Somewhat inconvenient for vaccine sceptics
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9935385/AstraZeneca-vaccine-best-keeping-people-hospital-just-1-52-cent-admitted.html
AstraZeneca vaccine is the best at keeping people out of hospital with just 1.52 per cent admitted and 1 in 3,000 dying compared to 1.99 per cent for the Pfizer jab, says study
https://assets.researchsquare.com/files/rs-828021/v1_covered.pdf?c=1629920029
Somewhat inconvenient for vaccine sceptics
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9935385/AstraZeneca-vaccine-best-keeping-people-hospital-just-1-52-cent-admitted.html
AstraZeneca vaccine is the best at keeping people out of hospital with just 1.52 per cent admitted and 1 in 3,000 dying compared to 1.99 per cent for the Pfizer jab, says study
https://assets.researchsquare.com/files/rs-828021/v1_covered.pdf?c=1629920029
The Daily Mail, that noted source of scientifically accurate information..
And the study population were people who flew into Bahrain airport. Now there is a representative population. And got RT/PCR tests. The tests with 90% false positives and less that 50% true positives.
And the paper author list is even more impressive. Mostly a bunch of random guys from Columbia (not a great school nowadays) and one who actually has a MD but spends his time writing books and making films. Which is typically Columbia. Its mostly for future media luvvies nowadays. And quota people.
Now if they had used antigen/antibody tests some useful information could have been extracted from that dataset. They only needed to make about 3K/5K of these tests to make the paper data valid. But as they only used RT/PCR data the paper is statistically worthless.
More junk science.
So par for the course for the media . Who only publish accurate science on this subject inadvertently and by accident. But most stories are wrong.
Thought I could get a response with this.
Tell us again, your theory of how PCR tests give 90% FPR?
Make sure you look up the definition of FPR first.
Your theory was debunked more that 6 months ago.
@thinksaboutit
You know just saying something is "debunked" means nothing. The person you were talking about only referred to the accuracy of lab calibration tests in very controlled low volume lab conditions. Nothing else. Zero relevance to accuracy when used as a low prevalence agent screening testing with real world test swabs. When its just maths.
And here we go around the same old stuff again. In a high prevalence sample population, those with multiple diagnostic clinical signs of moderate pneumonia, non strand specific RT/PCR test for SARs CoV 2 that is used as proxy test for active infection has a reasonable probability of an acceptable Type I error. False Positives. Thats it.
In all other scenarios the Type I error rate is exactly as I described when used an active infection proxy test for a very low prevalence agent. It does not work. Most positive results are wrong.
Now strand specific PCR tests are actually a valid test for an active infection. But thats not what they use. Too expensive, too time consuming, and not very sensitive with typical swab sample densities. And does not scale well.
This is the science. This is the maths. Any advanced text book on statistics will explain the low prevalence problem and the published literature on strand specific PCR tests will explain the huge problems with the non strand specific RT/PCR tests used to establish "cases" as proxy test for active infections. Basically even with high quality samples at least 70% to 80% of non strand specific PCR positives go away when strand specific PCR test is done. The test that actual shows a high probability of an active infection.
But we still have the problem of the first 5 to 7 days after infection. Which is why the Type II error rate is at least 50%. False negatives. At least 50% of active infections will not show up positive even strand specific PCR test in the most active part of the infection.
So what exactly was "debunked" six months..
The Daily Mail, that noted source of scientifically accurate information..
You could take it up with Cambridge University who were involved with the study, you would have known that had you read the article, so you are lazy as well as ignorant.
Somewhat inconvenient for vaccine sceptics
AstraZeneca vaccine is the best at keeping people out of hospital with just 1.52 per cent admitted and 1 in 3,000 dying compared to 1.99 per cent for the Pfizer jab, says study
https://assets.researchsquare.com/files/rs-828021/v1_covered.pdf?c=1629920029
Pretty good, a lot better than nothing. it's too late to matter in this country now since 83% have had at least one dose while 92% adult are fully vaccinated and. We are reaching the limits of persuasion, the hard core fools here could never be persuaded, they want to die with their boots on. They will have to acquire immunity by getting sick or dying....One way or the other the risk they presented will be neutralised, voluntarily or involuntarily.
