3 ms·

You're saying this despite the weekly pcr and different efficacy testing methods?

• Throwawayaerlei 6y ago
  Can you be more specific? I'm happy to drill down to the individual Phase III trial protocols, but want to know which ones you're referring to. Plus I'm pretty sure I left myself a lot of wiggle room with efficacy claims like "very good" and "OK."
  • neximo64 6y ago
    Some of the efficacy methods involved you saying you're sick and then getting tested (Pf/Mod). Others were you were swabbed weekly (thereby catching asymptomatic infections (AZ)). So the efficacy rates between the bunch aren't apples to apples comparisons. AZ has an understated efficacy rate, so it's better than 'OK'. It explains Jansens efficacy being broken down up to the number of hospitalisations (where it reduces nearly all of them)
    • Throwawayaerlei 6y ago
      AZ has an understated efficacy rate, so it's better than 'OK'. Maybe, but their and Oxford's testing has been such a mess, with more than one lie promulgated by AZ in public claims (the blended efficacy based on an appalling Oxford mistake that suggested a better dosing that later didn't pan out), that I don't have much confidence in their current Phase III claims. Which date back to early December and haven't been publicly updated. Those are based on 4 trials in different countries, less than 6,000 each for the official 21 day apart dosing and a 70% efficacy claim.