Member Info for JoeyDiamond

Thanks JustAHobby your answer makes far more sense :)

I suspect you are right however it proves the point on the lack of data, how can you approve a vaccine from just 94 or 164 cases! You could quite easily argue the placebo is very effective too and we can guarantee no side effects or adverse events :)

OK I have downed a few whiskies tonight but some maths is troubling me. Forget the vaccine group and just go with the Placebo group of the Pfzier trial. Also go with the numbers Pfzier have supplied us so far.

We know 85 out of approx 22,000 placebo people went on to develop Covid-19. Thats 1 in 259 roughly in the placebo arm of the trial.

Population of UK is approx 67 million so if we give all of the population the placebo
We get 67 million divide by 259 we get the placebo expected infections of 259,000.

If we apply a 2% mortality rate to the 259,000 expected infections means 5200 deaths.

Im confused is my maths wrong here and whisky is clouding my numbers. What am I missing?

I dont think the BBC has misled anyone. The 90% figure is amazing better than expected and for sure has been overhyped.

Most experts have said great headline results and this looks to be a big break through. However they stress they are cautiously optimistic as there is a lack of supporting data currently.

https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4347

A good article on the initial results. As mentioned if 90% efficacy can be replicated and shown to be produced in the most at risk category 65-85 group then this truly is a huge breakthrough.

This is where the additional data set is required.

Good information on the vaccine in todays covid update from Jonathan Van-Tam

16:32 timestamp

https://twitter.com/10DowningStreet/status/1325845383914921999

No the 90% refers to the placebo vs vaccine group of confirmed covid19 cases.

They are saying 94 people went on to develop Covid 7 days after their 2nd dose of the vaccine. The results show approx 84 from placebo group and 10 from vaccine group got Covid. This obviously shows that the vaccine has prevented disease from worsening.

However small sample size / short time period / Lack of full data betwene cohorts can mean this 90% could be exagerated.

We need more data is the point of my post. However we will be seeing more vaccine makers release results soon and they have very similar methods of targeting the spike protein with the mrna.

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04368728?term=pfizer&cond=Covid19&draw=2&rank=1

Here is the trial for the vaccine. As you can see from the number of arms and the exclusion criteria there are many questions.

Just a few for example
1) Is the 90% protection against the disease worsening or does it also prevent infection?
2) How many of the placebo group were in the older age group? ie 65 to 85 years of age
3) How many of the vaccine group were in the older age group? ie 65 to 85 years of age
4) There are a number of people excluded from the trial, ie pregnent/breastfeeding women, children, various diseases can we be sure it safe for these people? People on systemic steroids were left out of the trial? Cancer patients etc.
5) This is a 2 dose vaccine, the 90% figure measures outcomes 7 days after the 2nd dose (ie day 28). What are the outcomes after day 40/60/80 etc? Is it likely we will have long lasting immunity?

These are just a few from the trial design.

Then there are these more real world issues
1) Manufacturing scaleup in short time period?
2) Requiring vaccine to be kept at -80 degrees so it doesnt spoil. Britain does not have the trucks/logistics for this. Nor does it have Dr surgeries kitted out for this.
3) By year end its estimated there will be 25 million (2 doses) vaccines what countries get first dibs?
4) The vaccine is RNA based the first of its kind. How can we be sure longer term its safe?
5) The virus has mutated a number of times in particular the spike protein and RNS element. How can you be sure this will still be effective 3 months down the line.

The 90% number sounds great but this is a small very selective subset of data of 94 people 7 days after innoculation. Thats all we know.

Thanks Frank its also helpful to know when you open a bottle of red wine.

Yes Oxford12 the rules seem very lax, ive seen it many times in other companies where TR1s are a week late.

With Synairgen though the TR1s have normally been within the rules and have been prompt so far.

Just to add UK based holder will need at least 6 million shares and US based holder 10 million shares to be required to make a TR1.

There is a good chance we do have some big holders but they just fall short of the requirements and will be under the radar.

Shareholder must notify AIM company as soon as possible and within two trading days (DTR 5.8.3R)
AIM company must notify market by the end of the third trading day after notification (DTR 5.9.1R).

From 4th Nov this makes today where we should be getting TR1s from major holders (we hope) however they need to have over 3% in UK or 5% if from USA.

30 Sept RNS
The Conversion Price will be the lesser of (i) 130 per cent of the volume weighted average closing price of a
Bushveld ordinary share for the 15 Trading Days leading to the date on which the Drawdown Notice is served; and (ii) 25p.

Today
As an adjustment to the previously announced terms of the Instrument, the conversion price of the convertible loan notes has been set at 17 pence.

I wonder if the SP has been depressed to keep the conversion rate down. Couple of week ago it looked ready for a breakout.

Yes good news for sure. I'm happy we have some form of a timeline.

The source is a claim by made by a member of the board.

You can see the thread here

https://www.lse.co.uk/ShareChat.asp?ShareTicker=SNG&share=Synairgen&page=11&thread=D1EFB5AE-2924-4E56-9AAE-C09112D1F32A

How is asprin the new interferon?

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)32274-1/fulltext

Early triple antiviral therapy for COVID-19

Its a trial probably known to some of us in here, the conclusion in the Lancet publication ' future controlled studies should focus on confirming the efficacy of interferon-based therapies'

So good timing considering our interferon based publication is due soon according to a source on this board.

The Eunethta doc shared by pmjh is for Interferon and Novaferon only and looking at the appendix the search dates for the data in the report were in made in late September. (Page 37)

So I don't think the original recovery design/protocol is in use here as Synairgen were taken off around April/May if I remember right due to the manufacfturing scaleup reasons . The clincial trials register definately does not have IFN-B1a as a treatment arm.

So not sure how this data is appearing if the data in the report being used is from September.

Hi pmjh

That document you shared suggests SNG001 is on the recovery trial. Page 23.

Look under the Oxford study (NCT04381936) ie recovery trial. Says IFN-ß1a: Nebulized solution of IFN-ß1a 6 MIU (0.5ml of a solution containing 12 MIU/ml) under Intervention drug name and dosage. Near identical to Synairgens description.

Yet go on the clinical trials website https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04381936?term=NCT04381936&draw=2&rank=1 and there is no mention of this Nebulized solution of IFN-ß1a.

I think the cat may be out of the bag. Our EU friends look to have been informed of the trial yet in the UK its being kept under wraps? What do you think?

Was also 2 million sold. Many will have bought in at 175 placing and will be selling on again between 176-194 making a fast profit so is going to be many shares to sell. Not everyone is looking medium/long term, some are looking at very short term trade/profit.