Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

COVID-19: Vaccine and testing procedures Megathread Part 2 [Mod Warning - Post #1]

Options
1…34689…331

Comments

  • Options
    #152
    Micky 32
    Registered Users Posts: 6,556 ✭✭✭Micky 32


    Marhay70 wrote: »
    It would help if you didn't continually try to goad me into speculating on something I'm not qualified to comment on.
    There are some very knowledgeable people contributing on this forum and their posts give valuable insight to people like me who are not so knowledgeable but I'd be very surprised if, even they, would suggest that predicting the end of lockdown etc is not guesswork.
    I'm quite happy to accept the views of the experts in the FDA, the MHRA and the EMA that the vaccines developed so far will be effective in combatting the virus and as someone who falls into a vulnerable category, I will have it as soon as it's offered to me , if you'd read my posts in this forum you'd have seen that so how you could have formed the opinion you did is curious, to say the least.

    It was a very simple question. I asked on your opinion about lockdowns still in autumn and you wouldn’t answer. The probability is high we’ll be back to normal by autumn ( my opinion taking facts in to consideration). I have now formed the opinion you think there will be still lockdowns come autumn. That’s all i wanted to know, but if i’m wrong do correct me. Your posts are of the typical cohort on these forums.


  • Options
    #153
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Doc07 wrote: »
    The product leaflets for these vaccine will literally have a section in bold, underlined, referred to limitations of effectiveness and stating that like all vaccines, not everyone who gets vaccinated will be protected.
    IMO this will make dam all difference to most people’s decision making.

    Ok, I think repeating the experiment 100 times is irrelevant without comparing placebo and vaccine each time (both hypotheticals would be ridiculous anyway in real life)
    But for the craic let’s imagine 100 groups of 20,000 are observed for Covid infections like in the trials and the result is your example above ,4-250 fairly evenly spread.
    The mean or average would be around 150( pretty close to 162 imagine that!)
    If you want you can go ahead and use that figure instead to judge the Pfizer vaccine and the efficacy would be 94.5% instead of 95%

    And if the spread was 5-162?

    Now do the same thing for 100 x 20000 being vaccinated. And the spread was 5-162.

    We could pick 2 data points capable of producing an efficacy of between something like zero and 100%.

    We have 95%


  • Options
    #154
    Deeper Blue
    Registered Users Posts: 7,543 ✭✭✭Deeper Blue


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    And if the spread was 5-162?

    Now do the same thing for 100 x 20000 being vaccinated. And the spread was 5-162.

    We could pick 2 data points capable of producing an efficacy of between something like zero and 100%.

    We have 95%

    Give it up man, it's clear you either haven't a clue about stats or you're being deliberately obtuse. Either way you're adding nothing to the thread.


  • Options
    #155
    Marhay70
    Registered Users Posts: 1,912 ✭✭✭Marhay70


    Micky 32 wrote: »
    It was a very simple question. I asked on your opinion about lockdowns still in autumn and you wouldn’t answer. The probability is high we’ll be back to normal by autumn ( my opinion taking facts in to consideration). I have now formed the opinion you think there will be still lockdowns come autumn. That’s all i wanted to know, but if i’m wrong do correct me. Your posts are of the typical cohort on these forums.

    I've already said I think lockdowns will end when the need for them is no more, I don't know what is not clear about that. To say otherwise is speculation and I've repeated over and again that I'm not prepared to do that, no matter how often you ask the question you'll get the same answer. Are you clear on that because you seem to have difficulty in understanding plain speech.


  • Options
    #156
    Micky 32
    Registered Users Posts: 6,556 ✭✭✭Micky 32


    Marhay70 wrote: »
    I've already said I think lockdowns will end when the need for them is no more.

    Deflection must be your speciality. The above statement could mean a week to one person or 40 years to another person. I asked your opinion do you think the lockdowns will end by next autumn. I’m confident they will end by the autumn ( i’d actuallly would be confident enough to put a 5 figure sum bet on it), would you agree with my opinion or disagree? Simple question. Hell even MM had an opinion on it, he claims mid summer for opening up.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #157
    BrianD3
    Registered Users Posts: 8,287 ✭✭✭BrianD3


    Has this been mentioned - Sunday Indo story about HSE staff shortage potentially affecting the vaccine rollout. Most of article is behind a paywall
    https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/hse-report-reveals-insufficient-resources-to-tackle-pandemic-as-staff-shortage-may-hit-roll-out-of-vaccine-39881668.html

    This is the Sunday Indo we're talking about but it's also the HSE we're talking about. If there is even some truth to this - those useless, useless f*ckers . Not just the HSE itself either, successive governments and the Dept. of Health.


