|
Post by Paul Spencer on Dec 30, 2020 10:50:33 GMT
A really thorough but not particularly long article on why the current test data actually tells us very little ... andystokey
|
|
|
Post by adri2008 on Dec 30, 2020 10:51:20 GMT
62% efficacy of the Oxford vaccine. Do you know if that means it has a 62% chance of working, i.e. in 100 people who take the vaccine, 62 are protected and 38 are not? So only slightly better than the toss of a coin, after you've been jabbed. Seems quite low to me but better than nothing I guess and across the population it'll make a significant difference. I just hope the elderly and most vulnerable get the Pfizer one. That sort of figure (and lower) does enough to suppress flu each year so I guess they are viewing that as enough. Its all about control of hospitalisations rather than eradication of the virus and I suspect this will end up being managed exactly like the flu i.e an autumn dose for those considered susceptible.
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Dec 30, 2020 10:54:32 GMT
So basically if you were in charge of public health policy you'd get rid of all restrictions, tell people to go to the gyms, eat an orange in the sunshine, use the Nightingale hospitals as highly efficient mortuaries to process the thousands of dead bodies as the country achieves herd immunity the natural way and tell the bereaved to shut the fuck up because their dead relatives were either old or weak and it's all about the survival of the fittest. What century were you actually born in? Nice reply. At least you got a like from huddysleftfoot. That's because his summation is essentially correct.
|
|
|
Post by GrahamHyde on Dec 30, 2020 10:55:21 GMT
62% efficacy of the Oxford vaccine. Do you know if that means it has a 62% chance of working, i.e. in 100 people who take the vaccine, 62 are protected and 38 are not? So only slightly better than the toss of a coin, after you've been jabbed. Seems quite low to me but better than nothing I guess and across the population it'll make a significant difference. I just hope the elderly and most vulnerable get the Pfizer one. That sort of figure (and lower) does enough to suppress flu each year so I guess they are viewing that as enough. Its all about control of hospitalisations rather than eradication of the virus and I suspect this will end up being managed exactly like the flu i.e an autumn dose for those considered susceptible. Yep, that's a good point. It's just important for us to not lose our shit when the inevitable news stories come in about elderly people who have had the vaccine but since been hospitalised with the virus.
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Dec 30, 2020 10:56:26 GMT
|
|
|
Post by GrahamHyde on Dec 30, 2020 10:57:09 GMT
Up to 80% efficacy where the interval between first and second dose is longer (i.e. 3 months)
Partial immunity starts to come into effect from 21 days after first vaccination.
|
|
|
Post by bertiebigguns on Dec 30, 2020 10:58:36 GMT
One good thing about this virus it has sorted the wheat from the chaff. Given the weak the opportunity to live in perpetual fear, leaving the rest to value and embrace life. Nothing like a natural disaster to fully understand yourself. By the "weak" I assume you mean those who recognise the need for restrictions in order to prevent the vulnerable from dying. There are some people who obey the rules out of fear but the vast majority are doing out out of a sense of civic duty. The anti lockdowners keep banging on about project fear but I literally don't know anyone who is afraid of government messaging about covid or anything else for that matter. Anyone scared of Matt Hancock has a serious problem and needs help - and that's nothing to do with their attitude to covid restrictions. You are right in that it this has separated the wheat from the chaff but not in weak v strong terms. The real distinction is between those with an extreme individualistic outlook that see everything in terms of how it affects them and those with a sense of civic responsibility which appears to map very strongly to political beliefs. It's the people who have accepted the need for restrictions who have just accepted the situation for what it is who have embraced life and made the best of it. It's the anti lockdown brigade that have wasted their lives constantly whining and moaning about restrictions - that's not embracing life it's crushing it to death. In terms of weak v strong the front line workers who have put their lives on the line for others are what I call strong not those scared shit less by government messaging on covid as a permanent threat to their civil liberties. But each to their own. Yes exactly, by the weak I mean those living in fear by proxy, hiding behind the frailties of others to disguise their own shortfalls. The type left cowering in the trenches. I blame their mothers.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Dec 30, 2020 11:00:04 GMT