Somewhat inconvenient for vaccine sceptics
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9935385/AstraZeneca-vaccine-best-keeping-people-hospital-just-1-52-cent-admitted.html
AstraZeneca vaccine is the best at keeping people out of hospital with just 1.52 per cent admitted and 1 in 3,000 dying compared to 1.99 per cent for the Pfizer jab, says study
https://assets.researchsquare.com/files/rs-828021/v1_covered.pdf?c=1629920029
The smart money is on AZ, not pfizer or moderna.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/investing/funds/moderna-pfizer-will-lose-dominance-astra-world-leader/
How does that compare with the death rates in 2020 from ONS? 1 in 3,000 was the chance of even a healthy 70 year-old dying of covid-19 without any jab.
What do the Yellow Card Reports say? 1,609 deaths among 47.5m clinical trial participants - more than 1 in 30,000 of all ages. If these reports are only 10%, as the government suggests, then we have 1 in 3,000.
The jabs have saved NHS from demands on their resources in two ways. 1) they have not kept anyone alive by saving them from covid. 2) they kept 1 in 3,000 out of hospital by killing them.
How does that compare with the death rates in 2020 from ONS? 1 in 3,000 was the chance of even a healthy 70 year-old dying of covid-19 without any jab.
What do the Yellow Card Reports say? 1,609 deaths among 47.5m clinical trial participants - more than 1 in 30,000 of all ages. If these reports are only 10%, as the government suggests, then we have 1 in 3,000.
The jabs have saved NHS from demands on their resources in two ways. 1) they have not kept anyone alive by saving them from covid. 2) they kept 1 in 3,000 out of hospital by killing them.
Care to explain the vastly reduced death/infections ratio, compared to pre-vaccination?
Somewhat contradicts your nonsensical statement about saving no-one.
Care to explain the vastly reduced death/infections ratio, compared to pre-vaccination?
Somewhat contradicts your nonsensical statement about saving no-one.
Care to show me what the death/infection ratio is now and what the death/infection was the same time last year?
All these numbers are in the public domain. Look at the covid dashboard.
What point are you making by comparing a period of high infection with a period of low infection?
The other massive issue with this study is it deals with people who are infected. AZ produced a claimed 0.5% (ie nothing, within the noise floor) difference in hospitalisation but it has a near 30% higher chance of getting infected in the first place due to poor efficacy.
So you're more likely to end up in hospital because you're much more likely to actually become infected in the first place.
I've lost track: is the AZ jab the one where you need to have four (or even more) per year to have your human rights restored, or is that the Pfizer?
AZ is the jab only poor countries will get from now on because its useless.
Its also the jab that probably cant ever be used for effective boosters anyway because of vector induced immunity so its likely they'll work even less than the original stuff.
I know you are against the AZ vaccine, but "useless" surely cannot be justified by any actual evidence.
@thinksaboutit Useless is perfectly apt compared to the alternatives.
Its a cheap second rate vaccine that will be used by poor countries only and cant be used for boosters anywhere.
The waning data from Zoe shows even hospitalisations drop to 70% or so after 6 months.
Ultimately it starts out with roughly similar serious protection but far worse infection efficacy than the others then over time the serious protection drops off rapidly.
We've wasted a lot of time vaccinating people not at risk with it and it explains why UK cases are so much higher than elsewhere.
In justifying words like "useless" or "placebo" (another of your favourites), you need evidence that it has no use or does nothing. Neither of these is the case.
You could use a statement like "less effective by a factor of N" and avoid being misleading.
AZ is the jab only poor countries will get from now on because its useless.
Its also the jab that probably cant ever be used for effective boosters anyway because of vector induced immunity so its likely they'll work even less than the original stuff.
when we used the AZ there was insufficient Pfizer and no prospect of more for many months. That's the real story ....
@ewloe AZ was the right choice for the clinically vulnerable initially yes.
But once that cohort was done there was no reason to use it for groups not at risk.
Which are these groups who are not at risk?
Or have you rounded down from "small risk" to "zero", for the convenience of your argument.
