Member Info for John2015

Presumably we will use the 90% effective dosing ?
The 70% is an average. It's up to 90% :
"One dosing regimen (n=2,741) showed vaccine efficacy of 90% when AZD1222 was given as a half dose, followed by a full dose at least one month apart, and another dosing regimen (n=8,895) showed 62% efficacy when given as two full doses at least one month apart. The combined analysis from both dosing regimens (n=11,636) resulted in an average efficacy of 70%. All results were statistically significant (p"

Presumably we will use the 90% effective dosing ?
The 70% is an average. It's up to 90% :
"One dosing regimen (n=2,741) showed vaccine efficacy of 90% when AZD1222 was given as a half dose, followed by a full dose at least one month apart, and another dosing regimen (n=8,895) showed 62% efficacy when given as two full doses at least one month apart. The combined analysis from both dosing regimens (n=11,636) resulted in an average efficacy of 70%. All results were statistically significant (p"

Presumably we will use the 90% effective dosing ?
The 70% is an average. It's up to 90% :
"One dosing regimen (n=2,741) showed vaccine efficacy of 90% when AZD1222 was given as a half dose, followed by a full dose at least one month apart, and another dosing regimen (n=8,895) showed 62% efficacy when given as two full doses at least one month apart. The combined analysis from both dosing regimens (n=11,636) resulted in an average efficacy of 70%. All results were statistically significant (p"

Presumably we will use the 90% effective dosing ?
The 70% is an average. It's up to 90% :
"One dosing regimen (n=2,741) showed vaccine efficacy of 90% when AZD1222 was given as a half dose, followed by a full dose at least one month apart, and another dosing regimen (n=8,895) showed 62% efficacy when given as two full doses at least one month apart. The combined analysis from both dosing regimens (n=11,636) resulted in an average efficacy of 70%. All results were statistically significant (p"

Presumably we will use the dosing regime giving a 90% effectiveness ?

The 70% is an average. It's up to 90%:

"One dosing regimen (n=2,741) showed vaccine efficacy of 90% when AZD1222 was given as a half dose, followed by a full dose at least one month apart, and another dosing regimen (n=8,895) showed 62% efficacy when given as two full doses at least one month apart. The combined analysis from both dosing regimens (n=11,636) resulted in an average efficacy of 70%. All results were statistically significant (p"

Not what Matt Han**** is saying.

The 70% is an average. It's up to 90%:

"One dosing regimen (n=2,741) showed vaccine efficacy of 90% when AZD1222 was given as a half dose, followed by a full dose at least one month apart, and another dosing regimen (n=8,895) showed 62% efficacy when given as two full doses at least one month apart. The combined analysis from both dosing regimens (n=11,636) resulted in an average efficacy of 70%. All results were statistically significant (p"

90% see MarkP 07:29

Looks very promising.
Disappointed to see BBC fixing on 70% average over all dosing regimes efficacy rather than the 90% achieved with a half dose then a full dose regime.
Hopefully Matt Han**** will rapidly point out their error.
Pricing availability and ease of storage all massive plus points.

Seems the shambolic approach in Tanzania has backed SCIR into an unfavourable corner?

? Not what we hoped for ?
Hoping this is a typo.

Possibly more late afternoon at about 0.85 once the sp was dropped ?
Don't believe there are no buys at all today - and the ASK & BID didn't go down.

I'd like to think so but then who in their right mind says a deal is done, spikes the sp, delays confirmation, then says an OMC is required soon, then holds the OMC without saying they have and then doesn't share the outcome, completely trashing their sp and effectively doing the same to a partner holding an equal portion of the asset ? Sadly nothing will surprise me any more with this project - except something actually coming to fruition.
Long since given up any realistic expectation of achieving anything except a considerable loss.

Thanks Crusty.
I made the classic mistake of getting too attached here and at SCIR ( and at SXX another , very costly story ) so I bit the bullet and diversified. Returns may be lower especially as half the portfolio is now in good old fashioned investment funds but at least I can keep an eye on 12 shares/funds instead of 2 or 3.
Still hoping to get a few more shares when we have news and might make break even in the long run.

gr absolutely. I genuinely feel bad for investing in covid stocks ( I have no interest in making money out of others misfortune - unlike those at BRH pumping and dumping RMS) and held of for months because I hoped AEX and SCIR would deliver - it cost me £30k before I caved.

That is based on late reported (and cancelled trades) from the am. which are shown on the London Stock Exchange site.
London Stock Exchange have 2.60 Bid and 2.70 Ask.
For once LSE seem to have it right ( I hope )

Or lift the Bid.
Stop making up imaginary changes in the sp !

rise into the close - not that the MM's are managing/manipulating the sp of course.

grshaw Holding 600,000 SCIR 600,000 AEX and will add soon - just watching the sp. When I know something is happening and it won't fall further ( same with SCIR ) I'll certainly buy some more, although not as many as I used to have.
Hoping with several irons in the fire at least a couple will generate a return.
Meanwhile Covid is anything but dull.

Thanks Crusty. My logic is that its better to get some at the placing price via aogl in case they are so expensive on the day or so difficult to buy its not worth it.
Bit of a risk as I know the price I paid for aogl around 0.024 will halve but if the shares are over 5.6 on the day I break even.
I may be able to average down nearer the day as aogl price moves to 0.012.
If they are less say 3p and I can get them on the day I will buy more as I expect (hope) they will do much better in due course.
GLA