AstraZeneca reiterated on Wednesday that its Covid-19 vaccine was very effective at preventing the disease, based on more recent data than was included when the company announced the interim results of its U.S. clinical trial on Monday.
The company said in a news release that its vaccine was 76 percent effective at preventing Covid-19. That is slightly lower than the efficacy number that the company announced earlier this week.
The new results strengthen the scientific case for the embattled vaccine. But they may not repair the damage to AstraZeneca’s credibility after U.S. health officials and independent monitors issued an extraordinary rebuke of the company for not counting some Covid-19 cases when it announced its initial findings this week.
In a news release on Wednesday, the company said complete results from its 32,000-person study showed that its vaccine was 76 percent effective. On Monday, the company said the vaccine appeared to be 79 percent effective, based on an interim look at 141 Covid-19 cases that had turned up among volunteers before Feb. 17. The latest finding was based on 190 trial participants who had gotten sick with Covid-19.
AstraZeneca said on Wednesday that the vaccine was 100 percent effective in preventing severe disease and 85 percent effective in preventing Covid-19 in people over age 65.
When it unveiled its interim results on Monday, AstraZeneca ignored dozens of recently confirmed Covid-19 cases that had cropped up in trial volunteers before mid-February.
In a letter to the company and federal officials, the independent monitoring board that was helping oversee the clinical trial issued an unusual reprimand of AstraZeneca for appearing to cherry-pick data to make its vaccine appear more effective.
“Decisions like this are what erode public trust in the scientific process,” the letter said. The members of the monitoring board wrote that their statistical modeling had found that the vaccine might have a lower efficacy rate — between 69 and 74 percent — if the Covid-19 cases in question were included in the analysis.
The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases later disclosed the panel’s concerns via a public statement.
It was not clear why the monitoring board’s projection turned out to be lower than the figure in AstraZeneca’s complete results. The latest results could still change because there are still 14 possible Covid-19 cases that AstraZeneca representatives have not yet classified as actual cases.
Until they received the monitoring board’s letter, AstraZeneca executives weren’t aware that the panel expected them to include those cases in the results disclosed in their news release, according to a person familiar with the executives’ thinking.
The dust-up over AstraZeneca’s U.S. trial results followed a safety scare in Europe that prompted more than a dozen countries to temporarily suspend use of the vaccine. Regulators in Europe said last week that a review had found the shot to be safe after a small number of people who had recently been inoculated developed blood clots and abnormal bleeding. The U.S. trial did not turn up any signs of such safety problems.
Rebecca Robbins and
"Lu 先生，謝謝您來信討論。戴明博士的基本想法是，衡量績效是一"過程" (過程/系統、數字目標等要注意統計上的"穩定"，管制圖思想之應用......)，不應該年終一次解考績。平常就該溝通。
上述的說法，與西方的風行管理方式大異---我曾在一些洋公司工作十多年，的確說到要點。
我後來在某些台灣企業(製鞋業大公司)當顧問，他們以自己的方式考績員工。真可說，應用或不應用存乎一心。
90年代的Intel 公司董事長Andy Grove 讀過Deming 的書，他們也知道自己的制度可能有問題，但是要求所有主管"改善"重要無比的考績制.....再次謝謝您的來信。"
***
新經濟學 讀後心得
鐘漢清 您好
我是一名讀者，看了戴明的[新經濟學]後，有些想法和您請教我任職於某間約500-1000人左右的企業，公司屬性為製造業，目前擔任工程師的腳色， 在業界中有5年的資歷。 在新經濟學一書中，說明了企業使用考績制度及目標管理後，所衍伸的問題，較佳的做法是廢除該管理方法， 讓員工可以互相合作，而非競爭關係，才有助於公司長遠的發展。 讓我困惑的是，如果企業做了這樣的改革，使用齊頭式的獎勵、去除目標數字的管理手段，是否可能會演變成， 員工不會好好為自己的職務負責? 當團體中某人有怠惰的心態，而最後領取報酬卻每人都是一樣的，其他的人在心理上難免會有不平衡。 我的看法是，戴明所闡述的改革，是建立在企業中，每位員工都清楚自己的職責，且對於工作的態度是正面的， 改革才會有效；反之，在一個心態、能力參差不齊的企業中， 或許目標管理及考績制度才是好的選擇? 我見識淺薄，是否有哪個企業是引用戴明觀點的管理手法?可以讓我參考。最好是台灣的企業，我認為不同的文化、教育， 也會有所差異。 或許我在閱讀書籍上有哪些地方有遺漏掉，以上的觀點想詢問您的看法，在不吝指教。 Tim
