More data that is spotted as wrong = more ammunition for vaccine sceptics. Surely no one wants that.
If the data from further testing shows that it's a couple of percent less effective you can't withhold that information - imagine vaccination sceptics response if that was happening.
More data that is spotted as wrong = more ammunition for vaccine sceptics. Surely no one wants that.
If the data from further testing shows that it's a couple of percent less effective you can't withhold that information - imagine vaccination sceptics response if that was happening.
I absolutely agree. My point is that AZ have been precipitous in publishing data that shortly afterwards has to be readjusted. This started way back when they made the announcement of the first figures for efficacy, using incorrectly conflated figures. Like the UK Government last year, they gave over-optimistic information and then had to retract. The Government has learned its lesson and is tending to be more cautious. Drug companies should do the same.
More data that is spotted as wrong = more ammunition for vaccine sceptics. Surely no one wants that.
It wasnt spotted as wrong. It just didnt include some of the latest testing. When adding the latest testing in it changed the overall result (including the initial data) by a couple of percentage points.
To use a crude example. If it was tested on 1000 people and was found to be 75% effective and then it was tested on 100 additional people and found to be 72% effective the latest picture presented would be that on the 1100 people the effectiveness is roughly 74%. Doesn't mean the initial data was wrong but that with further testing the overall picture including that initial data has changed marginally.
AstraZeneca has updated the efficacy result of its coronavirus vaccine trial in the US, after health officials insisted they wanted to include the latest information.
The Anglo-Swedish firm has now adjusted the efficacy rate of its vaccine from 79% to 76%.
Further data from the US trial showed efficacy among the over 65s rose from 80% to 85%.
It's a pity Astrazeneca have been so cavalier with the figures they have released right from the beginning. It casts more doubt for vaccine sceptics to use.
They haven't been cavalier at all. Where do you draw that conclusion from? What has been cavalier is the stupidity of journalists reporting on statistical data without understanding it correctly.
I don't think so. The latest balls-up was spotted by the US National Institutes of Health, not stupid journalists. And the flaw in the figures - using outdated information - had to be rectified by AZ who had to alter the figures downwards in one case and upwards in another. Nothing to do with journalists misinterpreting anything. My point - and it comes from one who has had the AZ jab and is grateful - is that AZ have, from the beginning with the nonsense about the half-doses, been less than careful with the information they have issued and that it to be regretted.
Completely wrong. No balls up at all. Its simply a case that as more testing of the vaccine is done and analysed for approval by different organisation the overall picture has changed with that new information and so they have updated the figure. Its gonna keep happening the more the vaccine gets used. Movement of a couple of percentage points in either direction is pretty irrelevant given they are nearly double as effective as the average flu vaccine. Information around the Efficacy of the pfizer vaccine has been updated just as many times. The same goes for the moderna one and others just as they aren't in mass use over here they haven't had the press attention.
More testing = More information = updated headline figure = more usage = more information = updated headline figure. And repeat.
Not completely wrong. The balls up was spotted by the US. It was reported on the news here a couple of days ago.
To clarify. The US news report said they had been presented with old data and that was subsequently corrected. That was the balls up.
Not a balls up and not old data. They were presented with a set of data, they asked for some additional data to assess one aspect of this further (as medical agency's tend to do). The additional testing to get that data had a slight impact on the overall picture.
@cantersaddick "It just didnt include some of the latest testing". You say potayto, I say potarto.
As in it was up to date at the point that it was sent but it was subsequently added to. I dont think you realise just how regularly the picture is changing on the vaccine data. Its by the hour or minute not day or week.
It was no balls up and no deliberate intent to mislead. Just the picture is rapidly changing.
This is why there are so many numbers out there, because each time they submit to a medical agency (which is regularly - The MHRA are still receiving daily updates including weekends and bank holidays) they have to use the latest position. That position is changing all the time.
Why LOL that?! The news article wasn’t downplaying the effectiveness of the AstraZeneca vaccine but it did say this wasn’t helping the company’s stock as it was already facing scepticism in Europe. The US were hoping for a quick approval of the vaccine to add a 4th vaccine to their rollout but the outdated information is slowing the process. That was the crux of the report.
There's a lot wrong with some of the stuff that's been thrown around in yhe past few hours. What it boils down to is - once again - some peoples' inability to distinguish between BAD SCIENCE and BAD JOURNALISM, and a lack of understanding of what the scientific method actually *is*.
