Member Info for Spikeyj

(it does seems a plausible option that AZN might eventually get rid of
their covid vaccine to someone else, as it is potentially a distraction
from AZN management focus on core business and growth drivers.)

it’s a bit more complicated than that, i think, since vaccines may turn out to
have different *durations* of efficacy, different efficacy vs different variants,
& perhaps also different properties re (a) effects on transmission, and (b)
limiting severe disease /death, vs preventing mild / moderate disease.

AZN vaccine is showing very, very high efficacy in preventing death/
hospitalisation. ... & just from a personal selfish perspective, i would
want to take a vaccine that had a 90%+ chance of preventing death,
but would not be that bothered about getting covid in a milder form.

however, in terms of protecting the whole population and the economy,
i can see that my government might very reasonably prefer me to have
another vaccine that could (hypothetically) be more effective at reducing
transmission, even if it was slightly less able to protect me from death.

in some countries less wealthy than the UK / USA/ EU, governments will
also need to calculate likely effects on population morbidity and mortality
from total expense of rolling out cheaper vs dearer vaccines - money spent
on an expensive vaccine programme is money not spent on something else.

more broadly, though, it would be lovely to be in a world where everyone
had such good access to vaccines that there was plenty of choice about
which type to have ... hope we get there one day!! - but the planet is a heck
of a long way off that situation, and if richer countries get hung up about
having lots of vaccine choice, at the expense of sharing vaccines with other
nations, then it will likely increase global population risks b/c e.g. higher
reservoirs of viral infection constituting large incubators for new variants.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/stop-bashing-astrazeneca-its-only-trying-to-help-fvzvrlkbj?shareToken=19aae7e29107410d4b3e20c60fe13fb0

pedantic, perhaps, but he is also very oddly selective.

he likes to comment & amplify any kind of concern or question about
AZN as one of the first generation vaccines ( - and very seldom seems to
comment on any difficulties with other first generation vaccines) but much
more importantly fails to acknowledge the severe, widespread devastation
and risk that covid19 is causing right now, and the consequent importance
of cracking on at good pace with those vaccines which are already available.

also, he prefers to focus very narrowly on efficacy rather than *effectiveness*.
when considering global health outcomes in context of widespread, deadly,
highly contagious pandemic, clinical effectiveness matters way more than
narrow efficacy measures. (effectiveness includes factors such as ease of use,
effects of cost, storage and logistics on availability & roll-out, administration
in ‘perfect’ clinic conditions versus administration in ‘ordinary’ field settings
by non-specialists, etc.). — sadly, an important aspect of clinic effectiveness
concerns acceptability & up-take by the target population. so the amazingly
stupid comments made by macron (e.g. re “quasi-effectiveness”) & his fellow
travellers, e.g. TR64’s mis-representation of frequency of serious side-effects,
could potentially cause extra deaths by undermining acceptability, and hence
reducing the clinical effectiveness of global covid-19 vaccination programmes.

... waiting without vaccination for a ‘perfect’ vaccine would be a
remarkably stupid strategy for any country in these circumstances.

if you needed to get a dangerously ill relative to hospital as an emergency,
it would not make sense to refuse to use a peugeot, nissan or volvo car to
get them there because you would prefer to wait for a rolls-royce or bentley.

all vaccine makers acknowledge that all vaccines have some side-effect profile.

no vaccine maker claims that any vaccine will be
100% effective at preventing all cases of any disease.

everyone making vaccines against covid19 agree that it will be
necessary to monitor the evolution of new mutations and new
variants, and seek to update / develop vaccine versions that can
tackle new variants (& if possible anticipate likely future variants).

many governments trying to follow a sensible procurement policy,
taking into account the numbers of doses required, supply chain
complexity, cost & logistics, etc, already understand that it is probably
sensible to have several different vaccines available now, and in future.

worth looking at the current conclusions EMA
draws from *millions* of AZN vaccinations so far,
including comments on frequency and causality:

https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/covid-19-vaccine-astrazeneca-benefits-still-outweigh-risks-despite-possible-link-rare-blood-clots

EMA are clear that no definite link is proven so far (so no, not “100%”!)
also state clearly that these are *rare* events being studied, and the
balance of risk / benefit clearly supports use of AZN vaccine vs covid19.

canadian paper i have already cited is also based upon incidence
reporting across * 10s of millions * of AZN vaccinations ... big sample
size helps put v rare events into proportion (in a way TR64 does not).

hard to understand his motivations.