  • Options
    #158
    Marhay70
    Registered Users Posts: 1,912 ✭✭✭Marhay70


    Micky 32 wrote: »
    Deflection must be your speciality. The above statement could mean a week to one person or 40 years to another person. I asked your opinion do you think the lockdowns will end by next autumn. I’m confident they will end by the autumn ( i’d actuallly would be confident enough to put a 5 figure sum bet on it), would you agree with my opinion or disagree? Simple question. Hell even MM had an opinion on it, he claims mid summer for opening up.
    And I've said that opinions count for nothing. Your opinion might be proven to be right or it might not, somebody else might have an opinion that lockdowns will end in March and they, equally might be proven right in either case I'll be happy to congratulate them. What I have said is that I'm not prepared to speculate and I don't know why you can't respect that.


  • Options
    #159
    Micky 32
    Registered Users Posts: 6,556 ✭✭✭Micky 32


    Marhay70 wrote: »
    And I've said that opinions count for nothing. Your opinion might be proven to be right or it might not, somebody else might have an opinion that lockdowns will end in March and they, equally might be proven right in either case I'll be happy to congratulate them. What I have said is that I'm not prepared to speculate and I don't know why you can't respect that.

    Ok i’ll assume you don’t seem to think we’ll be out of lockdowns by next autumn. I’ll leave it there and rest my case.


  • Options
    #160
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Doc07 wrote: »
    The product leaflets for these vaccine will literally have a section in bold, underlined, referred to limitations of effectiveness and stating that like all vaccines, not everyone who gets vaccinated will be protected.
    IMO this will make dam all difference to most people’s decision making.


    I haven't seen the leaflet but as you say, effectiveness can't be assesses at this stage. Leaving aside the unspecific nod to no vaccine conferring 100% immunity, which figure do you think people will have in their heads?
    Ok, I think repeating the experiment 100 times is irrelevant without comparing placebo and vaccine each time (both hypotheticals would be ridiculous anyway in real life)
    But for the craic let’s imagine 100 groups of 20,000 are observed for Covid infections like in the trials and the result is your example above ,4-250 fairly evenly spread.
    The mean or average would be around 150( pretty close to 162 imagine that!)
    If you want you can go ahead and use that figure instead to judge the Pfizer vaccine and the efficacy would be 94.5% instead of 95%

    And if the spread was 5-162?

    Now do the same thing for 100 x 20000 being vaccinated.as you say, to build up the picture you need to do the same for the vaccinated group too. And the spread was 5-162.

    We could pick 2 data points capable of producing an efficacy of between something like zero and 100%.

    We have 95%. Based on a single data point. When we don't know what the spread can be.

    Isn't that dart at a dart board? Now you might say that to find the spread is impossible. In which case agnosticism is the sensible takeaway.

    And you put that into your informed decision algorithm.


  • Options
    #161
    Marhay70
    Registered Users Posts: 1,912 ✭✭✭Marhay70


    Micky 32 wrote: »
    Ok i’ll assume you don’t seem to think we’ll be out of lockdowns by next autumn. I’ll leave it there and rest my case.

    You could have rested it hours ago, doesn't mean it's proven.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #162
    Micky 32
    Registered Users Posts: 6,556 ✭✭✭Micky 32


    Marhay70 wrote: »
    You could have rested it hours ago, doesn't mean it's proven.

    Likewise if you didn’t keep deflecting.


  • Options
    #163
    Marhay70
    Registered Users Posts: 1,912 ✭✭✭Marhay70


    Micky 32 wrote: »
    Likewise if you didn’t keep deflecting.

    That's not proven either, just another of your opinions.


  • Options
    #164
    Micky 32
    Registered Users Posts: 6,556 ✭✭✭Micky 32


    Marhay70 wrote: »
    That's not proven either, just another of your opinions.

    What are you on about with your “proven”? It’s because of the arrogance of your posts. I asked your opinion on something not to prove anything.


  • Options
    #165
    Doc07
    Registered Users Posts: 975 ✭✭✭Doc07


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    And if the spread was 5-162?

    Now do the same thing for 100 x 20000 being vaccinated. And the spread was 5-162.

    We could pick 2 data points capable of producing an efficacy of between something like zero and 100%.

    We have 95%
    I respect your right to be sceptical and to express it.
    However, it’s a fairly obvious take for a reasonable person to assess that you are just trying to pretend/lie/suggest that the difference in infection rate observed in the trial is spurious.
    It may seem like a nice idea to you or important but we don’t need to see the variance in 100 groups to say with confidence that the efficacy was demonstrated with high,high,high statistical probability that the differences are real and not due to chance. It’s built into the statistical design. You can look all this up yourself.

    I’ve answered some of your Qs in good faith , even the ones about ridiculous fantasy stats scenarios , so here’s one for you.
    Find a scientist or statistician or even a reference paper that supports your theory that knowing variance if you did this 100 times matters a jot in determining if this trial has demonstrated efficacy.

