When will this shit end?

[jparx]

40 minutes ago, JoeyT said:

Milestone...

 

Awesome news! Presumably in a few weeks the 1st and 2nd dose numbers will start to switch and the headline 1st dose number will slow down a fair bit?

[steviewevie]

7 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

It seems likely that they’ll have schools reopen to the other children but still keep everything else in place to monitor the impacts of schools in cases etc. It’s too risky otherwise to open up too much too soon. 

wouldn't be surprised if we did a phased reopening too.

Edited February 2, 2021 by steviewevie

[steviewevie]

 

[Ozanne]

2 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

 

Look at Denmark go!

[Crazyfool01]

3 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

Look at Denmark go!

its still only 1.4 % of the population ....

[Toilet Duck]

19 minutes ago, PM87 said:

I wonder if Ox/AZ anticipated the lack of data for over 65s being a potential problem when it comes to approval? 

They did and it was pointed out to them, so they made sure that later trials had much better diversity in terms of participants (not just older adults, but different ethnicities as well). The explanation AZ have given is that the early trials were investigator-led (by academics at Oxford) and were more risk averse (so included fewer participants that might experience difficulty with the vaccine). It has led to a rather messy dataset and AZ seem to have to be constantly explaining their data rather than just pointing at headline numbers that are easy for regulators to interpret. On the other hand, if there hadn't been as many variations in how the doses were delivered etc (ie, if everyone got SD:SD with 21-28 days between doses), we'd be looking at efficacy data that said 62% effective for symptomatic disease with a 3-4 week dosing schedule and the unfavourable comparisons with other vaccines would be greater, while the cries of 100% protection from severe disease and death would persist but get lost in the 95% efficacy for Pfizer/Moderna noise (plus we may never have discovered that the longer gap improves efficacy by a significant amount). So, while it's not ideal, there is a signal in there that says how the vaccine should be used. 

[PM87]

2 minutes ago, Toilet Duck said:

They did and it was pointed out to them, so they made sure that later trials had much better diversity in terms of participants (not just older adults, but different ethnicities as well). The explanation AZ have given is that the early trials were investigator-led (by academics at Oxford) and were more risk averse (so included fewer participants that might experience difficulty with the vaccine). It has led to a rather messy dataset and AZ seem to have to be constantly explaining their data rather than just pointing at headline numbers that are easy for regulators to interpret. On the other hand, if there hadn't been as many variations in how the doses were delivered etc (ie, if everyone got SD:SD with 21-28 days between doses), we'd be looking at efficacy data that said 62% effective for symptomatic disease with a 3-4 week dosing schedule and the unfavourable comparisons with other vaccines would be greater, while the cries of 100% protection from severe disease and death would persist but get lost in the 95% efficacy for Pfizer/Moderna noise (plus we may never have discovered that the longer gap improves efficacy by a significant amount). So, while it's not ideal, there is a signal in there that says how the vaccine should be used. 

Is there a date for when the later trial data will be available? Out of likes annoyingly, but thanks for always taking the time to explain things in detail on this thread 🙂

[eFestivals]

28 minutes ago, fraybentos1 said:

It is only minimal amounts going back in Scotland to start (barely any year groups) so doubt it will have much impact on cases.

no matter how many year groups, it's bringing in a huge amount of (essentially) household mixing compared to the lockdown.

I would have thought the effect of that will be noticeable within the stats for all of the while everything else is locked down (although it'll take a week or four to filter thru into those stats in a way that can be pinpointed).

 

[zahidf]

 

[fraybentos1]

6 minutes ago, Toilet Duck said:

They did and it was pointed out to them, so they made sure that later trials had much better diversity in terms of participants (not just older adults, but different ethnicities as well). The explanation AZ have given is that the early trials were investigator-led (by academics at Oxford) and were more risk averse (so included fewer participants that might experience difficulty with the vaccine). It has led to a rather messy dataset and AZ seem to have to be constantly explaining their data rather than just pointing at headline numbers that are easy for regulators to interpret. On the other hand, if there hadn't been as many variations in how the doses were delivered etc (ie, if everyone got SD:SD with 21-28 days between doses), we'd be looking at efficacy data that said 62% effective for symptomatic disease with a 3-4 week dosing schedule and the unfavourable comparisons with other vaccines would be greater, while the cries of 100% protection from severe disease and death would persist but get lost in the 95% efficacy for Pfizer/Moderna noise (plus we may never have discovered that the longer gap improves efficacy by a significant amount). So, while it's not ideal, there is a signal in there that says how the vaccine should be used. 

