When will this shit end?

[xxialac]

Just now, incident said:

While I understand the scepticism, I tend to take the view that if there is a problem that AZ and/or their CEO are hiding then they'd do so before submitting data to the EMA that made it obvious.

If he is lying, then he's picked absolutely the wrong time to do so because the data the EMA have will be published very soon.

Sorry, think my words misconstrued and agree with all of that. 

[zahidf]

 

[gizmoman]

2 minutes ago, HalfAnIdiot said:

Am I being 'put right' again for daring to challenge the anti-government/anti-business meme of this thread.

Oh joy!

The fact is they have an impressive track record in dodgy dealings so it's not wise to take anything they say on face value, in this particular case they are legit, the trials didn't have enough older people to make an accurate judgement on the effectiveness, that applies both ways, there isn't enough there to come up with a figure of 8% or "less than 10%", the journalists are mistaken or worse.

[steviewevie]

6 minutes ago, HalfAnIdiot said:

Am I being 'put right' again for daring to challenge the anti-government/anti-business meme of this thread.

Oh joy!

it's just your unconscious bias.

[HalfAnIdiot]

2 minutes ago, xxialac said:

 

So I have a "naive" perspective. 

Any response to the post above about endless corporate wrongdoings at Astrazeneca? 

And all humans have unconscious biases. You're very fond of saying this but I'm not sure it applies here. I'm not saying all CEOs bend the truth. But they are under great pressure to maintain high share prices and sometimes that makes them behave unethically.

 

To be clear the perspective is naive, you just choose to hold it. The quoted articles refer to events many years ago where AZ settled without admitting liability.

My real issue is how quick you are to infer Soriot is a lier. It comes across as cheap, lazy and unconsidered 

[HalfAnIdiot]

3 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

it's just your unconscious bias.

Perhaps, but probably not by definition as I am aware of it.

[Paul ™]

Just now, crazyfool1 said:

I feel my life is justified if I can at least once per day encourage puns like this 🙂 

Sorry was probably been a bit harsh, I've comb to the conclusion they just had a hairbrained idea, they should probably just be let off with on the conditioner they don't do it again.

[StuMalinas]

33 minutes ago, squirrelarmy said:

That’s a tricky one. Part of the Police uniform code is to have a neat and tidy haircut. With barbers closed their only other option would be to shave it off with clippers in order to keep it neat if you don’t live with a hairdresser. 
 

I’m having a similar conundrum right now. I’ve got my surgery coming up soon so really could do with getting my haircut first but I’m probably going to end up having to shave the lot off myself 🤔

Please don’t tell me your sticking up for them, they broke the law... my profession requires me to look smart and presentable doesn’t make my exempt of the rules. 

[xxialac]

11 minutes ago, HalfAnIdiot said:

To be clear the perspective is naive, you just choose to hold it. The quoted articles refer to events many years ago where AZ settled without admitting liability.

My real issue is how quick you are to infer Soriot is a lier. It comes across as cheap, lazy and unconsidered 

But I'm not inferring Soriot is a liar and this had nothing to do with the man or this specific situation even. I was simply saying the word of a CEO of a vast corporate is not gospel and it shouldn't be assumed they must automatically be telling the truth.

Choosing to hold a naive perspective - damn, you've got me on that one...

 

Edited January 26, 2021 by xxialac

[PM87]

Is anyone watching 54 Days: China and the Pandemic on BBC 2? It's a 2 parter. America and the Pandemic is on at the same time next week.

I feel like the BBC could have made a 3rd ep - The UK and the Pandemic. It's not like there's nothing to be said on that front....

[HalfAnIdiot]

2 minutes ago, xxialac said:

But I'm not inferring Soriot is a liar and this had nothing to do with the man or this specific situation even. I was simply saying the word of a CEO of a vast corporates is not gospel and it shouldn't be assumed they must automatically telling the truth.

Choosing to hold a naive perspective - damn, you've got me on that one...

 

Nice to see you've given it a little more thought. Well done.

[fraybentos1]

12 minutes ago, gizmoman said:

The fact is they have an impressive track record in dodgy dealings so it's not wise to take anything they say on face value, in this particular case they are legit, the trials didn't have enough older people to make an accurate judgement on the effectiveness, that applies both ways, there isn't enough there to come up with a figure of 8% or "less than 10%", the journalists are mistaken or worse.

So why did the mhra approve it if it’s so bad? Makes no sense - it’s total nonsense. I could make a vaccine in my bath tub with better than 8% efficacy (probably)

[zahidf]

 

[zahidf]

So.... AZ says there is no binding contract on numbers 

 

[Tranquility of Solitude]

45 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

I’ve been cutting my hair since the first lockdown. Zero at the sides and 1 on top. Works quite nicely. 

Are you from Brazil by any chance?

[Copperface]

Interesting article from early December but does mention low efficacies and wide confidence intervals due to really low numbers of participants in trials. Some figure like 8 or 10%  may just be a type of statistical fluke that is explained by those with far more knowledge of statistics and epidemiology than me. Statistics can throw up all sorts of weird stuff and if we're looking at insufficient numbers then that might explain it rather than some great conspiracy. 

Interesting article though, even if I only understand about 20% of it. 

"The numbers aren’t huge, and they aren’t tight, but they’re all we have. There were 24 asymptomatic patients in the low-dose-first group, for a vaccine efficacy of 58.9% (95% confidence interval from 1 to 82.9%, and that’s what I mean by “not tight”), and 45 patients in the two-standard-dose group (efficacy of 3.8%, unfortunately). So at least for this vaccine, the efficacy at preventing asymptomatic cases is notably lower than that seem for symptomatic ones, and that may well be true for all of them. The differences in those asymptomatic numbers, though, also argue that the low-dose vaccination regimen was indeed different from the two-standard-dose one, don’t they?"

https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2020/12/09/the-oxford-astrazeneca-vaccine-efficacy-data

Edited January 26, 2021 by Copperface

[zahidf]

1 minute ago, Copperface said:

Interesting article from early December but does mention low efficacies and wide confidence intervals due to really low numbers of participants in trials. Some figure like 8 or 10% this may just be a type of statistical fluke that is explained by those with far more knowledge of statistics and epidemiology than me. Statistics can throw up all sorts of weird stuff and if we're looking at insufficient numbers then that might explain it rather than some great conspiracy. 

Interesting article though, even if I only understand about 20% of it. 

"The numbers aren’t huge, and they aren’t tight, but they’re all we have. There were 24 asymptomatic patients in the low-dose-first group, for a vaccine efficacy of 58.9% (95% confidence interval from 1 to 82.9%, and that’s what I mean by “not tight”), and 45 patients in the two-standard-dose group (efficacy of 3.8%, unfortunately). So at least for this vaccine, the efficacy at preventing asymptomatic cases is notably lower than that seem for symptomatic ones, and that may well be true for all of them. The differences in those asymptomatic numbers, though, also argue that the low-dose vaccination regimen was indeed different from the two-standard-dose one, don’t they?"

https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2020/12/09/the-oxford-astrazeneca-vaccine-efficacy-data

But someone in the German Health ministry is saying specifically 8/10%. You'd assume they'd be more on top of it if it was true... I dont think its a misunderstanding 

[NoBuses]

Just now, zahidf said:

But someone in the German Health ministry is saying specifically 8/10%. You'd assume they'd be more on top of it if it was true... I dont think its a misunderstanding 

The german health ministry denied it yesterday though

[xxialac]

1 minute ago, zahidf said:

But someone in the German Health ministry is saying specifically 8/10%. You'd assume they'd be more on top of it if it was true... I dont think its a misunderstanding 

Maybe he was just clearing his throat and the journalist thought he said acht (german for eight).

[Ozanne]

17 minutes ago, PM87 said:

Is anyone watching 54 Days: China and the Pandemic on BBC 2? It's a 2 parter. America and the Pandemic is on at the same time next week.

I feel like the BBC could have made a 3rd ep - The UK and the Pandemic. It's not like there's nothing to be said on that front....

