As many as 80 claimants could lodge legal cases with the High Court by the end of the year in a class action that threatens to undermine faith in the rollout of the AstraZeneca vaccine that was developed jointly with Oxford University.
In Mr Scott’s claim, his lawyers argue that he suffered “personal injuries and consequential losses arising out of his sustaining Vaccine Induced Immune Thrombosis with Thrombocytopenia (VITT) as a result of his vaccination on 23 April 2021, with the AstraZeneca Covid-19 vaccination”, which the legal claim alleges was “defective”. They also argue that no warning of the risk of VITT was included in the product information on the date of supply of the vaccine.
AstraZeneca issued press releases following clinical trials saying the vaccine – known as Vaxzevria – was between 62 per cent and 90 per cent effective at preventing symptomatic Covid-19 depending on dosages, with an average of 70 per cent. The legal claim states: “In fact, the absolute risk reduction concerning Covid-19 prevention was only 1.2 per cent.”
An absolute risk reduction measures how much the vaccine reduces an individual’s baseline risk of getting ill from Covid at a particular time. If Covid levels are low, the absolute risk reduction rate will be much lower too.
This is different from a relative risk reduction, which compares the numbers of vaccinated people getting ill with those getting ill who did not receive the jab. In the case of AstraZeneca, a peer-review study showed the relative risk was reduced by an average of about 70 per cent.
AstraZeneca has said it emphasised the higher figure – denoting the relative reduction in risk – because that did not alter regardless of the prevalence of Covid at the time.
Lawyers argued that information in the AstraZeneca press release on its efficacy was “misleading because members of the public… assume that the published efficacy rate was an absolute risk rate (in which case the published efficacy rate vastly overstated the efficacy of the vaccine)”.
The Court documents state: “The Claimant claims damages and interest… as a result of personal injuries and consequential losses arising out of his sustaining Vaccine Induced Immune Thrombosis with Thrombocytopenia (VITT) as a result of his vaccination on 23 April 2021, with the AstraZeneca COVID19 vaccination (ChAdOx1-S [recombinant]) manufactured and/or supplied by the Defendant which was defective within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act 1987.”
On the complex issue of the vaccine’s efficacy, the court documents draw on a ruling by the Prescription Medicines Code of Practice Authority (PMCPA), which said in July last year that AstraZeneca had breached its code in using the repeated use of the word “safe” in a press release in December 2020. The PMCPA also ruled it had breached its code of practice in failing to disclose the absolute risk reduction of having the vaccine.
The particulars of claim state: “In fact, the absolute risk reduction concerning COVID-19 prevention was only 1.2 per cent, and the PMCPA concluded in response to the complaint… that the information provided in the press release as to the efficacy of the vaccine was misleading because members of the public reading the press release might assume that the published efficacy rate was an absolute risk rate (in which case the published efficacy rate vastly overstated the efficacy of the vaccine).”
Robert Johnson is a UK-based business writer specializing in finance and entrepreneurship. With an eye for market trends and a keen interest in the corporate world, he offers readers valuable insights into business developments.
