What to make of AstraZeneca's vaccine data — and debate around them - STAT | Canada News Media
Connect with us

Business

What to make of AstraZeneca's vaccine data — and debate around them – STAT

Published

 on


AstraZeneca’s up-and-down quest to develop a vaccine for Covid-19 stands out from what has otherwise been a remarkably straightforward process in the U.S. And the latest twist for AstraZeneca’s vaccine, involving a contentious back-and-forth with federal authorities, only adds confusion to an already muddled process.

STAT’s Helen Branswell recently joined the “Readout Loud” podcast to talk about AstraZeneca’s current predicament, the implications for vaccine confidence, and how this affects the global effort to beat back the pandemic by getting doses into arms.

Excerpts from the conversation have been lightly edited and condensed for clarity.

advertisement

When discussing the AstraZeneca situation, experts consistently reach for the word “unprecedented.” Is that accurate? And how shocking was this back-and-forth compared to the normal process of developing a vaccine? 

I think it was quite shocking. I don’t know that I could go as far as unprecedented. I haven’t looked for, you know, precedents.

advertisement

But typically, when a sponsor of an experimental product, whether that’s a vaccine or a drug, and a DSMB [data and safety monitoring board] are going back and forth, that happens behind the curtain. We don’t see that. And if there’s a disagreement between the two on how to read the data, they resolve that before anybody goes public with the data. So to have this situation where AstraZeneca made their statement and then the DSMB made it known that they had they disagreed with the analysis, or the way that AstraZeneca had done its analysis by focusing on earlier cases only, that was quite a stunning rebuke. This kind of stuff doesn’t normally happen in the public eye.

It’s been a bit of a rollercoaster this week. As of Thursday morning, it appears that all the alarm was over a 3 percentage point relative difference in vaccine efficacy — 79% in AstraZeneca’s interim data announced Monday, versus 76% from the more up-to-date analysis we got more recently. Who do you think will get the blame for this bizarre news cycle taking place: AstraZeneca for releasing outdated data or the NIH for putting this all on the public record?

I don’t think it looks good on either party, to be honest. Given that it’s only 3 percentage points, you would be tempted to say, oh, the NIH looks worse from this. But there’s been so much drama around this vaccine, so much uncertainty about the the data, that the company and Oxford University have generated … they had a lot of baggage coming into this fight. So I don’t think anybody walks away from this looking particularly great.

We knew that within 48 hours we are going to get an updated set of results. When you saw that the results were only 3 percentage points different from the original results, did that make you feel better about what might have happened, or did it make you scratch your head even more about why it happened? 

I think I would say both, in a way. At the end of the day, we’re all fascinated by this fight, the drama. But the reality is this is a really important vaccine and the world needs it and needs it to work. And what the data show is that it does work. And so 76% is quite a bit better than the 62% the Oxford group originally reported out of their three Phase 3s, the ones that they did in the U.K. and Brazil and South Africa. So this trial has given us information we really need and it’s really good news. So in that respect, that’s great.

“This vaccine project has had more plot twists and turns than an Agatha Christie novel.”

Helen Branswell, STAT senior writer on infectious disease

But I would love to know more about why the DSMB two days ago thought that the more accurate figure should have been somewhere between 69 and 74. And why now? I mean, you know, there’s there’s part of this story that we just don’t know yet. And I’m really curious about what it is.

The stateside controversy over the vaccine comes just days after a host of European countries briefly paused its distribution to investigate some rare potential side effects. Because this vaccine is being made at a not-for-profit price and it’s easier to store than many of the others, its inventors at Oxford University have called it a “vaccine for the world.” So from the world’s perspective, is this recent news damaging confidence in the vaccine?

Certainly it is damaging confidence in the vaccine in North America, potentially in Europe.

A lot of countries have given emergency authorizations to this vaccine. Whether they are all following this to the same degree that we are, I don’t know. But certainly a lot of people, friends of mine who are not journalists and who are not reporting on this, have been asking me about this vaccine. A lot of my family and friends are in Canada and a lot of them anticipate that this will be the vaccine they’re going to be offered and they feel like they don’t really know what to believe about it, to be honest.

