The Oxford control group was 99% effective in “preventing” deaths.

[MyDcAreMarvel]

The Oxford vaccine is 100% effective in preventing severe illness or death. I initially felt this was really positive as it’s only 70% effective in stopping people contracting Covid-19. However in the control group there were only two people who had a severe Covid related illness, and out of the two one person died.
So it wasn’t the vaccine that prevented the deaths in those who still contracted Covid it was the demographic of the group. Healthy people or those with a stable medical condition, with the vast majority under the age of 55.

Yeah! Like that's what I actually typed!

www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/23/scientists-criticise-uk-government-over-following-the-science?CMP=fb_gu&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR2dVo05s5naMwEVHluomkqOQ4aynFcEF2k-VFyNA3Vk5tY1CumWuv2UYXE#Echobox=1587674026

A 9 month old article about the government using a phrase, being less than transparent?

????

It’s really not that complex

It's not that complex if you have the skills and have been taught how to do it @Bizawit but the vast majority of people don't have the knowledge to interpret scientific data.

I think the OP is asking intelligent questions but I don't think they have the skills to be able to analyse or understand the data from what they have posted and are using pseudo-scientific phrases like "no significant difference" without really understanding them. Sorry @MyDcAreMarvel, I I don't mean to be harsh.

@CuriousaboutSamphire

A 9 month old article about the government using a phrase, being less than transparent?

????

Sorry Im not sure what you are objecting to?

Rather than engaging with OPs question , you chose to shut down the idea she should be asking it.
My comment was intended to challenge that pov - which has been expressed by others on this post and is a fairly common attitude- and say to the contrary people should be asking questions of the scientists/ the science.

I never said you personally used the phrase “follow the science” but that is a dominant narrative in this crisis which follows the same logic expressed in your post. I shared that article because I think it demonstrates some of the points I was trying to make in my post more articulately and in more depth.

@orangenasturtium

It’s really not that complex

It's not that complex if you have the skills and have been taught how to do it @Bizawit but the vast majority of people don't have the knowledge to interpret scientific data.

I think the OP is asking intelligent questions but I don't think they have the skills to be able to analyse or understand the data from what they have posted and are using pseudo-scientific phrases like "no significant difference" without really understanding them. Sorry @MyDcAreMarvel, I I don't mean to be harsh.

I do agree talking about “significant differences” is a technical point, and most people don’t have the expertise to know what that really means.

But I think the OP is asking important and intelligent questions, and it would be helpful for others to engage with them - especially if they have some more knowledge, expertise to contribute , rather than tell her she is “Josephine public” and has no right to be asking questions/ forming an opinion.

Rather than engaging with OPs question , you chose to shut down the idea she should be asking it

Actually, to be fair, the OP has phrased their post more like a statement than a question, which could be misleading. It does sound like they have analysed the data, they understand how to do that and they disagree with the scientists' findings.

@orangenasturtium it’s In a Sunday Times article behind a paywall but this references it.
www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.timesofisrael.com/astrazeneca-winning-vaccine-formula-is-100-effective-against-severe-covid-19/amp/

The issue is not with "the science", but with the claims being made about the science. I have heard loads of time that if you're vaccinated and get Covid, you will have a milder version.

Now, I'm very pro-vaccine, and think they are safe and effective, but I don't think there is good evidence for this particular claim. I think the numbers are just too small to make a judgment on that yet.

And in fact, in the Pfizer trial, the proportion of cases who developed severe illness was higher in the vaccinated group. (I think this is probably because the numbers are so low - just one case more or less would have changed the proportion dramatically. Or it may have been that one case occured sooner after the vaccine before it had time for the full effect. Hopefully somebody more knowledgable can help!).

@orangenasturtium
AstraZeneca’s chief executive, Pascal Soriot, said that new data will show the vaccine is as effective as the Pfizer and Moderna jabs that have already been approved, protecting 95 percent of patients, and is “100 percent effective” in preventing severe illness requiring hospital treatment.

Actually I suggested that we all acknowledge that we may not have all the information and that trusting any media information to the extent you construct a hypothesis on it is self defeating.

Scaring yourself and others based on a slight understanding of what is often a misinterpretation isn't going to help anyone.

@orangenasturtium You are correct in that I am not qualified to accurately analyse the data. I do however have a degree in applied psychology and therefore an understanding of statistical significance.

