Fredxx wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Fredxx wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Fredxx wrote
Rod Speed wrote
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.

Correct, so when administered as per trial and current guidelines the
Oxford vaccine gives 90% protection not 62%.

Nope, only 62% and it may well be even worse
than that with the second dose give 12 weeks
after that, but that regime hasnt even been tested.

The article you linked to said 90%.

Not with two full doses it doesnt.

Do make your mind up.

Do retake comprehension 101, not that that would help you.

That took a long time to get here.

You have still ****ed it up completely.

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

Are you now admitting your claim, "BY ACCIDENT" was a lie?

Nope, because that is what it was. It wasnt done intentionally.

I have asked you once to provide a cite for your claim.

And I did just that.

And here is the one for the unintentionally statement
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-55308216

Trials of vaccines will offer patients different levels of doses to assess
tolerance.

Wrong, as always with that phase 3 trial.

Therefore it was never an accident patients were given half doses.

Wrong, as always.

However, as per your linked article, "an initial half-dose of the vaccine
unexpectedly provided the best protection".

Note unexpected, so hardly accidental.

That wasnt what was accidental, ****wit.

How many more times? If you can't it only makes you look more stupid
than usual.

You're the one looking brain dead with your stupid 90% claim.

It's good to see your link says, "The covid-19 vaccine candidate
developed by the University of Oxford is 90% effective".

ONLY when the first dose is a half does and that isnt what
is being done with the general public vaccination program.

Again cite the vaccination program that gives a "full" dose on the
first jab

No need, if they were only giving a half dose, they would have said
that.

to give only a cover of 62%.