I have a preference for the Oxford jab.

jon wrote

I have a preference for the Oxford jab.

Why when it clearly produces a worse result ?

I don't think that this is true. The vagaries of dose and the variation in
the virus makes this kind of testing very difficult to do.
Brian

--

This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
jon wrote
I have a preference for the Oxford jab.

Why when it clearly produces a worse result ?

Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote

I don't think that this is true.

Yes it is.

The vagaries of dose and the variation in the virus
makes this kind of testing very difficult to do.

Bull****.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
jon wrote
I have a preference for the Oxford jab.

Why when it clearly produces a worse result ?

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

--
Marland revealing the senile sociopath's pathology:
"You have mentioned Alexa in a couple of threads recently, it is not a real
woman you know even if it is the only thing with a female name that stays
around around while you talk it to it.
Poor sad git who has to resort to Usenet and electronic devices for any
interaction as all real people run a mile to get away from you boring them
to death."
MID:

On 15/01/2021 08:30, Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote:
I don't think that this is true. The vagaries of dose and the variation in
the virus makes this kind of testing very difficult to do.
Brian


Yesterday's episode of "More or Less" (BBC Radio 4, now on iPlayer)
explained how the effectiveness figure is arrived at.
If you use the same methodology there's little difference between the
three approved vaccines, and one dose *is* highly effective.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000r4t9

--
Reentrant

On 15/01/2021 11:12, Reentrant wrote:
On 15/01/2021 08:30, Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote:
I don't think that this is true. The vagaries of dose and the
variation in
the virus makes this kind of testing very difficult to do.
Â* Brian


Yesterday's episode of "More or Less" (BBC Radio 4, now on iPlayer)
explained how the effectiveness figure is arrived at.
If you use the same methodology there's little difference between the
three approved vaccines, and one dose *is* highly effective.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000r4t9


Isn't the unknown the effectiveness if the second dose is changed from
within 3 weeks to within 12 weeks.

--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

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

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.
--
Peter.
The gods will stay away
whilst religions hold sway

In article , PeterC
writes
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-...oderna-and-pfi
zer-coronavirus-jab-candidates-compare-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.
At one stage it was stated that with the AZ vaccine it was the 2nd dose
which was the more effective. They had discovered this by accident due
to a mistake during the trials. The initial testing was 1st large dose,
2nd small dose but it only gave 64% immunity. When they reversed it the
effectiveness rose to over 90%.

I just hope they are not risking cocking the whole thing up chasing the
numbers game for fleeting headlines.
--
bert

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

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

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...

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 04:36:20 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

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



--
Kerr-Mudd,John addressing senile Rot:
"Auto-contradictor Rod is back! (in the KF)"
MID:

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".

"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.

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, but most new centres tend not to
have enough refrigeration for that first one so the ones at pharmacies and
other places being added at the moment are the oxford one. A call in to the
relevant health authority might give you more information, but to be honest
does it really matter?
Brian

--

This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"jon" wrote in message ...

I have a preference for the Oxford jab.

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 ...

"Andy Burns" wrote in message
...
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 ...

But its less clear how much of that will be available early.

Fred 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's
a bit of wastage ...

But its less clear how much of that will be available early.

It sounds like the Moderna vaccine definitely won't be early, supposedly
the delivery schedules of the other two are being kept under wraps so
those pesky european countries don't lean on the suppliers to send us
less and them more ...

On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 19:50:01 +1100, Fred, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:


But its less clear how much of that will be available early.

In auto-contradicting mode again, you clinically insane trolling 86-year-old
pest?

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

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.

--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

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'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.

I suppose there might be a difference between "secured access to" and
"have ordered"?

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'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.

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

On 15/01/2021 11:33, Tim Streater wrote:
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?


Yes, its not a criticism of the policy, cost or possible wastage. At the
time no-one was sure of which one would be effective or if any could be
produced within any reasonable time scale.



--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

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.
--
bert

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.

Brian Gaff (Sofa) 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, but most new
centres tend not to have enough refrigeration for that first one
so the ones at pharmacies and other places being added at the
moment are the oxford one. A call in to the relevant health
authority might give you more information, but to be honest
does it really matter?

Yep given that the oxford vaccine is dramatically less effective.

"jon" wrote in message ...

I have a preference for the Oxford jab.

FLUSH troll****

--
about senile Rot Speed:
"This is like having a conversation with someone with brain damage."
MID:

On 15/01/2021 06:36, jon wrote:

I have a preference for the Oxford jab.

Patriotic I suppose but that is probably what you will get by default.
There is a lot of the AZ Oxford vaccine and a tiny amount of Pfizer in play.

Given the choice I would prefer the Pfizer vaccine since I can see that
it delivers a true 90% efficacy rather than a questionable 60% efficacy
(boosted to 70% by conflating the 90% half dose under 50's cohort).

When used in the elderly results in an under 50's cohort is irrelevant.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

In article ,
jon wrote:

I have a preference for the Oxford jab.

The three people I know, including myself all in the London area, that
have already had the jab have all had Pfizer.

Good to know you have the facilities do decide for yourself which is the
best one. How did you gather the data?

