COVID-19 — Coronavirus

[purplenose]

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.

I'd love to see details of the contracts that the governments have signed with the vaccine producers because I'm afraid to say that I'm 95% sure the current (~100m) doses are earmarked for the US only.

What would you think would be a likely timescale to have all above 50 vaccinated?

I am guessing once that is achieved then the fat lady starts to sing for this pandemic?

 

[roubaixtuesday]

I'm afraid to say that I'm 95% sure the current (~100m) doses are earmarked for the US only

No, different supply chain in US

 

[domalino]

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?

Because they have to make all the details public anyway for peer review, there's no point not giving the full picture.

 

[domalino]

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.

They're as surprised as anyone at the 90% figure so they are tempering expectations whilst dangling this carrot because they have shareholders.

I don't see why they'd be surprised when the other mRNA vaccines put up numbers over 90% also.

Also I don't see why the regulators would use the 70% esitmate. When they apply for use, they will have to apply for a specific method - the half dose/full dose. Regulators aren't going to include results from people who didn't get that treatment.

The director of the Oxford Vaccine Institute was just on Radio 4 and he's only talking about 90%.

“These findings show that we have an effective vaccine that will save many lives. Excitingly, we’ve found that one of our dosing regimens may be around 90% effective and if this dosing regime is used, more people could be vaccinated with planned vaccine supply.

 

[roubaixtuesday]

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?

It's a good question.

If it was judged to be share price sensitive, then they're legally obliged to make the information public, so that's one possibility.

Also, maybe it was just all the info they had - no other subgroup analysis available.

It's also possible that they wanted to make sure it came across as a good news story, in which case it's a bit naughty IMO.

 

[artfuldodger]

What would you think would be a likely timescale to have all above 50 vaccinated?

I am guessing once that is achieved then the fat lady starts to sing for this pandemic?

I’m on a the Novavax vaccine trial and will be unblinded if/when offered a different vaccine. At 57 I’ve been told to expect this around March.

 

[Healdplace]

Scotland data

0 deaths - Nicola Sturgeon reminds Sunday data but still good news.

949 cases at 8.6% positive

270 Greater Glasgow, 190 Lanarkshire, 95 Lothian

1208 in hospital - up 38

84 on icu ventilators down 11. Which is very good news.

 

[MeatnSpudsMCFC]

 

[03 March 2002]

No, different supply chain in US

I don't use the figure 95% lightly, I'm afraid to say.

In fact I'm now increasing it to 99%.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

It's a good question.

If it was judged to be share price sensitive, then they're legally obliged to make the information public, so that's one possibility.

Also, maybe it was just all the info they had - no other subgroup analysis available.

It's also possible that they wanted to make sure it came across as a good news story, in which case it's a bit naughty IMO.

I think it's the second one - it's what they have.

They've stated it's 70% overall, which will be solid fact based on the trials. They've obviously tried a couple of options, and a very small sample suggests that it may be higher.

I'd be much more confident in someone saying "62%, maybe higher" than "90%, maybe lower", as I wouldn't think they're sandbagging.