What should AstraZeneca do to rebuild some of the trust and confidence? Or I guess more accurately, what can they do at this stage? 

No more drama. This vaccine project has had more plot twists and turns than an Agatha Christie novel. What they need to do is just generate and disseminate good, reliable data. That’s obviously been done. Going forward, they’re going to be putting in an application for an emergency use authorization. And the FDA is going to be crunching their raw data and it will tell the world what it thinks of how well this vaccine works. And that will be an extraordinarily important step in the process for this vaccine.

Speaking of which, the trial that we’re talking about was meant to support this application to the FDA, but the vaccine likely won’t go before the regulator until a month or two from now, by which point the U.S. might have enough supply of other Covid-19 vaccines to meet its needs. So what do you think the odds are that despite all this contentious debate, AstraZeneca is vaccine never actually gets distributed in the U.S.?

You know, I think that’s a possibility. I guess I’m not sure that we know at this point. One of the things we have to see is, at some point in time, people are going to have to start to vaccinate children and trials are going to need to be done to test the various vaccines and kids. And there is a strong likelihood, I think, that one or two of the vaccines might be more useful in children than others. If they’re less reactogenic, for instance. Parents don’t like to see their kids having a rough go of it after getting a vaccine. So if you can find a vaccine, one of the vaccines, or two of the vaccines that are less reactogenic in children, then those will probably be the ones that would be used.

So would I shut the door on the possibility that this vaccine might have some use in the United States? No. Do I think it’s a possibility that it won’t be used or won’t be used much in the United States? Yeah, I do think that’s a possibility. Just from the point of view of what you just what you said yourself, the U.S. may not need much of this vaccine or any of this vaccine by the time it’s available for use here.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

CANADIAN ACCOUNTANTS TELL ALL ON STATE OF SMB FINANCES IN NEW SURVEY

Published

 on

CANADIAN ACCOUNTANTS TELL ALL ON STATE OF SMB FINANCES IN NEW SURVEY
Accountants “open the books” on inflation, interest rates, technology, and lack of SMB support

TORONTO – Nov. 19, 2024 – A recent survey of 500 Canadian accountants has revealed several surprising conclusions about their frustrations, fears, thoughts on provincial support for SMBs, the investments that make them wary, and how many clients are actually using the financial technology they need.

And for a little fun, the survey even identified which Canadian celebrity they would back as an SMB CEO.

The survey conducted on behalf of Plooto, a leading payment automation solution for small-to-midsize businesses (SMBs), asked accountants, bookkeepers, and finance professionals a series of revealing questions that provide a snapshot of the current state of Canada’s accounting industry.

Key Findings of the Survey:

  1. IT’S HARD OUT THERE FOR AN SMB

    Asked what they think are the biggest financial threats to Canadian SMBs, more than half of Canadian accountants (54.5%) said ‘inflation increasing their own costs.’ This was followed by interest rates making borrowing rates more expensive (46.1%); staff turnover (41.2%); lower prices offered by larger corporations in the same space (39%); interest rates cooling on consumer spending (34.1%) and foreign competition (32%).

 

  1. ACCOUNTANTS CALL OUT ONTARIO’S SMB SUPPORT

    Asked which province they think is doing the least to help SMBs succeed, a definitive quarter (24.5%) of accountants cited Ontario. Quebec was a distant second at 15%; followed by Alberta (13.3%);  BC (11.4%); Manitoba and Newfoundland and Labrador (tied at 7.25%); Saskatchewan (5.9%); and New Brunswick and PEI (tied at 4.9%). Accountants considered Nova Scotia as the province doing the most for SMBs, with the lowest vote of 4%.

