4 ms·
It's become increasingly common to refer to this vaccine as the AstraZeneca vaccine or simply the AZ vaccine even though before concerns were raised I only saw
by porpoise 6y ago
It's become increasingly common to refer to this vaccine as the AstraZeneca vaccine or simply the AZ vaccine even though before concerns were raised I only saw it refered to as the Oxford vs vaccine. Does this mean that the alleged issues mostly lie with AZ as opposed to Oxford?
- technics256 6y agoYou should read the article, it elaborates on this and lays the issues mostly auto the Oxford team.
- garmaine 6y agoHuh?
- refurb 6y ago”Oxford’s measurement showed that the batch was more potent than the Italian manufacturer had found, the documents show.” The Italian manufacturer’s analysis was correct. Oxford’s was wrong. They decided to stick with it and got the regulator to approve it. The fact that the more sensitive and selective PCR test result was ignored isn’t a good sign. Someone should have followed up to confirm which test was correct.
- samb1729 6y ago> lays the issues mostly auto the Oxford team. Could you explain what 'auto' means in this context? I can't establish whether it's a typo or not.
- 0-_-0 6y agoIn good news it's usually called the Oxford vaccine, in bad news the AstraZeneca vaccine.
- rational_indian 6y agoTypical British reporting.
- cowsandmilk 6y agoWhy do you say that? Zeneca is a British company they are quite proud of.
- Dirlewanger 6y agoPrestigious university good, pharmaceutical company bad.
- cowsandmilk 6y agoAll the issues were caused by the team at Oxford. The naming change is likely due to who is leading the charge. The vaccine was developed at Oxford, so at the first news, there was no AZ involvement. As we move towards approval and production, the vast majority of work is being done by the team at AZ. The resources and experiences for manufacturing and distribution are the reason Oxford partnered with a pharma company.