which may have contributed to the lower titres observed. "
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/951851/uk-clean-spc-covid-19-vaccine-astrazeneca-reg174.pdf
He's alright.
https://sebastianrushworth.com/2021/01/25/heres-a-graph-they-dont-want-you-to-see/
Antibody response was strongest when the two doses were furthest apart - which makes sense of the government choosing a 12 week gap and allows them to make a virtue out of a necessity. The worry would be that since the initial Phase 3 trial data was released, further data has been show to the EMA that confirms the lower estimates of the AZ vaccine rather than the higher or even average estimates.
She swallows whatever anti-restriction, covid-denial BS she can find wholeheartedly, unflinchingly and without and semblance of scepticism. She's a zealot not a sceptic.
Now: anonymous German government sources say the vaccine only has an 8% efficacy with over 65s.
You are confusing a realpolitik decision that EU membership is better than Brexit, and in particular for most, much better than this version of Brexit, with a love of EU structures that does not exist.
We really need to re evaluate quickly unless these reports are BS
--AS
Taking back control to miss-use vaccine
TIA
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSeS1F1uD7tiIDmtpxcfW8gqSbXJviKJbMEZTWESNFZqMcpXcA/viewform?usp=sf_link
The scientific data is publicly available and nobody has found this 8% anywhere in the data. Don't you think if it was really only 8% efficacious then someone would have found that within the data and highlighted it?
Yet some "off the record" "anonymous" "my data is not available" briefing is supposed to be taken seriously?
Codswallop!
It is just not acceptable
And for your information my wife and I had the Pfizer vaccine last Saturday
Are you happy to continue using AZN in over 80s until its clarified?