Actually it’s quite literally significant in statistical terms (p<0.0001).
The vaccines | vaxxed boosted unvaxxed? New poll
- Thread starter Badunk
- Start date
Go on
It's not nonsense. A DNA vaccine would be fraught with problems.
But an mRNA vaccine is not a DNA vaccine.
I believe it is highly statistically significant but I think we may have to wait for the final phase 3 report arrives for the exact figures. I've seen some calculation on line that seem palusible but they were only working with the figures from the press reIease and aren't expert in medical stats plus I am far too rust at stats to run the numbers myself.
Edit: I see Tony has confirmed the p value was in the press release
Last edited:
The nonsense was Libano thinking this was information about the mRNA vaccine.
They report the p-value for their vaccine efficacy calculation in the press release. P value is the result of a significance testing method (they don't say what they used), typically p<0.05 is considered a significant result. The statistical analyses they applied shows that were enough cases to demonstrate significance, assuming they did their analysis correctly - which they definitely will have done! We will find out more when they eventually publish the data in a journal.
Edit: a statistician talking about the results: https://phastar.com/blog/253-statisticians-view-on-pfizer-covid19-vaccine-data-part-ii
Last edited:
Very nice
Very very nerdy though.
Selfish, yes. Reckless, probably not, because the others are taking care of the herd immunity
Being intelligent does not always translate into rational decisions. We also have self-beliefs, attitudes, habits, personalities, world-views that influence our decision making.
My GP in Germany has a specialization in homeopathy. I am sure it‘s a pull for other people to go there.
I once went to a specialist to check my foot and he basically started with talking about bones and tendons in Chinese medicine. Hell, 12 years of highly expensive education wasted - but still an intelligent guy.
It‘s fairly common in my area in Germany.
You do get a joke, don’t you?
I must say that reading this thread is surprisingly funnyMight be irrelevant for this sample size though. p-values are more interesting for small sample sizes - several hundreds or fewer. (Just throwing it out there cause it’s often used to blind readers - because p-values are very much sensitive to the sample size; and they say nothing about the impact or the size of the effect.)
The effectiveness in this study is quite reassuring though.
Thought this was a useful overview on potential vaccine take up given some of the international comparisons made here. It's a very limited question as we know perceptions of safety play a big role, so acceptance is conditional and this makes some assumptions. But broadly speaking it lines up with what was reported before (about covid in June, about vaccines 2 years ago) in terms of where countries fit on the spectrum. France, Hungary, Poland and Russia the biggest vaccine sceptics, China the biggest vaccine adopters, Australia and UK high up the list. I would be sceptical of Brazil and India being so high up there as online surveys disproportionately represent people in higher socioeconomic classes there (China too), and higher socioeconomic classes are bigger adopters of vaccines everywhere.
The notion that the UK are particularly wary of the vaccine because of government feckups doesn't seem to hold up. Most people want to take it and most people just want to be reassured that it's being done properly. P-values just don't communicate that to people without a science or statistics degree (and we know education plays a role, even in strongly pro-vaccine Australia).
@JPRouve, @kouroux do you know why it is that people in France are more anti-vaccine than any other European country, except possibly Russia?
Last edited:
While there is some anti-vax sentiment in the Indian subcontinent (I've heard that some Muslims see some vaccines as covert birth control, and this wasn't helped by the CIA using a vaccination program as cover to get Osama), it isn't that widespread, and anti-vax generally seems to be more of a first-world issue. Even if the survey didn't take a perfect snapshot I don't think the results will change.
I also am 99% sure this result is true across most classes and regions in China (it might not be true in regions like Tibet or Xinjiang though.)
Yeah I can absolutely believe that almost everyone in China would tell you they would take the vaccine (albeit how much of that is based on personal choice is questionable), I had no idea either way about India so I'll take your word for it. I was just drawing attention to something they note about their own sample:
"The samples in Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Great Britain, Hungary, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Poland, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, and the U.S. can be taken as representative of these countries’ general adult population under the age of 75. The samples in Brazil, Chile, China (mainland), India, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa and Turkey are more urban, more educated, and/or more affluent than the general population. The survey results for these countries should be viewed as reflecting the views of the more “connected” segment of these population."
