John Wright Posted February 11, 2021 Share Posted February 11, 2021 1 hour ago, madmanxpilot said: The WHO scientists will be peers in their own right. They've not allegedly said it, they have said it. https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/the-oxford-astrazeneca-covid-19-vaccine-what-you-need-to-know They won't have made that pronouncement without a thorough review of available data. The manufacturer has recommended increasing the dosing interval. https://www.astrazeneca.com/media-centre/press-releases/2021/covid-19-vaccine-astrazeneca-confirms-protection-against-severe-disease-hospitalisation-and-death-in-the-primary-analysis-of-phase-iii-trials.html Surely the IOM will 'follow the science' and adapt it's own dosing strategy accordingly. WHO don’t peer review. They comment and advise on the trials and preliminary results and peer reviewed results. The manufacturer has not recommended increasing the interval. It’s commented on the data interpretation from the provisional results. None of this is peer reviewed or recommended by the manufacturer. They hope it will be, but that’s not guaranteed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newbie Posted February 11, 2021 Share Posted February 11, 2021 14 minutes ago, John Wright said: WHO don’t peer review. They comment and advise on the trials and preliminary results and peer reviewed results. The manufacturer has not recommended increasing the interval. It’s commented on the data interpretation from the provisional results. None of this is peer reviewed or recommended by the manufacturer. They hope it will be, but that’s not guaranteed. That’s true but it is currently being reviewed and the Lancet has made it available as a pre-print version online, so I suspect that they are confident it will go to print after the review. The authors are the same ones who produced the original paper that allowed them to get emergency authorisation for use from the regulators in the UK. I don’t suppose it will be long before it is published Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wrighty Posted February 11, 2021 Share Posted February 11, 2021 17 minutes ago, John Wright said: WHO don’t peer review. They comment and advise on the trials and preliminary results and peer reviewed results. The manufacturer has not recommended increasing the interval. It’s commented on the data interpretation from the provisional results. None of this is peer reviewed or recommended by the manufacturer. They hope it will be, but that’s not guaranteed. There's nothing special about peer review. A journal such as the Lancet will have a bank of people who act as reviewers for articles (I've done it myself - not for the Lancet, admittedly) and usually ask 3 to blindly review submissions for publication. By blindly I mean without sight of the authors or the institution that produced the work. For something such as a covid vaccine paper that is so high profile it will be obvious to anyone in the field where the paper's come from so the blinding aspect is not really relevant. If the 3 reviewers, or maybe 2/3, recommend publication it's in. That's peer review. I've seen some rubbish published in medical journals in my time, when the reviewers haven't bothered (or didn't understand) to scrutinise statistical methods etc. I'd argue that a positive recommendation from the WHO SAGE panel is stronger than 'peer review'. Manufacturers rarely recommend dosing intervals etc. Most of them like to be seen to be independent and concentrate on making the stuff while the scientists and medics make pronouncements on timing etc based on the studies' results. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newbie Posted February 11, 2021 Share Posted February 11, 2021 5 minutes ago, wrighty said: For something such as a covid vaccine paper that is so high profile it will be obvious to anyone in the field where the paper's come from so the blinding aspect is not really relevant. Great restraint not using the phrase ‘blindingly obvious’! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happier diner Posted February 11, 2021 Share Posted February 11, 2021 20 minutes ago, wrighty said: Manufacturers rarely recommend dosing intervals etc. Most of them like to be seen to be independent and concentrate on making the stuff while the scientists and medics make pronouncements on timing etc based on the studies' results. This is correct and has been said on here (by me and others) before, that vaccine developers cannot possibly test the application rates at every interval. If they did they would still be testing them now. That's why I don't get our dogmatic approach. Yes aim for 3 weeks but stop worrying if 3 becomes 4 or 5 or 6 due to supply restriction. It doesn't matter a ****. Might turn out 4 or 5 or 6 (or more) was the best anyway. All programmes, be they building or vaccination, run better if you take some risk and don't rigidly apply/constrain dates and times. Any constraint will slow a programme down. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Banker Posted February 11, 2021 Author Share Posted February 11, 2021 2 hours ago, madmanxpilot said: The WHO scientists will be peers in their own right. They've not allegedly said it, they have said it. https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/the-oxford-astrazeneca-covid-19-vaccine-what-you-need-to-know They won't have made that pronouncement without a thorough review of available data. The manufacturer has recommended increasing the dosing interval. https://www.astrazeneca.com/media-centre/press-releases/2021/covid-19-vaccine-astrazeneca-confirms-protection-against-severe-disease-hospitalisation-and-death-in-the-primary-analysis-of-phase-iii-trials.html Surely the IOM will 'follow the science' and adapt it's own dosing strategy accordingly. Manx solutions 😀 we’re the only ones in UK including Channel Islands continuing with this 3 weeks intervals when it appears better immunity from 6-12 weeks 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Banker Posted February 11, 2021 Author Share Posted February 11, 2021 Great data from Jersey, into 65 years old now. If we weren’t following this 3 weeks idea we would be much further advanced https://www.channel103.com/news/jersey-news/watch-jersey-exceeds-20000-vaccine-doses/ 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cambon Posted February 11, 2021 Share Posted February 11, 2021 12 minutes ago, Banker said: Manx solutions 😀 we’re the only ones in UK including Channel Islands continuing with this 3 weeks intervals when it appears better immunity from 6-12 weeks How do they know, when they have not tried 3 weeks except in trials? Andrew Lloyd Webber was on TV this morning saying he had the Pfizer vaccine 3 weeks apart as part of the trials 8 months ago and still has very high levels of immunity. I think I will take mine based on manufacturers recommendation. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quilp Posted February 11, 2021 Share Posted February 11, 2021 Typical that Lloyd-Webber would get a song and dance out of it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wrighty Posted February 11, 2021 Share Posted February 11, 2021 5 minutes ago, quilp said: Typical that Lloyd-Webber would get a song and dance out of it... Jesus Christ Superspreader? Bats? The Pangolin of the Opera? 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmanxpilot Posted February 11, 2021 Share Posted February 11, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, John Wright said: WHO don’t peer review. They comment and advise on the trials and preliminary results and peer reviewed results. The manufacturer has not recommended increasing the interval. It’s commented on the data interpretation from the provisional results. None of this is peer reviewed or recommended by the manufacturer. They hope it will be, but that’s not guaranteed. A peer review is the evaluation of work by one or more people with similar competencies as the producers of the work (peers). Surely the WHO scientist's review of the AZ data constitutes peer review? AZ have said, officially, that the jab is more efficent if the vaccine is given at a greater interval than was originally suggested. How is that not a recomendation? Edited February 11, 2021 by madmanxpilot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Banker Posted February 11, 2021 Author Share Posted February 11, 2021 34 minutes ago, Cambon said: How do they know, when they have not tried 3 weeks except in trials? Andrew Lloyd Webber was on TV this morning saying he had the Pfizer vaccine 3 weeks apart as part of the trials 8 months ago and still has very high levels of immunity. I think I will take mine based on manufacturers recommendation. As previously posted on here today , I think by Wrighty, manufacturers don’t recommend doses intervals that’s upto government eg JCVI in UK but their stance has been endorsed by WHO so I’ll take that over Ashie decision Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryFuchwit Posted February 11, 2021 Share Posted February 11, 2021 11 minutes ago, Banker said: As previously posted on here today , I think by Wrighty, manufacturers don’t recommend doses intervals that’s upto government eg JCVI in UK but their stance has been endorsed by WHO so I’ll take that over Ashie decision Thankfully it isn't up to you. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Mexico Posted February 11, 2021 Share Posted February 11, 2021 22 minutes ago, Banker said: As previously posted on here today , I think by Wrighty, manufacturers don’t recommend doses intervals that’s upto government eg JCVI in UK but their stance has been endorsed by WHO so I’ll take that over Ashie decision You may be getting the two vaccines mixed up. Cambon was referring to the Pfizer one and the current WHO guidelines (download) say the doses should be 21-28 days apart[1]. In extreme circumstances governments may decide that the gap can be increased to up to 42 days, but care must be taken that this doesn't lead to second doses being missed. This reflects the gaps that were used in the trials which were 18-42 days. [1] The exactly 21 days thing was a typical piece of Ashford magical thinking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quilp Posted February 11, 2021 Share Posted February 11, 2021 1 minute ago, Roger Mexico said: The exactly 21 days thing was a typical piece of Ashford magical thinking. "... And not one day before, not one day after." And the, "must not be shaken or disturbed." You know, a deep frozen, solid-state... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.