SternAAlbifrons wrote: ↑Fri Nov 27, 2020 3:09 am It seems AstraZeneca has been indulging in a bit of PR bullshit.

The 90% figure is not correct across their trials
- in fact in the main cohort which received 2 full doses it was only 62% effective.

The 90% was from a small group that received a 1/2 dose on first jab, and a full dose on the second.

There are valid reasons for the half/full results, and it seems that will be the focus for actual use.
BUT that was not the main study group.
AstraZeneca chose to massage the message so the big 90% number was the one that hit the headlines.

They say "we are hoping the regulators will focus on the 90% effective, half dose then full dose, regime - because that is probably where we will go"

Except the participation numbers for that trial are small - so are they sufficiently scientifically valid?
and they put out a misleading result.

So maybe Do Not buy any BigPharma shares just yet. Certainly not on the basis of "headline results".

(Nb Nb, this vaccine will probably end up being a good product - but the message is, don't trust the bastard's press releases - nor the headlines that immediately flash around the world)

The Oxford University and AstraZeneca vaccine trials reached 90% efficacy by accident thanks to the “serendipity” of an error that led to some participants receiving half doses, it has emerged.

When university researchers were distributing the vaccine at the end of April, around the start of Oxford and AstraZeneca’s partnership, they noticed expected side effects such as fatigue, headaches or arm aches were milder than expected.

“So we went back and checked … and we found out that they had underpredicted the dose of the vaccine by half,” said Pangalos.

Instead of restarting the trial, he said researchers decided to continue with the half dose and administer the full dose booster shot at the scheduled time.

About 3,000 people were given the half dose and then a full dose four weeks later, with data showing 90% were protected. In the larger group, who were given two full doses also four weeks apart, efficacy was 62%.

Scientists said they still could not fully explain why the half dose gave better protection, but said it may be that it triggers the immune system differently.

Prof Sarah Gilbert from Oxford University, who led the research, said: “It could be that by giving a small amount of the vaccine to start with and following up with a big amount, that’s a better way of kicking the immune system into action and giving us the strongest immune response and the most effective immune response.”

The Oxford University/AstraZeneca vaccine will undergo a new global trial as critics questioned the claim that it could protect up to 90% of people against coronavirus.

Sir Mene Pangalos, AstraZeneca’s head of biopharmaceuticals R&D, has confirmed that the low-dose trial included nobody over the age of 55. This led to concerns that younger age may have been a factor – particularly relevant given that vulnerable elderly people are most at risk from Covid-19.

clutchcargo wrote: ↑Fri Nov 27, 2020 10:09 am ^^^
Are the Russians taking the mickey?

Russia's Sputnik V developers to AstraZeneca: let's try combining vaccines

"If they go for a new clinical trial, we suggest trying a regimen of combining the AZ shot with the #SputnikV human adenoviral vector shot to boost efficacy," the developers of the Russian vaccine said on their Twitter account.

Full: https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/rus ... 56ies.html