I think that understates things personally as anyone that exists on an online survey panel is a bit weird, but the general classification is probably true.
In any case, I think in every country surveyed on the subject (incl. India and China here), people's education status plays some role in their vaccine hesitancy. So India would still be very high up but it seems unlikely it'd be right there alongside Australia.
Some more promising phase II stuff from the Lancet regarding the Oxford vaccine
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)32466-1/fulltext
Safe and well tolerated across all age groups (fewer side effects reported in elderly). Strong, maintained immune response across all age groups in terms of antibodies against the spike protein (when supplemented with booster vaccine). Proof of concept though ultimately is clinical endpoint of preventing disease. So that's awaited but good stuff in theory.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)32466-1/fulltext
Safe and well tolerated across all age groups (fewer side effects reported in elderly). Strong, maintained immune response across all age groups in terms of antibodies against the spike protein (when supplemented with booster vaccine). Proof of concept though ultimately is clinical endpoint of preventing disease. So that's awaited but good stuff in theory.
I don't know a single person that is anti vaccine.
Thought this was a useful overview on potential vaccine take up given some of the international comparisons made here. It's a very limited question as we know perceptions of safety play a big role, so acceptance is conditional and this makes some assumptions. But broadly speaking it lines up with what was reported before (about covid in June, about vaccines 2 years ago) in terms of where countries fit on the spectrum. France, Hungary, Poland and Russia the biggest vaccine sceptics, China the biggest vaccine adopters, Australia and UK high up the list. I would be sceptical of Brazil and India being so high up there as online surveys disproportionately represent people in higher socioeconomic classes there (China too), and higher socioeconomic classes are bigger adopters of vaccines everywhere.
The notion that the UK are particularly wary of the vaccine because of government feckups doesn't seem to hold up. Most people want to take it and most people just want to be reassured that it's being done properly. P-values just don't communicate that to people without a science or statistics degree (and we know education plays a role, even in strongly pro-vaccine Australia).
@JPRouve, @kouroux do you know why it is that people in France are more anti-vaccine than any other European country, except possibly Russia?
Seems strange that it's something they find over and over again whether it's from one of those weird online panels or from a true random sample, and whether it was done this year or 2 years ago, and it seems to cut across all segments of society:
And it's something that links to France appearing in the top 10 for measles outbreaks, and it seemingly being the subject of more government discussion than other Western countries.
Maybe it's something people just don't talk about?
Not as much as they used to. Largely thanks to attitudes like these people you know. Children are still dying, all over the world, from measles. Any parent who deliberately exposes their child to this risk could be accused of being reckless.
As I said I don't know a single person in that case, so I can't answer your question and your second link has nothing to do with France, it's about WHO.Seems strange that it's something they find over and over again whether it's from one of those weird online panels or from a true random sample, and whether it was done this year or 2 years ago, and it seems to cut across all segments of society:
And it's something that links to France appearing in the top 10 for measles outbreaks, and it seemingly being the subject of more government discussion than other Western countries.
Maybe it's something people just don't talk about?
Except selfish pricks like that are increasingly reducing the vaccination rate below HIT thus risking other people. That is why kids are again dying from measles.
[Quite]Being intelligent does not always translate into rational decisions. We also have self-beliefs, attitudes, habits, personalities, world-views that influence our decision making.[/quote]
But you can at least try to be rational.
He should be struck off for endangering his patients.
Child abuse in my book. Child endangerment at the very least.
True but in general I like the numbers and the stats.
@Brwned Maybe that opinion piece from the CNRS can answer your question?
Do they give a breakdown by age? You’d imagine that the elderly are more inclined to put trust in authority and they also have much more to gain from vaccination. I think health services could cope with a fairly large proportion of <60 yo’s refusing the vaccination (and they’ll likely end up immune at some point anyway) so long as there’s a good take-up from the most at risk.
