|
Post by butlerstbob on Nov 26, 2020 9:43:11 GMT
Tier day today. Must admit they said before we went in to the current Lockdown Lite we were told the Tiers we returned to would be stricter than before. But is that really the case ? It sounds like indoor sports open across all Tiers along with shops, barbers etc. Pubs with food and restaurants open except for Tier 3. Only 5 days quarantine after flights if you get a test etc. I don't understand the household stuff so perhaps it's that which is getting stricter? Am I right in thinking you only have to quarantine when returning, flight is from a country that's Not on the travel corridor list?
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Nov 26, 2020 9:44:46 GMT
The details coming from the Oxford trial are disappointing, I don’t think it’s sunk by a long way, 62% (avoiding the half-dose as no over 55s is a confounder imo and shouldn’t feed into a larger figure of 70%) is still better than 0% for instance. But it’s a very sub-optimal way to piece together efficacy data, especially when they still have trials running and full datasets to release. This is all on interim data but start as you mean to go on. There are still questions extant for all 3 major candidates so far, that will only be revealed with time. I think Oxford are hoping for more comprehensive analyses prior to or just after Xmas, and I hope they’ve cleaned a lot up by then. But this is exactly why I say it’s not a slam dunk, it never is. "Disquiet is growing over the way that Oxford university and AstraZeneca have handled the early readout from trials of their coronavirus vaccine, which much of the developing world may rely on to emerge from the pandemic. On Tuesday, Moncef Slaoui, the head of Operation Warp Speed, the US government’s funding programme for vaccine development, disclosed that second subgroup was limited to people aged 55 or below, a demographic with lower risk of developing severe Covid-19. One early critic this week, Geoffrey Porges, an analyst at SVB Leerink, said he thought it was unlikely the AstraZeneca jab would get approval in the US after the company “tried to embellish their results” by highlighting higher efficacy in a “relatively small subset of subjects in the study”. www.ft.com/content/4583fbf8-b47c-4e78-8253-22efcfa4903aIs this bloke Porges correct in suggesting that the Oxford team have deliberately been (shall we say?) economical with the truth? This is what they were saying previously ... www.ox.ac.uk/news/2020-11-19-oxford-coronavirus-vaccine-produces-strong-immune-response-older-adults"The ChAdOx1 nCov-2019 coronavirus vaccine, developed by teams at the University of Oxford, has been shown to trigger a robust immune response in healthy adults aged 56-69 and those over 70 years of age."
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2020 9:56:11 GMT
The details coming from the Oxford trial are disappointing, I don’t think it’s sunk by a long way, 62% (avoiding the half-dose as no over 55s is a confounder imo and shouldn’t feed into a larger figure of 70%) is still better than 0% for instance. But it’s a very sub-optimal way to piece together efficacy data, especially when they still have trials running and full datasets to release. This is all on interim data but start as you mean to go on. There are still questions extant for all 3 major candidates so far, that will only be revealed with time. I think Oxford are hoping for more comprehensive analyses prior to or just after Xmas, and I hope they’ve cleaned a lot up by then. But this is exactly why I say it’s not a slam dunk, it never is. "Disquiet is growing over the way that Oxford university and AstraZeneca have handled the early readout from trials of their coronavirus vaccine, which much of the developing world may rely on to emerge from the pandemic. On Tuesday, Moncef Slaoui, the head of Operation Warp Speed, the US government’s funding programme for vaccine development, disclosed that second subgroup was limited to people aged 55 or below, a demographic with lower risk of developing severe Covid-19. One early critic this week, Geoffrey Porges, an analyst at SVB Leerink, said he thought it was unlikely the AstraZeneca jab would get approval in the US after the company “tried to embellish their results” by highlighting higher efficacy in a “relatively small subset of subjects in the study”. www.ft.com/content/4583fbf8-b47c-4e78-8253-22efcfa4903aIs this bloke Porges correct in suggesting that the Oxford team have deliberately been (shall we say?) economical with the truth? This is what they were saying previously ... www.ox.ac.uk/news/2020-11-19-oxford-coronavirus-vaccine-produces-strong-immune-response-older-adults"The ChAdOx1 nCov-2019 coronavirus vaccine, developed by teams at the University of Oxford, has been shown to trigger a robust immune response in healthy adults aged 56-69 and those over 70 years of age." It would be very strange for them to massage the truth and manipulate the findings. This isn't politics or the media where you can spin any old bollocks you want. This is science, which is extensively peer reviewed whenever you announce any findings. Any holes would almost immediately be picked out and shown up. Cant understand why they would go down that route? It just sets them up for embarrassment. Percentage of success aside, one of the main positives I took from the announcement was that zero patients involved in the trial ended up in hospital. One of the main things we are surely trying to do is save lives and ease the strain on the NHS. If we've got a jab that stops a certain percentage of people getting it (whatever that percentage may be) and the rest that do go onto contract it only develop mild symptoms, surely that's still a brilliant outcome? Unless I'm missing something.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Nov 26, 2020 10:04:13 GMT
