3 ms·

What's shocking in all of this is how they handled two conflicting potency results. A rational person would see two conflicting measurements and then stop to f

What's shocking in all of this is how they handled two conflicting potency results. A rational person would see two conflicting measurements and then stop to figure out why they are different, and then re-run measurements to verify the results until they know why they're different and which one is wrong. These guys just said "We'll just trust the results from OUR measurements over THEIR measurements", which is the height of arrogance and stupidity. These kinds of mistakes can have dire consequences because you're no longer testing based on how the vaccine will be used in the real world once approved. To say "Well, it worked out in the end so no harm" is also incredibly arrogant and foolish.

afarrell 6y ago
> A rational person In what setting have you _ever_ encountered a rational person? I've met people who were capable of calmly evaluating a situation rationally -- sometimes even under a decent amount of pressure. But in my undergrad at MIT or in my career as a software engineer, I have never met a rational person.
- addicted 6y ago
  You do realize that scientific studies are not the same as an interview right? You have time to reflect on your observations and you also have sizable teams to discuss those observations with, including the wider scientific community. Everyone understands pressure does funny things to people. That’s why, for example, making mistakes is not considered bad when doing scientific research. However, not revealing those mistakes is considered terrible form, in an incentive to encourage open sharing as opposed to secretive misleading.
  - afarrell 6y ago
    > scientific studies are not the same as an interview Sure. Only one family's livelihood depends on the outcome of an interview. That is little weight on one's shoulders compared to stalling the response to a global pandemic. > You have time to reflect on your observations and you also have sizeable teams to discuss those observations with, including the wider scientific community. I would be interested to know what actual social dynamics looked like to the participants in this edge case. > Everyone understands pressure does funny things to people In theory, yes -- it is "common sense". In practice, no. Sadly, people generally scoff at "excuses" and look to place blame rather than understand contributing causes.
randcraw 6y ago
Agreed. After observing such a huge disparity in outcomes (90% vs 62% efficacy), any honorable scientist should have been shocked, immediately asking, “How is this possible?”. Once the outcome disparity was noted, it's unimaginable that BOTH blunders would not be revealed: 1) low concentration in the first dose, and 2) exclusion of age 55+ patients. More troubling is error #2. That degree of mistake is unforgivable. Heads should roll, and that should include the subsequent apologists who blithely dismissed the gravity of their team's carelessness.
- MrAlex94 6y ago
  > Once the outcome disparity was noted, it's unimaginable that BOTH blunders would not be revealed: 1) low concentration in the first dose, and 2) exclusion of age 55+ patients. The regulator was aware at every step and recommended Oxford should continue the study with the half dose. > The Italian manufacturers used a different technique to Oxford to check the concentration of the vaccine - effectively how many viral particles are floating in each dose. When the Oxford scientists used their method, it appeared that the Italian vaccine was double strength. What to do? Calls were made to the medical regulators. It was agreed that volunteers should be given a half measure of the vaccine, on the basis that it was likely to equate to something more like a regular dose. This was partly a safety issue - they preferred to give them too little rather than too much. > But after a week, the scientists became aware that something unusual was going on. The volunteers were getting none of the usual side-effects - such as sore arms or fever. About 1,300 volunteers had only received a half-dose of the vaccine, rather than a full one. The independent regulators said the trial should continue and that the half-dose group could remain in the study. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55308216 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55308216 The amount of speculation in this thread is appalling.

afarrell 6y ago

> A rational person In what setting have you _ever_ encountered a rational person? I've met people who were capable of calmly evaluating a situation rationally -- sometimes even under a decent amount of pressure. But in my undergrad at MIT or in my career as a software engineer, I have never met a rational person.

addicted 6y ago
You do realize that scientific studies are not the same as an interview right? You have time to reflect on your observations and you also have sizable teams to discuss those observations with, including the wider scientific community. Everyone understands pressure does funny things to people. That’s why, for example, making mistakes is not considered bad when doing scientific research. However, not revealing those mistakes is considered terrible form, in an incentive to encourage open sharing as opposed to secretive misleading.
- afarrell 6y ago
  > scientific studies are not the same as an interview Sure. Only one family's livelihood depends on the outcome of an interview. That is little weight on one's shoulders compared to stalling the response to a global pandemic. > You have time to reflect on your observations and you also have sizeable teams to discuss those observations with, including the wider scientific community. I would be interested to know what actual social dynamics looked like to the participants in this edge case. > Everyone understands pressure does funny things to people In theory, yes -- it is "common sense". In practice, no. Sadly, people generally scoff at "excuses" and look to place blame rather than understand contributing causes.

randcraw 6y ago

Agreed. After observing such a huge disparity in outcomes (90% vs 62% efficacy), any honorable scientist should have been shocked, immediately asking, “How is this possible?”. Once the outcome disparity was noted, it's unimaginable that BOTH blunders would not be revealed: 1) low concentration in the first dose, and 2) exclusion of age 55+ patients. More troubling is error #2. That degree of mistake is unforgivable. Heads should roll, and that should include the subsequent apologists who blithely dismissed the gravity of their team's carelessness.

MrAlex94 6y ago
> Once the outcome disparity was noted, it's unimaginable that BOTH blunders would not be revealed: 1) low concentration in the first dose, and 2) exclusion of age 55+ patients. The regulator was aware at every step and recommended Oxford should continue the study with the half dose. > The Italian manufacturers used a different technique to Oxford to check the concentration of the vaccine - effectively how many viral particles are floating in each dose. When the Oxford scientists used their method, it appeared that the Italian vaccine was double strength. What to do? Calls were made to the medical regulators. It was agreed that volunteers should be given a half measure of the vaccine, on the basis that it was likely to equate to something more like a regular dose. This was partly a safety issue - they preferred to give them too little rather than too much. > But after a week, the scientists became aware that something unusual was going on. The volunteers were getting none of the usual side-effects - such as sore arms or fever. About 1,300 volunteers had only received a half-dose of the vaccine, rather than a full one. The independent regulators said the trial should continue and that the half-dose group could remain in the study. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55308216 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55308216 The amount of speculation in this thread is appalling.