What now for the EU ?

[Richard Headicus]

In fact, if you don't see the EU's actions regarding vaccinations as the punitive and disastrous actions they are, I question your ability to think.

Slight amendment.

 

[Chalky101]

Well, OK let's try a sensible discussion:

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.11.30.20240671v1.full.pdf

A paper (well, pre-print) from last year on the effectiveness of the AZ vaccine and single vs double dose efficacy. Immediately what stands out to me, is that I'm sure they've justified their use of prior here. No literature etc cited to support why they chose it.

I suspect this is part of the problem we have seen from the start until the end of this pandemic, from when to lockdown to side effects of the vaccines (and one that can be extrapolated from the point I was making about the above paper, without having to understand the paper) - different assumptions between various different groups, means that different organisations are coming to different conclusions. And now we are seeing the same with regards to the various vaccines and their associated risks.

What do you think?

Peer reviewed was it?

 

[Richard Headicus]

German minister defies EU by saying he wants Russia to supply Sputnik vaccine

Berlin could act independently of EU but would require regulator’s approval of Covid jab

www.theguardian.com

All for one(self)

Are you referring to the Froggy version, or the all be it free version from their friends over the border? just asking, like.

 

[AfghanAndy]

Well, OK let's try a sensible discussion:

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.11.30.20240671v1.full.pdf

A paper (well, pre-print) from last year on the effectiveness of the AZ vaccine and single vs double dose efficacy. Immediately what stands out to me, is that I'm sure they've justified their use of prior here. No literature etc cited to support why they chose it.

I suspect this is part of the problem we have seen from the start until the end of this pandemic, from when to lockdown to side effects of the vaccines (and one that can be extrapolated from the point I was making about the above paper, without having to understand the paper) - different assumptions between various different groups, means that different organisations are coming to different conclusions. And now we are seeing the same with regards to the various vaccines and their associated risks.

What do you think?

So U.K. government, WHO and most of the world come to one conclusion.

the trading block that is failing to vaccinate its population comes up with another conclusion to support their incompetence and protect their ‘for profit’ vaccine manufacturing programme.

not to worry. Russia’s riding to the EUs help now

Germany starting talks to buy Russia’s Sputnik V vaccine

Malta, meanwhile, pushed for a joint EU approach.

www.politico.eu

Any medical papers on the research conducted by the Russians on Sputnik V?

Did you see the French government research paper that took into account variability in mortality recording?

it appears we’re no worse than other countries. We just test more people and record deaths differently.

lovely article today about how the U.K. economy is going to outstrip the US and EU economies this year by a good margin.

 

[AfghanAndy]

Peer reviewed was it?

Of course not.

concerns about the testing methodology have been covered extensively. A small subset was given an incorrect dose. (Not enough to impact on the trial results. By happy coincidence it worked better.)

did you know that when they tried penicillin out on Guinea Pigs it killed them. They then tried it out on mice and discovered it was a wonder drug.

 

[Chalky101]

Of course not.

concerns about the testing methodology have been covered extensively. A small subset was given an incorrect dose. (Not enough to impact on the trial results. By happy coincidence it worked better.)

did you know that when they tried penicillin out on Guinea Pigs it killed them. They then tried it out on mice and discovered it was a wonder drug.

But the writer of the pamphlet has declared no interest or funding it must be completely impartial...

 

[AfghanAndy]

But the writer of the pamphlet has declared no interest or funding it must be completely impartial...

He also appears to have no medical or scientific background either .

Phebo Wibbens - Faculty Profile | INSEAD

Phebo Wibbens is an Assistant Professor of Strategy at INSEAD in France. He teaches the MBA elective MAACS (Mergers, Acquisitions, Alliances and Corporate Strategy), as well as PhD course sessions on competitive strategy, corporate strategy, and research methods In his research, Prof.

www.insead.edu

 

[HCL]

Are you referring to the Froggy version, or the all be it free version from their friends over the border? just asking, like.

It's the Ruski one.
From the bottom of the article:
"Spahn said he was reacting to the commission’s announcement that it would not sign a contract with the Sputnik V producers, as it had done with other manufacturers. “As a result, I explained to the EU health ministers’ council that Germany would be holding bilateral talks with [URL='https://www.theguardian.com/world/russia']Russia[/URL], in the first instance, to find out when and what amounts [of the vaccine] we could get,” Spahn told the broadcaster WDR. He stressed that [URL='https://www.theguardian.com/world/russia']Russia[/URL] would “need to provide data” if Sputnik V was to receive the necessary approval. Hours earlier the head of the southern state of Bavaria, Markus Söder, attracted widespread criticism after announcing that he had signed a “pre-contract” with Sputnik V’s producers. On condition that Sputnik passed the relevant safety checks, Bavaria would expect to receive 2.5m doses of it in July, to be produced by the company R-Pharm in the Bavarian town of Illertissen, he said."

Seems it's not a federal matter any more, more each state for itself, re Bavaria.

 

[AfghanAndy]

It's the Ruski one.
From the bottom of the article:
"Spahn said he was reacting to the commission’s announcement that it would not sign a contract with the Sputnik V producers, as it had done with other manufacturers. “As a result, I explained to the EU health ministers’ council that Germany would be holding bilateral talks with [URL='https://www.theguardian.com/world/russia']Russia[/URL], in the first instance, to find out when and what amounts [of the vaccine] we could get,” Spahn told the broadcaster WDR. He stressed that [URL='https://www.theguardian.com/world/russia']Russia[/URL] would “need to provide data” if Sputnik V was to receive the necessary approval. Hours earlier the head of the southern state of Bavaria, Markus Söder, attracted widespread criticism after announcing that he had signed a “pre-contract” with Sputnik V’s producers. On condition that Sputnik passed the relevant safety checks, Bavaria would expect to receive 2.5m doses of it in July, to be produced by the company R-Pharm in the Bavarian town of Illertissen, he said."