    A large trial has shown the reduction in proportion of infections between placebo and vaccine to be 90 odd percent (between similar large groups with similar risks and exposures)
    If you think that is spurious fair play to you but it is not a position supported by facts or even any reasonable probability scenarios and certainly not a position that any reasonable person would maintain.


  • Options
    #166
    Marhay70
    Registered Users Posts: 1,912 ✭✭✭Marhay70


    Micky 32 wrote: »
    Where are you on about with your “proven”? It’s because of the arrogance of your posts. I asked your opinion on something not to prove anything.

    I'm arrogant now? I'm really building a substantial charge sheet, in your opinion


  • Options
    #167
    astrofool
    Registered Users Posts: 16,459 ✭✭✭✭astrofool


    Doc07 wrote: »
    I respect your right to be sceptical and to express it.
    However, it’s a fairly obvious take for a reasonable person to assess that you are just trying to pretend/lie/suggest that the difference in infection rate observed in the trial is spurious.
    It may seem like a nice idea to you or important but we don’t need to see the variance in 100 groups to say with confidence that the efficacy was demonstrated with high,high,high statistical probability that the differences are real and not due to chance. It’s built into the statistical design. You can look all this up yourself.

    I’ve answered some of your Qs in good faith , even the ones about ridiculous fantasy stats scenarios , so here’s one for you.
    Find a scientist or statistician or even a reference paper that supports your theory that knowing variance if you did this 100 times matters a jot in determining if this trial has demonstrated efficacy.

    A large trial has shown the reduction in proportion of infections between placebo and vaccine to be 90 odd percent (between similar large groups with similar risks and exposures)
    If you think that is spurious fair play to you but it is not a position supported by facts or even any reasonable probability scenarios and certainly not a position that any reasonable person would maintain.

    I think the poster in question is quickly falling into the "I'm not anti-X but (starts ridiculous anti-X argument)" territory.


  • Options
    #168
    ShineOn7
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,550 ✭✭✭ShineOn7


    Came into thread to see if there was any more positive vaccine news and I find a load of people squabbling instead

    *sigh*

    This thread was the last bastion of great news on this subforum


  • Options
    #169
    Doc07
    Registered Users Posts: 975 ✭✭✭Doc07


    ShineOn7 wrote: »
    Came into thread to see if there was any more positive vaccine news and I find a load of people squabbling instead

    *sigh*

    This thread was the last bastion of great news on this subforum

    Guilty here, hands up but I’ve finished feeding now.
    2 vaccines will be approved for use in Europe including Ireland in next couple weeks.
    Pfizer this week, Moderna couple weeks later.(mRNA vaccines)
    AstraZeneca and Janssen(viral vector vaccines) should have enough results to apply properly to EMA in mid to late January.
    Janssen might be a single dose vaccine.


  • Options
    #170
    stephenjmcd
    Registered Users Posts: 15,199 ✭✭✭✭stephenjmcd


    ShineOn7 wrote: »
    Came into thread to see if there was any more positive vaccine news and I find a load of people squabbling instead

    *sigh*

    This thread was the last bastion of great news on this subforum

    Should pick up now this week with the EMA meeting. Full steam ahead for Pfizer then Moderna first week of Jan & then Oxford mid to late Jan I'd say


  • Options
    #171
    is_that_so
    Registered Users Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    stephenjmcd wrote: »
    Should pick up now this week with the EMA meeting. Full steam ahead for Pfizer then Moderna first week of Jan & then Oxford mid to late Jan I'd say
    And maybe J&J too in January!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #172
    schmoo2k
    Registered Users Posts: 1,379 ✭✭✭schmoo2k


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Although I won't be taking the vaccine my question isn't an anti-vaccine (or pro-safe vaccined as some of us prefer to be called). I'd just like to understand the basis for deciding it's effective/works at all

    Its been pointed out elsewhere that 95% efficacy doesn't, and isn't intended to say
    that it's 95% effective (where 95% effective would mean that if you exposed yourself to Covid post-vaccination, there's a 95% chance you'd be protected against contracting Covid.)

    Question 1.

    How effective is the vaccine, given the definition of effective above. If that's known?

    Question 2:

    In the Pfizee trial there was something like 20000 given the vaccine / 9 went on the contract Covid. And 20000 were given a placebo / 83 went on to contract Covid.

    This is taken to mean the vaccine prevented people in the vaccinated group from contracting Covid.

    However, if you had two placebo groups heck, lets make it 100 placebo groups of 20,000 people, you wouldn't get 83 people in each of the 100 groups going on to contract Covid. You'd get a variation.

    How much would that variation be? What would be the total range (highest amount contracting to lowest amount contracting) over the 100 placebo groups of 20,000.

    If, for example, the range was 5-300 over the 100 placebo groups, how is there anything of significance to be extracted from the 9-83 trial result? That is, if natural variation is greater than what was observed in the trial, then.the trial doesn't demonstrate very.much

    Just wondering what the thinking is around accommodating and taking account of natural variations in placebo groups.



