I'm sure there are worse, Poland and Serbia sound much worse for example, but the UK and US stand out partly because that is the focus on here and partly because they should be the nations who most want to mass immunise due to the sheer incompetence of their response to the pandemic so far, yet seem to have very high levels of vaccine resistance.
People keep on saying stuff like this, what exactly is the evidence? The evidence seems to point to the UK's population being one of the most trusting of vaccines in general, as well as one of the ones most keen on getting the covid vaccine once its rolled out.
https://www.ft.com/content/fd3264ea-dc97-489e-969f-a933288babbe
https://www.politico.eu/article/coronavirus-vaccine-skepticism-by-the-numbers/
Could you outline the corners that have been cut?So why not release the vaccines with zero testing?
Presumably because a full testing roadmap is required to prove safety.
So if that full testing roadmap has had some corners cut for covid-19, it's a perfectly valid reason to be wary of the result. Those original roadmap corners were designed with a purpose in mind, and the economic motivations of rushing a vaccine ASAP (for both governments and pharmaceutical companies) mean that safety can't be taken for granted in the same way it would be for any previous vaccine that followed the full roadmap.
The Tory government that's loosened regulations for vaccine development is the same Tory government that fecked the pandemic response in a multitude of other ways this year. Blind trust shouldn't be the default response.
I get it if you're a vulnerable, or have family that are, or are in regular contact with the elderly. But for those of us who are happy to continue to self isolate and indefinitely wear masks in public, the cost-benefit of taking a rushed vaccine may not be enough to persuade us to join the queue.
I'll happily take it in a year or so, though, after a bunch of other people have safely had a go.
Obviously, if the pandemic is significantly ruining somebody's life, the cost-benefit analysis will be different for them than it is for me. I'm certainly not going to try and dissuade anyone from taking the vaccine. I probably would do too if I were an old codger.
I'd like to know the p value of the 90% effective regime.That’s a very good/fair critique. I’ve been confused by the way they’re combining results from a phase II and phase III trial to give a single % for efficacy but hadn’t appreciated the stuff about the varying ages of the different treatment arms and the way a lot of these analyses don’t seem pre-planned. The regulators will go to town on this. It’s so important they mawill get intained public trust, I can see AZ being told to go away and run more trials (or at least generate a hell of a lot more data from these ones)
Craig
Craig
Heh.
I'd like to know the p value of the 90% effective regime.
Well it stands to reason that if you believe the virus is a conspiracy you think the vaccine would be harmful.
They claim it’s <0.001 in their press release but when you run a whole bunch of different comparison (which they seem to have done) you trust the p value less and less because of multiplicity.
You can avoid this by having a pre-stated hypothesis with a single primary end-point, defined in advance. AZ seem to have repeatedly sliced and diced their data in the hope of turning up something positive. That’s bad science.
They claim it’s <0.001 in their press release but when you run a whole bunch of different comparison (which they seem to have done) you trust the p value less and less because of multiplicity.
You can avoid this by having a pre-stated hypothesis with a single primary end-point, defined in advance. AZ seem to have repeatedly sliced and diced their data in the hope of turning up something positive. That’s bad science.
Given it's widely acknowledged that that's bad science, and this is such a public event with intense scrutiny from the global medical community and serious pressure on the regulators, it's a bit difficult to understand why they would take that approach. Obviously it wasn't their intention going into it but why would they think it's a good plan B?
Should also be clear, I’m accusing them of bad science without having all the pieces of the puzzle. Which is harsh.
Given it's widely acknowledged that that's bad science, and this is such a public event with intense scrutiny from the global medical community and serious pressure on the regulators, it's a bit difficult to understand why they would take that approach. Obviously it wasn't their intention going into it but why would they think it's a good plan B?
Is there a good explanation for why 1 1/2 doses would work better than 2 doses, if the test populations were equal? EDIT: might be limiting the effect of the neutralising antibodies on the adenovirus itself, but the fact it was a mistaken dose in the first place makes that seem borderline implausible
During the Phase I/II trial the vaccine has been evaluated in more than 1,000 healthy adult volunteers aged between 18 and 55 years in a randomised controlled trial. A subset of these volunteers (10 people) received two doses of the vaccine. Between April 23, 2020 and May 21, 2020, 1077 volunteers, received the vaccine ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 or a placebo MenACWY vaccine. There were no serious adverse health events related to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19.
“We saw the strongest immune response in the 10 participants who received two doses of the vaccine, indicating that this might be a good strategy for vaccination,” Professor Pollard continues.
My feeling is that the desperation for a vaccine & the press releases by the other vaccine kind of put pressure on this group. That's why I didn't like how this became a sort of a competition
I’m not sure it’s that harsh. It doesn’t make sense to get to 70% efficacy by averaging two dosing regimens. They needed more numbers in the low/high arm before releasing any information in my opinion. It might turn out that 90% efficacy figure doesn’t hold up and then they look clueless.Should also be clear, I’m accusing them of bad science without having all the pieces of the puzzle. Which is harsh.
I’m not sure it’s that harsh. It doesn’t make sense to get to 70% efficacy by averaging two dosing regimens. They needed more numbers in the low/high arm before releasing any information in my opinion. It might turn out that 90% efficacy figure doesn’t hold up and then they look clueless.
Yes, I'm trying not to be impatient or too critical about the missing information because all we really have is a press release. I do hope they're going to give us something more solid though.It is possible there’s more logic to their approach than we can see right now. At the end of the day there are some very smart people analysing these data and we’re speculating based on not much information.It does seem to be a bit of a mess though.
