Coronavirus

Originally Posted by papa smurf

I suspect it a cunning plan to make the British population not want it, so the EU can get more stock.

Nah it's a plan to placate their own populations about screwing up the procurement for it.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by jonbxx

If the data shown in this tweet is correct - https://twitter.com/olivernmoody/sta...81400071860230 then there is a point in not giving older people the vaccine as it doesn't seem to work. Of course, more data is coming through on this

What’s German for “following the science”?

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by jfman

What’s German for “following the science”?

der Wissenschaft folgen

Originally Posted by jfman

What’s German for “following the science”?

Something other than what they’re actually doing

To reiterate - there is nothing new here. Oxford’s trial group was tilted towards younger test subjects. This was widely known from quite early on. The calculations the German regulator has done, and has published, are plain silly, and TBH they just look like an extension of the cack-handed smear campaign someone in the German government was obviously trying to perpetrate last week.

It pays not to underestimate the scale of the PR crisis we have caused for the EU and most importantly for its principal member states by getting so far ahead with our vaccine campaign. We have shown them and the EU up and there is nothing they can do at present to catch up with us. All they can do is to try to create a scenario where we are wasting our effort and they can say it’s better to do it right than do it fast.

Repeat until you’re blue in the face: this vaccine has not been developed in a vacuum. If it works (and it does), it can be expected to have certain characteristics. This is in part what gave the government confidence to press ahead with the longer dosage interval - a decision now backed by hard data. It is also what gives the necessary confidence to use it in older patients. Vaccine efficacy does not typically drop off a cliff in the way it would have to do for it to suddenly be so unsuitable to use in anyone over 65. And in the case of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine, the antibody response data that does exist is typical for what would be expected from a vaccine working as hoped, and adds to the confidence that it is efficacious in that age group.

But of course, if you choose instead to be taken in by smear campaigns designed by governments that are actually failing their citizens, and are actively attempting to misdirect them, rather than vaccinate them, that is your privilege.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Chris

Something other than what they’re actually doing

To reiterate - there is nothing new here. Oxford’s trial group was tilted towards younger test subjects. This was widely known from quite early on. The calculations the German regulator has done, and has published, are plain silly, and TBH they just look like an extension of the cack-handed smear campaign someone in the German government was obviously trying to perpetrate last week.

It pays not to underestimate the scale of the PR crisis we have caused for the EU and most importantly for its principal member states by getting so far ahead with our vaccine campaign. We have shown them and the EU up and there is nothing they can do at present to catch up with us. All they can do is to try to create a scenario where we are wasting our effort and they can say it’s better to do it right than do it fast.

Repeat until you’re blue in the face: this vaccine has not been developed in a vacuum. If it works (and it does), it can be expected to have certain characteristics. This is in part what gave the government confidence to press ahead with the longer dosage interval - a decision now backed by hard data. It is also what gives the necessary confidence to use it in older patients. Vaccine efficacy does not typically drop off a cliff in the way it would have to do for it to suddenly be so unsuitable to use in anyone over 65. And in the case of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine, the antibody response data that does exist is typical for what would be expected from a vaccine working as hoped, and adds to the confidence that it is efficacious in that age group.

But of course, if you choose instead to be taken in by smear campaigns designed by governments that are actually failing their citizens, and are actively attempting to misdirect them, rather than vaccinate them, that is your privilege.

Are you trying to say that on your 65th birthday your immune response to vaccines doesn't just stop working?

I would have thought anyone with an ounce of common sense would see from the data that is exactly what happens.

You must be vaccinated before midnight the day before your 65th birthday otherwise it's just a waste of time and it won't work.

[jfman]

By “following the science” in quotation marks I also intended to use the term somewhat ironically.

Once you get into the grounds of modelling outcomes outside those in the actual trial science becomes somewhat selective. If you had a desired policy outcome (e.g. to bypass the hardest to reach patients and into mass vaccination centres) you could propose this under the cloak of “following the science”. Something we know the UK Government has done, at all times.

When emerging data becomes available - and it will from the UK in either direction - “the science” can be amended accordingly.

Other, politically unpalatable, vaccination models have proposed to start with age groups with greater social contacts than the elderly. This way such a strategy could be shoehorned in without actually saying it was your intent.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by jonbxx

If the data shown in this tweet is correct - https://twitter.com/olivernmoody/sta...81400071860230 then there is a point in not giving older people the vaccine as it doesn't seem to work. Of course, more data is coming through on this

If you look at the top part of the table and express >65 year cases as a linear proportion from the equation X = (29/5466)*341 then X is 1.8.

If there was nothing special about the >65 group, then the number of cases expected from 341 candidates would be 1.8. So, with the number given by AZ = 1, the only thing we can say is the sample size is insufficient to be meaningful.