 

  1. ACCOUNTANTS SHINE THE LIGHT ON COSTLY SMB MISTAKES

    Asked what the biggest financial mistake they see Canadian SMBs make on a regular basis, 21% of Canadian accountants said ‘not implementing the proper technology.’ This was followed by ‘not paying enough attention to cash flow’ (19%); investing in elaborate and expensive workplaces (12.2%); hiring too quickly (10.6%);   buying rather than leasing equipment (10%); overpaying to attract a top-tier executive (9.8%); hiring too slowly (9.2%);  and funding the first year with non-submitted HST payments (8.0%).

 

  1. ACCOUNTANTS HESITATE TO ADVISE INVESTMENT IN ENTERTAINMENT AND EDUCATION

    Based on the profitability of their current clients, accountants said they would NEVER invest in:  arts, entertainment and recreation (32.2%), educational services (24.5%), travel and hospitality (22.9%), agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting (19.8%) and; finance and insurance (19.6%).

 

  1. THE ECONOMY IS CLEARLY KEEPING ACCOUNTANTS UP AT NIGHT

    Asked to choose the factors that are keeping them up at night, 48.8% said ‘current interest rates,’ followed by ‘fear of a recession’ (46.7%); ‘worry that their SMB clients will go under’ (29.6%); the current Federal Government (27.3%); ‘another pandemic’ (26.9%); the 2024 U.S. elections (25.3%.) and; ‘a different Federal Government coming into power’ (25.1%).

 

  1. ACCOUNTANT IRRITATIONS UP CLOSE

    Asked what the most irritating things their clients do on a regular basis are, Canadian accountants said ‘not sending required information’ (64.7%); not reading financial reports (50.2%); not making time to discuss financial reports (48.4%); not paying invoices on time (47.8%); submitting information with ‘bad math’ (44.5%) and; not listening to recommendations (44.3%).

 

  1. SMBs DON’T HAVE ALL OF THE TECH RESOURCES THEY NEED

Accountants say less than a third (31.4%) of clients have all of the tech in place that they need, despite its far-reaching benefits.
When their clients use fintech, 65.1% of clients can reconcile their books faster, and 56% can make and receive payments faster.

Bonus Insight:

RYAN REYNOLDS COULD RULE THE C-SUITE

Asked which Canadian celebrity they thought would be the most effective in running a SMB, nearly a quarter of Canadian accountants said Ryan Reynolds (27.1%). Reynolds edged out business celebrity Kevin O’Leary (22%) and left Keanu Reeves (15.3%), Drake (12.6%), Arlene Dickenson (8.6%), and Michele Romano (4.1%) as distant alternatives.

PLEASE REFER TO THIS AS A SURVEY BY PLOOTO IN ANY MEDIA MENTIONS

Continue Reading

Business

Which Candidate Would You Hire? A or B?

Published

 on

Speaking from personal experience, a bad hire isn’t a good look. The last thing you want is to hear, “Who the hell hired Bob?” and have your hiring judgment questioned.

The job seeker who’s empathetic to the employer’s side of the hiring desk, which controls the hiring process, is rare.

One of the best things you can do to enhance your job search is to practice perspective-taking, which involves seeing things from a different perspective.

It’s natural for employers to find candidates who have empathy and an understanding of their challenges and pain points more attractive. Candidates like these are seen as potential allies rather than individuals only looking out for themselves. Since most job seekers approach employers with a ‘what’s in it for me’ mindset, practicing perspective-taking sets you apart.

“If there is any one secret of success, it lies in the ability to get the other person’s point of view and see things from that person’s angle as well as from your own.” – Henry Ford.

Perspective-taking makes you realize that from an employer’s POV hiring is fraught with risks employers want to avoid; thus, you consider what most job seekers don’t: How can I present myself as the least risky hiring option?

Here’s an exercise that’ll help you visualize the employer’s side of the hiring process.

 

Candidate A or B?

Imagine you’re the Director of Customer Service for a regional bank with 85 branches. You’re hiring a call centre manager who’ll work onsite at the bank’s head office, overseeing the bank’s 50-seat call centre. In addition to working with the call centre agents, the successful candidate will also interact with other departments, your boss, and members of the C-suite leadership team; in other words, they’ll be visible throughout the bank.

