The primary endpoint was symptomatic covid, so asymptomatic don't count in the analysis published today according to the public domain info.
PCR positive but asymptomatic is a secondary endpoint (reported but not defining success of the trial).
Unless I've misunderstood something or there's been a change, both of which are entirely possible
Well, they said there's some evidence it 'may' be 'up to' 90% if given two doses. Not read anything that says it exceeds 90%, and it's definitely not certainly as high as 90s% at all times, hence why they're mainly pushing the average of 70% I guess.
Scientists took a common cold virus that infected chimpanzees and engineered it to become the building block of a vaccine against almost anything.Thought I read this morning it comes from chimpanzees?
I think the idea is that if you give a vaccine directly into the body , the body is not stimulated to produce IgA However if you can get the reproduction in the resp tract by applying it to the nasal mucosa the body is stimulated to produce IgA.That's fascinating and very smart. I've not come across these secretory IgAs before.
Normally the IgA is made in the blood, and transports through the mucosal layer to the outer (airside) mucosal surface.
Presumably this spray idea means that it applies the IgA to the outer (airside) mucosal surface directly, allowing a fast overload of the surface.
Well no, it is 90% effective if given in the way specified. If given another way (which it won't be) it's 62% effective.
The 70% number is meaningless to us, as is "up to 90%". Unlike in the trial, nobody is going to receive the vaccine in the less efficient way. You're going to get the half dose, then full dose which has proven 90% effective.
So as far as you getting vaccinated is concerned, it's 90%.
I hope you are right about transmission but l don't think it formed any part of their thoughts. My family work in Tescos where shoppers just walk around as they please which pretty much tallies with my experience in a few excursions to shops since it all started.I think all the evidence is that transmission outdoors is minimal, so probably best to concentrate on doing the right thing indoors, take the opportunity for having a walk and a natter outdoors.
I don't think we know that, the central estimate may be 90% but as the the numbers in this part of the trial are small. The confidence intervals are likely to be very wide.Well no, it is 90% effective if given in the way specified. If given another way (which it won't be) it's 62% effective.
The 70% number is meaningless to us, as is "up to 90%". Unlike in the trial, nobody is going to receive the vaccine in the less efficient way. You're going to get the half dose, then full dose which has proven 90% effective.
So as far as you getting vaccinated is concerned, it's 90%.
They've got to be as transparent and honest as they can to ensure that the City reacts accordingly. Give a skewed figure and the share price could jump artificially.Why have they even mentioned all the 62% and then 70% stuff then? Genuine question. Why not come out and just say it's 90% effective? They haven't, and it must be for a reason right? Because they're not fully sure yet?
They're as surprised as anyone at the 90% figure so they are tempering expectations whilst dangling this carrot because they have shareholders.Why have they even mentioned all the 62% and then 70% stuff then? Genuine question. Why not come out and just say it's 90% effective? They haven't, and it must be for a reason right? Because they're not fully sure yet?
They've got to be as transparent and honest as they can to ensure that the City reacts accordingly. Give a skewed figure and the share price could jump artificially.
so realistically, when will a average 30 year old be expected to take the vaccine in the UK
They've got to be as transparent and honest as they can to ensure that the City reacts accordingly. Give a skewed figure and the share price could jump artificially.
They're as surprised as anyone at the 90% figure so they are tempering expectations whilst dangling this carrot because they have shareholders.
I'd wager April-ish too.Maybe April/May...?
(Personal speculation only)
I think the idea is that if you give a vaccine directly into the body , the body is not stimulated to produce IgA However if you can get the reproduction in the resp tract by applying it to the nasal mucosa the body is stimulated to produce IgA.
The spray does not apply IgA anywhere, it applies viral vaccine.
I'm no scientist but my impression was that it's early days but they are getting 90% efficiency with the double dose (smaller one first) so you'd assume that's how they will ultimately administer.Cheers. So do you think we can scrub the 62% and 70% stuff then?
Cheers. So do you think we can scrub the 62% and 70% stuff then?
No I think after all the data are collected, we will land right in/around the 70% area. It's just about the 'norm' for this type of vaccine and it's enough for what we need.Cheers. So do you think we can scrub the 62% and 70% stuff then?
The 10 groups go down to over 50s,so those under 50 with no health conditions will be after.I know the target for the 10 groups if it starts in December is end of March, which may slip a bit.I would guess it will then go to 18-50 year old after that.Would think April to June sometime. The vacination program and infrastructure should be established and pretty slick by thenso realistically, when will a average 30 year old be expected to take the vaccine in the UK
Cheers. So do you think we can scrub the 62% and 70% stuff then?