COVID-19 — Coronavirus

Status
Not open for further replies.
If you don't get the prick, consider yourself a right prick.

I might get this done on a T-shirt or charge Boris £20m for the slogan?

There's something quite satisfying about the word prick, no?

Don't hear it much these days, when I hear or say it, I find myself transported to a Goodfellas movie or a NYC cabbie dishing it out.
 
If the Oxford vaccine results, or any other for that matter, come out much lower at say 60% will some countries refuse entry based on the variant of jab you have received?

On a side note, I'm currently trying to persuade my 82 year old mother to take a vaccine when offered. She refuses the flu jab every year so I've got my work cut out.
Show your mum some images of people dying with Covid, that should do the trick. However I know some people will refuse to budge for varying reasons. My mum passed away with a lung disease nearly two years ago, she was in hospital with Pulmonary fibrosis and after seeing all her family on the Saturday I'm convinced she removed her oxygen line as she hated what she had become, 83 and almost house bound as opposed to two years previous line dancing, gym and ladies that lunch, at your mum's age she has to have the desire to keep going.
 
Am I right in thinking that they calculate the percentage effectiveness based simply on how many positive cases there are in people who were given the vaccine?

Is there a way of actually testing whether any of the people who had the vaccine had received protection from infection because of it?

Could it simply not just be that of the people given the vaccine, only those who actually came into contact with the virus contracted it? And the rest simply never came into contact with it? Meaning it's nowhere near as effective as we think? The number of participants is hardly a lot given how high your chances are of catching this virus.

The % effectiveness is reported as a point estimate eg 70%.

What that means is that if 100 people on the placebo arm got covid, 30 on the active did. So if 100 people would get the disease unvaccinated, 70 of those would have been saved by the vaccine, hence 70% effective.

You're absolutely right that you can't actually give a precise estimate with such relatively small numbers. A confidence interval, calculated statistically is used. For the oxford jab, the confidence interval is 54% - 80%, the estimate of the real efficacy. This means we can be 95% sure the true efficacy is in the range 54-80%. Even a 54% effective vaccine is more than good enough to be worthwhile, so we can be near certain this is sufficiently effective. We can't be certain what the exact figure is.

Does that help?
 
If you don't get the prick, consider yourself a right prick.

I might get this done on a T-shirt or charge Boris £20m for the slogan?

There's something quite satisfying about the word prick, no?

Don't hear it much these days, when I hear or say it, I find myself transported to a Goodfellas movie or a NYC cabbie dishing it out.
Like the idea mate.
Might need a dash of editing on the copy...bit of a mouthful.
I'll help and we'll split the £20 million,
 
If you don't get the prick, consider yourself a right prick.

I might get this done on a T-shirt or charge Boris £20m for the slogan?

There's something quite satisfying about the word prick, no?

Don't hear it much these days, when I hear or say it, I find myself transported to a Goodfellas movie or a NYC cabbie dishing it out.
You are dominic Cummings & I claim my 5 shillings..
 
The % effectiveness is reported as a point estimate eg 70%.

What that means is that if 100 people on the placebo arm got covid, 30 on the active did. So if 100 people would get the disease unvaccinated, 70 of those would have been saved by the vaccine, hence 70% effective.

You're absolutely right that you can't actually give a precise estimate with such relatively small numbers. A confidence interval, calculated statistically is used. For the oxford jab, the confidence interval is 54% - 80%, the estimate of the real efficacy. This means we can be 95% sure the true efficacy is in the range 54-80%. Even a 54% effective vaccine is more than good enough to be worthwhile, so we can be near certain this is sufficiently effective. We can't be certain what the exact figure is.

Does that help?

Ah okay cheers.

Yeah I'm clueless about all this so was wondering if I was massively missing the point in my thinking.

My mum who's in her late 50's has signed up to a vaccine trial, whilst that's great, im not entirely sure she'd be of any value for testing its effectiveness as if she was actually given the vaccine, she'd only be going on her daily walk for an hour and doing her weekly food shop in the supermarket. Suppose my thinking is if a load of people who were given the vaccine lived their lives like this throughout the trial, it's not really going to tell anyone anything about the vaccine as they will most likely never come into contact with the virus.
 
I’ve got friends in government, I’ll take this idea, make it worse and charge £50 mil. I think that’s how it works ;-)
Ok...we'll do a threeway (employs Kenneth Williams GIF) with you and Tolm.
That's already £16.6 million each up from £10 million five mins ago.

I know someone in Spain...nowt to with anything 'sciencey' or medical, but he'll add another £40 million (coz stuff) so we're up to £90 million total which is now £22.5 million each.
 
Ah okay cheers.

Yeah I'm clueless about all this so was wondering if I was massively missing the point in my thinking.

My mum who's in her late 50's has signed up to a vaccine trial, whilst that's great, im not entirely sure she'd be of any value for testing its effectiveness as if she was actually given the vaccine, she'd only be going on her daily walk for an hour and doing her weekly food shop in the supermarket. Suppose my thinking is if a load of people who were given the vaccine lived their lives like this throughout the trial, it's not really going to tell anyone anything about the vaccine as they will most likely never come into contact with the virus.

That's absolutely correct - *but*

1. Enough do come into contact to give a statistically meaningful measure of effectiveness and

2. You need tens of thousands vaccinated to assess the safety of the jab, so those who don't come into contact still give useful data
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.