The job posting resulted in over 400 applications. The bank’s ATS and HR (phone interview vetting, skill assessment testing) selected five candidates, plus an employee referral, for you to interview. You aim to shortlist the six candidates to three, whom you’ll interview a second time, and then make a hiring decision. Before scheduling the interviews, which’ll take place between all your other ongoing responsibilities, you spend 5 – 10 minutes with each candidate’s resume and review their respective digital footprint and LinkedIn activity.

In your opinion, which candidate deserves a second interview?

Candidate A: Their resume provides quantitative numbers—evidence—of the results they’ve achieved. (Through enhanced agent training, reduced average handle time from 4:32 mins. to 2:43 minutes, which decreased the abandon rate from 4.6% to 2.2%.)

 

Candidate B: Their resume offers only opinions. (“I’m detail-oriented,” “I learn fast.”)

 

Candidate A: Looks you in the eye, has a firm handshake, smiles, and exudes confidence.

 

Candidate B: Doesn’t look you in the eye, has a weak handshake.

 

Candidate A: Referred by Ariya, who’s been with the bank for over 15 years and has a stellar record, having moved up from teller to credit analyst and is tracking to become a Managing Director.

 

Candidate B: Applied online. Based on your knowledge, they did nothing else to make their application more visible. (e.g., reached out to you or other bank employees)

 

Candidate A:  Well educated, grew up as a digital native, eager and energetic. Currently manages a 35-seat call center for a mid-size credit union. They mention they called the bank’s call centre several times and suggest ways to improve the caller experience.

 

Candidate B: Has been working in banking for over 25 years, managing the call center at their last bank for 17 years before being laid off eight months ago. They definitely have the experience to run a call centre. However, you have a nagging gut feeling that they’re just looking for a place to park themselves until they can afford to retire.

 

Candidate A: Has a fully completed LinkedIn profile (picture, eye-catching banner) packed with quantifying numbers. It’s evident how they were of value to their employers. Recently, they engaged constructively with posts and comments and published a LinkedIn article on managing Generations Y and Z call centre agents. Their Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter/X accounts aren’t controversial, sharing between ‘Happy Birthday’ and ‘Congratulations’ messages, their love of fine dining, baseball, and gardening.

 

Candidate B: Their LinkedIn profile is incomplete. The last time they posted on LinkedIn was seven months ago, ranting about how the government’s latest interest rate hike will plunge the country into a deep recession. Conspiracy theories abound on their Facebook page.

 

Candidate A: Notices the golf calendar on your desk, the putter and golf balls in the corner, and a photograph of Phil Mickelson putting on the green jacket at the 2010 Masters hanging on your wall. While nodding towards the picture, they say, “Evidently, you golf. Not being a golfer myself, what made you take up golf, which I understand is a frustrating sport?”

 

Candidate B: Doesn’t proactively engage in small talk. Waits for you to start the interview.

 

Which of the above candidates presents the least hiring risk? Will likely succeed (read: achieve the results the employer needs)? Will show your boss, upper management, and employees you know how to hire for competence and fit?

_____________________________________________________________________

 

Nick Kossovan, a well-seasoned veteran of the corporate landscape, offers “unsweetened” job search advice. You can send Nick your questions to artoffindingwork@gmail.com.

Continue Reading

Business

Job Seekers’ Trinity Focus, Anger and Evidence

Published

 on

Though I have no empirical evidence to support my claim, I believe job search success can be achieved faster by using what I call “The Job Seekers’ Trinity” as your framework, the trinity being:

 

  1. The power of focus
  2. Managing your anger
  3. Presenting evidence

Each component plays a critical role in sustaining motivation and strategically positioning yourself for job search success. Harnessing your focus, managing your anger, and presenting compelling evidence (read: quantitative numbers of achieved results) will transform your job search from a daunting endeavour into a structured, persuasive job search campaign that employers will notice.

 

The Power of Focus

Your job search success is mainly determined by what you’re focused on, namely:

 

  • What you focus on.