When do you think we will know if the 12 week gap strategy the UK has undertaken will have been a good decision? Will we have to wait until people have waited 12 weeks for their second dose and then got it and look from there?

[Toilet Duck]

1 minute ago, PM87 said:

Is there a date for when the later trial data will be available? Out of likes annoyingly, but thanks for always taking the time to explain things in detail on this thread 🙂

The US trial that covered these aspects was expected to be close to unblinding around about now as far as I recall. FDA had been making noises that approval would be in March/April or thereabouts, so they need to unblind, see what the data is like, submit their application and then the FDA will work it through their approval process, so that would seem to be a reasonable timeline. The results would be probably be released when the trial is unblinded. Previous trials have had the research paper come out at the same time, but that was in the hands of the academics running the trials. I think AZ ran this one themselves, so they will probably issue a press release asap like Pfizer/Moderna did and the paper will follow. 

[Ozanne]

10 minutes ago, crazyfool1 said:

its still only 1.4 % of the population ....

Still highest in Europe for full vaccination, good on them!

[eFestivals]

32 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

but...if vaccines keeping hospitalisations and deaths down that is ok...? Or is it not ok because of risk of variants?

I wasn't really commenting on those aspects.

So far, people have been plucking numbers out of the air and claiming schools as being 'safe', but in reality no one really knows. 

Finally we should be able to get a proper measure on how much is transmitted via schools because of everything else still being locked down.

[Toilet Duck]

2 minutes ago, fraybentos1 said:

When do you think we will know if the 12 week gap strategy the UK has undertaken will have been a good decision? Will we have to wait until people have waited 12 weeks for their second dose and then got it and look from there?

Pretty much. The ideal scenario would be a trial with a 12 week gap vs a 4 week one, but we are way past doing something like that at this stage! The data on the immune response that accompanied the approval application suggests this is the correct way to use the vaccine. The EMA also approved a 12 week gap (but that too has gotten lost in the squabbling over deliveries). 

[PM87]

Just now, Toilet Duck said:

The US trial that covered these aspects was expected to be close to unblinding around about now as far as I recall. FDA had been making noises that approval would be in March/April or thereabouts, so they need to unblind, see what the data is like, submit their application and then the FDA will work it through their approval process, so that would seem to be a reasonable timeline. The results would be probably be released when the trial is unblinded. Previous trials have had the research paper come out at the same time, but that was in the hands of the academics running the trials. I think AZ ran this one themselves, so they will probably issue a press release asap like Pfizer/Moderna did and the paper will follow. 

Thanks. Fingers crossed the data is favourable and reinforces the limited data we already have for the over 65s. 

[zahidf]

 

[fraybentos1]

6 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

Still highest in Europe for full vaccination, good on them!

By about .25 percent...

 

 

[eFestivals]

Quote

“All of these issues and more are ways in which the the protocol is having an impact on people in Northern Ireland, which is not in the interests of Northern Ireland, the United Kingdom, or indeed good relations between US and the EU. ” said Gove.

or put another way....

Gove says his own Brexit is shit.

 

[steviewevie]

Sir Tom Moore has died.

[Crazyfool01]

1 minute ago, steviewevie said:

Sir Tom Moore has died.

ive just had a call to tell me this .... but cant find anything to back it yet .... won't be long though 😞 

[fraybentos1]

1 minute ago, crazyfool1 said:

ive just had a call to tell me this .... but cant find anything to back it yet .... won't be long though 😞 

It's on Twitter 

[Ozanne]

The Guardian have confirmed it, very sad news. 

[steviewevie]

 

[Crazyfool01]

ah yep im getting notifications a plenty now .... sad news 😞 

[Smeble]

Very sad news. He was one of the few shining lights during this pandemic.