They don't have to acknowledge that the government can't simply follow their advice because they know full well that the government doesn't have to follow their advice and the government (quite rightly) don't just follow their advice. It's not their fault that the people don't understand how the setup works. What you seem to be wanting is a SAGE that simply arse lick the government. They are there to provide independent advice. The government can choose to take it or leave it. If the government choose to ignore it then they are perfectly within their rights to point out that the government are responsible for the consequences. If the government think their will be rise in suicides they are equally at liberty to point this out to SAGE. The governments decision to relax restrictions over Xmas WILL result in an increase in covid deaths - that's just bleeding obvious and to expect SAGE to say otherwise is ridiculous. The bloke in question didn't just set out his opinion though did he. Instead of saying 'we understand people want to meet up and see loved ones over Christmas but we don't feel its a good idea with the virus still circulating so highly', we had phrases like 'throwing fuel on the Covid fire', 'unnecessary deaths' and 'snatching defeat from the jaws of victory'. Obviously a lot of this is due to the government's own making. BoJo and friends made a big deal of 'following the science' to cover their arses so the public naturally now question why the government isn't simply following every word. I don't want a load of yes men advising government but a full argument isn't being allowed to play out so you've got various people freely throwing stones from the side lines whilst on the other side you have the government/media/search engines attempting to suppress anybody with a contrary view point. The bloke in question's job is to advise the government on the best course of action to minimise covid deaths and from that perspective he is absolutely right - easing restrictions WILL result in unnecessary deaths. You are right in that the government are getting pelters from all sides of the argument but you can't on the one hand moan about censorship and in the same post moan about SAGE not self censoring. I share your concerns about censorship and I think it's a bad idea. I think there would be some sort of system for fact checking and flagging up concerns about factual inaccuracies but I think censorship just gives a pseudo legitimacy to stuff that with a bit of explanation would be exposed as bullshit. In terms of the pelters the government are getting I think it's important to look at the motivation and potential consequences of what they are doing. In terms of the bloke from SAGE he's motivated by doing his job - which is to minimise covid deaths - and if people choose to follow his advice rather than the governments there will be fewer covid deaths. On the other hand what are those "experts" using social media trying to do? It strikes me they are in it for a bit of self publicity - when did Twitter become an official mechanism for making actual political and scientific decisions? The other thing I find completely abhorrent is that they offering advice in a consequence free environment - they are shirking moral responsibility for the consequences of their advice and if the government did take any notice they would be flip flopping policy on a daily basis and more people would almost certainly die of covid. In addition they are undermining people's confidence in the government's advice which again will result in more deaths than government policy is aiming to achieve but again they aren't acknowledging this. SAGE and the government literally have blood on their hands - they haven't adopted a zero covid strategy so what they are doing is allowing people to die of covid. But they know this and haven't shirked their responsibility - and for that I respect both SAGE and the government and hold most of the arseholes indulging in some ego trip on social media in utter contempt for mouthing off without even acknowledging or taking responsibility for the potential consequences of their actions. For what it's worth I agree with the government's decision to loosen restrictions over Xmas. But I also agree with the bloke from SAGE that it WILL result in more covid deaths than would have been the case had restrictions remained in place. I fully intend to take advantage of the arrangements but the people I'm going to meeting with are in a relatively low risk group and we've all accepted the risks. I sincerely hope no-one dies as a result of our Xmas binge and apologies in advance if our actions kills one of your loved ones. And let's face it you know this - and part of the reason you don't like what the bloke from SAGE is saying is that you'd rather not spoil your Xmas festivities with the thought that your actions might result in someone dying unnecessarily of covid. My hope is that a vaccine becomes available before Xmas - in which case if it's an option I'm first in line for the jab. My ethical balancing act is to put myself at risk of taking a new vaccine as compensation for behaving in a way that might give someone covid over Xmas. It's a shit situation but life goes on - and with the vaccine news the future does at least look brighter.
