Posted on 11/27/2020 5:10:25 PM PST by aimhigh
Health Secretary Matt Hancock has asked the UK's drugs regulator to 'understand the data' coming out of Oxford University's coronavirus vaccine trial amid a row over the science behind the jab's promising results. Officials last night asked the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) to consider giving emergency approval for the jab, so that it could be given out from next month if it is deemed safe and effective.
It comes after confusing trial results from Oxford found under-55s accidentally given too little of the vaccine actually had better protection from coronavirus than those who got the full doses, making it unclear how effective the vaccine really is.
Oxford's trial results this week suggested the vaccine is somewhere between 62 and 90 per cent effective, depending on the dosage people are given.
The jab turned out to be most effective among 2,741 volunteers accidentally only given a half-dose the first time they had the injection, followed by a full dose. But none of those were over 55, according to reports, meaning they didn't represent the vulnerable group who will rely on the vaccine in the real world.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Because they don’t plan on giving it to anyone over 55.
I dont trust the govt period on this crap
They have a deathwish for both the unborn and the elderly.
BoJo is seriously incompetent. Trump’s WWE-style kayfabe conceals a mind that focuses, laser-like, on his priorities. We may agree or disagree about those priorities, but he makes sure they get done. He wanted serious, but non-violent, drug felons released early. That’s done. He wanted vacancies in the courts filled. That’s done. He was late to the party on the wall, but that’s ongoing, despite judicial and legislative pushback. And the cherry on the cake, his crowning achievement, the vaccine - that’s done.
I posted something from a retired pediatrician. I can’t give you the specifics. The math calculation showed that you had to have X amount of people to find one this helped
He was negative about the vaccine. Dont remember which one.
So, you have an almost 10% better chance at living through the wild virus than you have at living through the vaccine.
Uh, no thanks.
Oxford's trial results this week suggested the vaccine is somewhere between 62 and 90 per cent effective, depending on the dosage people are given.
The jab turned out to be most effective among 2,741 volunteers accidentally only given a half-dose the first time they had the injection, followed by a full dose. But none of those were over 55, according to reports, meaning they didn't represent the vulnerable group who will rely on the vaccine in the real world.
And exponentially better immunity against the next thing they cook up. Bird flu, pig flu, wuhan flu.
Survivability rate of around 99% for those 55 and under.
99.8% survive already.
Stupid to get vaccinated. What are the long term effects? UNKNOWN. google narcolepsy vacine europe. Go ahead, do it. They gave swine flu (SARS1-CoV) vaccine to a bunch of people in Europe. Over 1000 got narcolepsy from it.
Permanent narcolepsy. For the rest of their lives, they just randomly fall asleep. No cure. Can’t be fixed. From the SARS1-CoV vaccine.
This is SARS2-CoV. Notice anything?
You dont get it. Your examples show you don’t understand what the percentage effectiveness means.
The people setting up the trial randomly assign volunteers to two equal sized groups One half gets a placebo, such as a shot of saline. The other half gets the vaccine you are testing. It is double blind, meaning the patients and even the doctors directly treating them don’t know which patients get vaccine. For concreteness of this example, lets say there are 1000 volunteers. 500 get vaccine, 500 get placebo.
They stop when a certain number of patients get sick. They dont know who got what. Then they unblind. For illustration, lets say they stop when 55 people get COVID. Lets say of the 55 people who got it, it turns out 5 got the vaccine, and 50 didn’t. Then those who got vaccine had only 10% the rate of infection of the controls. The vaccine group had 5/500 or 1%, The controls had 50/500 or 10%, or ten times the rate of infection.
So, the vaccine reduced infections from 10% to 1%. It stopped 90% or 45/50 ( 9% of 10%) of the cases that would have occurred. That is what they would describe the vaccine as 90% effective. 90% less than the placebo ( untreated) group.
It did NOT reduce “infections”, it reduced “disease”. Disease = illness from the infection, not the infection itself.
Thanks.
Thanks for the clarification.
So, what is the death rate for those aged 55 and younger? If it is already 10% or less, then the vaccine does nothing.
You don’t want to be giving folks outside of the tested-for range the vaccine, but in theory it could still be useful if it gave those under 55 immunity - at least as a stopgap. I’m not sure that it is the most effective way to do it, but it is a plausible strategy.
One might also want to allow those who won’t die from COVID to be exposed to it rather than exposing the vulnerable.
That said, I doubt that is what was intended.
Re: So, what is the death rate for those aged 55 and younger?
For healthy persons under age 50, the COVID-19 fatality rate is essentially zero.
Under age 20 - 3 deaths per 100,000
Age 20 to 49 - 2 deaths per 10,000
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html
They have already indoctrinated the young they need to eliminate the elderly because they represent the past and the regulate the unborn through abortion, population control. NWO agenda 21 stuff that was called a conspiracy theory. As nutty as he was Alex Jones is smiling
Blmk
Maybe they opted to not test it on the high-risk group because they were ... high risk.
Makes sense to test something on some more resilient populations before moving to those with weaker defenses in case something goes wrong.
This Oxford data is pure BS. You are not allowed to change the recommended dosage after the trial is over...because one of your contractors screwed up...and your posh Oxford scientists didn’t bother to check the dosages. How slipshod can you get?
Maybe in the UK when the alternative is a rigorously tested vaccine from elsewhere.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.