Nice reply. At least you got a like from huddysleftfoot. That's because his summation is essentially correct. No where near correct A fit and healthy person is far less likely (not completely immune) to not suffer greatly with illness etc Obesity is costing the nhs millions pre covid and puts you in a covid risk All the more reason to lead a healthy life style Fitness and healthy living helps combat depression - lockdowns contribute to depression
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2020 11:01:45 GMT
Well it certainly needs explanation. 1. The MHRA have approved one protocol (four weeks), can the government simply switch it to twelve? 2. How much protection does a single jab provide? 3. Will the people who have already had the Pfizer jab, who were expecting their second dose within a month, now have to wait? 4. Is the amount of total protection now reduced as a result of the delay? 5. Are we ever going to see any ACTUAL data with regard to the efficacy of the Oxford vaccine in the elderly and those in that at risk groups? I'm sure there are plenty of other questions as well. Not a single person was hospitalised due to covid after one dose of the Oxford Vaccine.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2020 11:03:27 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2020 11:04:23 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2020 11:05:00 GMT
"Large scale trials showed it was around 70% effective at protecting against Covid-19 which is better than most flu vaccines.
Crucially, no-one who received at least one dose of the vaccine was hospitalised with Covid."
|
|
|
Post by wakefieldstokie on Dec 30, 2020 11:12:24 GMT
Well it certainly needs explanation. 1. The MHRA have approved one protocol (four weeks), can the government simply switch it to twelve? 2. How much protection does a single jab provide? 3. Will the people who have already had the Pfizer jab, who were expecting their second dose within a month, now have to wait? 4. Is the amount of total protection now reduced as a result of the delay? 5. Are we ever going to see any ACTUAL data with regard to the efficacy of the Oxford vaccine in the elderly and those in that at risk groups? I'm sure there are plenty of other questions as well. 6. Will it make the government millions upon millions of pounds? Yes. Don’t worry about 1-5😜
|
|
|
Post by dexta on Dec 30, 2020 11:13:28 GMT
What time is wancock making is announcement about the tier system
|
|
|
Post by GrahamHyde on Dec 30, 2020 11:13:38 GMT
"Large scale trials showed it was around 70% effective at protecting against Covid-19 which is better than most flu vaccines. Crucially, no-one who received at least one dose of the vaccine was hospitalised with Covid." Okay, that's fantastic then.
|
|
|
Post by werrington on Dec 30, 2020 11:13:52 GMT
|
|
|
Post by franklin on Dec 30, 2020 11:23:30 GMT
The problem is nobody will be able to challenge her view its taken as gospel feeding the fear. I've literally seen nobody on any news being allowed to debunk this shit.
|
|
|
Post by werrington on Dec 30, 2020 11:27:34 GMT
The problem is nobody will be able to challenge her view its taken as gospel feeding the fear. I've literally seen nobody on any news being allowed to debunk this shit. It’s criminal and a scandal mate
|
|
|
Post by OldStokie on Dec 30, 2020 11:30:22 GMT
Great news on the Oxford vaccine. Hundred million ordered and as cheap as chips and logistically it's a damned sight easier to get it out. If we can protect the elderly, most vulnerable, and front line workers then our NHS can get back to some sort of normality, which is the most worrying aspect at the moment and the main driver why the lockdowns are becoming stricter. Fingers crossed that by the end of March we could be over the worst and looking at getting the economy working again.
OS.
|
|
|
Post by franklin on Dec 30, 2020 11:31:26 GMT
The problem is nobody will be able to challenge her view its taken as gospel feeding the fear. I've literally seen nobody on any news being allowed to debunk this shit. It’s criminal and a scandal mate I've stopped watching the news now mate its all depressing shite 24/7 all one sided and anybody in disagreement is labled a granny killer and worse. The trouble is there is no way out for months nobody has the balls to end it.
|
|
|
Post by henry on Dec 30, 2020 11:32:34 GMT
I really do get the feeling some of these Doctor's love a bit of grandstanding.
|
|
|
Post by franklin on Dec 30, 2020 11:34:33 GMT
I really do get the feeling some of these Doctor's love a bit of grandstanding. Its all political i love a good "union" rant same with schools now.
|
|
|
Post by OldStokie on Dec 30, 2020 11:41:01 GMT
Just an aside. Am I dreaming that last winter (and the winter before) we saw ambulances waiting outside unable to unload patients into corridors because there wasn't enough beds available?