|
|
|
Post by Seymour Beaver on Nov 26, 2020 10:07:28 GMT
"Disquiet is growing over the way that Oxford university and AstraZeneca have handled the early readout from trials of their coronavirus vaccine, which much of the developing world may rely on to emerge from the pandemic. On Tuesday, Moncef Slaoui, the head of Operation Warp Speed, the US government’s funding programme for vaccine development, disclosed that second subgroup was limited to people aged 55 or below, a demographic with lower risk of developing severe Covid-19. One early critic this week, Geoffrey Porges, an analyst at SVB Leerink, said he thought it was unlikely the AstraZeneca jab would get approval in the US after the company “tried to embellish their results” by highlighting higher efficacy in a “relatively small subset of subjects in the study”. www.ft.com/content/4583fbf8-b47c-4e78-8253-22efcfa4903aIs this bloke Porges correct in suggesting that the Oxford team have deliberately been (shall we say?) economical with the truth? This is what they were saying previously ... www.ox.ac.uk/news/2020-11-19-oxford-coronavirus-vaccine-produces-strong-immune-response-older-adults"The ChAdOx1 nCov-2019 coronavirus vaccine, developed by teams at the University of Oxford, has been shown to trigger a robust immune response in healthy adults aged 56-69 and those over 70 years of age." It would be very strange for them to massage the truth and manipulate the findings. This isn't politics or the media where you can spin any old bollocks you want. This is science, which is extensively peer reviewed whenever you announce any findings. Any holes would almost immediately be picked out and shown up. Cant understand why they would go down that route? It just sets them up for embarrassment. Percentage of success aside, one of the main positives I took from the announcement was that zero patients involved in the trial ended up in hospital. One of the main things we are surely trying to do is save lives and ease the strain on the NHS. If we've got a jab that stops a certain percentage of people getting it (whatever that percentage may be) and the rest that do go onto contract it only develop mild symptoms, surely that's still a brilliant outcome? Unless I'm missing something. Isn't the fundamental problem with all of this that in order to take part in trials you need to be healthy to start with? In the case of Covid that's not really representative of the groups that are most at risk. So if you're 90 with asthma you're unlikely to be accepted for the trial but are also in the group who should benefit most. However you'll only know for certain when you get one or the other 'for real'.
|
|
|
Post by terryconroysmagic on Nov 26, 2020 10:09:20 GMT
Is it just me or does the deluge of reporting that our hospitals were close to being overwhelmed that we saw almost daily right up to the point of lockdown, largely seems to have disappeared as a narrative...
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2020 10:10:39 GMT
It would be very strange for them to massage the truth and manipulate the findings. This isn't politics or the media where you can spin any old bollocks you want. This is science, which is extensively peer reviewed whenever you announce any findings. Any holes would almost immediately be picked out and shown up. Cant understand why they would go down that route? It just sets them up for embarrassment. Percentage of success aside, one of the main positives I took from the announcement was that zero patients involved in the trial ended up in hospital. One of the main things we are surely trying to do is save lives and ease the strain on the NHS. If we've got a jab that stops a certain percentage of people getting it (whatever that percentage may be) and the rest that do go onto contract it only develop mild symptoms, surely that's still a brilliant outcome? Unless I'm missing something. Isn't the fundamental problem with all of this that in order to take part in trials you need to be healthy to start with? In the case of Covid that's not really representative of the groups that are most at risk. So if you're 90 with asthma you're unlikely to be accepted for the trial but are also in the group who should benefit most. However you'll only know for certain when you get one or the other 'for real'. I thought they were running seperate antibody trials for people who aren't suitable to take a vaccine?