Thought this was a useful overview on potential vaccine take up given some of the international comparisons made here. It's a very limited question as we know perceptions of safety play a big role, so acceptance is conditional and this makes some assumptions. But broadly speaking it lines up with what was reported before (about covid in June, about vaccines 2 years ago) in terms of where countries fit on the spectrum. France, Hungary, Poland and Russia the biggest vaccine sceptics, China the biggest vaccine adopters, Australia and UK high up the list. I would be sceptical of Brazil and India being so high up there as online surveys disproportionately represent people in higher socioeconomic classes there (China too), and higher socioeconomic classes are bigger adopters of vaccines everywhere.
The notion that the UK are particularly wary of the vaccine because of government feckups doesn't seem to hold up. Most people want to take it and most people just want to be reassured that it's being done properly. P-values just don't communicate that to people without a science or statistics degree (and we know education plays a role, even in strongly pro-vaccine Australia).
@JPRouve, @kouroux do you know why it is that people in France are more anti-vaccine than any other European country, except possibly Russia?
Andrew Pollard, director of Oxford vaccine group said on bbc radio 4 he's certain phase III results for the oxford vaccine will be out by end of December, if not sooner when discussing the Lancet study's findings today
Bit later than expected?
Interesting, cheers!
Not in that one in particular as the sample sizes would get quite small / their "credibility interval" would get quite big. But yeah it's been captured in a lot of other places e.g. here in the UK 25-49 year olds are actually marginally less likely than 18-24 year olds, supposedly, but those 50-64 are much more likely than both, and 65+ are much more likely still.
Thought this was quite useful on the broader principles of vaccine hesitancy.
Thanks. That’s reassuring. If those trends are similar all over the world we don’t have much to worry about.
India being that high is not a surprise. Even among illiterate or un-educated, Govt run vaccine programs for things like Polio have been almost universal acceptance and same is true for the general infact vaccine program too. If anything it may be some of the educated folks in cities who might refuse to take it if India buys the first batch from Russia.
Agreed. I think they will be so I'm not really worried. The narrative building up right now is "persuading people to take vaccines may be as difficult as producing them in the first place" (source) which I think is a bit ridiculous on both levels: grossly understating the achievement of creating the vaccine, and grossly overstating the problems that limited vaccine hesitancy creates. More is better but completely neutralising its impact on the people most at risk of severe consequences is massive. It's these moments where the media are particularly unhelpful in their search for the dramatic angle on a story.
Also said might be sooner. Sort of implied that may not have enough infections yet in the control arm due to a relatively slower community transmission rate than what they were anticipating. They might by chance just not have had the number of infections that Pfizer and Moderna had just yet but they are testing in similar regions like South Africa and Brazil.
The news from the Oxford phase II that the vaccine gives a robust immune response in people over 70 is really encouraging.
Is this new data? I don’t think I’ve seen it yet. Do you have a link?
Aside from the obvious increase in resource investment, is there any reason why we seem to be doing so well? I found it a little disconcerting that the FDA lowered their efficacy threshold to 50% in the summer. Understandable but disconcerting. Yet so far it's seeming like they've gone far beyond normal expectations, even in a normal timeframe. Just an example of great minds all getting together on the same challenge at the same time, and it being at the right point in the technology curve to set a new standard for excellence?
@Wolverine posted it above- new paper in the lancet about their phase II AZ actually posting some real data. Hope they do the same with their phase III.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)32466-1/fulltext
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)32466-1/fulltext
Last edited:
Think it's this
It must be the biology of the virus. As good as the vaccine development has been, if the virus didn’t want to play ball they wouldn’t have been as efficacious. Also, looking at preventing disease (not even severe disease) rather than infection is an easier endpoint.
Cool. Thanks. Good to see a full paper and not just a press release. Fascinating that the oldest cohort had similar immunogenicity but tolerated it much better than the younger participants. You’d expect the immune response to be the cause of any side effects, so immunogenicity and reactivity go hand in hand. Maybe old people just whinge less?!
I'm pretty sure it's a version of that. Given typical vaccine side-effects are things like aches, fatigue, headaches - I'd have to ask how would they tell if it was different compared to a normal Tuesday. So, I suspect the "noticing/caring" threshhold is higher.
I wonder if there is any correlation between the 5% who don't produce an immune response from the vaccine and the ~5% who get seriously ill from the virus. Is that discussed anywhere in the results published so far?