AstraZeneca may have provided incomplete efficacy data NIAID

The story says &quot;outdated&quot; data but it&#x27;s not clear what that could be in this context and why including older data would be bad?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&#x27;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&#x27;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&#x27;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:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.astrazeneca.com&#x2F;content&#x2F;astraz&#x2F;media-centre&#x2F;press-releases&#x2F;2021&#x2F;update-following-statement-by-niaid-on-azd1222-us-phase-iii-trial-data.html" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.astrazeneca.com&#x2F;content&#x2F;astraz&#x2F;media-centre&#x2F;pres...</a>

Is this the same data from like yesterday where the headline was US study says astrazeneca is 100% effective at preventing serious illness?

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&#x27;m staring to think these are industry attacks on a company that is in competition with others. AZ&#x27;s vaccine is quite similar to J&amp;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.

&gt; 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&#x27; adverts from bug sprays and disinfectants claiming to be <i>99.9% effective against bugs&#x2F;bacteria</i>