You might want to give ‘Outbreak’ a go, it was on ITV last week so will probably still be on catch up. It focuses on 5 countries - China, Italy, UK, US and Brazil. 

[Copperface]

1 minute ago, zahidf said:

But someone in the German Health ministry is saying specifically 8/10%. You'd assume they'd be more on top of it if it was true... I dont think its a misunderstanding 

Who knows. Maybe we'll see when the European data comes out but more accurate will be the US trial data as that is more complete and independent from the stuff the MHRA looked at in terms of trial groups.. I think the EMA is just assessing the same data sent to our MHRA.

All a bit above my level of understanding. And that's the problem. 

There has been no clarity from the start with this either in terms of the trials, or in terms of capacity and supply. Which breeds suspicion.

[gizmoman]

11 minutes ago, fraybentos1 said:

So why did the mhra approve it if it’s so bad? Makes no sense - it’s total nonsense. I could make a vaccine in my bath tub with better than 8% efficacy (probably)

It's not so bad, the 8% figure is nonsense, the conclusion was that the vaccine was effective for those who had been sufficiently tested, the older ones were not well enough represented for them to make a clear case but the likelihood was that it would work for those as well.

[Copperface]

5 minutes ago, zahidf said:

But someone in the German Health ministry is saying specifically 8/10%. You'd assume they'd be more on top of it if it was true... I dont think its a misunderstanding 

Would you be saying the same if it had happened here and Priti Patel was the Health Minister?

[Toilet Duck]

2 minutes ago, Copperface said:

Interesting article from early December but does mention low efficacies and wide confidence intervals due to really low numbers of participants in trials. Some figure like 8 or 10% this may just be a type of statistical fluke that is explained by those with far more knowledge of statistics and epidemiology than me. Statistics can throw up all sorts of weird stuff and if we're looking at insufficient numbers then that might explain it rather than some great conspiracy. 

Interesting article though, even if I only understand about 20% of it. 

"The numbers aren’t huge, and they aren’t tight, but they’re all we have. There were 24 asymptomatic patients in the low-dose-first group, for a vaccine efficacy of 58.9% (95% confidence interval from 1 to 82.9%, and that’s what I mean by “not tight”), and 45 patients in the two-standard-dose group (efficacy of 3.8%, unfortunately). So at least for this vaccine, the efficacy at preventing asymptomatic cases is notably lower than that seem for symptomatic ones, and that may well be true for all of them. The differences in those asymptomatic numbers, though, also argue that the low-dose vaccination regimen was indeed different from the two-standard-dose one, don’t they?"

https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2020/12/09/the-oxford-astrazeneca-vaccine-efficacy-data

That was from the PCR tests checking for asymptomatic disease though. None of the current vaccines make any claims yet on sterilising immunity (and when describing the data above in their Lancet paper, the Oxford team suggested it was to early to tell but there was a signal for protection from actually catching the virus). This isn’t really related to the efficacy figures in the German newspaper. My best guess is that the EMA has looked at the trial data available and decided that there aren’t enough older participants (and not enough events in this subgroup) to absolutely say that it’s fine for older adults. The confidence intervals for efficacy in the oldest patients were the widest, but still above the minimum threshold for approval. This has possibly been leaked to the paper and they’ve misconstrued it as 8% efficacy rather than less than 10% of trial participants in the older group (which is true...Moderna for example had much better diversity in their trial). FWIW, I think the combination of the phase 2 and phase 3 data suggests the AZ vaccine will be fine for the older group, but the EMA might not see it that way (it’s all speculation at this stage, though there appear to be hints leaking out). 

[PM87]

5 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

You might want to give ‘Outbreak’ a go, it was on ITV last week so will probably still be on catch up. It focuses on 5 countries - China, Italy, UK, US and Brazil. 

A few people have suggested that I watch that. Will definitely add to my watch list. I go through stages of not wanting to watch or read anything pandemic related because I worry I'm simply doom scrolling and then have days where I want to consume absolutely everything. Right now I'm doing the latter.