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Nov 26, 2020 10:16:10 GMT
Is it just me or does the deluge of reporting that our hospitals were close to being overwhelmed that we saw almost daily right up to the point of lockdown, largely seems to have disappeared as a narrative... I saw a report on it last night, Blackburn hospital is rammed, Preston hospital routine operations and cancer stuff on hold as all the staff are over supporting Blackburn
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Nov 26, 2020 10:30:25 GMT
"Disquiet is growing over the way that Oxford university and AstraZeneca have handled the early readout from trials of their coronavirus vaccine, which much of the developing world may rely on to emerge from the pandemic. On Tuesday, Moncef Slaoui, the head of Operation Warp Speed, the US government’s funding programme for vaccine development, disclosed that second subgroup was limited to people aged 55 or below, a demographic with lower risk of developing severe Covid-19. One early critic this week, Geoffrey Porges, an analyst at SVB Leerink, said he thought it was unlikely the AstraZeneca jab would get approval in the US after the company “tried to embellish their results” by highlighting higher efficacy in a “relatively small subset of subjects in the study”. www.ft.com/content/4583fbf8-b47c-4e78-8253-22efcfa4903aIs this bloke Porges correct in suggesting that the Oxford team have deliberately been (shall we say?) economical with the truth? This is what they were saying previously ... www.ox.ac.uk/news/2020-11-19-oxford-coronavirus-vaccine-produces-strong-immune-response-older-adults"The ChAdOx1 nCov-2019 coronavirus vaccine, developed by teams at the University of Oxford, has been shown to trigger a robust immune response in healthy adults aged 56-69 and those over 70 years of age." It would be very strange for them to massage the truth and manipulate the findings. This isn't politics or the media where you can spin any old bollocks you want. This is science, which is extensively peer reviewed whenever you announce any findings. Any holes would almost immediately be picked out and shown up. Cant understand why they would go down that route? It just sets them up for embarrassment.
Percentage of success aside, one of the main positives I took from the announcement was that zero patients involved in the trial ended up in hospital. One of the main things we are surely trying to do is save lives and ease the strain on the NHS. If we've got a jab that stops a certain percentage of people getting it (whatever that percentage may be) and the rest that do go onto contract it only develop mild symptoms, surely that's still a brilliant outcome? Unless I'm missing something. Isn't that exactly what's happening ... www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2020/11/25/business/coronavirus-vaccine-astrazeneca-oxford.amp.htmlScientists and industry experts said the error and a series of other irregularities and omissions in the way AstraZeneca initially disclosed the data have eroded their confidence in the reliability of the results. The biggest questions were, why was there such a large variation in the effectiveness of the vaccine at different doses, and why did a smaller dose appear to produce much better results? AstraZeneca and Oxford researchers said they did not know. "I just can’t figure out where all the information is coming from and how it’s combining together,” said Natalie Dean, a biostatistician and an expert in vaccine trial design at the University of Florida. She wrote on Twitter that AstraZeneca and Oxford “get a poor grade for transparency and rigor when it comes to the vaccine trial results they have reported.” Officials in the United States have noted that the results were not clear. It was the head of the flagship federal vaccine initiative — not the company — who first disclosed that the vaccine’s most promising results did not reflect data from older people. The fact that the initial half-strength dose wasn’t tested in older participants, who are especially vulnerable to Covid-19, could undermine AstraZeneca’s case to regulators that the vaccine should be authorized for emergency use.
|
|
|
Post by thepremierbanksy on Nov 26, 2020 10:31:25 GMT
How would this 'make money'? Would it not be a cost to the tax payer and there is already a 2 trillion pound hole in the public finances? Granted a couple of pharmaceutical companies would benefit but that's a relative irrelevance in the grander scheme of it. I suppose you could make the argument it may save the NHS money in treating fewer flu sufferers. I follow a few interesting Twatter accounts and this tweet peaked my interest. As plans for public health and climate go, I think this is ace and would love to know if they figures are true or trueish. £45m/15% of the active transport budget got cut yesterday.
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Nov 26, 2020 10:31:54 GMT
Is it just me or does the deluge of reporting that our hospitals were close to being overwhelmed that we saw almost daily right up to the point of lockdown, largely seems to have disappeared as a narrative... There are around 20 trusts close to capacity (however "close" is defined) according to Tim Spector on Peston last night. In his view these are the areas that should go into Tier 3 whilst areas such as Greater Manchester who were already seeing a downward trajectory pre-lockdown should only be Tier 2 maximum.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Nov 26, 2020 10:34:59 GMT
I follow a few interesting Twatter accounts and this tweet peaked my interest. As plans for public health and climate go, I think this is ace and would love to know if they figures are true or trueish. £45m/15% of the active transport budget got cut yesterday. What a country we live in. Tory fucks.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2020 10:35:29 GMT
It would be very strange for them to massage the truth and manipulate the findings. This isn't politics or the media where you can spin any old bollocks you want. This is science, which is extensively peer reviewed whenever you announce any findings. Any holes would almost immediately be picked out and shown up. Cant understand why they would go down that route? It just sets them up for embarrassment.
