Jump to content

Toilet Duck

GOLD member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Toilet Duck last won the day on September 30

Toilet Duck had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

471 Excellent

About Toilet Duck

  • Rank
    calmer than you are

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

4,383 profile views
  1. No worries! All of them are still on course, nothing untoward to report, all pretty standard at the moment!
  2. Not impossible, if they start recruiting up in the North of England they'll be home and hosed in no time (just kidding!). The Pfizer and Moderna trials are built the same way, so they will both have earlier data, but the early Oxford trial data will be from an interim analysis that is further along in the trial, so should be a bit more reliable. It's impossible to say when these will happen though (indeed, all of the trials envisage recruiting about 30,000 participants, but their trial protocols allow for more to be recruited should they need them if infection rates in the control arms are ins
  3. Yeah, it's a technicality, but one that makes a huge difference. Its standard practice when running any PCR, not just this one. The problem is the politicians understand neither statistics or molecular biology! edit: if you are even vaguely interested (you are probably not!), here's the protocol used for testing. its pretty dense, but how the matrices are constructed is described on pages 4 and 5.
  4. Yep, read this after I replied to your other question...pretty much all the trials are powered the same way. 15,000 people in each group, vaccine vs control. They need 150 or so events (infections) in the control arm to find a statistically significant difference in the vaccinated arm (and they pitched this as 50% effective, but are probably hoping for better...that would be enough for the vaccine to be useful though). So, about 1% of the people in the control arm of the trill need to get infected before they reach their primary endpoint. They will get a signal before that though, so based on
  5. Howdy, they have moved to phased 3. This is just the peer reviewed paper describing their phase 1 and phase 2 data. That process takes a while (even for accelerated review!). They moved in to phase 3 with this vaccine a while back (and is one of the ones that there US is hoping will get EUA pretty soon...they have more interim analyses built into their trial than the Oxford/AZ candidate does, so will report earlier, but their trial is powered exactly the same...needs 150 cases in the control arm, 15,000 people in the control arm, so about 1% need to contract the virus to compare with the
  6. So, there's two things going on here. The first is exactly as @stuartbert two hats has stated, depending on the prevalence of the disease the false positives as a ratio of the true positives changes (so suggesting that most positive cases are false is just incorrect). Way back at the start of this thread (or maybe one of the other ones), I posted a twitter thread from a colleague that explained all this better than I can!. This can be further tipped towards true positives if you are testing individuals with symptoms. However, the other way to reduce false positives is to run the test more than
  7. No problem at all, you are most welcome! As I've said many times before, I really don't have all the answers, it's an exceptionally complex and dynamic situation we find ourselves in, but if it helps to have me ramble on a bit, I'll continue to do so!
  8. Ah, I couldn't sleep so I was finishing off some work and then stuck my head in here before I nodded off!
  9. Good to see more trials in non-hospitalised patients, though these will be massively expensive. I’d like to see proper trials of steroids in non-hospitalised cases (there may be some, I just haven’t found them). Anecdotally, I know some GPs prescribing steroids for more serious cases before they end up in hospital (this is commonly used for other forms of community acquired pneumonia), so it would be good to get hard data on whether they reduce hospital admissions (and they are all off patent, cheap as chips and available as generics). There’s over 60 vitamin D trials ongoing as well, would be
  10. We could do John Bonham, Bowie, Lennon and a bunch of others while we were at it and make a hell of a pyramid stage lineup! However, while we absolutely could clone a human (no different to cloning a sheep or an Afghan hound!, we just choose not to as a society), unfortunately it’s not a simple as Jurassic Park made it out to be (though filling in the blanks with frog DNA was a good idea)...the bits of DNA in Elvis’s socks would be pretty fragmented and we’d need an intact genome to make him again. Once that was achieved, we’d have to painstakingly recreate every single thing he experienc
  11. No worries. Unfortunately, at the moment, we don't have a different option. But we will soon!
  12. Sure while I'm at it, I'll deal with this one too...This all seems perfectly reasonable to me. In fact, given what we know about the impact of SARS-CoV-2 on heart tissue, simply ruling out COVID as a contributory factor in a cardiac death because we can't say with 100% certainly that it was or wasn't would be pretty odd for me. However, we really don't know everything about the pathology of this disease at all (we know a bit, but there's still loads to find out). There are receptors for the virus on tons of tissues, so saying definitively that is had no role just because the person didn't have
  13. So, rather than just dismiss this as conspiracy theory nonsense, let's actually talk it through. Kary Mullis was a smart guy, obviously, he wouldn't have won the Nobel prize otherwise (though he was also a bit of an oddball too...check out his company Star Relics where he tried to make money amplifying bits of DNA from Elvis's socks!). This interview was a long time time ago, though still relevant, unfortunately he is no longer with us. He was one of the scientists who believed that HIV was not the cause of AIDS (there's a grain of truth in there, "necessary but not sufficient" is how we descr
  14. To be honest, the main accelerator has been the ability to manufacture "at risk" and that funding is available to push ahead with subsequent trial phases when the previous ones are still being evaluated. Normally this part takes ages, with funders poring over data before they pull the trigger on whether to pay for the next phase. It's one of the reasons some of the other vaccine candidates are being so aggressive in their self-promotion, they need someone to back them financially in order to continue what they are doing. Overlapping phases and going into human trials before all the pre-clinica
  15. Yes, these are the exact two tests that I was talking about recently. The SD Biosensor one is being manufactured in Europe by Roche (they’re at 50-80m a month capacity at the moment, started shipping on September 14th). The US have bought the first 3 months supply of the Abbott one. There’s 30 more that are similar and have the same level of approval last time I checked (a couple of weeks ago). To be honest, I’d be using these and hammering out licensing and manufacturing deals rather than sinking a pile of money into companies that have yet to bring a single test to market (and, there will pr
  • Create New...