An updated company analysis of the coronavirus vaccine developed by AstraZeneca and the University of Oxford showed that the two-shot regimen was robustly effective — 76 percent at preventing symptomatic illness — according to a news release from the drugmaker late Wednesday.
....AstraZeneca and Oxford’s announcement Monday that their vaccine was 79 percent effective in a 32,000-person trial in the United States buoyed the company’s stock price and impressed government officials.
So when you include the latest test results, the AZ vaccine is 76% effective instead of 79% effective.
There's a wide consensus that AstraZeneca screwed up yet again by announcing the higher number before updated results were available, and I suppose that's true. At the same time, I have a hard time believing that NIH really needed to make a public scandal out of this. It's difficult to see what the point was.
I would love to read some deep reporting on AstraZeneca's vaccine development. It seems like there were enough screwups along the way to make a pretty good story. I wonder who has the background to tell it?
Astra Zeneca has had a history of confused reporting and lack of transparency with respect to the development of this vaccine. Last year, their first clinical trials were marred by the fact that some people’s first dose was only half sized, apparently by accident. They didn’t enroll enough older people in their clinical trials, a big problem for a vaccine particularly important to the elderly population. They didn’t notify the FDA when the UK paused its clinical trials for an investigation into potential neurological side effects (pauses in clinical trials are not uncommon, but given the high profile of this vaccine and the fact that the company expected to file for US approval, the FDA should have been notified). And most recently, they were less than helpful when the EU wanted to investigate a potential rare blood clotting side effect.
As a result, after this latest communication miscue, Astra Zeneca had no reservoir of trust or goodwill to draw on with the regulators. I think Fauci just got fed up.
The irony is that these problems are more about PR than the vaccine itself.
As one (unnamed) EU regulator noted - The vaccine is probably better than the communications about it.
This article in the New Yorker has a good summary of AstraZeneca’s communications miscues (may be paywalled):
Why There Is So Much Confusion About the AstraZeneca Vaccine
The point was that AZ was fudging their numbers for public consumption, and it wasn't the first time. The NIH was telling them in no uncertain terms: "Stop that."
As far as the new results go, I'm going to wait until someone other than AstraZeneca confirms them.
Exactly. In fact DSMB told them "don't put out those numbers" and they were ignored. DSMB felt pressure to be fully transparent rather than seeing headlines about how they cahooted with AZ to post misleasing numbers.
Also 80%+ over 65? That is really weird and needs more investigation because immunity is not supposed to work that way.
IIRC the researchers at the Jenner Institute at Oxford University had developed the actual vaccine by last March. They needed a major industrial partner to trial, manufacture and market it. They were determined that their vaccine should be available worldwide at cost-plus. Established vaccine companies balked at the high-minded conditions. AZ agreed, in hopes (since dashed) of a reputational boost - in spite of their inexperience in vaccines.
The Garman startup BionTech, facing the same choices, made a better pick with Pfizer. BionTech have since gone into vaccine manufacture themselves - starting test production at their unit in Marburg ahead of schedule.
Didn't they get prohibited from partnering with Merck?
"The episode played out against the backdrop of the first phase of the pandemic. During March and April 2020, the University of Oxford negotiated a deal which would allow Merck to manufacture and distribute the vaccine it was in the process of developing.
The arrangement made sense. Unlike British-Swedish AstraZeneca, Merck had experience in making vaccines. Its senior executives had links to Oxford scientist and government adviser Sir John Bell.
Yet when the contract reached Matt Hancock's desk, the former adviser said, the health secretary refused to approve it, because it didn't include provisions specifically committing to supply the UK first.
The fear was export controls - not from the EU, but from the US. Mr Hancock was worried that president Trump would stop vaccines from Merck leaving the country.
With the university and Merck "as close to signing on the dotted line as they could be", he stopped it going ahead, because he didn't want to risk the intellectual property rights for the Oxford vaccine ending up in the hands of a single American company."
https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-rejected-contracts-and-a-hollywood-movie-how-uk-struck-deal-to-guarantee-vaccine-supply-12204044