Fredxx wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Fredxx wrote
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%,
Nope, two full doses one month apart gives 62%
two doses give 90%.
ONLY if the first one is a half dose, with
an unusual subset of vaccinated people.
Is that really so hard for you to accept?
Yep, because its just plain wrong.
Now provide a source that says giving two doses in a trial was an
accident.
I didnt say that, I said giving the first dose as a half dose was an
accident.
https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4564