2021...

[embee]

One thing you have to bear in mind is the somewhat limited range of the trials. In no way would I detract from the efforts and brilliant expertise the various parties across the world have put into developing vaccines in such a short time, truly remarkable, nor indeed the front line who are implementing the process admirably. The concerns I have is with the political interpretation and presentation of the reality, and the blatant wishful thinking behind some of the dramatic strategic decisions being taken.
The AZ trial in the UK consisted of around 11,000 participants. Seems a decent size doesn't it? But only half of those actually got the vaccine, half got a placebo, so we are already down to a vaccinated sample size of between 5500 and 6000. When you look at the numbers who actually got the virus, it becomes a very small sample indeed.
This is fine as long as the limitations of the data are appreciated, but simplified numbers get plucked from the analysis and presented to us as though it is unequivocal hard evidence. Any statistician (or even a simple engineer like me) will appreciate the significance of the results, but the wider audience probably won't and will take the assurances of the figureheads at face value, they said it is proven and look, there are numbers, percentages, therefore it must be right!
I recently heard one politician citing that there was "evidence" in the AZ results that delaying the second dose confers better final efficacy. That is stretching the facts to breaking point. There was indeed some data which suggested that it may have appeared to be the case in some subjects, but the numbers were so small that no-one knowledgeable would make any sort of claim to that effect. An interesting aspect of a few results suddenly becomes hard fact and justification for a strategy which is "off label" for the product, a risky decision indeed and hardly in keeping with the fundamental philosophy of the MHRA.

[Seeker]

A couple of hospital related facts I learned today: when we started the pandemic the UK had 6.6 ICU beds per 100k population whilst Germany had 29 and the US 25. It takes 4 years to train an ICU nurse.
I read a letter from a cancer specialist nurse who'd been drafted into the ICU, she said she was good at her job (as a cancer nurse) but, in her own words, she knew diddly squat about critical care.

Returning to vaccines:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/h...-b1791438.html

[Calix Lee]

I am positive that this year will be way better than 2020. I can wait to do things without worrying about Corona.

[Bri w]

Not everything about 2020 was bad. There were some highlights. On a personal level, a new g'son - still not seen him yet because of Covid. We moved house - got what we wanted for the old one and now have a house we're very happy with in a very nice small town/large village. We made a number of new friends, and consolidated many relatively new friendships from the sport we took up in 2019.

But Covid dominated so much of our lives. We had 12 weeks of tough lockdown from Mid-March - believe me, the Spanish lockdown was very harsh. And then had a 2nd lockdown from mid-Nov to mid-Dec. Not as harsh as the first one but not far off - restricted to the village. During the first one we weren't even allowed out of our gate apart from when one of us went food shopping.

We're now in our 3rd lockdown, which is the same as the 2nd one but with a few extra limitations.

We've not seen our children or g'children since Dec 2019. And it hurts.

But the vaccine rollout is happening. Many of my friends back in the UK have had their first jab. And some time later this year we'll all get together. Plenty to look forward to, not loads to look back on but some of it was good.

[embee]

Further to my previous posts regarding the AZ trial results, I understand Germany is (probably) about to recommend the AZ vaccine is used in the 18-64 age range only, due to there being a LACK OF EVIDENCE regarding the efficacy in the over 65s.
As I alluded in the earlier posts, there isn't any evidence of it being unsafe nor even that it is not effective, the problem is that there is a lack of evidence full stop for the over 65s.
I gather Bozo has said that the vaccine is perfectly "safe" for the older people. Well yes, Bozo, we aren't disputing it is safe, but where's the evidence that it is effective? There isn't any.
I sincerely hope it is effective (even though the test data shows much lower levels of efficacy than the govt spokespeople have claimed). There is a huge risk that it comes back and bites the UK in the bum if it isn't. We should keep our fingers crossed.
I just read that the AZ trial report included 660 participants over 65 https://www.ft.com/content/0190dae8-...4-68a34d9be716
and that one in the vaccine group and one in the control group got Covid. That's not even data, that's just noise. AZ have apparently disputed this.