Seems it's not a federal matter any more, more each state for itself, re Bavaria.

Did somebody send you that by telegram?

 

[amazing__lobster]

So U.K. government, WHO and most of the world come to one conclusion.

the trading block that is failing to vaccinate its population comes up with another conclusion to support their incompetence and protect their ‘for profit’ vaccine manufacturing programme.

not to worry. Russia’s riding to the EUs help now

Germany starting talks to buy Russia’s Sputnik V vaccine

Malta, meanwhile, pushed for a joint EU approach.

www.politico.eu

Any medical papers on the research conducted by the Russians on Sputnik V?

Did you see the French government research paper that took into account variability in mortality recording?

it appears we’re no worse than other countries. We just test more people and record deaths differently.

lovely article today about how the U.K. economy is going to outstrip the US and EU economies this year by a good margin.

Well, I suspect before you engage in this debate, you should first familiarise yourself with material first - as your first sentence is wrong.


Try again

 

[AfghanAndy]

Well, I suspect before you engage in this debate, you should first familiarise yourself with material first - as your first sentence is wrong.


Try again

I did look at the material.

I also picked up that the author teaches Business Stratgey.

Phebo Wibbens - Faculty Profile | INSEAD

Phebo Wibbens is an Assistant Professor of Strategy at INSEAD in France. He teaches the MBA elective MAACS (Mergers, Acquisitions, Alliances and Corporate Strategy), as well as PhD course sessions on competitive strategy, corporate strategy, and research methods In his research, Prof.

www.insead.edu

 

[amazing__lobster]

Of course not.

concerns about the testing methodology have been covered extensively. A small subset was given an incorrect dose. (Not enough to impact on the trial results. By happy coincidence it worked better.)

did you know that when they tried penicillin out on Guinea Pigs it killed them. They then tried it out on mice and discovered it was a wonder drug.

It's not peer-reviewed, but then for the point I made, it didn't have to be. My point was about the broader issue with modelling - how difficult do you think (!) it must be, to model an event that has only happened a handful of times in around 200 million cases.

Please keep up chap.


BTW - your last point is also a bit weird.

 

[amazing__lobster]

I did look at the material.

I also picked up that the author teaches Business Stratgey.

Phebo Wibbens - Faculty Profile | INSEAD

Phebo Wibbens is an Assistant Professor of Strategy at INSEAD in France. He teaches the MBA elective MAACS (Mergers, Acquisitions, Alliances and Corporate Strategy), as well as PhD course sessions on competitive strategy, corporate strategy, and research methods In his research, Prof.

www.insead.edu

Is that similar to business strategy?

BTW they also teach research methods - although it's all irrelevant to the point made, the point being that models are sensitive to what you put it.

And if you are up to date with the situation, why is your first sentence in the previous post false?

 

[Banker]

Well, OK let's try a sensible discussion:

The risk of blood clot arising from the AZ vaccine is significantly lower than the risk of blood clot arising from the common contraceptive pill.

See Systematic Review of Hormonal Contraception and Risk of Venous Thrombosis

It's all relative.

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

 

[AfghanAndy]

Is that similar to business strategy?

BTW they also teach research methods...

Good to know.

always good when an MBA lecturer specialising in mergers and acquisitions strays into epidemiology.

Do you often spend your time reading worthless papers written by people with no experience in the field?

silly me, you’re a Holocaust denier. You enjoy reading fantasy and palming it off as factually correct.

has the beloved EU given you your vaccine yet?

 

[Banker]

always good when an MBA lecturer specialising in mergers and acquisitions strays in epidemiology.

Who, entirely predictably, has never run a merger or acquisition in his entire life.

 

[AfghanAndy]

Who, entirely predictably, has never run a merger or acquisition in his entire life.

So our esteemed scientific expert is pushing out a paper written by a teacher with no practical experience in that field who taken complex scientific data and done a pretty basic statistical review of scientific data he has no experience at dealing with.

why do you think our resident Holocaust denier isn’t quoting more reputable peer reviewed papers?

 

[amazing__lobster]

The risk of blood clot arising from the AZ vaccine is significantly lower than the risk of blood clot arising from the common contraceptive pill.

See Systematic Review of Hormonal Contraception and Risk of Venous Thrombosis

It's all relative.

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Completely agree - the vaccine is 100 per cent safe (relatively speaking). The risks of COVID-19 are far greater, even in the younger groups in terms of long term injuries etc (I know of one individual - 21 years old and now has brain damage after COVID-19 infection - and there are lots more of these). I suspect more people have probably been run over on the way to/after leaving the vaccination centre.

This also illustrates the problems with this - they've had something like 80 occurrences in 200 million cases (of vaccinations). we can only imagine how modeling such an event is going to change depending on your variables and assumptions.

 

[amazing__lobster]

So our esteemed scientific expert is pushing out a paper written by a teacher with no practical experience in that field who taken complex scientific data and done a pretty basic statistical review of scientific data he has no experience at dealing with.

why do you think our resident Holocaust denier isn’t quoting more reputable peer reviewed papers?

I'm not pushing a paper - the point appears to have been lost on you - I'll state it again. The paper was to illustrate the difficulties in modelling as people very often do their own thing (if you actually read the paper, you'll see it's not about the blood clots...). This is going to have even more implications when trying to model something that happened a handful of times in 200 million events.

 

[HCL]

Did somebody send you that by telegram?

I was cutting and pasting that for ages.