    -

    Raind replied thus to this question in the last thread but I don't see how it addresses the question asked (which I might not have framed well)

    Q1 - If there were 200 people (100 vaccinated and 100 not) infected and the vaccine has an estimated 95% efficacy rate then you would expect close to 95 people in the vaccinated group to have greatly reduced or no symptoms compared to the unvaccinated group.

    Q2 - "How much would that variation be?" you would expect the variation to be well within 3 standard deviations.


    "Just wondering what the thinking is around accommodating and taking account of natural variations in placebo groups." - the test group was large and based around "normal" folks (within certain criteria). Realistically the only way you would be able to get 100 drastically different results would be identifying something in common with the 5% (genetics or behavioural or clinical) and by forcing a test group to be disproportionally populated by just those folks (or conversely excluding them).

    TLDR; A lot of science has gone into the "how" to test and measure new medicines, with one of the more important criteria being the size of the test groups. These vaccines tests have had the luxury of having very large test pools, which has helped enormously.


  • Options
    #173
    stephenjmcd
    Registered Users Posts: 15,199 ✭✭✭✭stephenjmcd


    is_that_so wrote: »
    And maybe J&J too in January!

    Would be more on the optimistic front I'd say, it could happen but I'd feel February might be more realistic for that. We should have good supply lines by February going into March for sure.


  • Options
    #174
    is_that_so
    Registered Users Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    ShineOn7 wrote: »
    Came into thread to see if there was any more positive vaccine news and I find a load of people squabbling instead

    *sigh*

    This thread was the last bastion of great news on this subforum


    Here you go!
    A combination of the drugs baricitinib and remdesivir shaved one day off the recovery of people hospitalized with COVID-19.


    https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa2031994

    And this one about the optimum rollout of vaccines to age groups
    A highly effective transmission-blocking vaccine prioritized to adults ages 20-49 years minimized cumulative incidence, but mortality and years of life lost were minimized in most scenarios when the vaccine was prioritized to adults over 60 years old.

    https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.09.08.20190629v2


  • Options
    #175
    Necro
    Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 51,046 Mod ✭✭✭✭Necro


    Micky 32 wrote: »
    Likewise if you didn’t keep deflecting.
    Marhay70 wrote: »
    I'm arrogant now? I'm really building a substantial charge sheet, in your opinion

    Mod:

    Cut out the squabbling and get back on topic. If you can't address each other in a civil manner put each other on ignore


  • Options
    #176
    Water John
    Registered Users Posts: 21,130 ✭✭✭✭Water John


    6 Million Moderna vaccines shipped in the US today.


  • Options
    #177
    is_that_so
    Registered Users Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    stephenjmcd wrote: »
    Would be more on the optimistic front I'd say, it could happen but I'd feel February might be more realistic for that. We should have good supply lines by February going into March for sure.
    Yeah, I think Martin was right to stress that Jan and Feb supplies will be limited. I'm more inclined to see March as when we we begin to make big inroads into the at risk groups.


  • Options
    #178
    stephenjmcd
    Registered Users Posts: 15,199 ✭✭✭✭stephenjmcd


    is_that_so wrote: »
    Yeah, I think Martin was right to stress that Jan and Feb supplies will be limited. I'm more inclined to see March as when we we begin to make big inroads into the at risk groups.

    I'd say they'll make a good dent into at risk groups through Jan and into Feb.

    The goal of 1m by March to me seems quite realistic. The aim he said was to be open by June / July. The first 6 or 7 groups make up a pretty large chunk of the population


  • Options
    #179
    marno21
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,345 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    If J&J is approved in Q1 it's a massive help. Relatively less logistical challenges and the single dose means one person vaccinated per dose which means we get twice as much bang per dose as Pfizer/Moderna/OxfordAZ.

    Single dose also presumably means the vaccinated person is protected much quicker than having to wait 28 days+ with a double dose vaccine.

    Remember, that like vaccine development, these patterns are not linear. The pace at which we become closer to reopening can and likely will accelerate.


  • Options
    #180
    nommm
    Registered Users Posts: 700 ✭✭✭nommm


    Will the EMA meeting tomorrow be streamed like the FDA meetings?

    On JnJ, I think February is the earliest we get it as vaccine needs 2 months of safety data and they only finished enrolling recently.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #181
    is_that_so
    Registered Users Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    stephenjmcd wrote: »
    I'd say they'll make a good dent into at risk groups through Jan and into Feb.

    The goal of 1m by March to me seems quite realistic. The aim he said was to be open by June / July. The first 6 or 7 groups make up a pretty large chunk of the population
    Yeah, I agree on the 1m target. Actually, it's the last four groups that make up the bulk of the population, about 3.5m of them in total.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement