When will this shit end?

[fraybentos1]

Just now, xxialac said:

No, that's wrong.

Wikipedia is never wrong. 😇

I assume it's wrong cause it contradicts your point.

The claim of 8% is at best disingenuous and at worst dangerous. 

[dingbat2]

13 minutes ago, zahidf said:

seems like its up to individual member states how they interpret the data

 

 

 

I am not sure if I am interpreting the data wrong above, but the thing I dont get with that data is the low percentage of the control group who became infected in the >65 age group 1 from 319 = 0.3% compared with the 18-64 age group of 100/5510 = 1.8%, so 6 times more chance of getting it within that population if you were between 18-64 and haven't been vaccinated. I am not sure why the sample was so small in the higher age group as a whole, surely they would have picked a decent sample from that population to be be able to draw conclusions from it

[xxialac]

1 minute ago, fraybentos1 said:

Wikipedia is never wrong. 😇

I assume it's wrong cause it contradicts your point.

The claim of 8% is at best disingenuous and at worst dangerous. 

Look, I don't know why you keep digging.

"Fake news" is not a term to mean news that simply turns out not to be correct, it's news that has malicious intent, and this was an accusation originally aimed at Handelsblatt.

What has obviously happened is that they misunderstood or their source misunderstood.

They're like the FT, they're not the Daily Star.

 

[fraybentos1]

5 minutes ago, xxialac said:

Look, I don't know why you keep digging.

"Fake news" is not a term to mean news that simply turns out not to be correct, it's news that has malicious intent, and this was an accusation originally aimed at Handelsblatt.

What has obviously happened is that they misunderstood or their source misunderstood.

They're like the FT, they're not the Daily Star.

 

I'm the one who has given a definition of fake news. You have dismissed it and offered nothing else like a child, cause it doesn't suit your view.

Their claims are misleading and who knows what their intent was but it is not an honest reporting of the facts.

Ok so they misunderstood? Why is it still on their website several days later?

[zahidf]

9 minutes ago, dingbat2 said:

I am not sure if I am interpreting the data wrong above, but the thing I dont get with that data is the low percentage of the control group who became infected in the >65 age group 1 from 319 = 0.3% compared with the 18-64 age group of 100/5510 = 1.8%, so 6 times more chance of getting it within that population if you were between 18-64 and haven't been vaccinated. I am not sure why the sample was so small in the higher age group as a whole, surely they would have picked a decent sample from that population to be be able to draw conclusions from it

they basically delayed getting over 65s because of safety tests, so have had problems getting volunteers in that age group

[st dan]

2 minutes ago, zahidf said:

they basically delayed getting over 65s because of safety tests, so have had problems getting volunteers in that age group

Hopefully this is correct, because the alternative is that they weren’t convinced by the data and opted for a smaller sample size to try to best hide this - although I’m sure that’s obviously not the case at all. 

[JoeyT]

Supply must be an issue...

 

[fraybentos1]

1 minute ago, JoeyT said:

Supply must be an issue...

 

So probs around 300k. Not good compared to what we now can be done but still not terrible numbers really.

[Toilet Duck]

29 minutes ago, fraybentos1 said:

Based on what you have seen/ read do you think the Oxford one will be alright for over 65s?

Based on their phase 2 data and other data they have on the nature of the immune response in older adults, I suspect it's probably fine. The Germans are correct in that there is a paucity of data in what AZ presented (it's noted in the MHRA authorisation, I posted a link to it a few pages back, but they accepted the extrapolation from other data...they also approved the longer gap with a smallish number of patients and accepted AZ's explanation of that as reasonable...the whole affair really has shown AZ to be very inexperienced in conducting vaccine trials though, you really shouldn't need to be explaining things to regulators, ideally it should be black and white, it's fine in an academic publication, but not really for mass deployment of something this important). Germany has enough Pfizer doses ordered to cover about 80% of their entire population (or pretty much the whole adult population with room to spare if you factor in those that might refuse it), and they will be made there in Marburg by BioNTech, added to their share of the EU's Moderna order (plus J&J coming soon), so it may be that they think, why take the risk, we'll use it in lower risk individuals til we get a clearer picture of how it performs. It does add another layer of complexity to the roll out in the EU though, now unless they just accept the EMA recommendation, individual regulators need to look at the data!. 

In truth, we don't fully know yet how any of the vaccines perform in older adults with all sorts of co-morbidities while taking a range of drugs to manage them. The data coming out of Israel is encouraging, as the impact of vaccination is really starting to show in their numbers for older adults, so my best guess is that all the vaccines produce really strong immune responses, that gets firmed up with the second dose and even if it is dampened down (by either the characteristics of the patient or the characteristics of the virus (new variants)), it's still above the level needed for protection. But, some regulators want unequivocal data to support that position, others are prepared to say, it's an emergency, it will do. 

[Euphoricape]

Germany advises against Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine for over-65s

https://f7td5.app.goo.gl/7tMyGJ

Sent via @updayUK

[xxialac]

15 minutes ago, fraybentos1 said:

I'm the one who has given a definition of fake news. You have dismissed it and offered nothing else like a child, cause it doesn't suit your view.

Their claims are misleading and who knows what their intent was but it is not an honest reporting of the facts.

Ok so they misunderstood? Why is it still on their website several days later?

This is tiring now.

I initially wrote it wasn't fake news...nothing more than that.

Then you were the one who jumped in to challenge me - it is fake news, you wrote.

All your other points may be valid but your challenge to me is not. It's not fake news because fake news is a term to denote malicious false reporting, not simply false reporting. 

[Mr.Tease]

2 hours ago, Toilet Duck said:

Fairly true, narrative here is that AZ are inexperienced vaccine makers that botched the reporting of their trial, signed contracts they couldn’t deliver on and now don’t seem to be able to transfer manufacturing processes from one site to another. The 400m single doses of J&J (enough to do the entire adult population of the EU) are where hopes are pinned (since they know how to make vaccines). Personally, I think we just need as many that work as possible, but the Brexit angle isn’t a key feature of reporting on this here (it could be in the tabloids, I don’t read them and they are just Irish versions of the British tabloids anyway). 

In a parallel world, vaccine manufacturers and big pharmaceutical companies and international governments all worked together during a global pandemic to share expertise and ensure this sort of thing didn't happen. I know there s been some collaboration, but not in the level that there could have been. It's a real missed opportunity that will prolong this longer than it needed to be. 

[JoeyT]

 

[Toilet Duck]

2 minutes ago, Mr.Tease said:

In a parallel world, vaccine manufacturers and big pharmaceutical companies and international governments all worked together during a global pandemic to share expertise and ensure this sort of thing didn't happen. I know there s been some collaboration, but not in the level that there could have been. It's a real missed opportunity that will prolong this longer than it needed to be. 

That, unfortunately, is how Big Pharma works. Getting more than one of them in a room to agree on something is bloody difficult. Even running trials in cancer patients where drugs from two different manufacturers need to be combined is a pain in the arse (I've been there, they will try to get you to use their experimental version rather than the approved one from somewhere else...I guess they are businesses that are in competition with each other, but it's completely alien to me). Add in governments who also like to do their own thing and you've a perfect storm! Academics the world over shared expertise and helped each other (that's generally how academia works), but once it gets past that, then collaboration becomes a negotiation. 

[Crazyfool01]

supply must be the issue .... we now have more vaccination centres but fewer people being jabbed .... thats the only logical explanation ..... In the meantime my best friend is being jabbed tomorrow .... on the basis of family genetics and medical history .... the only thing he has is mild asthma ... for which hes not needed his inhaler for 5 years ..... completely weird !!!

[zahidf]

4 minutes ago, JoeyT said:

 

So including NI,Scotland and Wales, probably just under 300k

 

Not ideal but supply issues clearly.

[fraybentos1]

10 minutes ago, xxialac said:

This is tiring now.

I initially wrote it wasn't fake news...nothing more than that.

Then you were the one who jumped in to challenge me - it is fake news, you wrote.

All your other points may be valid but your challenge to me is not. It's not fake news because fake news is a term to denote malicious false reporting, not simply false reporting. 

I do take your point but I think you are giving the newspaper too much credit with their disingenuous presentation of the stats- it does come across as a bit malicious to me personally. 

[Toilet Duck]

5 minutes ago, JoeyT said:

 

Its those sneaky continental types stealing honest to goodness British vaccine from under yer noses!😜

[zahidf]

 

[DeanoL]

16 minutes ago, zahidf said:

This may be an interesting example of the fact that Germany has a higher score on the Uncertainty Avoidance metric of Geert Hofstede's cultural dimensions compared to the UK, meaning that whereas in the UK we are happy to recommend the AZ vaccine for older people because it hasn't been shown to be dangerous to do so, the Germans want far more positive evidence that it's safe for that age group.

They don't seem to be saying its unsafe. Just saying it's not demonstrated as effective. My feeling would be that given the situation, and the fact that it's safe, and that it's unlikely to be suddenly ineffective in older people, to start giving it out anyway. Although if their Pfizer supply is good enough they may not need to.

(Or it's a cheeky way to actually get the economy opened up by vaccinating younger people earlier)

[zahidf]

FWIW, depending on take up rates, I think they'll still meet the target of offering it to everyone in cohorts 1-4

[fraybentos1]

Just now, zahidf said:

 

London surely has the highest non-white population? Which is also the demographic least likely to take up the vaccine. Surely a factor.

[xxialac]

1 minute ago, fraybentos1 said:

I do take your point but I think you are giving the newspaper too much credit with their disingenuous presentation of the stats- it does come across as a bit malicious to me personally. 

I'd definitely agree that they cocked up with not understanding the meaning of the statistics and that they were grossly irresponsible to publish on that basis.

[fraybentos1]

Just now, zahidf said:

FWIW, depending on take up rates, I think they'll still meet the target of offering it to everyone in cohorts 1-4

Me too, even if this week is still down on what we know is possible they aren't devastating figures. Then if supply picks up we know they can do half a mil a day if they can.

It's also gonna be pretty hard to say definitively if they hit the target as we don't know what take up is. 

[fraybentos1]

2 minutes ago, xxialac said:

I'd definitely agree that they cocked up with not understanding the meaning of the statistics and that they were grossly irresponsible to publish on that basis.

We probs basically agree and it's just a matter of semantics 🙂