Also they illegally marketed their psychotic drugs to children under kickbacks from doctors https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Health/astrazeneca-pay-520-m...
AZ accidentally ran their first trial with only half the intended dose. For some reason, this turned out to work better than the intended regimen (90 % vs 60 % in the other trial).
When they noticed the mistake, they pretended it had been their intention all along.
That's one troubling error, one surprising result that doesn't fit expectations and could, therefore, indicate other, potentially dangerous, problems in thinking or execution, and one deliberate lie.
Personally, I'd tend to agree with you and would probably take their vaccine if offered.
But that's something entirely different than allowing it to be given to millions of people. Getting this wrong would lead to a total breakdown of trust in institutions, and, in due course, a few democracies as well.
To insinuate some conspiracy given these circumstances is evidence for the mechanism of that breakdown, as well as irresponsible and, frankly, amateur populism.
The difference isn't actually statistically significant. It's probably 60-70% effective overall.
How would you propose doing this without drawing blood from every single person getting a vaccine?
You'll need an high amount in PCR, i.e. low cycle threshold for the probability to be high.
Antigen tests will show if there was/is an infection.
PCR does not show infection only presence. (WHO has now put out guidance about this. They don't have to it's well known.)
If you're European this may be strange to you but I'm the U.S. we don't receive the cycle count when the RNA for the virus is detected.
Here's Fauci talking about it a little: https://youtu.be/a_Vy6fgaBPE&t=4m30s
Most people probably are at lower risk, but some people are dying from reinfection. They certainly weren’t.