 

Your life is controlled by what you focus on; thus, focusing on the positives shapes your mindset for positive outcomes. Yes, layoffs, which the media loves to report to keep us addicted to the news, are a daily occurrence, but so is hiring. Don’t let all the doom and gloom talk overshadow this fact. Focus on where you want to go, not on what others and the media want you to fear.

 

Bonus of not focusing on negatives: You’ll be happier.

 

  • Focus on how you can provide measurable value to employers.

 

If you’re struggling with your job search, the likely reason is that you’re not showing, along with providing evidence, employers how you can add tangible value to an employer’s bottom line. Business is a numbers game, yet few job seekers speak about their numbers. If you don’t focus on and talk about your numbers, how do you expect employers to see the value in hiring you?

 

Managing Your Anger

Displaying anger in public is never a good look. Professionals are expected to control their emotions, so public displays of anger are viewed as unprofessional.

LinkedIn has become a platform heavily populated with job seekers posting angry rants—fueled mainly by a sense of entitlement—bashing and criticizing employers, recruiters, and the government, proving many job seekers think the public display of their anger won’t negatively affect their job search.

When you’re unemployed, it’s natural to be angry when your family, friends, and neighbours are employed. “Why me?” is a constant question in your head. Additionally, job searching is fraught with frustrations, such as not getting responses to your applications and being ghosted after interviews.

The key is acknowledging your anger and not letting it dictate your actions, such as adding to the angry rants on LinkedIn and other social media platforms, which employers will see.

 

Undoubtedly, rejection, which is inevitable when job hunting, causes the most anger. What works for me is to reframe rejections, be it through being ghosted, email, a call or text, as “Every ‘No’ brings me one step closer to a ‘Yes.'”

 

Additionally, I’ve significantly reduced triggering my anger by eliminating any sense of entitlement and keeping my expectations in check. Neither you nor I are owed anything, including a job, respect, empathy, understanding, agreement, or even love. A sense of entitlement and anger are intrinsically linked. The more rights you perceive you have, the more anger you need to defend them. Losing any sense of entitlement you may have will make you less angry, which has no place in a job search.

 

Presenting Evidence

As I stated earlier, business is a numbers game. Since all business decisions, including hiring, are based on numbers, presenting evidence in the form of quantitative numbers is crucial.

Which candidate would you contact to set up an interview if you were hiring a social media manager:

 

  • “Managed Fabian Publishing’s social media accounts, posting content daily.”
  • “Designed and executed Fabian Publishing’s global social media strategy across 8.7 million LinkedIn, X/Twitter, Instagram and Facebook followers. Through consistent engagement with customers, followers, and influencers, increased social media lead generation by 46% year-over-year, generating in 2023 $7.6 million in revenue.”

 

Numerical evidence, not generic statements or opinions, is how you prove your value to employers. Stating you’re a “team player” or “results-driven,” as opposed to “I’m part of an inside sales team that generated in 2023 $8.5 million in sales,” or “In 2023 I managed three company-wide software implementations, all of which came under budget,” is meaningless to an employer.

Despite all the job search advice offered, I still see resumes and LinkedIn profiles listing generic responsibilities rather than accomplishments backed by numbers. A statement such as “managed a team” doesn’t convey your management responsibilities or your team’s achievements under your leadership. “Led a team of five to increase sales by 20%, from $3.7 million to $4.44 million, within six months” shows the value of your management skills.

Throughout your job search, constantly think of all the numbers you can provide—revenue generated, number of new clients, cost savings, reduced workload, waste reduction—as evidence to employers why you’d be a great value-add to their business.

The Job Seekers’ Trinity—focusing on the positive, managing your anger and providing evidence—is a framework that’ll increase the effectiveness of your job search activities and make you stand out in today’s hyper-competitive job market, thus expediting your job search to a successful conclusion.

_____________________________________________________________________

 

Nick Kossovan, a well-seasoned veteran of the corporate landscape, offers “unsweetened” job search advice. You can send Nick your questions to artoffindingwork@gmail.com.

Continue Reading

Trending

Exit mobile version