Edit PS - it appears that the argument for the efficacy in over 65s is based on the antibody response, which they say is similar to that in the under 65s and thus would suggest a similar efficacy. It seems a rational argument, let's hope it pans out. Presumably we will be able to see some evidence out in the real world in the next few weeks as vaccinated over 80s inevitably become exposed to the virus, hopefully the govt will be transparent and the evidence will be published in good time.

[DJ123]

Originally Posted by embee

Further to my previous posts regarding the AZ trial results, I understand Germany is (probably) about to recommend the AZ vaccine is used in the 18-64 age range only, due to there being a LACK OF EVIDENCE regarding the efficacy in the over 65s.
As I alluded in the earlier posts, there isn't any evidence of it being unsafe nor even that it is not effective, the problem is that there is a lack of evidence full stop for the over 65s.
I gather Bozo has said that the vaccine is perfectly "safe" for the older people. Well yes, Bozo, we aren't disputing it is safe, but where's the evidence that it is effective? There isn't any.
I sincerely hope it is effective (even though the test data shows much lower levels of efficacy than the govt spokespeople have claimed). There is a huge risk that it comes back and bites the UK in the bum if it isn't. We should keep our fingers crossed.
I just read that the AZ trial report included 660 participants over 65 https://www.ft.com/content/0190dae8-...4-68a34d9be716
and that one in the vaccine group and one in the control group got Covid. That's not even data, that's just noise. AZ have apparently disputed this.

The danger currently is the Politicians are trying to be scientists, and the Scientists are getting involved on a Political stage.
I know who i prefer doing what role, considering they like stuff to back up their claims, rather than BS'ing their way through it . . . . .

[embee]

A couple of interesting developments in the AZ delivery topic.

The EU have published a redacted (mostly just costs) version of their contract (APA) with AZ
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/pres...l/en/ip_21_302

The order sequence is spelled out, an "initial" quantity (300 million doses) then "optional" and finally "additional" quantities.
The relevant section appears to be section 5.4 Manufacturing Sites, where it spells out unambiguously that "AZ shall use it's best reasonable efforts to manufacture at sites within the EU (which for the purpose of this section 5.4 only shall include the United Kingdom)......". It then adds that production may be in sites outside the EU subject to certain conditions.
There is absolutely no doubt that the contract says manufacturing sites in the UK are included for the purpose of delivering doses in accordance with the contract. There is no distinction between sites in the UK and what is now the EU.
Bear in mind that the UK was still within the transition period at that time.

The other item I'd suggest listening to is the interview with Kate Bingham on the "Today programme" on BBC radio4 this morning 29/01/21, available on listen again on the bbc.co.uk site. https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00...pisodes/player
Listen to the question asked at around 2:15:50.

[Seeker]

So, if the A-Z/EU contract says that they get their doses from any site and they may sue if that doesn't happen and the A-Z/UK contract says that the UK gets its doses and A-Z can't fulfil both contracts, what happens?

A-Z fills the UK order and EU sues
A-Z fills the EU order and UK sues
A-Z partially fills both orders, no one is happy and both sue?

It's messy. Interesting that the EU dose cost was redacted - isn't the UK paying more than the EU (because we didn't sign up for the group buy)?

[Kenzie]

I'm confused about the whole thing. The EU says "we have a contract it must be completed" but the UK contract predates the EU one by three months? The EU says first come first served doesn't work here and we have a contract. Again, the UK one predates this so why is the EU trying to queue jump? Also just seen the info on the J&J vacine is only 60% effective, so what is the point of using that one when you have others at 90%+?

[Seeker]

I think the J&J only requires one dose and it's 66% effective. The others have high efficacy after 2 doses, as recommended by manufacturers, after one dose it will be less. If everyone took a 66% effective vaccine it would allow a herd immunity to build, there would still be outbreaks but limited. No vaccine is 100%, although measles is 97%.
The problem that is now appearing on the horizon is that the UK has gone for 1 dose and a 12 week gap, if A-Z give vaccines to EU, what happens in 12 weeks when the second doses are required?