This is, again, because people think that science 'solves' things. It doesn't - it continually evaluates and re-evaluates based on data. As the dataset gets larger, statistics become firmer, a conclusion becomes more empirical and - eventually - a consensus is formed. Its this childish modern need for instant gratification on all things that doesn't enable people to see beyond IT'S A CURE! or SCIENCE HAS FAILED US! - and the media is, as usual, almost entirely to blame for it.
I say potato, you say... Well, whatever the hell you want to say, because you don't understand that science doesn't care what I say, what you say or what anyone else says.
There's an excellent book about this subject called 'The Geek Manifesto'. It's worth a read.
Why LOL that?! The news article wasn’t downplaying the effectiveness of the AstraZeneca vaccine but it did say this wasn’t helping the company’s stock as it was already facing scepticism in Europe. The US were hoping for a quick approval of the vaccine to add a 4th vaccine to their rollout but the outdated information is slowing the process. That was the crux of the report.
Because its completely wrong and I've explained why above. You believe what you want but I'll try one more time. They didn't report outdated information. They reported the most up to date information they had at the time. The picture had changed by the time the regulator came back to ask for clarifications (as is completely normal) and so they were issued with an updated set of data which told a marginally different story. This is being blown out of proportion by the odd article.
I agree there is confusion and the confusion hasn't helped vaccine take-up but to attribute any of that confusion to AZ and suggest that they should just report one number and stick to it even as they get more data is complete lunacy. Imagine the outcry if they didn't update all the medical agencies with new data. They don't control how it gets reported on.
You do have to question though why the AZ numbers are changing. For example both Pfizer and Moderna have basically stuck with their same figures since their trials. Essentially 94/95% efficacy. Why the movement from AstraZeneca. I think that is what is bringing in the scepticism.
You do have to question though why the AZ numbers are changing. For example both Pfizer and Moderna have basically stuck with their same figures since their trials. Essentially 94/95% efficacy. Why the movement from AstraZeneca. I think that is what is bringing in the scepticism.
First jab yesterday afternoon at The Valley, excitingly - very strange having it done in Crossbars and then leaving as if I'd just been to a match. Got the text in the morning, in and out with no fuss. And got my sticker.
Squeezed it in just before work, felt a bit dozy after but managed to get a shift done.
Overnight and today the side effects have hit me like a train - like the aftermath of a flu jab but 10 times stronger. Was really rough this afternoon but slowly feeling better this evening.
Better than being on a ventilator. Roll on jab 2....
You do have to question though why the AZ numbers are changing. For example both Pfizer and Moderna have basically stuck with their same figures since their trials. Essentially 94/95% efficacy. Why the movement from AstraZeneca. I think that is what is bringing in the scepticism.
Ffs. As data increases the numbers change. It’s really simple. Do you really think that numbers have remained static from phase 3 trials or that after millions of vaccinations they might need a tweak based on the real world data.
following my jab yesterday morning, I couldn’t even get out of bed this morning to take the kids nursery. Proper flu like aches where even the tips of your fingers ache. It started last nite but worse much worse today. Took paracetamol and lots of water and gradually felt better. Feel absolutely fine now! No pain in my arm either which seems the most common side effect.
There's a lot wrong with some of the stuff that's been thrown around in yhe past few hours. What it boils down to is - once again - some peoples' inability to distinguish between BAD SCIENCE and BAD JOURNALISM, and a lack of understanding of what the scientific method actually *is*.
This is, again, because people think that science 'solves' things. It doesn't - it continually evaluates and re-evaluates based on data. As the dataset gets larger, statistics become firmer, a conclusion becomes more empirical and - eventually - a consensus is formed. Its this childish modern need for instant gratification on all things that doesn't enable people to see beyond IT'S A CURE! or SCIENCE HAS FAILED US! - and the media is, as usual, almost entirely to blame for it.
I say potato, you say... Well, whatever the hell you want to say, because you don't understand that science doesn't care what I say, what you say or what anyone else says.
There's an excellent book about this subject called 'The Geek Manifesto'. It's worth a read.
If you really think that's what I'm doing, go ahead and misunderstand and keep coming on as a pompous git.
There's a lot wrong with some of the stuff that's been thrown around in yhe past few hours. What it boils down to is - once again - some peoples' inability to distinguish between BAD SCIENCE and BAD JOURNALISM, and a lack of understanding of what the scientific method actually *is*.
This is, again, because people think that science 'solves' things. It doesn't - it continually evaluates and re-evaluates based on data. As the dataset gets larger, statistics become firmer, a conclusion becomes more empirical and - eventually - a consensus is formed. Its this childish modern need for instant gratification on all things that doesn't enable people to see beyond IT'S A CURE! or SCIENCE HAS FAILED US! - and the media is, as usual, almost entirely to blame for it.