I think everybody agrees on that. So, any decision to exclude the >65s from getting the vaccine is a simple matter of judgement by the relevant authorities. My instinct is that the >65s will benefit because the number was 1 not 2! A proper layman, am I.

Hopefully further research will confirm the efficacy of the single dose, but it was from a small sampling.

The figures for the effectiveness of one dose relied on a subgroup of Brazilian volunteers who were relatively young, more likely to be female and more likely to be white than those who received two doses, noted Professor Azra Ghani, of Imperial College London, who was not involved in the study.

Oxford said that its team hoped to report data on how effective the vaccine was at tackling new variants of the virus within days.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/s...b7562376d49159

[Angua]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Exactamundo. It's part of their plan to make us suffer.

Daftest part is, there are older recipients insisting on the Oxford vaccine regardless, so this as a plan is failing before it started.

AstraZeneca believes it can produce a modified vaccine fully effective against variant-covid by the autumn.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55917793

Prof Andy Pollard, from Oxford University, said they were already planning to tweak the vaccine.
He said it was a relatively quick process - and would only need small trials to be done before roll-out.
There is still strong evidence existing vaccines work well against the mutations that have emerged.
Although their overall effectiveness may be weakened a little.

---------- Post added at 14:15 ---------- Previous post was at 13:58 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

Hopefully further research will confirm the efficacy of the single dose, but it was from a small sampling.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/s...b7562376d49159

You have quoted extremely selectively from that article, which makes a rather better attempt at handling the balance between optimism and caution, and leads on the pre-press paper’s findings (it’s wise to remember that even prior to peer review, a paper from a respected source that finds its way onto one of these major pre-press servers is highly likely to be good research with sound conclusions).

The summary analysis at the foot of the Times article says thus:

Although the numbers come with error bars — the statistical hedging of bets — and from a trial that was not explicitly designed to assess the effects of spacing the doses, the most important information is that the single dose works. People’s immune protection gets stronger and stays strong over the first 12 weeks. People who have had the jab can be confident that they will not lose immunity over the winter.

Another important finding is that the vaccine makes a big dent in transmission. With one and two doses alike, symptomatic cases are cut by a lot and, rather than rising, asymptomatic cases are perhaps cut by a little.

Sorry if it came across that way - it wasn't intended to (which is why I started with "Hopefully further research will confirm the efficacy of the single dose").

I want these vaccines to work, but it's important it's based on science/appropriate risk management.

I think they've done the right thing by giving a greater amount of people a reasonable level of resistance, rather than a smaller amount of people a greater resistance - but I would have hated to be the one making the call on that decision.

[papa smurf]

Switzerland bans AstraZeneca vaccine for ALL citizens as Europe declares war on UK jab


https://www.express.co.uk/news/polit...cine-uk-latest


The decision makes it the only country in Europe not to authorise doses of the Oxford-produced jab for use. The Swiss medical regulator claimed there was a lack of data to reach conclusions on the efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccine. Approval of the jab had been widely expected by many in Switzerland.

[jonbxx]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

If you look at the top part of the table and express >65 year cases as a linear proportion from the equation X = (29/5466)*341 then X is 1.8.

If there was nothing special about the >65 group, then the number of cases expected from 341 candidates would be 1.8. So, with the number given by AZ = 1, the only thing we can say is the sample size is insufficient to be meaningful.

I think everybody agrees on that. So, any decision to exclude the >65s from getting the vaccine is a simple matter of judgement by the relevant authorities. My instinct is that the >65s will benefit because the number was 1 not 2! A proper layman, am I.

Yeah, you're right, the numbers don't look good but check out the confidence intervals (last column) All over the place! However, there's no technical reason to suspect that the vaccines won't work and/or are unsafe in over 65s.

The release for vaccines for use by either the MHRA in the UK or EMA in the EU are being done under different frameworks. The UK has given the vaccines we're having now an 'Emergency Use Authorisation' (EUA) This is not an approval of the vaccine in the traditional sense but more of a 'go ahead but you're on your own' status during the COVID emergency. One day, if COVID is gone, the authorisation will be withdrawn.

The EMA is working on a Conditional Marketing Authorisation (CMA) which is a step above an EUA in terms of the robustness of the data needed. CMAs can be converted to a full authorisation often quite easily. CMAs are time limited to 1 year.

I think it's due to the lack of data that the vaccine isn't being recommended for older recipients rather than any firm reason to doubt safety or efficacy.

Of course, the UK is currently generating a HUGE data set for over 65s right now which I am sure will be used to convert the various flavours of interim drug licencing into full licences

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Damien

Nah it's a plan to placate their own populations about screwing up the procurement for it.

Where does that leave Switzerland then which has declined to authorise it entirely?

Isn't that the point of countries having their own independent regulators - they have to feel that it meets their criteria, rather than just following others.

Pretty sure Europe hasn't declared a "war" on the British-Swedish jab, sounds like the Excess is trying to inflame passions.