Member Info for Spikeyj

also curious, which parts of that lancet preprint
do you think are not based on facts? - if you have
read it & can see some factual errors, then fine by
me for you to point them out. and i expect that the
multiple authors of that paper (including of course
prof pollard) would also happily read any factual
mistakes that you are able to point out to them.

lol, TR64, no need for all that bluster!

the first line of the methodology summary tells you,
that study looked at *UK* participants. but there is a
very clear *positive* conclusion about AZN vaccine
efficacy against the 117 (i.e. ‘british’ / ‘kent’) variant.

(main caveat imv, that paper not yet peer reviewed.)

you still haven’t provided *any* evidence to back up your claim
that “all vaccines” have failed to give immunity against variant 117.

i am curious, what motivates you to spread false vaccine info
on public share chatboard in the middle of a global pandemic?

TR64 12:00: “So far no vaccine in use as [sic[ been able to give immunization against the Covid 19 mutation variant of 117...”

but meanwhile, from the Lancet:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3779160

... which says completely the opposite to TR64, showing
the AZN vaccine working very well against variant 117.

: )

atb

anditsgone, the dividend used to put some kind of floor on it, but it's
been slipping for a while as market strongly suspected it would not be
sustainable. *and now emma has confirmed that*. they are not axing it
immediately, but they "expect" the dividend will be lower from 2021
results onwards. unclear how much lower it will be, but divi will be cut.

TR64: "what is known is 3 mutations are not responding to any vaccine"

false claim again. covid-19 misinformation.

hi denby, bear in mind that jolly is not necessarily predicting that
GSK *will* fall to that price level, more i suppose that *if* it did reach
that level, that would then provide an entry point which would allow a
sufficient margin of safety for perceived risk/benefits of a trade in GSK.

https://stockmarketconcepts.weebly.com/the-fat-pitch-strategy.html

so if your false claim is from public domain
information, then why not post link to that?

afternoon, jolly, long time no see. (- i've been a bit busy
in the real world, as it were). you and yours good, i hope.

TR64, if you are claiming that there is some kind of evidence already in the
public domain to support what you are saying, why on earth would you not
want to provide the link? - or are you claiming that you have some special,
secret-squirrel insider knowledge about the efficacy of all covid vaccines
against 117 that you mustn't share because it's not in the public domain??

no personal insult is intended, since i don't know you personally, but when
a poster makes an authoritative claim that all vaccines have failed against
variant 117, but then can't supply the evidence to support that, i smell
b***s***. & there is similar whiff of bovine output imv. when a poster tries
to imply some hush-hush, very secret insider knowledge that allows
them to post anonymous claims on chat boards, but not to back 'em up.

a few.

play the ball, not the man?

GSK share price has been doing badly because the company itself
simply has not been doing that well, and a fair few people in the market
(- rightly or wrongly, that's what makes a market! - ) aren't convinced
that will turn around any time soon. no need for all the nutty q-anon stuff.

i am not a big fan of the current UK government, but one of the things
they do seem to be getting right has been an active interest to engage with
lots of different pharma companies from many different countries to source
and develop vaccines against covid19, rather than restricting their interest
narrowly only to UK companies, or just one or two eggs in the basket. they
were consistent about that from the outset under bingham, and that approach
seems to be paying off so far. (contrasts with mr macron's somewhat jingoistic
approach, for instance?) so if curevac can help, then boris very happy to use 'em.

see, that's much more like it! - states the concerns about future trajectories,
without making fake claims that all current vaccines have failed against 117.

"Ravindra Gupta at the University of Cambridge and his colleagues have already confirmed that this new B.1.1.7 plus E484K variant is better at evading immune protection. In other words, this is a faster-spreading virus that is also better at evading immunity. "

... being 'better at evading immune protection' is not the same
as saying that the current vaccines don't give some immunity
against 117. so very, very sensible to get vaccinated, folks!

Read more: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2266429-uk-coronavirus-variant-gets-nastier-as-south-african-variant-spreads/#ixzz6lbeV0ViR

hi arsenal, daily mail not normally my cup of tea, but
looking over it, i do not see any articles there claiming
that all the current vaccines have failed against variant
117. please post link to article that you have in mind? ta.

TR64, no disagreement from me that scientists will need to keep developing
additional vaccines to improve efficacy etc against new variants. and sadly
none of the vaccines give 100% immunity either, even the best of them are
only giving partial immunity, so hopefully scientists can continue to work to
improve these vaccines further. - but that is different from your false claim
that none of the current vaccines gives immunity against the 117 variant.

always worth noting which posters do & don't provide
evidence for their supposedly authoritative claims.

link please?

hi TR64, you are making false claims about vaccine failure. that
is a really irresponsible thing to do in the midst of a pandemic.

if you know of links that provide evidence to support your claim that
all vaccines in use fail to give immunity against the covid 117 variant,
then why don't you just post them here in support of your claim?

so c'mon, TR64, post your evidence that no vaccines work against variant 117.

(& yes, i do expect BBC will eport vaccine failures
against covid, if & as such data becomes available.)

TR64: “So far no vaccine in use as [sic] been able to give immunization against the Covid 19 mutation variant of 117...”

that’s not actually true. - please provide
links with evidence when making such claims.
unhelpful to spread such covid misinformation.

more balanced comments from BBC,

Covid: New Oxford vaccine 'ready by the autumn' to tackle mutations https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55917793

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20210127-covid-19-variants-how-mutations-are-changing-the-pandemic

mark, i don’t think the actual price levels suggested by brokers
mean much. but it can be useful to watch if there is any consensus
across the brokers whether the price targets are going up, or going
down, and if any consensus about changes between buy/hold/sell.

so barclay, CS & HSCB different price targets, but all three cutting.