On 15/01/2021 16:16, PeterC wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 15:54:21 +0000, Fredxx wrote:

On 15/01/2021 08:04, 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.

The numbers are 90, 94.5 and 95% for Oxford, Moderna and Pfizer
respectively. Not much in it and in all cases likely to minimise
symptoms even if not 100% effective.

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

According to people from Oxford etc. the AZ one has been in development for
about 10 years, so not rushed out this year. I suppose that trials hadn't
statrted befor Covid because there was no need for them.
Also, there hasn't been a case (yet!) of anyone in the trials of AZ actually
getting Covid that has been symptomatic. It would be my preference,
especially with 12 wees to wait for the second dose and Pfizer not
recommending that gap.

This article gives a very compact and incomplete history but gives a
good flavour and is a reputable source.
https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n86

In article ,
bert wrote:
In article , Tim Streater
writes
On 15 Jan 2021 at 11:30:58 GMT, alan_m wrote:

On 15/01/2021 08:37, Andy Burns wrote:
Brian Gaff wrote:

I have a feeling that as the first out of the starting block was the
other
one, then no real plan has been laid down

The UK has ordered 40 million Pfizer, 100 million AstraZeneca and 17
million Moderna, sounds like enough for two doses each even if there's a
bit of wastage ...

According to one of the Government ministers the UK has ordered 300
million doses - but this includes vaccines that are still in the trial
stage.

They were *all* in the trial stage when ordered, weren't they?

Yup, that's why we are ahead of Europe. We checked progress at each
stage as it went along. The EU would do nothing until the trials were
completed.

You really should check facts. Any country in the EU is perfectly free to
authorise a drug for use in their own country. It may well have to conform
if it wishes to export it to other EU countries. But that isn't the issue
here.

--
*He who dies with the most toys is, nonetheless, dead.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"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.

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.

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

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 00:20:23 +0000, Fredxx wrote:

On 15/01/2021 16:16, PeterC wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 15:54:21 +0000, Fredxx wrote:

On 15/01/2021 08:04, 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.

The numbers are 90, 94.5 and 95% for Oxford, Moderna and Pfizer
respectively. Not much in it and in all cases likely to minimise
symptoms even if not 100% effective.

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

According to people from Oxford etc. the AZ one has been in development for
about 10 years, so not rushed out this year. I suppose that trials hadn't
statrted befor Covid because there was no need for them.
Also, there hasn't been a case (yet!) of anyone in the trials of AZ actually
getting Covid that has been symptomatic. It would be my preference,
especially with 12 wees to wait for the second dose and Pfizer not
recommending that gap.

This article gives a very compact and incomplete history but gives a
good flavour and is a reputable source.
https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n86

I do miss the BMJ. When I was staying with my last GF I used read them (FSVO
of 'read') and had instant-reply reference source as well.
I was rather amused by the ads. for drugs: full page on LH leaf; all the
dire warnings of side effects in about 4 pt. type on the RH leaf with some
of it so far to the left that it was obscured.
--
Peter.
The gods will stay away
whilst religions hold sway

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 15:55:39 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

--
Richard addressing senile Rodent Speed:
"**** you're thick/pathetic excuse for a troll."
MID:

On 16/01/2021 04:55, 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%.

That took a long time to get here.

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?

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

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.

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.

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.
They are getting a full dose and that study shows that that
gives only 62% effectiveness even with the second does after
a month and the public isnt even getting that, it will get the
second dose after 12 weeks unless that policy changes.

On 16/01/2021 19:04, 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%. Do make your mind up.

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

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 to give only a cover of 62%.

FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

--
John addressing the senile Australian pest:
"You are a complete idiot. But you make me larf. LOL"
MID:

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.

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%.

On Sun, 17 Jan 2021 07:50:00 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

WTF are you doing in humans-only ngs, you subnormal senile troll from Oz?

--
The Natural Philosopher about senile Rodent:
"Rod speed is not a Brexiteer. He is an Australian troll and arsehole."
Message-ID:

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
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

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%.

On 15/01/2021 21:08, bert wrote:
In article , Andy Burns
writes
alan_m wrote:

Andy Burns wrote:

The UK has ordered 40 million Pfizer, 100 million AstraZeneca and 17
million Moderna, sounds like enough for two doses each even if
there'sÂ* a bit of wastage ...
Â*According to one of the Government ministers the UK has ordered 300
million doses - but this includes vaccines that are still in the
trial stage.

I suppose there might be a difference between "secured access to" and
"have ordered"?
Ordered with the proviso that they would achieve approval.

And made in Holland and Belgium, not the UK.

On 16/01/2021 20:50, 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.

I never said it had to be 2 full doses, did I.

Do make your mind up.

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

Is that a denial that you fist said the Oxford vaccine gave 62% and then
said it gives 90%.

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.

Where?

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.

And yet the articles, including one you link says 90%.

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.

Quite, so the protocol given to patients has always been first half
dose, or a second double dose. Whichever you choose.

to give only a cover of 62%.

We've finally moved on to accept the Oxford vaccine with the current
protocols gives 90%. Whoopee. That took a long time.

On 16/01/2021 22:05, Rod Speed wrote:


"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
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. Therefore it was never an accident patients were given
half doses.

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

Note unexpected, so hardly accidental.

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%.

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
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.

I never said it had to be 2 full doses, did I.

Pity thats what the general public is getting
and so is the only relevant number.

Do make your mind up.

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

Is that a denial that you fist said the Oxford vaccine gave 62% and then
said it gives 90%.

I did nothing if the sort, ****wit.

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.

Where?

That BMJ article.

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.

And yet the articles, including one you link says 90%.

Not for what the general public is getting dose wise it doesnt.

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.

Quite, so the protocol given to patients has always been first half dose,

Wrong, as always.

or a second double dose. Whichever you choose.

There is no choice with the dose you get.

to give only a cover of 62%.

We've finally moved on to accept the Oxford vaccine with the current
protocols gives 90%.

Nope.

Whoopee. That took a long time.

Didnt happen.

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%.

FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

--
Website (from 2007) dedicated to the 86-year-old senile Australian
cretin's pathological trolling:
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/r...d-faq.2973853/

FLUSH more of the trolling senile pest's latest troll**** unread

--
Keema Nam addressing nym-shifting senile Rodent:
"You are now exposed as a liar, as well as an ignorant troll."
"MID: .com"