Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Forums
Other Stuff
The Clubhouse Bar
[COVID-19] General Discussion
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Which Tyler" data-source="post: 1024983" data-attributes="member: 73592"><p>The problem was that the original trials didn't have many over 65 YoA subjects; so there was an assumption, but no evidence that it would work for that cohort.</p><p>That evidence has come in over the last week or so, with data analysis from the UK (Scotland's data came in at the fag end of February (26th?), England's came in beginning of March (2nd)).</p><p></p><p>We've also now got good evidence that there's no need to give Pfizer's second dose before 5 weeks; and no need to give AstraZeneca's before 6 weeks.</p><p>Pfizer's effects plateau in the 5th week (but no sign of degrading yet as of 21st Feb data point); whilst AZ's hasn't plateaud yet (as of 21st Feb data point).</p><p></p><p></p><p>Of course, our charming media don't understand all this (and take great [false] pride in AZ being a purely British vaccine), so are claiming that the EU / Macron / Whoever had said that AZ doesn't work in the elderly (as far as I can tell, no-one had said that) and are now proven categorically wrong and unethical in a Great British Underdog story.</p><p>Reality is that the UK worked under an assumption, with the political calculus being "what's the worst that can happen?"; whilst the EU waited an extra few weeks to make sure they actually knew the answers (and used PFizer in the mean-time to vaccinate those populations).</p><p></p><p></p><p>It was similar with the aprovals. The UK approved Pfizer and AZ under emergency regulations (so fast-tracked, and lower level of evidence required); whilst the EU approved under standard regulations (so it took longer, and required a more in-depth analysis of the data - and came up with more stringent recommendations for use).</p><p>Absolutely not that the UK is better, or more efficient than the EU, or that we could only do this sue to Brexit - we simply used a different regulation, which came with different benefits and different risks</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Which Tyler, post: 1024983, member: 73592"] The problem was that the original trials didn't have many over 65 YoA subjects; so there was an assumption, but no evidence that it would work for that cohort. That evidence has come in over the last week or so, with data analysis from the UK (Scotland's data came in at the fag end of February (26th?), England's came in beginning of March (2nd)). We've also now got good evidence that there's no need to give Pfizer's second dose before 5 weeks; and no need to give AstraZeneca's before 6 weeks. Pfizer's effects plateau in the 5th week (but no sign of degrading yet as of 21st Feb data point); whilst AZ's hasn't plateaud yet (as of 21st Feb data point). Of course, our charming media don't understand all this (and take great [false] pride in AZ being a purely British vaccine), so are claiming that the EU / Macron / Whoever had said that AZ doesn't work in the elderly (as far as I can tell, no-one had said that) and are now proven categorically wrong and unethical in a Great British Underdog story. Reality is that the UK worked under an assumption, with the political calculus being "what's the worst that can happen?"; whilst the EU waited an extra few weeks to make sure they actually knew the answers (and used PFizer in the mean-time to vaccinate those populations). It was similar with the aprovals. The UK approved Pfizer and AZ under emergency regulations (so fast-tracked, and lower level of evidence required); whilst the EU approved under standard regulations (so it took longer, and required a more in-depth analysis of the data - and came up with more stringent recommendations for use). Absolutely not that the UK is better, or more efficient than the EU, or that we could only do this sue to Brexit - we simply used a different regulation, which came with different benefits and different risks [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Other Stuff
The Clubhouse Bar
[COVID-19] General Discussion
Top