The Netherlands vaccinations 22 March 2021: 24.193.
But there is news, we are going from the usual 250.000 to 400.000 this week and 500.000 next week. I believe it when I see it. 
I keep you guys posted.
3 Likes
https://www.itv.com/news/2021-03-23/covid-is-prime-minister-boris-johnson-preparing-to-offer-coronavirus-vaccines-to-the-eu
This is what I expect to happen.
1 Like
Dumb by AZ, but also poor handling by DSMB.
Its fairly normal to disagree on numbers, and typically done in private. Not sure why this was not done likewise.
79% vs 74% is not like saying you got an A in a quiz, then you got a C in the test.
I would love to see the real life data for the UK. How that compares.
2 Likes
Yeah, I saw that Pfizer fucked up the reporting of data in the U.S. as well. Not a dickie bird.
Still, I don’t know why these sorts of press releases aren’t shared beforehand to make sure these issues don’t arise. I would have expected that to happen by routine.
1 Like
2 Likes
Oh dear.
3 Likes
“EU-made” 
May I ask why you chose the upper limit only?
But in a letter sent to AstraZeneca later on Monday, which was copied to the NIH and another US government agency funding the trial, the DSMB said it thought a broader analysis including up-to-date results would show a lower efficacy rate of between 69 per cent and 74 per cent, according to a person who has seen it.
The data will be an approximate. Likely with large confidence intervals.
Take consideration of population. It’s not static. In a few weeks, we have gone from B.1.1.7 being a minor percentage to a dominant. That means the value of effectiveness in a trial is not static. Highly dependent on population/time.
When the DSMB say between between 69% and 74% presumably they would have been happy if AstraZenica had reported 74%. The true value of effectiveness though in the real-world could be very different. Would not be surprised if it was 60% or 80%.
Its very difficult though without seeing the data. Its also why I would love to see the UK figures.
But it was all taken out of context though @cynicaloldgit. The reliable and so not the government mouthpiece Laura Kuenssberg told us:
One MP told me the prime minister’s “greed” comments had been intended to poke fun at the chief whip, who was gobbling his cheese and pickle while sitting next to him during the meeting.
Here is some other experts, which provide a bit of context. :
Dr Peter English, Retired Consultant in Communicable Disease Control, Former Editor of Vaccines in Practice Magazine, Immediate past Chair of the BMA Public Health Medicine Committee, said:
“There is a single sentence behind this story:
‘The DSMB expressed concern that AstraZeneca may have included outdated information from that trial, which may have provided an incomplete view of the efficacy data.’
“I find this problematic in various ways. It reads like a sentence from the conclusions of a paper; but one that has been presented out of context, without any explanation of the reasons for drawing the conclusion, or of what they think the consequences might be.
“If you present data, stating the period in which the data were collected, how can the data be ‘outdated’. The AstraZeneca press release did say it was on ‘interim’ data. There may be more recent data; but that would not normally ‘outdate’ or invalidate the interim results.
“Note also the use of the subjunctive ‘may’, used twice in that sentence.
“In my opinion this is shamefully bad communication by NIH as with their lack of clarity they have left room for speculation which could be damaging for vaccine uptake.
“If asked to speculate about what underlies this, I would guess that they may be making the same points that I made in my earlier rapid response:
“One thing that is not clear in this press release is whether the study provided any information on the real-world efficacy of the vaccine against different variants of the virus. There is no information on whether genomic typing of the cases was undertaken, the prevalence of different variants in the study population, or the dates during which the data were collected (which would allow some inferences to be drawn on variant prevalence and thus vaccine efficacy against the variants). We know from other work that the vaccine seems to be highly effective against many variants, in particular, the more transmissible B.1.1.7 variant; but we do not know if the study will add to our knowledge on this.”
Dr Stephen Griffin, Associate Professor in the School of Medicine, University of Leeds, said:
“For me, this further announcement by the DSMB in response to the AZ release yesterday highlights the importance of data being provided at the same time as summaries being made public. Naturally, the news yesterday was taken in good faith and the issues raised by the DSMB may be a mere technicality, yet this won’t be clear until we have full disclosure. Nevertheless, we must ensure that issues such as this are dealt with appropriately and that idle speculation is not seized upon by groups seeking to undermine faith in vaccination programmes.”
Prof Stephen Evans, Professor of Pharmacoepidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, said:
“It is not unknown for a DSMB to disagree with investigators over interpretation of trial results.
“It is usually done in private, so this is unprecedented in my opinion.
“I have said frequently that ‘headline’ estimates of efficacy being compared between trials is very unreliable.
“The DSMB has responsibility essentially for safety of participants, not efficacy unless it is either so high or so low or negative that it is unethical to continue to randomise, so in some senses they might be seen to be exceeding their brief. If the protocol for an interim analysis gave a cut-off at a given number of events accrued, then AZ might be justified in sticking to that. However if AZ had not adhered to the protocol then obviously the DSMB are justified in raising the issue.
“One explanation might well be that this trial is currently being conducted when there is a large amount of a new variant about more recently, and, as might be expected, the efficacy against that variant might be less, so more recent data shows reduced efficacy. Of course the other vaccines may also show such reduced efficacy and we don’t know by how much.
“It does not leave me concerned particularly unless they had found a safety issue that was being hidden, which does not appear to be the case.”
2 Likes
So, these doses are, it is being reported, meant for Canada, Mexico and COVAX…
Now what EU?
1 Like
So another day another AZ scandal. According La Stamp there are 30M doses waiting to be exported to the UK.
Looks like things are going to escalate into export bans
Proof of two things: human nature doesn’t change and people are fuckwits.
2 Likes
Yeah, I’ve been updating my post above. It is now being reported that these doses might be meant for Canada, Mexico and COVAX…
Here’s more
1 Like
The EU seems to believe that it is entitled to all vaccine doses manufactured and produced on its territory and that it is only through its benevolence that it allows any doses to leave its borders. This is absurd and the very definition of vaccine nationalism.
If the EU starts to interfere with lawful contractual arrangements between 3rd parties and companies operating within its territory they’ll soon find that companies will look to relocate to other territories that are respecters of free trade and the law.
3 Likes
If CNN is to be believed, the contracts the EU signed with AZ are pretty much identical to that signed by the UK…
I think the EU situation is further complicated by issues around the factories meant to be producing its supplies of vaccine. It’s one thing to have teething problems with a factory it’s another to delay submitting the required paperwork for clearance, while seeing vaccines then being exported.
I think AZ isn’t coming out of this very well.
3 Likes