3 ms·

What you're saying makes no sense. Comparing the UK to China/Russia based on what? We have some of the best research and industrial pharma in the world and we d

What you're saying makes no sense. Comparing the UK to China/Russia based on what? We have some of the best research and industrial pharma in the world and we don't hold scientists hostage if they say the wrong things. What an absolutely ridiculous statement to make. I can only believe you are trolling in some way, or have you own nationalist pride over Pfizer/Moderna.

caffeine 6y ago
They never did a proper phase 3 trial. Instead they did two half-trials, with different doses. Initially they pretended this was done on purpose, and claimed 90% efficacy: https://www.bbc.com/news/health-55040635 https://www.bbc.com/news/health-55040635 Later it came out this was an accident and cover-up, spun as a lucky discovery: https://www.wired.com/story/the-astrazeneca-covid-vaccine-data-isnt-up-to-snuff/ https://www.wired.com/story/the-astrazeneca-covid-vaccine-da... https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-astrazeneca-dosing/dosing-error-turns-into-lucky-punch-for-astrazeneca-and-oxford-idUSKBN28327Q https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-astraz... Even now, the lower bound of 95% C.I. around efficacy with two doses is 63% which is quite low, relative to the headlines: https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2021-02-02-oxford-coronavirus-vaccine-shows-sustained-protection-76-during-3-month-interval https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2021-02-02-oxford-coronavirus-vacc... I'm not a troll, just a critic of a lab and a U.K. government that fudged some data because they needed a PR win. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-07-15/oxford-s-covid-19-vaccine-is-the-coronavirus-front-runner https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-07-15/oxford-s-... "I hope we can improve on those timelines and come to your rescue.” - Sarah Gilbert That kind of hubris made it hard to admit process errors and low efficacy rates.

caffeine 6y ago

They never did a proper phase 3 trial. Instead they did two half-trials, with different doses. Initially they pretended this was done on purpose, and claimed 90% efficacy: https://www.bbc.com/news/health-55040635 https://www.bbc.com/news/health-55040635 Later it came out this was an accident and cover-up, spun as a lucky discovery: https://www.wired.com/story/the-astrazeneca-covid-vaccine-data-isnt-up-to-snuff/ https://www.wired.com/story/the-astrazeneca-covid-vaccine-da... https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-astrazeneca-dosing/dosing-error-turns-into-lucky-punch-for-astrazeneca-and-oxford-idUSKBN28327Q https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-astraz... Even now, the lower bound of 95% C.I. around efficacy with two doses is 63% which is quite low, relative to the headlines: https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2021-02-02-oxford-coronavirus-vaccine-shows-sustained-protection-76-during-3-month-interval https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2021-02-02-oxford-coronavirus-vacc... I'm not a troll, just a critic of a lab and a U.K. government that fudged some data because they needed a PR win. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-07-15/oxford-s-covid-19-vaccine-is-the-coronavirus-front-runner https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-07-15/oxford-s-... "I hope we can improve on those timelines and come to your rescue.” - Sarah Gilbert That kind of hubris made it hard to admit process errors and low efficacy rates.