... in particular, any evidence you can show to support
your apparent claim that azn vaccine causing “1 in every
1400” deaths in norway, and “1 in every 2200” in austria?

funny, isn’t it, how EU still wants supplies of AZN vaccine?
maybe they just haven’t read those emails from TR64 yet.

meanwhile, FDA finding on AZN vaccine safety & efficacy due
very soon. i remember that TR64 used to be a big fan of FDA
rigour, but doesn’t seem so keen on ‘em these days. funny that.

care to provide any evidence for your figures?

https://covid19-sciencetable.ca/sciencebrief/vaccine-induced-prothrombotic-immune-thrombocytopenia-vipit-following-astrazeneca-covid-19-vaccination/

... always important to keep relative risks and benefits in proportion:

"VIPIT is very rare, while the AstraZeneca vaccine has proven effective at reducing severe illness from COVID-19."

"The incidence of VIPIT appears to be between 1 in 125,000 and 1 in 1 million.

There is no evidence that the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine increases the overall risk of thrombosis (e.g., deep vein thromboses, pulmonary emboli, myocardial infarction, stroke) beyond what is seen in the general population despite the observed increases in CSVT, as the risk of CSVT is orders of magnitude lower than the risk of other thromboses. The AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine is highly effective in preventing COVID-19, which also carries a high risk of thrombosis; 1 in 5 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 develops venous thrombosis."

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/why-astrazeneca-is-getting-no-thanks-for-vaccinating-millions-8bmmgqjbz?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1616846617

as with the decision to give single dose then longer interval, UK government
has shown it is prepared to take vaccination decisions guided by a range of
evidence about vaccines, and knowledge / theoretical understandings regarding mechanisms/modes of action, not solely RCTs studying one specific vaccine.

so although we don’t have RCT evidence about mix and match with >1 covid
vaccine type, i think the UK government would still be prepared to consider
mix and match. from my understanding of available evidence & arguments
re covid & the vaccines, it would very probably be better to have two doses,
one taken from different vaccines, rather than stick with a single dose.

but there isn’t enough evidence to know whether mixing vaccines
for two total doses would actually give same efficacy, vs better, or
worse, compared with two doses of same vaccine. jury still out on that.

? do you mean whopper in the sense of really big,
or whopper in the sense of pie in sky / porkie-pie?

... the arden target appears to rely very much on “ADME’s estimate”,
& the idea of “on success” for plenty of oil from first new well drilled.

...snag being, there seems to be very little concrete evidence publicly
available from any independent source to support ADME’s estimate,
& there doesn’t appear to be any sensible attempt to gauge what the
relative chances of success or failure are in drilling a new well, striking
decent amount of oil without too much else mixed in, and getting good
results from a flow test leading to prompt strong production. the arden
target seems to depend on idea that a new well *will* be very successful,
but doesn’t appear to give due weight to the chances of failure, set-backs,
limited flow, etc etc. - it would seem much more sensible imv to take into
account the fairly dismal history in OML 141 from 1967 onwards, in order
to inform more realistic guesstimates about possible future value and s/p.

i might be remembering wrongly, but i seem to remember someone
posting material on this board a few weeks ago from nigerian govt
which indicated that **everybody** who had put in a bid for marginal
field *would* be offered something ... so the questions maybe more
about what is the quality and size of what has been offered, and how
much would ADME have to pay to take up some or all of the stake it is
being offered, rather than *if* it has ‘won’ something? (can’t remember
the link offhand, but it’s probably on this board back in feb/early march?)

... meanwhile, continuing radio silence from the company on the
recent marginal oil field bid, & related signature bonus payment.

what a great result - well done CEO!

yes, if osa has much better and more recent data, it
would be helpful to ADME holders for him to publish it.

nice one, aviva.

Big investors shun Deliveroo over workers' rights https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-56515498

... some cracking posts by swanvesta over on the
other channel about exploration history & value.

... so what did those previous four wells find, and
what properly de-risked prospects (as opposed to
ADME’s “internal estimate”) have they bought into?

[which four wells were they, and when drilled?]

worth looking at pages 33-36 of the link below regarding
OML 141, & see if you can work out why osa is so optimistic
that they will get 4000 bopd ‘first oil’ if they drill another
well - what did those previous OML 141 wells actually find?

https://www.forzapetroleum.com/data/financial/AIF_2016.pdf

lol, whoever that fella is, he certainly has a
pretty c****y godaddy one page website.

cheapskate!

.... interesting, that article repeats the claim
that the DBI chairman is zubair al zubair ...

— seems contrast to tresha99’s findings ...?