I just had another thought about this (and the other vaccine candidates).

Maybe it's a bit "niche" but I thought it was interesting! https://twitter.com/jengleruk/status/1335925357141176324

For months now, various people like myself, @MichaelYeadon3 and @ClareCraigPath and many others have been banging on about the insanity of counting "cases" as Covid19 infections using PCR testing alone, without the need for any clinical symptoms whatsoever.

So it is in fact somewhat ironic that the vaccine trials seek to count infections by requiring that classification of a subject as having Covid19 actually requires symptoms.

Then and only then, these are confirmed as caused by SARSCOV2 by "confirmatory" PCR testing.

Setting aside for one moment any doubts about the veracity of these PCR tests.....

The requirement for symptoms is totally at odds with the use of mere cases numbers from +ve PCR numbers, all being assumed to be infections, on which the UK government is basing decisions which affect the lives and livelihoods of millions of British citizens.

There is a certain dissonance between having a vaccine being approved purely on the basis of symptom reduction, but the need for the vaccine - in terms of measuring the extent and course of the problem - is being defined without reference to symptoms whatsoever.

One wonders how the vaccines would have performed if Pfizer had as much faith in "gold standard" PCR testing as the UK government, and had tried to demonstrate a reduction in the proportion of PCR +ve case numbers between the active and placebo groups.