Current Affairs Coronavirus Thread - Serious stuff !!!

[NilSatisOptimum]

I;m defo no libertarian. I'll be taking the vaccine just as I took the flu jab.

But it's legitimate to ask questions too. The leap from 70% two months ago to the industry standard 95% is strange IMO.

I know you are not some of protagonist are and it's a strange pivot for them. Most people know the research will be presented in a way to push confidence. Not many people will look for the efficacy in all age ranges, physical health etc. Happy to swallow perfectly presented cheese burger fact.

 

[Tubey]

FWIW a lot of the negative PR was almost certainly pushed on behalf of rival firms; after all this is (if reports are to be believed) a vastly superior and cheaper product.

Nah I think everyone had the same reaction to their initial unveiling before any spin could take hold.

The raw figures where presented to the public really badly with poor context.

 

[davek]

The 70% was an average across the all doses the the published results in November.

They have published their entire results in full and have now replicated their most successful trial - hence the 95% efficacy.

It's not that suspicious that they give an average across all doses (70%) which was lower than the most effective (90-95%) - have run subsequent tests of their most effective trial and managed to yield the same results on a mass scale.

Would like to read independent studies on this now (layman's version) from the Lancet or other bona fide expert source.

 

[spectateur]

So this new strain is all over the world already.

Probably means it's been about months, lads, and we've just found it.

Why the panic.

And pretty sure those cases in Canada have had no travel, so there we go.

"Probably" and "pretty sure" don't go together very well in the same post.
Well, which is it to be?

 

[davek]

The 'Industry standard' being published information only highlighting the most successful trial.

When you have Pfizer, Moderna, Sputnik V recording low to mid-90% efficacy then there has to be a pressure on others to report their results as being as successful as that. That's just common sense.

The issue with the Oxford vaccine for me was less the claimed immunity than the demographics of their testing population - an issue for scientists who looked at their data. Hopefully assurances can now be given along those lines - that older groups have been more widely tested and they respond similar to younger groups to their vaccine.

 

[davek]

To be honest mate I think they were simply naive and too honest in their original unveiling of it.

If they had good PR and took their time, they'd have realised they'd need to investigate it further before announcing - but Pfizer pushed their hand and they shat the bed clearly.

Basically what we're seeing here is the results of the correct dosage, with incorrect dosages filtered out.

Yes, I agree. Probably political pressure on them to declare early too.

 

[blulouie]

Yes, I understand.

But it's a pretty big leap in efficacy.

Great if it's true. But come on, that's a bit iffy.

Well it really isnt iffy Dave.

Like many science breakthrough's solutions can be found by accident
Hence the "accidental" half dose followed by a full dose giving far better results.No guessing which formula they will be administering.

But you've known this for weeks mate.

 

[NilSatisOptimum]

Thought you was only about 19 how you wrangled yourself to a vaccine so soon? You been wearing a granny wig and hobbling on a walking stick lad? lol

Front line worker and shield people when needed, so basically my life in lock down is is standing queues Have to say this lockdown is nowhere near as listened too as the others!

 

[davek]

Well it really isnt iffy Dave.

Like many science breakthrough's solutions can be found by accident
Hence the "accidental" half dose followed by a full dose giving far better results.No guessing which formula they will be administering.

But you've known this for weeks mate.

I'm feeling my way on this like everyone else. Not sure why I should have known anything weeks ago, tbh.

 

[blulouie]

I'm feeling my way on this like everyone else. Not sure why I should have known anything weeks ago, tbh.

So you didnt figure they would be tweaking their formula to get the higher eficacy ?

Strange .

 

[Jebus_lives]

Is the same timings. 21 days apart?

28 days

 

[Jebus_lives]

When you have Pfizer, Moderna, Sputnik V recording low to mid-90% efficacy then there has to be a pressure on others to report their results as being as successful as that. That's just common sense.

The issue with the Oxford vaccine for me was less the claimed immunity than the demographics of their testing population - an issue for scientists who looked at their data. Hopefully assurances can now be given along those lines - that older groups have been more widely tested and they respond similar to younger groups to their vaccine.

I've not seen the data for the new publication, I'm just basing it on the report in the Times. But they have acted with candour throughout, so I'd suggest it's correct.

 

[davek]

So you didnt figure they would be tweaking their formula to get the higher eficacy ?

Strange .

Last I herd they were in partnership with Sputnik V. Maybe the Russians sold them their technique.

 

[davek]

I've not seen the data for the new publication, I'm just basing it on the report in the Times. But they have acted with candour throughout, so I'd suggest it's correct.

Commerce is commerce. Doesn't matter whether it's cornflakes or a vaccine.

 

[Jebus_lives]

Commerce is commerce. Doesn't matter whether it's cornflakes or a vaccine.

True, but I've no reason to doubt that the Oxford Vaccine will follow the other vaccines in efficacy. They've just shown their working more honestly.