I saw on the news last night that the NHS had asked ex-NHS staff to volunteer to help get us through this log jam. 40,000 offered to help. 10,000 were deemed 'not suitable', and of the 30,000 that were only 5,000 had been recruited. What a bloody shambles.
OS.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Dec 30, 2020 11:44:49 GMT
"Large scale trials showed it was around 70% effective at protecting against Covid-19 which is better than most flu vaccines. Crucially, no-one who received at least one dose of the vaccine was hospitalised with Covid." Okay, that's fantastic then. Got to say, having just watched the press conference with the MHRA, I was left very disappointed with their answers. The journo's asked pretty much the exact same questions I posed earlier and the responses were very vague. That 70% figure you've been given there, was from a single sub group, with no explanation of it's size or make up. Thomas Moore, Sky's science editor, who asked the questions on the their behalf, has just said in his summing up, that they are not being transparent with the data, there are still some very big questions that need to be answered and as it stands, it appears that the AZ vaccine is considerably lower in efficacy than the Pfizer vaccine.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2020 12:04:52 GMT
Okay, that's fantastic then. Got to say, having just watched the press conference with the MHRA, I was left very disappointed with their answers. The journo's asked pretty much the exact same questions I posed earlier and the responses were very vague. That 70% figure you've been given there, was from a single sub group, with no explanation of it's size or make up. Thomas Moore, Sky's science editor, who asked the questions on the their behalf, has just said in his summing up, that they are not being transparent with the data, there are still some very big questions that need to be answered and as it stands, it appears that the AZ vaccine is considerably lower in efficacy than the Pfizer vaccine. We know its lower in efficacy. I think people are getting too bogged down in the headline percentage figure though. The most important aspect for me, is that it stops people getting seriously ill or dying. A vaccine could be 50% effective in stopping people from catching the virus, but 99% effective in stopping people who actually contract it from suffering seriously and ending up in hospital and even dying. Surely the whole point in what we're trying to achieve is to relieve the strain on the NHS and ultimately save lives.
|
|
|
Post by OldStokie on Dec 30, 2020 12:06:09 GMT
Okay, that's fantastic then. Got to say, having just watched the press conference with the MHRA, I was left very disappointed with their answers. The journo's asked pretty much the exact same questions I posed earlier and the responses were very vague. That 70% figure you've been given there, was from a single sub group, with no explanation of it's size or make up. Thomas Moore, Sky's science editor, who asked the questions on the their behalf, has just said in his summing up, that they are not being transparent with the data, there are still some very big questions that need to be answered and as it stands, it appears that the AZ vaccine is considerably lower in efficacy than the Pfizer vaccine. Paul, if I remember correctly the original efficacy of the Oxford vaccine was lower than that of the Pfizer one but was higher in the under-50's who were given half a dose and then a full dose by mistake. Whatever, even if the efficacy is only 70% that doesn't mean it won't offer pretty decent efficacy to those who don't feel the full benefit of it. I agree that the Oxford vaccine data is a bit muddled but I don't think it's too muddled that it shouldn't be rolled out ASAP. I suppose we'll only know the real story when a million or more have received it. I've had the flu jab. I know its efficay is only about 60%, but I've never had the flu after I've had the jab. Maybe that works the same way? The symptoms you get are far less than if you hadn't had it. M.
