Coronavirus update - NO MORE RESTRICTIONS

[Delbert]

The claim made by AstraZeneca / Oxford that the vaccine has 70% efficacy seems hard to justify given that figure was achieved by combining the results of 2 different dosing regimes one of which was a small subset containing no over 55s (90%) and the other a larger group which did contain over 55s (62%).

Surely the correct headline should be the vaccine has 62% efficacy but that further studies are to be carried out on a large representative population to see if the half dose then full dose regime does have greater efficacy.

Given the enormous political capital invested in this vaccine by the UK Government I wonder whether this has had the effect of pressurising AstraZeneca / Oxford to make a claim which at this point in time, according to some independent scientific opinion, does not appear to stand up to close scrutiny? A headline of 62% efficacy would not have looked great compared to the 95% efficacy claimed by the other 2 vaccines.

[the other bob wilson]

The claim made by AstraZeneca / Oxford that the vaccine has 70% efficacy seems hard to justify given that figure was achieved by combining the results of 2 different dosing regimes one of which was a small subset containing no over 55s (90%) and the other a larger group which did contain over 55s (62%).

Surely the correct headline should be the vaccine has 62% efficacy but that further studies are to be carried out on a large representative population to see if the half dose then full dose regime does have greater efficacy.

Given the enormous political capital invested in this vaccine by the UK Government I wonder whether this has had the effect of pressurising AstraZeneca / Oxford to make a claim which at this point in time, according to some independent scientific opinion, does not appear to stand up to close scrutiny? A headline of 62% efficacy would not have looked great compared to the 95% efficacy claimed by the other 2 vaccines.

And yet flu vaccines have 60% efficacy apparently, so while I can understand the need for further testing of the 90% claim on older people, it seems that the Oxford vaccine falls within standards which have been accepted for other vaccines.

[Rjk]

And yet flu vaccines have 60% efficacy apparently, so while I can understand the need for further testing of the 90% claim on older people, it seems that the Oxford vaccine falls within standards which have been accepted for other vaccines.

if they're effectively cherry picking results to appear better the. really we don't know what the efficacy is.

[xsnaggle]

if they're effectively cherry picking results to appear better the. really we don't know what the efficacy is.

From what I've read it was all blown out of proportion by 1 (one) journo opining bthat the US drug agency probably wouldn't approve it.
Lets be fair, do we care if they do or not if it works.
It is far better suited to treating the poor of the world than something that needs -70C to survive.
The USA can do waht they like!

[the other bob wilson]

if they're effectively cherry picking results to appear better the. really we don't know what the efficacy is.

Efficacy has been put at 62% and I've not come across anyone directly contesting that figure yet, the issue is with whether the 90% claim extends to over 55s and, for the moment, there's no way of knowing that.

[goats]

The claim made by AstraZeneca / Oxford that the vaccine has 70% efficacy seems hard to justify given that figure was achieved by combining the results of 2 different dosing regimes one of which was a small subset containing no over 55s (90%) and the other a larger group which did contain over 55s (62%).

Surely the correct headline should be the vaccine has 62% efficacy but that further studies are to be carried out on a large representative population to see if the half dose then full dose regime does have greater efficacy.

Given the enormous political capital invested in this vaccine by the UK Government I wonder whether this has had the effect of pressurising AstraZeneca / Oxford to make a claim which at this point in time, according to some independent scientific opinion, does not appear to stand up to close scrutiny? A headline of 62% efficacy would not have looked great compared to the 95% efficacy claimed by the other 2 vaccines.

You believe want the yanks are saying? They desperately want there £20 a shot one to be the one the world wants, at less than a fifth of the cost the Oxford one presents a massive threat to that. If they can achieve 90% with a lesser dose also then happy days.....

[Croesy Blue]

You believe want the yanks are saying? They desperately want there £20 a shot one to be the one the world wants, at less than a fifth of the cost the Oxford one presents a massive threat to that. If they can achieve 90% with a lesser dose also then happy days.....

Even if it had a reliability of 60% it would still be good enough to make everything go back to normal. The two vaccines coming out with the 90%+ made everyone go a bit mad I think. Of course it'll be better if the different doses do give it a better efficiency but as long as it is safe and over 50% efficiency I'm sure it'll get approved at least in the UK and EU.

[Welshcake.]

Even if it had a reliability of 60% it would still be good enough to make everything go back to normal. The two vaccines coming out with the 90%+ made everyone go a bit mad I think. Of course it'll be better if the different doses do give it a better efficiency but as long as it is safe and over 50% efficiency I'm sure it'll get approved at least in the UK and EU.

Most people seem to be overlooking that even 62% efficacy means that 62% will have immunity to Covid and the remaining 38% will have a milder disease.

None of the people vaccinated in the trails required hospital treatment.

Also something that really annoys me is the comparison to the flu jab. The reason the flu jab is 60% effective is that they predict which multiple strains of flu will be prevalent that year and adjust the jab accordingly. The Covid vaccine is targeting one single strain.

[goats]

Most people seem to be overlooking that even 62% efficacy means that 62% will have immunity to Covid and the remaining 38% will have a milder disease.

None of the people vaccinated in the trails required hospital treatment.

Also something that really annoys me is the comparison to the flu jab. The reason the flu jab is 60% effective is that they predict which multiple strains of flu will be prevalent that year and adjust the jab accordingly. The Covid vaccine is targeting one single strain.

Good points

[Croesy Blue]

Most people seem to be overlooking that even 62% efficacy means that 62% will have immunity to Covid and the remaining 38% will have a milder disease.

None of the people vaccinated in the trails required hospital treatment.

Also something that really annoys me is the comparison to the flu jab. The reason the flu jab is 60% effective is that they predict which multiple strains of flu will be prevalent that year and adjust the jab accordingly. The Covid vaccine is targeting one single strain.

Exactly people get lost in the headlines. To get this type of vaccine which is safe and efficient approved in under a year in unbelievable. Get it to people who are in positions where they get high viral loads and people who are at risk of dying first and we can start unlocking a bit. We are so close now, another few months and we will be almost there.

[Welshcake.]

Exactly people get lost in the headlines. To get this type of vaccine which is safe and efficient approved in under a year in unbelievable. Get it to people who are in positions where they get high viral loads and people who are at risk of dying first and we can start unlocking a bit. We are so close now, another few months and we will be almost there.

The over 85s have a 12% mortality rate if this is even reduced by half it would be tens of thousands of lives saved.