On 16/01/2021 02:31, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 15/01/2021 17:36, Rod Speed wrote:
Fredxx wrote
Rod Speed wrote
jon wrote

I have a preference for the Oxford jab.

Why when it clearly produces a worse result ?

Some article say immunity result were different because of
alternative criteria of success.

Thats bull****, there was no different criteria for success.

The numbers are 90, 94.5 and 95% for Oxford, Moderna and Pfizer
respectively.

Thats bull**** with the Oxford.

Not much in it

There is a hell of a lot in it with the real Oxford numbers
which is 62% for a full dose with both doses.

and in all cases likely to minimise symptoms even if not 100%
effective.

Yes, but much less likely with the Oxford.

https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-...mpare-12134062


Just because some fool journo claims something...

Only a fool would choose to dismiss figures in quite a few
publications and then say "Just because some fool journo claims
something".

Only a fool like you would ignore the 62% number that was seen
in the trial and reported by Oxford with the two full doses and use
the 90% that was only ever seen with the dose ****up that had the
first dose a half does, BY ACCIDENT and with a quite different group
of those vaccinated.

That's right, a single dose gives 62%, two doses give 90%. Is that
really so hard for you to accept?

Now provide a source that says giving two doses in a trial was an accident.