Percentage of success aside, one of the main positives I took from the announcement was that zero patients involved in the trial ended up in hospital. One of the main things we are surely trying to do is save lives and ease the strain on the NHS. If we've got a jab that stops a certain percentage of people getting it (whatever that percentage may be) and the rest that do go onto contract it only develop mild symptoms, surely that's still a brilliant outcome? Unless I'm missing something. Isn't that exactly what's happening ... www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2020/11/25/business/coronavirus-vaccine-astrazeneca-oxford.amp.htmlScientists and industry experts said the error and a series of other irregularities and omissions in the way AstraZeneca initially disclosed the data have eroded their confidence in the reliability of the results. The biggest questions were, why was there such a large variation in the effectiveness of the vaccine at different doses, and why did a smaller dose appear to produce much better results? AstraZeneca and Oxford researchers said they did not know. "I just can’t figure out where all the information is coming from and how it’s combining together,” said Natalie Dean, a biostatistician and an expert in vaccine trial design at the University of Florida. She wrote on Twitter that AstraZeneca and Oxford “get a poor grade for transparency and rigor when it comes to the vaccine trial results they have reported.” Officials in the United States have noted that the results were not clear. It was the head of the flagship federal vaccine initiative — not the company — who first disclosed that the vaccine’s most promising results did not reflect data from older people. The fact that the initial half-strength dose wasn’t tested in older participants, who are especially vulnerable to Covid-19, could undermine AstraZeneca’s case to regulators that the vaccine should be authorized for emergency use. Just can't understand why they'd do it? They must have known they wouldn't have got away with it. There is no possible positive outcome for them.
|
|
|
Post by adri2008 on Nov 26, 2020 10:38:09 GMT
It would be very strange for them to massage the truth and manipulate the findings. This isn't politics or the media where you can spin any old bollocks you want. This is science, which is extensively peer reviewed whenever you announce any findings. Any holes would almost immediately be picked out and shown up. Cant understand why they would go down that route? It just sets them up for embarrassment.
Percentage of success aside, one of the main positives I took from the announcement was that zero patients involved in the trial ended up in hospital. One of the main things we are surely trying to do is save lives and ease the strain on the NHS. If we've got a jab that stops a certain percentage of people getting it (whatever that percentage may be) and the rest that do go onto contract it only develop mild symptoms, surely that's still a brilliant outcome? Unless I'm missing something. Isn't that exactly what's happening ... www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2020/11/25/business/coronavirus-vaccine-astrazeneca-oxford.amp.htmlScientists and industry experts said the error and a series of other irregularities and omissions in the way AstraZeneca initially disclosed the data have eroded their confidence in the reliability of the results. The biggest questions were, why was there such a large variation in the effectiveness of the vaccine at different doses, and why did a smaller dose appear to produce much better results? AstraZeneca and Oxford researchers said they did not know. "I just can’t figure out where all the information is coming from and how it’s combining together,” said Natalie Dean, a biostatistician and an expert in vaccine trial design at the University of Florida. She wrote on Twitter that AstraZeneca and Oxford “get a poor grade for transparency and rigor when it comes to the vaccine trial results they have reported.” Officials in the United States have noted that the results were not clear. It was the head of the flagship federal vaccine initiative — not the company — who first disclosed that the vaccine’s most promising results did not reflect data from older people. The fact that the initial half-strength dose wasn’t tested in older participants, who are especially vulnerable to Covid-19, could undermine AstraZeneca’s case to regulators that the vaccine should be authorized for emergency use. Does seem like they've 'dropped the ball' on this. For people to have confidence in what is basically a fast tracked vaccine, transparency is surely absolutely essential. I'm assuming government pressure must be responsible i.e 'give everyone a boost that the vaccine is just round the corner'
|
|
|
Post by MilanStokie on Nov 26, 2020 10:39:11 GMT
So everyone in my household has tested positive for covid today. Both my young children and their mum. My partner was very rough for a week and lost taste and smell and both kids spiked fevers for a couple of days. Luckily all feeling much better already.
I had no symptoms, which I'm confused because I have a compromised immune system and was expecting a very tough time if I contracted the virus. As such, with no symptoms I have not had to do the test.
Interesting that last November I was seriously ill with mild pneumonia and now I think this may have been covid.
Either way, luckily for us, we have escaped any serious effects of the virus.
|
|
|
Post by starkiller on Nov 26, 2020 10:39:45 GMT
The details coming from the Oxford trial are disappointing, I don’t think it’s sunk by a long way, 62% (avoiding the half-dose as no over 55s is a confounder imo and shouldn’t feed into a larger figure of 70%) is still better than 0% for instance. But it’s a very sub-optimal way to piece together efficacy data, especially when they still have trials running and full datasets to release. This is all on interim data but start as you mean to go on. There are still questions extant for all 3 major candidates so far, that will only be revealed with time. I think Oxford are hoping for more comprehensive analyses prior to or just after Xmas, and I hope they’ve cleaned a lot up by then. But this is exactly why I say it’s not a slam dunk, it never is. "Disquiet is growing over the way that Oxford university and AstraZeneca have handled the early readout from trials of their coronavirus vaccine, which much of the developing world may rely on to emerge from the pandemic. On Tuesday, Moncef Slaoui, the head of Operation Warp Speed, the US government’s funding programme for vaccine development, disclosed that second subgroup was limited to people aged 55 or below, a demographic with lower risk of developing severe Covid-19. One early critic this week, Geoffrey Porges, an analyst at SVB Leerink, said he thought it was unlikely the AstraZeneca jab would get approval in the US after the company “tried to embellish their results” by highlighting higher efficacy in a “relatively small subset of subjects in the study”. www.ft.com/content/4583fbf8-b47c-4e78-8253-22efcfa4903aIs this bloke Porges correct in suggesting that the Oxford team have deliberately been (shall we say?) economical with the truth? This is what they were saying previously ... www.ox.ac.uk/news/2020-11-19-oxford-coronavirus-vaccine-produces-strong-immune-response-older-adults"The ChAdOx1 nCov-2019 coronavirus vaccine, developed by teams at the University of Oxford, has been shown to trigger a robust immune response in healthy adults aged 56-69 and those over 70 years of age." We need to know how many cycles they are running the PCR test in the trial. I guarantee it won't be 45. And whether running it at a lower amount would have the same result without a vaccine.
|
|
|
Post by Gary Hackett on Nov 26, 2020 10:43:09 GMT
It would be very strange for them to massage the truth and manipulate the findings. This isn't politics or the media where you can spin any old bollocks you want. This is science, which is extensively peer reviewed whenever you announce any findings. Any holes would almost immediately be picked out and shown up. Cant understand why they would go down that route? It just sets them up for embarrassment.
Percentage of success aside, one of the main positives I took from the announcement was that zero patients involved in the trial ended up in hospital. One of the main things we are surely trying to do is save lives and ease the strain on the NHS. If we've got a jab that stops a certain percentage of people getting it (whatever that percentage may be) and the rest that do go onto contract it only develop mild symptoms, surely that's still a brilliant outcome? Unless I'm missing something. Isn't that exactly what's happening ... www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2020/11/25/business/coronavirus-vaccine-astrazeneca-oxford.amp.htmlScientists and industry experts said the error and a series of other irregularities and omissions in the way AstraZeneca initially disclosed the data have eroded their confidence in the reliability of the results. The biggest questions were, why was there such a large variation in the effectiveness of the vaccine at different doses, and why did a smaller dose appear to produce much better results? AstraZeneca and Oxford researchers said they did not know. "I just can’t figure out where all the information is coming from and how it’s combining together,” said Natalie Dean, a biostatistician and an expert in vaccine trial design at the University of Florida. She wrote on Twitter that AstraZeneca and Oxford “get a poor grade for transparency and rigor when it comes to the vaccine trial results they have reported.” Officials in the United States have noted that the results were not clear. It was the head of the flagship federal vaccine initiative — not the company — who first disclosed that the vaccine’s most promising results did not reflect data from older people. The fact that the initial half-strength dose wasn’t tested in older participants, who are especially vulnerable to Covid-19, could undermine AstraZeneca’s case to regulators that the vaccine should be authorized for emergency use. As far as I understand it the half dose was not intended and was an error so hence why not all testing groups were given it. It just looks like they're going to have to get it's use authorised with the 60% full doses for the time being until they've tested the half doses in the older groups and then reapply once more research and testing is done for the small doses.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Nov 26, 2020 10:52:39 GMT
So everyone in my household has tested positive for covid today. Both my young children and their mum. My partner was very rough for a week and lost taste and smell and both kids spiked fevers for a couple of days. Luckily all feeling much better already. I had no symptoms, which I'm confused because I have a compromised immune system and was expecting a very tough time if I contracted the virus. As such, with no symptoms I have not had to do the test. Interesting that last November I was seriously ill with mild pneumonia and now I think this may have been covid. Either way, luckily for us, we have escaped any serious effects of the virus. That's good to hear, glad you're all doing well mate.
|
|
|
Post by estrangedsonoffaye on Nov 26, 2020 10:58:26 GMT
The details coming from the Oxford trial are disappointing, I don’t think it’s sunk by a long way, 62% (avoiding the half-dose as no over 55s is a confounder imo and shouldn’t feed into a larger figure of 70%) is still better than 0% for instance. But it’s a very sub-optimal way to piece together efficacy data, especially when they still have trials running and full datasets to release. This is all on interim data but start as you mean to go on. There are still questions extant for all 3 major candidates so far, that will only be revealed with time. I think Oxford are hoping for more comprehensive analyses prior to or just after Xmas, and I hope they’ve cleaned a lot up by then. But this is exactly why I say it’s not a slam dunk, it never is. "Disquiet is growing over the way that Oxford university and AstraZeneca have handled the early readout from trials of their coronavirus vaccine, which much of the developing world may rely on to emerge from the pandemic. On Tuesday, Moncef Slaoui, the head of Operation Warp Speed, the US government’s funding programme for vaccine development, disclosed that second subgroup was limited to people aged 55 or below, a demographic with lower risk of developing severe Covid-19. One early critic this week, Geoffrey Porges, an analyst at SVB Leerink, said he thought it was unlikely the AstraZeneca jab would get approval in the US after the company “tried to embellish their results” by highlighting higher efficacy in a “relatively small subset of subjects in the study”. www.ft.com/content/4583fbf8-b47c-4e78-8253-22efcfa4903aIs this bloke Porges correct in suggesting that the Oxford team have deliberately been (shall we say?) economical with the truth? This is what they were saying previously ... www.ox.ac.uk/news/2020-11-19-oxford-coronavirus-vaccine-produces-strong-immune-response-older-adults"The ChAdOx1 nCov-2019 coronavirus vaccine, developed by teams at the University of Oxford, has been shown to trigger a robust immune response in healthy adults aged 56-69 and those over 70 years of age." That Oxford quote was about the Phase 2 data, Paul where you assess efficacy but not at mass scale. (Hundreds rather than thousands). That’s why you have antibody data associated with it and it’s data collated from 2 sites (which in this case is fine). www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)32466-1/fulltext
|
|
|
Post by Gary Hackett on Nov 26, 2020 11:00:21 GMT
So everyone in my household has tested positive for covid today. Both my young children and their mum. My partner was very rough for a week and lost taste and smell and both kids spiked fevers for a couple of days. Luckily all feeling much better already. I had no symptoms, which I'm confused because I have a compromised immune system and was expecting a very tough time if I contracted the virus. As such, with no symptoms I have not had to do the test. Interesting that last November I was seriously ill with mild pneumonia and now I think this may have been covid. Either way, luckily for us, we have escaped any serious effects of the virus. It could have been covid back in November but as far as I understand it there isn't any proof that is existed over here back then. I know this may totally be irrelevant but I did have the worst flu I have ever had back end of November, I've never been bed ridden with anything before but this knocked me out for a week so you never know. An interesting point about my in laws. Mother in law had symptoms and tested positive straight away, father in law had same symptoms but tested negative, 3 days later he retested positive.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Nov 26, 2020 11:13:33 GMT
"Disquiet is growing over the way that Oxford university and AstraZeneca have handled the early readout from trials of their coronavirus vaccine, which much of the developing world may rely on to emerge from the pandemic. On Tuesday, Moncef Slaoui, the head of Operation Warp Speed, the US government’s funding programme for vaccine development, disclosed that second subgroup was limited to people aged 55 or below, a demographic with lower risk of developing severe Covid-19. One early critic this week, Geoffrey Porges, an analyst at SVB Leerink, said he thought it was unlikely the AstraZeneca jab would get approval in the US after the company “tried to embellish their results” by highlighting higher efficacy in a “relatively small subset of subjects in the study”. www.ft.com/content/4583fbf8-b47c-4e78-8253-22efcfa4903aIs this bloke Porges correct in suggesting that the Oxford team have deliberately been (shall we say?) economical with the truth? This is what they were saying previously ... www.ox.ac.uk/news/2020-11-19-oxford-coronavirus-vaccine-produces-strong-immune-response-older-adults"The ChAdOx1 nCov-2019 coronavirus vaccine, developed by teams at the University of Oxford, has been shown to trigger a robust immune response in healthy adults aged 56-69 and those over 70 years of age." That Oxford quote was about the Phase 2 data, Paul where you assess efficacy but not at mass scale. (Hundreds rather than thousands). That’s why you have antibody data associated with it and it’s data collated from 2 sites (which in this case is fine). www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)32466-1/fulltextYes but it's given a misleading impression to the public. I was fully under the impression that the Oxford vaccine was going to work pretty well for the elderly but now that doesn't seem that that is necessarily the case. What do you think about what Porges said ... did Oxford deliberately embellish their results or have they just been sloppy?