--
*Your kid may be an honours student, but you're still an idiot.

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

Dave Plowman wrote:

The three people I know, including myself all in the London area, that
have already had the jab have all had Pfizer.

Since March, dad has been having his regular injections done at home, he
was expecting the nurse to bring the covid jab on her next visit, but
he's just had a call to say he has to get it at an edge-of-town session,
as he too will be getting the pfizer one.

In article ,
Andy Burns wrote:
Dave Plowman wrote:

The three people I know, including myself all in the London area, that
have already had the jab have all had Pfizer.

Since March, dad has been having his regular injections done at home, he
was expecting the nurse to bring the covid jab on her next visit, but
he's just had a call to say he has to get it at an edge-of-town session,
as he too will be getting the pfizer one.

Yes - that would be understandable. Given how difficult it is to store.
The Oxford one will be more suitable for less than mass situations.

Are you both in a bubble, or has he a driver who is?

--
*A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kickboxing.

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

Dave Plowman wrote:

Andy Burns wrote:

Since March, dad has been having his regular injections done at home, he
was expecting the nurse to bring the covid jab on her next visit, but
he's just had a call to say he has to get it at an edge-of-town session,
as he too will be getting the pfizer one.

Yes - that would be understandable. Given how difficult it is to store.
The Oxford one will be more suitable for less than mass situations.

Are you both in a bubble, or has he a driver who is?

We don't need to be in a bubble for me to take him to medical
appointments where he's not allowed to drive, or needs someone to stay
with him overnight afterwards, but he'll be OK to drive to get the jab.

In article ,
Andy Burns wrote:
Dave Plowman wrote:

Andy Burns wrote:

Since March, dad has been having his regular injections done at home,
he was expecting the nurse to bring the covid jab on her next visit,
but he's just had a call to say he has to get it at an edge-of-town
session, as he too will be getting the pfizer one.

Yes - that would be understandable. Given how difficult it is to
store. The Oxford one will be more suitable for less than mass
situations.

Are you both in a bubble, or has he a driver who is?

We don't need to be in a bubble for me to take him to medical
appointments where he's not allowed to drive, or needs someone to stay
with him overnight afterwards, but he'll be OK to drive to get the jab.

Just that sharing a car might be one of the more risky situations -
although I suppose you could drive with all the windows open.

--
*Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

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

On 15/01/2021 11:51, Andy Burns wrote:
Dave Plowman wrote:

The three people I know, including myself all in the London area, that
have already had the jab have all had Pfizer.

Since March, dad has been having his regular injections done at home, he
was expecting the nurse to bring the covid jab on her next visit, but
he's just had a call to say he has to get it at an edge-of-town session,
as he too will be getting the pfizer one.

My 90 year old mother was contacted last week about going to a centre
for a jab. Unfortunately she is housebound at the moment - after a fall
breaking her shoulder blade and leg she cannot get into or out of a car
(hospital visits are via ambulance). She has been told that a home
visit within two weeks is planned for the vaccination.

--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

In article , alan_m
wrote:
On 15/01/2021 11:51, Andy Burns wrote:
Dave Plowman wrote:

The three people I know, including myself all in the London area, that
have already had the jab have all had Pfizer.

Since March, dad has been having his regular injections done at home,
he was expecting the nurse to bring the covid jab on her next visit,
but he's just had a call to say he has to get it at an edge-of-town
session, as he too will be getting the pfizer one.

My 90 year old mother was contacted last week about going to a centre for
a jab. Unfortunately she is housebound at the moment - after a fall
breaking her shoulder blade and leg she cannot get into or out of a car
(hospital visits are via ambulance). She has been told that a home
visit within two weeks is planned for the vaccination.

I received a phone call from our GP prectice to check that I had got a
vaccine appointment.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

In article ,
charles wrote:
In article , alan_m
wrote:
On 15/01/2021 11:51, Andy Burns wrote:
Dave Plowman wrote:

The three people I know, including myself all in the London area,
that have already had the jab have all had Pfizer.

Since March, dad has been having his regular injections done at
home, he was expecting the nurse to bring the covid jab on her next
visit, but he's just had a call to say he has to get it at an
edge-of-town session, as he too will be getting the pfizer one.

My 90 year old mother was contacted last week about going to a centre
for a jab. Unfortunately she is housebound at the moment - after a
fall breaking her shoulder blade and leg she cannot get into or out of
a car (hospital visits are via ambulance). She has been told that a
home visit within two weeks is planned for the vaccination.

I received a phone call from our GP prectice to check that I had got a
vaccine appointment.

My appointment was made by my GP practice. Didn't have a letter etc from
the NHS. All done by phone and texts.

--
*I took an IQ test and the results were negative.

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

On 15/01/2021 06:36, jon wrote:

I have a preference for the Oxford jab.

is that the active one ? .....

"Jimmy Stewart" wrote in message
...
On 15/01/2021 06:36, jon wrote:

I have a preference for the Oxford jab.

is that the active one ? .....

Only in the sense that its carried by an active monkey virus.
Which has the real downside that the immune system reacts
to that and becomes immune to that, which is why that vaccine
isnt as effective and why an initial half dose works better.