The story says "outdated" data but it's not clear what that could be in this context and why including older data would be bad? Something to do with not accurately capturing the current mix of variants, maybe?<p>So the issue is that they've included too much data leading to (in the DSMB view) inaccurate efficacy rather than incomplete data.<p>Nonetheless this is a management failure on their part because any disagreement with the DSMB over which data to include should have taken place privately before publication of the results. For all I know they have good reason for including this older data but it's not a good look to have your DSMB disagree with you in public now.
As the issue of anti-vax sentiment is a big issue for many countries around the world and undoubtably is costing lives, I would think that questions like this need not be asked via the media.
AstraZeneca did respond a few hours ago saying that they included data only up to the interim analysis cutoff point. I don't think this makes any sense; the point of the cutoff is to prevent too many analyses of the same data, not to limit the amount of data.<p><a href="https://www.astrazeneca.com/content/astraz/media-centre/press-releases/2021/update-following-statement-by-niaid-on-azd1222-us-phase-iii-trial-data.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.astrazeneca.com/content/astraz/media-centre/pres...</a>
It’s really a never-ending shit show with this company.<p>Somehow, I’d still take the vaccine. I remain convinced that none of this is done with malicious intend.<p>But that confidence is based mostly on a general trust of institutions and procedures in healthcare. It’s a deep reservoir of trust, built up over time. AZ is certainly taking from it more than it is contributing.
I'm staring to think these are industry attacks on a company that is in competition with others. AZ's vaccine is quite similar to J&J but AZ is getting all the criticism. If AZ is so unsafe why has there not been huge issues in the UK where so many got AZ.<p>Something fishy is going on. Either at AZ or from the outside.
> The vaccine, developed with Oxford University, was <i>79%</i> effective in preventing symptomatic illness in the large trial that also took place in Chile and Peru, according to the data. It was also <i>100%</i> effective against severe or critical forms of the disease and hospitalisation, and posed no increased risk of blood clots.<p>Am no super smart virologist but my brain immediately pinged when I started hearing the news from AZ quoting ... 100% effective against Xxxxx...<p>Only thing that came to me was the good ol' adverts from bug sprays and disinfectants claiming to be <i>99.9% effective against bugs/bacteria</i>