Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
Has The Oxford Vaccine Be Hyped?
Astra/Zeneca’s share price has plummeted on fears that the vaccine will not be licensed for use in the USA.
Investors are doubting the results.
AZ originally claimed 70% effectiveness. That was bumped up to 90% on the results from two doses. But that turns out to have been done by error. A more clinical test of Brazilians only gave a 62% result.
There was criticism that the trial did not test on any older people, anyone over 55 was excluded.
62% is still impressive, but a third less than the other two. Have we been slightly misled?
https:/ /www.th eguardi an.com/ world/2 020/nov /26/scr utiny-g rows-ov er-oxfo rd-univ ersitya strazen eca-vac cine
Investors are doubting the results.
AZ originally claimed 70% effectiveness. That was bumped up to 90% on the results from two doses. But that turns out to have been done by error. A more clinical test of Brazilians only gave a 62% result.
There was criticism that the trial did not test on any older people, anyone over 55 was excluded.
62% is still impressive, but a third less than the other two. Have we been slightly misled?
https:/
Answers
It's entirely appropriate to scrutinise the results, although it's worth noting that *all* drug companies so far have only announced preliminary vaccine studies. It's more important to back a vaccine that works than a vaccine that's made here. Given the choice, I want to see the Astra/Zeneca one working, not least because it will be the cheapest, offered...
20:50 Thu 26th Nov 2020
-- answer removed --
Chris Whitty seems to have doubts about the Oxford vaccine:-
https:/ /www.da ilymail .co.uk/ news/ar ticle-8 989783/ Chris-W hitty-r efuses- outrigh t-Oxfor ds-Covi d-19-va ccine.h tml
https:/
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
//There's no, "er yes" about it.//
er there is - but you may not get it
how was the mistake made ? and does the "how" affect what was done/achieved ? Yup, mistaking with intent is different to an oops.
and were as a report suggests - the half dose labelled as full dose?
big deal about quality control if that answer is yes - how did it occur and will it occur again. "hope not!" is not enough
what wd I do if it happened to me ? 1)go upstairs put a pillow over my head and suck my thumb
2)realise that I should have personally vaccinated all 140 000 participants before realising I cdnt.
3) said to the lucky under-injectors - do you have any idea what you have just done? and wait for the three legged replies like "foo yeah well I doan fink it is that bad. do you know how much they pay us?"
they are thinking about doing the large scale trial - - - again
er there is - but you may not get it
how was the mistake made ? and does the "how" affect what was done/achieved ? Yup, mistaking with intent is different to an oops.
and were as a report suggests - the half dose labelled as full dose?
big deal about quality control if that answer is yes - how did it occur and will it occur again. "hope not!" is not enough
what wd I do if it happened to me ? 1)go upstairs put a pillow over my head and suck my thumb
2)realise that I should have personally vaccinated all 140 000 participants before realising I cdnt.
3) said to the lucky under-injectors - do you have any idea what you have just done? and wait for the three legged replies like "foo yeah well I doan fink it is that bad. do you know how much they pay us?"
they are thinking about doing the large scale trial - - - again
PP, clear my attempt to explain my response has failed.
I will try again.
SUNK posted, "No they didn’t disclose the half dose/Full dose was a mistake and due to a manufacturing error. "
I then posted a quote from the BBC's website stating the Regulator had been made aware of the lower dose being used and the trial could continue.
I was providing evidence to contradict the claim that the error had not been disclosed and that was all.
I was not commenting about whether the trial was valid, whether it should have continued or any other aspect of the trial, I was statng the error had not been kept secret.
I will try again.
SUNK posted, "No they didn’t disclose the half dose/Full dose was a mistake and due to a manufacturing error. "
I then posted a quote from the BBC's website stating the Regulator had been made aware of the lower dose being used and the trial could continue.
I was providing evidence to contradict the claim that the error had not been disclosed and that was all.
I was not commenting about whether the trial was valid, whether it should have continued or any other aspect of the trial, I was statng the error had not been kept secret.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.