|
|
|
Post by Gary Hackett on Dec 30, 2020 12:12:33 GMT
Got to say, having just watched the press conference with the MHRA, I was left very disappointed with their answers. The journo's asked pretty much the exact same questions I posed earlier and the responses were very vague. That 70% figure you've been given there, was from a single sub group, with no explanation of it's size or make up. Thomas Moore, Sky's science editor, who asked the questions on the their behalf, has just said in his summing up, that they are not being transparent with the data, there are still some very big questions that need to be answered and as it stands, it appears that the AZ vaccine is considerably lower in efficacy than the Pfizer vaccine. We know its lower in efficacy. I think people are getting too bogged down in the headline percentage figure though. The most important aspect for me, is that it stops people getting seriously ill or dying. A vaccine could be 50% effective in stopping people from catching the virus, but 99% effective in stopping people who actually contract it from suffering seriously and ending up in hospital and even dying. Surely the whole point in what we're trying to achieve is to relieve the strain on the NHS and ultimately save lives. This. At the end of the day we don't have enough of the Pfizer / Moderna vaccine so we have to do what we can with the tools we have available. We're in unprecedented times and we can't have every answer to every question. There will be a point when the Pfizer and others that are 90+% are widely available for everyone but until then.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Dec 30, 2020 12:14:08 GMT
Got to say, having just watched the press conference with the MHRA, I was left very disappointed with their answers. The journo's asked pretty much the exact same questions I posed earlier and the responses were very vague. That 70% figure you've been given there, was from a single sub group, with no explanation of it's size or make up. Thomas Moore, Sky's science editor, who asked the questions on the their behalf, has just said in his summing up, that they are not being transparent with the data, there are still some very big questions that need to be answered and as it stands, it appears that the AZ vaccine is considerably lower in efficacy than the Pfizer vaccine. We know its lower in efficacy. I think people are getting too bogged down in the headline percentage figure though. The most important aspect for me, is that it stops people getting seriously ill or dying.
A vaccine could be 50% effective in stopping people from catching the virus, but 99% effective in stopping people who actually contract it from suffering seriously and ending up in hospital and even dying. Surely the whole point in what we're trying to achieve is to relieve the strain on the NHS and ultimately save lives. The most important thing, is that it stops people who are in at risk groups and the elderly from getting seriously ill or dying but when Fergus Walsh asked where the data was to demonstrate that this was the case, a very vague response was given. And yes you're right, a vaccine could be 50% effective in stopping people from catching the virus but 99% effective in stopping people from becoming seriously ill and that would be fantastic ... so let's see the evidence for it, it's not a lot to ask.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Dec 30, 2020 12:18:01 GMT
Got to say, having just watched the press conference with the MHRA, I was left very disappointed with their answers. The journo's asked pretty much the exact same questions I posed earlier and the responses were very vague. That 70% figure you've been given there, was from a single sub group, with no explanation of it's size or make up. Thomas Moore, Sky's science editor, who asked the questions on the their behalf, has just said in his summing up, that they are not being transparent with the data, there are still some very big questions that need to be answered and as it stands, it appears that the AZ vaccine is considerably lower in efficacy than the Pfizer vaccine. Paul, if I remember correctly the original efficacy of the Oxford vaccine was lower than that of the Pfizer one but was higher in the under-50's who were given half a dose and then a full dose by mistake. Whatever, even if the efficacy is only 70% that doesn't mean it won't offer pretty decent efficacy to those who don't feel the full benefit of it. I agree that the Oxford vaccine data is a bit muddled but I don't think it's too muddled that it shouldn't be rolled out ASAP. I suppose we'll only know the real story when a million or more have received it. I've had the flu jab. I know its efficay is only about 60%, but I've never had the flu after I've had the jab. Maybe that works the same way? The symptoms you get are far less than if you hadn't had it. M. We don't know that Mick, especially(and most importantly) in the elderly and that at risk groups, people are just asking where the data is?
|
|
|
Post by Gary Hackett on Dec 30, 2020 12:20:47 GMT
The published study also looked at timing between first and second dose and there was no evidence of reduced efficacy in those with a greater than 6 week interval between first and second dose – so the data are consistent with the JCVI recommendation to give as many at-risk people their first dose as possible.
|
|