michaelc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,431
Likes: 2,899
|
Post by michaelc on Nov 26, 2020 15:17:11 GMT
Well its in the FT and some of the right of centre press. I couldn't find it in the BBC at all. The FT also notes that not only were there dosing errors but that the placebos varied. In the UK another established vaccine was given as a "placebo" and in Brazil a saline solution. I find this utterly incredible. Who agreed to that? As for "dosing errors", that could have ended up with multiple fatalities if the doses were say 10x instead of half couldn't it ? Where are the controls? I'm shocked.... And as an aside, why is there this bias in reporting? Are we being prepped for the azn vaccine ? Yes, more papers are picking up the story. It's in The Independent for example: AstraZeneca manufacturing error clouds vaccine study results. But not on the front page like on Bloomberg: AstraZeneca Faces More Vaccine Questions After Manufacturing Error. Many people have high hopes for the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine: "Made in Britain", sold at cost and not for profit, easy to distribute even in poorer countries, and of course the UK has already pre-ordered 100M doses. Obviously that shouldn't be a reason to underplay potential issues, but the risk of bias in the UK is clear. And that's why I went to check what they said in the US media frankly. Personally I think we should wait for the final data and see what the regulators say. Despite the confusing interim announcement and some undeniable blunders along the way it may still turn out to be a good vaccine. But if the UK regulator approves it and the US FDA doesn't then I will have some doubts myself about getting that vaccine. Yes definitely but if you think about it it would seem the vast majority of the effort and cost is about providing data about the vaccine - not producing the vaccine itself. So any old vaccine candidate might turn out great but unless its goes through rigourous trials we wouldn't know and couldn't label it as such. I dearly hope that scenario of USA vs UK approval does not play out. Either way I'm very much put off it now. My AZN shares have taken the tiniest of falls this last week. Is now (before the regulation decisions) a good time to get out ?
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Nov 26, 2020 16:00:14 GMT
Personally I’m going to wait for the P2PIF lender poll on taking any vaccine and will guide my conclusions suitably by the outcome! By which you mean you will avoid those that come out in the top 2, since on prior experience those are the ones that in 12 months time will turn out to be particularly toxic.
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,945
Likes: 4,382
Member is Online
|
Post by agent69 on Nov 26, 2020 17:05:03 GMT
Only three areas make the lowest level of restrictions, tier one. They are as follows: Isle of Wight Cornwall
Isles of Scilly This does make a bit of a farce of the recent relaxation in spectators at football matches:
- Manchester Unted allowed no spectators
- Liverpool allowed 2,000 spectators
- Isle of Wight FC and Lands End United allowed 4,000 spectators
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,945
Likes: 4,382
Member is Online
|
Post by agent69 on Nov 26, 2020 17:08:33 GMT
Personally I’m going to wait for the P2PIF lender poll on taking any vaccine and will guide my conclusions suitably by the outcome! By which you mean you will avoid those that come out in the top 2, since on prior experience those are the ones that in 12 months time will turn out to be particularly toxic. It's at times like these that I am pleased to be about No 13m in the queue, so plenty of time to bottom out which vaccine is best
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Nov 26, 2020 17:14:02 GMT
Only three areas make the lowest level of restrictions, tier one. They are as follows: Isle of Wight Cornwall
Isles of Scilly This does make a bit of a farce of the recent relaxation in spectators at football matches:
- Manchester Unted allowed no spectators
- Liverpool allowed 2,000 spectators
- Isle of Wight FC and Lands End United allowed 4,000 spectators
I think MUFC will have to lend IoW FC some of their's for there to be any chance of them coming close to breaching that limit ! :-)
Interestingly: Record attendance: 2,270 vs Portsmouth, friendly match, 7 July 2001 but then the Pompey supporters didn't have to travel far for that one.....indeed fro some it may have been more of a home game than a normal home game.
