If nobody was hospitalised in data it means 100% protection from hospitalisation. They can't quote differently to that shown in data.??? But glad you find it amusing.
Brexit, for once some facts.
- Thread starter flecc
- Start date
Drop from 67% to 50%.
Two 50% drops would be impossible since they only speak of reducing, not eliminating.
.
I wondered if it was a 67% drop and then a further 50% drop after 2nd dose. (ie a total drop of around 84%) Seems odd transmission goes up after 2nd dose? Doesn't make it clear.
It would be possible to get two 50% drops. It's halved... Twice... 75% drop in total. Depends whether you are judging from start or from those left.
Ie start with 200..50% drop... Gives 100...Then a second 50% drop would mean 50 left... (75% total drop)
Totally depends on what they are saying. They should say.
Like I said Polly, I agree, it's not much fun at all. Any of it.
I agree but doubt they can't be too precise. The averaging is of widely different numbers and the PCR test is in any case known to be unreliable, both in terms of over recording due to reacting identically to dead virus particles whilst also missing some infections.
Sometimes I think they are trying too hard to show they are in full control when in truth they aren't, no-one is since all are just doing their best.
.
Last edited:
Excellent results but claims of 100% questionableRecent analysis of AZ...
Last edited:
Yes, I do agree. I do think they are trying to display the data in as good light as possible.
That could be seen as a favour for government but suspect its much more likely to be to reduce vaccine hesitancy and in turn boost their own share values.. But it's a capitalist world. I want AZ/Moderna/Pfizer to make billions selling governments vaccines that work and public will take.
I really don't see it as political in favour of Tories or whoever. Same would be going on irrespective of who sits in no 10. (nearly put s4its in no 10,probably more apt)
Yep, agreed Polly it is. Horrible.
We saw reports on Tuesday they had narrowed down the sixth case of "Brazilian" Covid-19 to 379 households.
They have now found the person - which is good.
But a search rate of about 95 a day does not appear to indicate a major concentration of resources and speed of identification.
Of course, I know nothing of what happened on the ground but I would have expected they could fairly quickly dismiss many of the 378 households.
They have now found the person - which is good.
But a search rate of about 95 a day does not appear to indicate a major concentration of resources and speed of identification.
Of course, I know nothing of what happened on the ground but I would have expected they could fairly quickly dismiss many of the 378 households.
yes, that's their conclusions. Note that CI confidence intervals are rather large.
https://www.thelancet.com/action/showPdf?pii=S0140-6736(21)00432-3
Result is on page 885.
I am a bit surprised by the high number of incidences in the control group.
Last edited:
Yep, the CI levels are wide and low... The general picture even when viewed cynically is very positive tho.. Its better than it could have been and was initially thought after initial trials. Seems to me AZ were rather pessimistic by including positive cases found before the vaccine stood any chance of working. (ie prior to day 14) It appears to me other companies only included positive cases +14 days post jab.
This combined with the dosage measurement errors destroyed early confidence,which fortunately MHRA/JVCI saw through. EMA didn't initially. Which again has only worsened the situation. AZ must take some responsibility for the mixed messages coming out of Europe initially.
The wide search wasn't necessary in the end, that sixth person is here in Croydon and has been at home since they arrived. They also have no intention of going elsewhere.
So we are doing a Gollum and keeping it here to ourselves.
.
Not 100% any more, not even capital letters?
My, we are making progress. You'll be asking for the vaccine next!
.