From https://www.niaid.nih.gov/news-events/s ... s-covid-19 it seems the 79% is 78.9%, which suggests 42 of 21583 and 99 of 10866, though that's 78.6% when rounded. To round to 72% it would be 50 vs 91, so 8 cases in the wrong bin, but I wonder if it's actually not 141 for both estimates, if the complaint is about outdated information. Presumably the number of participants is constant.shpalman wrote: ↑Wed Mar 24, 2021 11:43 amSince we don't really know anything I'm going to have to keep making stuff up.
What we do know, from the press release, is that there were 32449 participants of which 21583 received "at least one dose of the vaccine" and that there were 141 symptomatic cases of covid in total.
Something like 41-42 cases in the vaccine group and 99-100 cases in the control group would, according to wot I reckon, give something which rounds to 79% efficacy if I've calculated it right.
To get down from there to 72% (in the middle of the 69-74% range the DSMB gets when looking at the full data) you'd need about 12 extra cases in the vaccine group assuming no new cases in the control group.
So we don't really seem to be talking about 1-2 more cases...
Of course, I'll stop wot I reckoning once they publish the f.cking data instead of bullshitting about it.
Then we have https://www.niaid.nih.gov/news-events/n ... ca-vaccine which says:
While I very much agree with a desire for the data to be made public, I'm not clear on what this is saying. Surely it is not indicating that the US regulator is evaluating the vaccine based on press releases! So does it mean that AZ have submitted incorrect data as part of regulatory approval, or it is just complaining about data in press releases??Late Monday, the Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) notified NIAID, BARDA, and AstraZeneca that it was concerned by information released by AstraZeneca on initial data from its COVID-19 vaccine clinical trial. The DSMB expressed concern that AstraZeneca may have included outdated information from that trial, which may have provided an incomplete view of the efficacy data. We urge the company to work with the DSMB to review the efficacy data and ensure the most accurate, up-to-date efficacy data be made public as quickly as possible.