|
|
|
Post by adri2008 on Nov 26, 2020 11:28:10 GMT
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Nov 26, 2020 11:31:21 GMT
So everyone in my household has tested positive for covid today. Both my young children and their mum. My partner was very rough for a week and lost taste and smell and both kids spiked fevers for a couple of days. Luckily all feeling much better already. I had no symptoms, which I'm confused because I have a compromised immune system and was expecting a very tough time if I contracted the virus. As such, with no symptoms I have not had to do the test. Interesting that last November I was seriously ill with mild pneumonia and now I think this may have been covid. Either way, luckily for us, we have escaped any serious effects of the virus. Hope you all stay feeling ok mate.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Nov 26, 2020 11:31:32 GMT
"Disquiet is growing over the way that Oxford university and AstraZeneca have handled the early readout from trials of their coronavirus vaccine, which much of the developing world may rely on to emerge from the pandemic. On Tuesday, Moncef Slaoui, the head of Operation Warp Speed, the US government’s funding programme for vaccine development, disclosed that second subgroup was limited to people aged 55 or below, a demographic with lower risk of developing severe Covid-19. One early critic this week, Geoffrey Porges, an analyst at SVB Leerink, said he thought it was unlikely the AstraZeneca jab would get approval in the US after the company “tried to embellish their results” by highlighting higher efficacy in a “relatively small subset of subjects in the study”. www.ft.com/content/4583fbf8-b47c-4e78-8253-22efcfa4903aIs this bloke Porges correct in suggesting that the Oxford team have deliberately been (shall we say?) economical with the truth? This is what they were saying previously ... www.ox.ac.uk/news/2020-11-19-oxford-coronavirus-vaccine-produces-strong-immune-response-older-adults"The ChAdOx1 nCov-2019 coronavirus vaccine, developed by teams at the University of Oxford, has been shown to trigger a robust immune response in healthy adults aged 56-69 and those over 70 years of age." We need to know how many cycles they are running the PCR test in the trial. I guarantee it won't be 45. And whether running it at a lower amount would have the same result without a vaccine. What are you on about? Providing the test is identical for everyone involved in the trial the results are still valid. Half the people in the trial were given a placebo and half were given the vaccine. Of those that subsequently tested positive for covid the majority were in the placebo group thereby proving that the vaccine suppressed infection. If the PCR test was set to be too sensitive all that would happen is that the positive tests would have occurred earlier (and vice versa) - it is the proportion of cases in the two groups that counts. I think you need to refine your conspiracy theory. If you dig deep enough you'll find that the WHO told Bill Gates who was in the placebo group and he personally rigged the PCR tests in this group to be more sensitive than those in the vaccine group in order to rig the trials in favour of the vaccine. In order to pull off the same stunt in the US and Germany the WEF bought him a private jet to facilitate his nefarious deeds. It's all true - I saw it on a website published by a bloke with a degree in Home Economics with shares in a dandelion farm flogging a diet book coincidentally advocating the miraculous powers of dandelion leaves.
|
|
|
Post by Clem Fandango on Nov 26, 2020 11:31:35 GMT
On the Stone local page on FB it said that Stafford Borough along with the rest of Staffordshire will be in Tier 3.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Nov 26, 2020 11:32:02 GMT
Cheshire East in tier 2 but it keeps crashing on me for Stoke.
|
|
|
Post by dexta on Nov 26, 2020 11:37:04 GMT
fucking useless which doesn't surprise me
|
|
|
Post by LL Cool Dave on Nov 26, 2020 11:38:01 GMT
Tier 3 for us in Manchester. Can't see the pubs opening till 2021 now
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Nov 26, 2020 11:38:12 GMT
On the Stone local page on FB it said that Stafford Borough along with the rest of Staffordshire will be in Tier 3. Confirmed on Sky just, the whole of Staffordshire in tier 3.
|
|
|
Post by cheadlepotter on Nov 26, 2020 11:38:36 GMT
SOT and rest of Staffordshire is Tier 3.
|
|