It’s possible that the very smart people aren’t that happy with the press release. In academia scientists results are often distorted by the uni press department; the needs of the PR team are different to those of the scientists. But as you say, they know the full story and we don’t, so all we can do is speculate at this point.It is possible there’s more logic to their approach than we can see right now. At the end of the day there are some very smart people analysing these data and we’re speculating based on not much information.It does seem to be a bit of a mess though.
Yes, I'm trying not to be impatient or too critical about the missing information because all we really have is a press release. I do hope they're going to give us something more solid though.
There's too much missing from their press release. Including other factors (participant bias and timing) that might impact the half/full results. It feels like they might be onto something with the half/full trial and if they'd called it an expanded phase 2 everyone would be impressed. Plus they just jump past the potential adverse events that put the trial on hold.
Right now you're left with the feeling that a month ago, the 60% would have been the Phase 3 interim report and everyone would have been impressed, and they'd be mentioning the half/full experiment as an area where they would continue trialling. The Pfizer/Moderna results have upped the stakes and instead of announcing a Phase 3 v2 trial (like Jansenn have) we've got a kind of hybrid report.
It’s possible that the very smart people aren’t that happy with the press release. In academia scientists results are often distorted by the uni press department; the needs of the PR team are different to those of the scientists. But as you say, they know the full story and we don’t, so all we can do is speculate at this point.
I’m not sure it’s that harsh. It doesn’t make sense to get to 70% efficacy by averaging two dosing regimens. They needed more numbers in the low/high arm before releasing any information in my opinion. It might turn out that 90% efficacy figure doesn’t hold up and then they look clueless.
On the plus side, what she says about the mRNA vaccines is encouraging. Proper, rigorous science. Should be a good chance of getting approved quickly.
Good article.
About Moderna/Pfizer - they didn't do PCR tests of their subjects, confining analysis to people who developed and reported symptoms. You can imagine, as things reopen, the virus spreading through vaccinated asymptomatic carriers in a mostly-not-vaccinated population.
Reading a few things, seems that the Oxford/AZ might have fecked up their trials and many people are saying that they should do another trial.
It’s quite bizarre to see things like the scientists fecked up the trials and there’s a clear race to be the first or best vaccine but if you show the slightest bit of concern to this and wary of the results you get shouted down and called ignorant and selfish because you must believe the science!!!My feeling is that the desperation for a vaccine & the press releases by the other vaccine kind of put pressure on this group. That's why I didn't like how this became a sort of a competition
It’s quite bizarre to see things like the scientists fecked up the trials and there’s a clear race to be the first or best vaccine but if you show the slightest bit of concern to this and wary of the results you get shouted down and called ignorant and selfish because you must believe the science!!!
It’s quite bizarre to see things like the scientists fecked up the trials and there’s a clear race to be the first or best vaccine but if you show the slightest bit of concern to this and wary of the results you get shouted down and called ignorant and selfish because you must believe the science!!!
Thanks for all that info, I’ve read most of your posts in this thread so do read them when I see your name.The problem here is people judging these vaccines based on press releases.
Proper scientists won’t form an opinion until they’ve read all the details. Which is what happens when a new medicine gets a license. Trained scientists working for the regulatory authorities - who are independent from the pharma companies - do a forensic review of all the available data. From the first mouse it was tested on, all the way through to every last detail of the phase III trial. This is all digital now but in the days of hard copy the data provided used to fill a whole wall full of lever arch folders. And they have to read every page. Then hold multiple meetings with the developers to challenge and understand anything they are unsure about. This usually takes months and months but has been sped up by them starting this analysis on animal data before the human trials are complete (which is unprecedented, as it would be a collosal waste of their time if the human trials failed)
Only after they all agree that the medicine is effective and safe will they give it a license to be used. Then it’s over to physicians to review the peer reviewed publications of the phase II and III trials (again, with a load more details than we have now) and decide which safe, effective drug is best for the patient they are writing the prescription for.
If, at that point, the patient decides they know more than the regulators and the doctor in front of them then they really are ignoring the science. But we’re a long way off that right now.
It shows me that people just believe what they want and don’t care for the real releases. Pro COVID vaccine people wouldn’t care that the trial seems flawed, they’ve already been in here talking down to anyone who doubted it.Isn't this a bit of a false equivalence?
One trial seems to be flawed, with calls to re-reun the trial, when the results have been put under scrutiny.
Shouldn't that give you confidence in the others if their results hold up under the same level of scrutiny?
It shows me that people just believe what they want and don’t care for the real releases. Pro COVID vaccine people wouldn’t care that the trial seems flawed, they’ve already been in here talking down to anyone who doubted it.
I presume they’re working on the assumption the vaccine has already been assessed and licensed. Which won’t happen if the trial data is as flawed as it seems (re the Oxford vaccine, that is, I haven’t seen anyone talking about major red flags for the other two)
I don't think assuming approval had anything to do with it. Any criticism of the results from the first release was quickly shouted down, and not just on here. On the BBC website for the first few hours it was reported as '70% effective' before being changed to 'highly effective' and pushing the 90% result without mentioning they got that result by accident. There is definitely overtones of nationalism in the press as it's seen as the British vaccine.
I said this earlier in the thread, when you're working on creating a vaccine against the worst global pandemic in living memory, your share price doesn't crash over 10% if your news is good.
It shows me that people just believe what they want and don’t care for the real releases. Pro COVID vaccine people wouldn’t care that the trial seems flawed, they’ve already been in here talking down to anyone who doubted it.