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,524
Likes: 6,316
|
Post by registerme on Nov 26, 2020 20:54:17 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Ton ⓉⓞⓃ on Nov 27, 2020 8:37:21 GMT
Wasn't it remdesivir where they "suddenly" discovered, a few years ago now, that they were in fact giving too much to those with HIV and it was just as effective at half dose, cutting the cost massively ... along with company profits
Dosage is a bit of a guess to start with - lots of science has a big cock-up in it that leads to discovery
This honesty make it seem more real
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,215
Likes: 11,408
|
Post by ilmoro on Nov 27, 2020 23:57:48 GMT
|
|
|
Post by moonraker on Nov 28, 2020 16:13:20 GMT
"About 3,000 participants were given the half dose and then a full dose four weeks later, and this regime appeared to provide the most protection or efficacy in the trial - around 90%. In the larger group of nearly 9,000 volunteers, who were given two full doses also four weeks apart, efficacy was 62%. AstraZeneca reported these percentages and also said that its vaccine was, on average, 70% effective at preventing Covid-19 illness. The figures left some experts scratching their head."
When it comes to head-scratching, me too. Efficacies of 62% and 70% are far better than nothing but would not be high enough to make me feel safe.
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,431
Likes: 2,899
|
Post by michaelc on Nov 28, 2020 18:16:32 GMT
"About 3,000 participants were given the half dose and then a full dose four weeks later, and this regime appeared to provide the most protection or efficacy in the trial - around 90%. In the larger group of nearly 9,000 volunteers, who were given two full doses also four weeks apart, efficacy was 62%. AstraZeneca reported these percentages and also said that its vaccine was, on average, 70% effective at preventing Covid-19 illness. The figures left some experts scratching their head."
When it comes to head-scratching, me too. Efficacies of 62% and 70% are far better than nothing but would not be high enough to make me feel safe.
I think the idea of say 62% efficacy being worthwhile is that if a large proportion of the population has it then the virus struggles to find hosts and dies out. Also, there is (I think unproven) expectation that if you do contract covid after being vaccinated then your symptoms (and thus life chances) will be lower than what they otherwise would. Of course if you intend to visit unvaccinated populations I suppose the 62% is quite a bit less than a 95% vaccine. For that reason, and the fact that the AZN is being pushed in the UK despite the trial giving incorrect doses to thousands of participents and given different placebos in different countres I will do my best to not have this vaccine but rather pay if necessary to have a better one.
|
|
mrk
Posts: 807
Likes: 753
|
Post by mrk on Nov 28, 2020 19:24:46 GMT
Also, there is (I think unproven) expectation that if you do contract covid after being vaccinated then your symptoms (and thus life chances) will be lower than what they otherwise would. That''s not unproven actually, it's right in the AstraZeneca press release: "No hospitalisations or severe cases of COVID-19 in participants treated with AZD1222". I thought that was the best bit of news there, even though they don't say how many severe cases there were in the non-vaccine group.
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,431
Likes: 2,899
|
Post by michaelc on Nov 28, 2020 19:44:03 GMT
Also, there is (I think unproven) expectation that if you do contract covid after being vaccinated then your symptoms (and thus life chances) will be lower than what they otherwise would. That''s not unproven actually, it's right in the AstraZeneca press release: "No hospitalisations or severe cases of COVID-19 in participants treated with AZD1222". I thought that was the best bit of news there, even though they don't say how many severe cases there were in the non-vaccine group. Well, I respectfully disagree that that constitutes proof as the sample size of a hundred or two is minuscule but I do agree it points in that direction.
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,524
Likes: 6,316
|
Post by registerme on Nov 28, 2020 23:00:02 GMT
I guess it had to start at some point. I just received a text message:- "CVD-19UK: Due to the announcement of the tier 4 lockdown, You are eligible for a support grant. To claim your grant proceed to hmrc.covid.tier4-grant.com". { do not got to that URL}
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,618
Likes: 5,031
|
Post by adrianc on Nov 29, 2020 8:58:48 GMT
I guess it had to start at some point. I just received a text message:- "CVD-19UK: Due to the announcement of the tier 4 lockdown, You are eligible for a support grant. To claim your grant proceed to hmrc.covid.tier4-grant.com". { do not got to that URL} I'm not sure it's a new thing... Covid's been one of the scammers' favourites since about March.
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,945
Likes: 4,382
Member is Online
|
Post by agent69 on Nov 29, 2020 8:59:40 GMT
I guess it had to start at some point. I just received a text message:- "CVD-19UK: Due to the announcement of the tier 4 lockdown, You are eligible for a support grant. To claim your grant proceed to hmrc.covid.tier4-grant.com". { do not got to that URL} It's a bit like the automated phone calls that say your Amazon Prime account is about to be renewed for £79.99. You know it's a load of b*ll*cks, but the temptation to press 1 on your phone to see what halfwit is at the other end is almost irresistible.
|
|