COVID-19 — Coronavirus

Status
Not open for further replies.
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

Yea sorry I meant more for the data they publish to the Mhra, despite the smaller sample size on the 0.5 then 1 dose, the data should be more in depth that they hand over as they’ve done regular pcr test
 
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.

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%.
 
Thought I read this morning it comes from chimpanzees?
Scientists took a common cold virus that infected chimpanzees and engineered it to become the building block of a vaccine against almost anything.
Before Covid, 330 people had been given ChAdOx1 based-vaccines for diseases ranging from flu to Zika virus, and prostate cancer to the tropical disease chikungunya.
The virus from chimps is genetically modified so it cannot cause an infection in people. It can then be modified again to contain the genetic blueprints for whatever you want to train the immune system to attack. This target is known is an antigen.
 
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.
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.
 
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%.

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?
 
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 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.
 
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 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.
It may be 90% but I suspect 70% will be the estimate the regulators use.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.