@orangenasturtium

Rather than engaging with OPs question , you chose to shut down the idea she should be asking it

Actually, to be fair, the OP has phrased their post more like a statement than a question, which could be misleading. It does sound like they have analysed the data, they understand how to do that and they disagree with the scientists' findings.

Yeh that’s true, I read it more of a question as posted for debate, but you are right was phrased as a statement of fact which was probably ill-advised.

I did mean it is a question I was tired and phrased it badly.

OP then you should know that absolutes are not science... and so should have questioned that data, it origin and supporting information.

Don't scare yourself. Question every source of data and remain sceptical!

Not the significance that’s factual but I do want to know if despite that, the Oxford vaccine will prevent serious disease in those that still contract Covid-19.

Thanks @MyDcAreMarvel. Does anyone have a share token for the Times article?

The quote is referring to new data though. Presumably the data you were looking at is the data from the phase 1 - 3 of the clinical trials? There weren't enough participants in those phases to conclude anything meaningful about how effective the vaccine is at preventing severe illness or death. That is normal in a clinical trial. The most valuable data comes from phase 4, after the vaccine has been approved as safe and the efficacy is known, and is being widely used so you have large amounts of data.

I mean the quote you posted:

AstraZeneca’s chief executive, Pascal Soriot, said that new data will show the vaccine is as effective as the Pfizer and Moderna jabs that have already been approved, protecting 95 percent of patients, and is “100 percent effective” in preventing severe illness requiring hospital treatment

I haven't read the Times article.

The answer to that, according to Patrick Valence us yes, in the vast majority not cases... He was quite determined to get across to one journo who was some weird stats that nothing is 100% but that the vaccine has so far proved to be extremely efficacious in preventing serious illness.

@MyDcAreMarvel

Not the significance that’s factual but I do want to know if despite that, the Oxford vaccine will prevent serious disease in those that still contract Covid-19.

Don't we all!

No one can answer that question until the new data is published though.

Their findings are still statistically significant.
And you’re only looking at the published data you’ve seen, there is more data seen by the MHRA.
Anyway, time will tell because we’re going to have real world data soon which will undoubtedly show Oxford is having a good effect on preventing hospitalisation and death

LOL at my inaccurate answer after all my waffling on about using accurate language

I should have said no one can comment on Soriot's claim that the vaccine is 100% in preventing severe disease and death until the data is published. I suppose it would be fair to comment that, whatever the data shows, one of the limitations is that they only have large amounts data for a very short period of time as the vaccine was only approved a month ago.

@CuriousaboutSamphire

Please stop!

We, Josephine Public, don't get to have a meaningful opinion unless we have an equally meaningful understanding of how clinical trials work; how the various efficacy rates are worked out and how 'enough' data is decided.

Without detailed knowledge of all the extant data clinical decisions rely on any opinion is uninformed, missing essential data.

I don't have that extant data at my fingertips but I do have education and experience in research studies. I know how ethics works, I have a good idea of the reams of extant data that the research team will have been working from, that the MHRA also relied on.

That's why statements such as "It doesn't stop you transmitting it" annoy me so much. It's a bastardisation of what is actually known. But it gets trotted out like some Great Trump Card, a total mic drop. And it just is not!

And this? Just more misunderstanding based on little knowledge, misinformation, conjecture with no underpinning understanding.

This. So very much this.

Before Covid, I would never have expected posts on MN from unqualified people discussing the best way to conduct brain surgery.... or discussing the efficacy of some other drug that had been recently approved but wasn’t as high profile.

This Covid pandemic has turned people in to armchair “experts” and it really grates on me. Fine, have an opinion but don’t declare it as though it is fact and then tell all your mates.

OP - that is still significant though.
10 people were admitted to hospital with COVID in the control group and none who had the two vaccines were.

If you look at the data too - the immune cell response is pretty strong, you're getting IGg and different types of T cell production even with one dose. One of the studies is here

www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-01194-5 and there is another if you follow the associated link on nature.

Has the p-value been published? If so, what is it?

On one level, it's really quite easy to understand statistical significance because it is objective. There might be reasons why statistical significance was not demonstrated - small sample being one.

On a policy level though you might want to do stuff and so obfuscate trials rather than say you have insufficient data.