Seems like those who reported this inflammatory story turned what's actually a legitimate criticism of the AZ process - a small trial sample for over-65s - into a ludicrous exaggeration about its purported efficacy, an entirely different question. https://twitter.com/alexwickham/status/1353999453028577280

@hildabast wrote a good thread on the problems with some of the Oxford/AZ data. It's possible to question this stuff without sensationalist reporting https://twitter.com/hildabast/status/1353832140337684482

I say 'entirely different question' which isn't quite right: the sample size has to be big enough to deduce a certain range of efficacy. But still, it does now seem that the 8% figure refers to something else. So exhale.