I say potato, you say... Well, whatever the hell you want to say, because you don't understand that science doesn't care what I say, what you say or what anyone else says.
There's an excellent book about this subject called 'The Geek Manifesto'. It's worth a read.
If you really think that's what I'm doing, go ahead and misunderstand and keep coming on as a pompous git.
How is anything I've put 'pompous'? That post basically highlights the fallacies in your (and others) argument, gives a pretty frank explanation of why they're fallacious, and then goes on to give a reason for these spurious claims (media stupidity)
You can't just claim I'm a 'pompous git' by explaining something to you FFS 🤣
It's the same as sulking when someone explains why you're wrong about something, and then resorting to abuse, rather than continuing to argue your point. Take a look back through the thread - it isn't just me telling you this...
2nd Pfizer jab today. No side effects as yet. My wife had 1st AZ jab 2 weeks ago, couldn’t get out of bed for four days and still has chest and lung pain side effects
First jab yesterday afternoon at The Valley, excitingly - very strange having it done in Crossbars and then leaving as if I'd just been to a match. Got the text in the morning, in and out with no fuss. And got my sticker.
Squeezed it in just before work, felt a bit dozy after but managed to get a shift done.
Overnight and today the side effects have hit me like a train - like the aftermath of a flu jab but 10 times stronger. Was really rough this afternoon but slowly feeling better this evening.
Better than being on a ventilator. Roll on jab 2....
You do have to question though why the AZ numbers are changing. For example both Pfizer and Moderna have basically stuck with their same figures since their trials. Essentially 94/95% efficacy. Why the movement from AstraZeneca. I think that is what is bringing in the scepticism.
Ffs. As data increases the numbers change. It’s really simple. Do you really think that numbers have remained static from phase 3 trials or that after millions of vaccinations they might need a tweak based on the real world data.
Maybe because it wasn’t tested adequately in the first place and they’re tweaking the numbers as more data is coming in. Being medical/health related I can understand the uneasiness here. And I would have thought you could understand that having worked in the medical field yourself. It’s really simple.
Incidentally, my opinion is that the AZ vaccination is more than adequate but there seems to be a common theme of scepticism both in Europe and now in the US. I wonder why that is!
So I’ve had a Lol and a Ffs today from 2 people who obviously know a lot more about this than me so I’m going to leave it at that.
Comments
To use a crude example. If it was tested on 1000 people and was found to be 75% effective and then it was tested on 100 additional people and found to be 72% effective the latest picture presented would be that on the 1100 people the effectiveness is roughly 74%. Doesn't mean the initial data was wrong but that with further testing the overall picture including that initial data has changed marginally.
Not a balls up and not old data. They were presented with a set of data, they asked for some additional data to assess one aspect of this further (as medical agency's tend to do). The additional testing to get that data had a slight impact on the overall picture.
It was no balls up and no deliberate intent to mislead. Just the picture is rapidly changing.
This is why there are so many numbers out there, because each time they submit to a medical agency (which is regularly - The MHRA are still receiving daily updates including weekends and bank holidays) they have to use the latest position. That position is changing all the time.
This is, again, because people think that science 'solves' things. It doesn't - it continually evaluates and re-evaluates based on data. As the dataset gets larger, statistics become firmer, a conclusion becomes more empirical and - eventually - a consensus is formed. Its this childish modern need for instant gratification on all things that doesn't enable people to see beyond IT'S A CURE! or SCIENCE HAS FAILED US! - and the media is, as usual, almost entirely to blame for it.
I say potato, you say... Well, whatever the hell you want to say, because you don't understand that science doesn't care what I say, what you say or what anyone else says.
There's an excellent book about this subject called 'The Geek Manifesto'. It's worth a read.
I agree there is confusion and the confusion hasn't helped vaccine take-up but to attribute any of that confusion to AZ and suggest that they should just report one number and stick to it even as they get more data is complete lunacy. Imagine the outcry if they didn't update all the medical agencies with new data. They don't control how it gets reported on.
Squeezed it in just before work, felt a bit dozy after but managed to get a shift done.
Overnight and today the side effects have hit me like a train - like the aftermath of a flu jab but 10 times stronger. Was really rough this afternoon but slowly feeling better this evening.
Better than being on a ventilator. Roll on jab 2....
You can't just claim I'm a 'pompous git' by explaining something to you FFS 🤣
It's the same as sulking when someone explains why you're wrong about something, and then resorting to abuse, rather than continuing to argue your point. Take a look back through the thread - it isn't just me telling you this...