|
|
And the latest report shows that it may be no more effective than the single shot Johnson vaccine.
|
|
|
|
|
So less effective then. But.... still better than nothing, eh?
|
|
|
|
|
Absolutely yes - better than nothing.
The choice, at least in the US, however is not 'nothing'. There are three other options.
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
Is it possible to have more than one?
|
|
|
|
|
I presume you're referring to the potential for boosters. Currently that's under discussion and research. It has been hypothesized that, at least in terms of a booster, a different vaccine may be a better choice as it will broaden the immunity not only as a booster but because it's just somewhat different. Still, however, a question.
Other uses for your post:
"Cuando tengo mas de uno" - the catch-phrase, many years ago, for Schaffer Beer: "When you're having more than one". English[^] Español[^]
Or, if you're an immortal . . . there can be only one.
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rather than pick "one of many articles", why not look at actual data. The UK has now performed about 28 million vaccinations, (including over 2 million 2nd doses), with pretty much, a 50:50 split between Pfizer and AstraZeneca. And the UK Government, make a whole lot of data publicly available including efficacy. Link provided below.
There are a lot of figures in the report but, my reading of it, is that there is little to choose between the two vaccines. I'm not going to extract any of the report here, because I could show numbers which favour Pfizer or AstraZeneca or show both to be the same.
If AstraZeneca jumped the gun, in going public with interim figures, then that was naive. But that does not make it a bad, (or even lesser) vaccine. It just means they are not handling their PR very well. And, in fact, the 'one of many articles' that you link to, actually quotes Dr Fauci: "This is likely a very good vaccine".
Also, AstraZeneca is not profiting from this vaccine, so the only people who gain from the unwarranted scare tactics are it's competitors - who are making huge profits.
So, if anyone wants to look at actual data, try here: Public Health England vaccine effectiveness report[^]
|
|
|
|
|
You wasted a lot of text when the reality is quite clear:
1 - the data submitted was outdated and that was no ones fault but A-Z's
Quoting Fauci: the key is "very likely" - as in we need to see the ![Elephant | [mastadon]](https://codeproject.global.ssl.fastly.net/script/Forums/Images/elephant.gif) ing latest data!
Stats from the UK government - as though they are more credible then those released by A-Z? You forgot to check the joke-icon selector when you posted this reply.
As for "no profit" - I've seen how businesses count their money - what are there expenses, etc. I've seen hugely profitable companies accounting methods somehow turn themselves into money losers.
Make me think about how the EU was so suppertime of getting vaccines distributed to the poorer nations. Then, of course, came the export controls (bans). Words are cheap.
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
W∴ Balboos, GHB wrote: Stats from the UK government - as though they are more credible then those released by A-Z?
Looking at the outcome of 28 million vaccinations has to be more credible, (and more accurate), than looking at any trial. There is no reason why the UK Government would be anything other than factual - particularly as, lying would be a far riskier approach. And, when presented with actual data collected after 28 million vaccinations, (by the UK Government) versus the press looking to stir up another sh*t-storm, I know which I'm going to choose. Also, no-one is saying that the AstraZeneca results are wrong - just too early. So far, every claim made, (mostly by the EU), that the AstraZeneca vaccine is ineffective/unsafe has been proven to be completely wrong. Their credibility has been damaged by politicians and the press. Not by the quality of their vaccine.
W∴ Balboos, GHB wrote: Make me think about how the EU was so suppertime of getting vaccines distributed to the poorer nations. Then, of course, came the export controls (bans). Words are cheap.
The UK is not part of the EU. The EU, (who, incorrectly, accused both the UK & US of export bans), hasn't actually enforced an export ban - yet! Yes they are talking about it and, yes, Italy unilaterally withheld an export to Australia - but I don't think they count as a 'poorer nation'. The UK funded the development of the AstraZeneca vaccine; has no export bans; has not even suggested export bans; and, in fact, it is already being used in 70 countries.
And, no, I have no vested interest in AstraZeneca. Just the facts! 
|
|
|
|
|
5teveH wrote: has no export bans; has not even suggested export bans
No need to if it is in the contract with AZ. Smart, isn't it?
|
|
|
|
|
5teveH wrote: There is no reason why the UK Government would be anything other than factual
I guess you missed the last decade or so of politics?
I really don't care how many Brits have been stabbed with AZ - the point is (read my original post) that they gave outdated data - which to any rational investigator is a red-flag.5teveH wrote: and, in fact, it is already being used in 70 countries.
And that is possibly why the EU is bitching about not getting there share?
Don't blame the press for the sh*t-storm: they didn't submit AZ's vaccine data for them. AZ's a company and there's money at stake no matter how you slice this - and you might immediately bring to mind VW's screwing with emissions data (with rigged vehicle computers) to increase sales. Industry misrepresenting data is not exactly something new.
One thing that still keeps coming up: disappeared data, such as reported ineffectiveness for older recipients. No counter data has come up - just bad press quashed.
So 28 million UK recipients only proves it doesn't kill off the recipients. But why should anyone trust a company that submitted questionable data when several suitable alternatives are already available and in over 125 Million arms in the US, alone? Fifty million fully vaccinated.
Their troubles have been going on for a while and of their own doing[^]
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
5teveH wrote: You obviously have a problem with AstraZeneca
I really couldn't give two sh*ts about Astra-Zeneca. Or even one. I guess that comments a way for you to dodge admitting that they ed the submission by sending old data.5teveH wrote: But when the UK is vaccinating more people per hour, (with AstraZeneca),
Somehow you've decided the best way you can distract from just accepting facts (as in the data they submitted is on them and no one else) you decide to distract with some sort of contest. But - why not do the freakin' math? UK started vaccinating before US. The US's headcount for those vaccinated is approaching twice the entire population of the UK. They're not doing more per any unit of time - and what difference does it make? Except to distract form the topic and make you feel good about yourself (which is odd).
As per your support of Labor - that party seems to have only just (perhaps?) started recovering from some serious institutional sickness - institutional antisemitism starting at the top. Hardly much different then the far right. Whatever you may think is wrong with the Conservatives, at least they haven't decayed anywhere near as deeply from within.
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
W∴ Balboos, GHB wrote: I really couldn't give two sh*ts about Astra-Zeneca
So why start the discussion? 
W∴ Balboos, GHB wrote: Somehow you've decided the best way you can distract from just accepting facts (as in the data they submitted is on them and no one else) you decide to distract with some sort of contest. But - why not do the freakin' math? UK started vaccinating before US. The US's headcount for those vaccinated is approaching twice the entire population of the UK. They're not doing more per any unit of time - and what difference does it make? Except to distract form the topic and make you feel good about yourself (which is odd).
Go back and read my post again. I was comparing the number of UK AstraZeneca vaccinations per hour with the US AstraZeneca trial. Not with US vaccinations. Yes, I agree, it would be "odd" if I saw this as some sort of contest. But I don't. My aim was to point out that looking at the results of 15 million vaccinations is more reliable than looking at a trial of 30,000. I don't see how that is "distracting from accepting the facts". Surely, it's better to look at the bigger sample when determining facts.
W∴ Balboos, GHB wrote: As per your support of Labor
Again, go back and read my post. Where did I say I support Labour? 
Just so you know where I'm coming from. I have suffered at the hands of the press and have an inherent distrust of them. I hate that they try to sensationalise everything - and I feel almost duty bound to fact-check any promotion of stories from the press and, if possible, provide more reliable sources of information. I really can't see how this story did any good - for anyone. It just undermines confidence in the vaccine.
..... ![Java | [Coffee]](https://codeproject.global.ssl.fastly.net/script/Forums/Images/coffee.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
5teveH wrote: Just so you know where I'm coming from. I have suffered at the hands of the press and have an inherent distrust of them. I hate that they try to sensationalise everything - and I feel almost duty bound to fact-check any promotion of stories from the press and, if possible, provide more reliable sources of information. I really can't see how this story did any good - for anyone. It just undermines confidence in the vaccine.
I take my data from not only the media (famous for lying by omission - like FoxNews or the BBC) - but from somewhat professional sources (such as MedScape) that talk about these items usually well before the press releases, often have real data, and give both sides to, for example, my view of the way AZ handled this attempt at, well honestly, expanding their potential market (or using US sources, if they gave it EUA, to repair their reputation).
Jorgen's post (just above these) shows a more extensive knowledge of the facts. AZ played some games with this US rollout.
Put it this way - while CDC, FDA, and other US Federal watchdogs try to repair the horrible damage done to them by politicizing them in the prior four years, they're not going to cut a single corner. In particular, when a mistake can mean serious life-long (or life-ending) consequences. The key term from the MedScape article (not the emphasis) was "transparency" and 'unprecedented blind-siding' with the press release. You need to register for MedScape to get to the articles - and then you can get a flow of reasonably technical articles before the press debauche's them.
I also get Chemical and Engineering News (American Chemical Society) and it will have an altogether different slant on the progress as it is more process oriented - such as concepts of how one would hope to target an organism that mutates rapidly . . . . six months ago.
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
Clearly you are part of the US conspiracy to say that everything US is good and everything else is cr@p, whereas in reality it is generally the reverse. 
- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.
|
|
|
|
|
Probably a good thing then that the vaccine Pfizer is selling was developed by BioNTech, a German Company.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes - it is a conspiracy. More than that - the most successful self-fulfilling prophecy of all times. Apparently you've bought in to the conspiracy - you settle down in that section of North America. Or is that simply explained away by your simply a masochist ?
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
The weirdest part is that this isn't AZ's first kick at doing trials, but they seemed to have messed these up from the beginning - some people getting half doses, their messaging around >65s, etc.
Someone better not get their bonus this year. 
Still, I'd take it over not having one. (Especially as it's increasingly likely that this will be the one offered when they get to me)
TTFN - Kent
|
|
|
|
|
Kent Sharkey wrote: (Especially as it's increasingly likely that this will be the one offered when they get to me)
I feel a bit guilty about that as the US has authorized transferring the AZ to Canada and Mexico. This (at least) was before the current announcement that it's not going to be given EUA so fast.
Supposedly, there's been enough of a production increases for the other three that, by the time AZ was expected to be authorized (at that time, a few days ago), the US was thought we would be pretty much saturated with the others.
Still, as they say, "any port in a storm". As long as prevention of serious disease at 100% is true it's a bargain.
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
Apparently, AZ also broke their own protocols in analyzing data.
|
|
|
|
|
a rare instance of some people doing their jobs. I would love to know all of the times scientists, engineers, accountants cooked the data due to "pressure."
Pressure from management, pressure from colleagues, pressure from politicians....
Charlie Gilley
<italic>Stuck in a dysfunctional matrix from which I must escape...
"Where liberty dwells, there is my country." B. Franklin, 1783
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
|
|
|
|
|
Rebuff diminutive lettuce (or Greek island)(sounds like a Greek island) (modified thanks to mistake spotted by OG)
mixed to form religious seasonal food (2nd April this year)
(3, 5, 4)
modified 23-Mar-21 5:28am.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
