Unfair labour practice relating to promotion in the public education sector

This topic deals with unfair labour practice relating to promotion and will focus mainly on the public education sector. The Labour Relations Act of 1956 and 1995, with respect to the concept of unfair labour practice, will be analysed. It is through this discussion that one appreciates how the concept of unfair labour practices has evolved in South African law. An attempt is made to define promotion and in this regard reference is made to cases decided upon by the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) or the Labour Court (LC). Furthermore, promotion is defined within the context of public education and applicable legislation. Due regard must be to the employment relationship between the employer and the employee as well as compare the current employee’s job with the job applied to. Unfair conduct by the employer will be discussed within the context of promotion. The prerogative of the employer will be discussed with reference to case law and that discussion will include an analysis of various principles with regard to procedural and substantive fairness. Various remedies provided for in dispute resolution mechanism in line with the provisions of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 and relevant case laws will also be discussed. The last chapter deals with how to strike a balance between employee rights (that is educators) and the rights of learners, in the context of promotion disputes. In this regard reference to case laws will be made. In general the topic will deal with unfair labour practice, definition of promotion including promotion of educators, unfair conduct of the employer, onus of proof, remedies and striking the balance between the rights of the learners and educators

Étude de l’activité antiamibienne des quelques plantes médicinales utilisées par les tradipraticiens de la ville de Lubumbashi, R.D.Congo

Objectifs: Cette étude a été menée dans le but de rechercher les solutions phyto thérapeutiques aux problèmes posés par les diarrhées amibiennes en évaluant l’activité anti amibienne des plantes médicinales utilisées par les tradipraticiens de la ville de Lubumbashi.Méthodologie et Résultats: Le protocole analytique comprend: les connaissances ethnobotaniques, le criblage chimique, les investigations mathématiques, la macération et les interactions prouvant l’adéquation ou non d’un éventuel traitement. Les cinq plantes les plus utilisées dans le traitement de diarrhée amibienne sont : Acalypha paniculata (queue de chat), Euphorbia hirta (herbe Australienne à asthme), Uapaca pilosa (palutivier), Uapaca bengoelensis (Alebié) et Psidium goyava (Goyavier). Les facteurs favorisant l’usage de ces plantes sont : l’accessibilité, la précarité des conditions de vie et l’urgence de traitement. Par le calcul de khi carré, il a été conclu qu’il n’existe pas de différences significatives d’effets thérapeutiques des extraits avec lesquels le traitement a eu lieu. L’antiamibiogramme a démontré la sensibilité d’Entamoeba histolytica vis-à-vis des extraits de quatre plantes à la concentration d’au moins 0,625 mg/ml sauf ceux de Psidium goyava.Conclusion et applications: L’activité antiamibienne a été prouvée pour toutes les espèces étudiées, sauf pour Psidium goyava. Il a été mis en évidence la sensibilité de Entamoeba histolytica vis-à-vis des extraits de Acalypha paniculata, Euphorbia hirta, Uapaca bengoelensis et Uapaca pilosa. La plus Faible Concentration Inhibitrice des extraits observée en vingt-quatre heures est de 0,625 mg / ml pour Euphorbia hirta (Plante entière) et pour les feuilles de Acalypha paniculata. C ‘est pourquoi nous encourageons l’utilisation par la population de Acalypha paniculata, Euphorbia hirta, Uapaca bengoelensis et Uapaca pilosa dans le traitement des diarrhées amibiennesMots clefs: Diarrhée - Entamoeba histolytica – antiamibiogrammeEnglish Title: Study of antiamibian activity of some medicinal plants used by traditional practitioners of the city of Lubumbashi, D R.CongoEnglish AbstractObjectives: This study was conducted in order to search for herbal solutions to the problems posed by amoebic diarrhea by evaluating the antimicrobial activity of medicinal plants used by traditional healers in Lubumbashi city.Methodology and Results: The analytical protocol includes ethnobotanical knowledge, chemical screening, math investigations, maceration and interactions proving the adequacy or not of any treatment. The five most commonly used plants in the treatment of amoebic diarrhea plants are: Acalypha paniculata, Euphorbia hirta, Uapaca bengoelensis, Uapaca pilosa and Psidium goyava. Factors encouraging the use of these plants are: accessibility, precarious living conditions and urgency of treatment. By calculating Chi square, it was concluded that there are no significant differences of therapeutic effects of the extracts with what the treatment took place.Susceptibility demonstrated a sensitivity of Entamoeba histolytica againt the extrats of four plants to the concentration of 0,625 mg/ml but not these of Psidium goyava.Conclusion and Application of the Results: Antiamoebic activity was proven for all species studied except for Psidium goyava. The sensitivity of Entamoeba histolytica to extracts of Acalypha paniculata, Euphorbia hirta, Uapaca bengoelensis and Uapaca pilosa has been demonstrated. The lowest Inhibitory Concentration of the extracts observed in twenty-four hours is 0.625 mg / ml for Euphorbia hirta (whole plant) and for leaves of Acalypha paniculata. That is why we encourage by the population the use of Acalypha paniculata, Euphorbia hirta, Uapaca bengoelensis and Uapaca pilosa in the treatment of amoebic diarrhea.Keywords: Diarrhea, Entamoeba histolytica, antiamibial tes

An analysis of the constitutionality of the President's reliance on 'prerogative powers' as the basis for appointing or dismissing cabinet members - an interrogation of the meaning of section 91(2) of the Constitution

No abstractMini Dissertation (LLM)--University of Pretoria, 2018.Public LawLLMUnrestricte

A critical analysis of the extent to which SA law protects the surface rights of landowners over whose property mining rights have been granted

The MPRDA has drastically changed the regulation of mining by placing the mineral resources of South Africa under the custodianship of the State. The MPRDA does not recognise the existence of the common law mineral rights as they existed prior to the promulgation of the MPRDA. Whereas anyone is now free to apply for mining rights from the State and once granted the holder of the mining right is entitled to access the land upon which the mining right is granted, the surface rights landowner on the other hand, is required by law to sacrifice some of his/her rights to facilitate mining activities. The surface rights landowners are however not entitled to compensation for the loss of minerals that are part of their ownership of the land. The focus of this Study is to conduct a critical analysis of the South African law – to establish to what extend it protects the surface rights of the landowners. In the process of analysing the available remedies, the author will focus on how compensation for loss or damage as a remedy, developed through the South African common law (Roman and Roman Dutch Law), and how this remedy worked pre-MPRDA and how it is provided for in the MPRDA. The Study will also undertake a brief comparative analysis of mining legislation of Western Australia and Ghana to bench mark the MPRDA compensation provisions and will conclude by recommending possible ways in which the MPRDA could be improveMini Dissertation (LLM)--University of Pretoria, 2018.Public LawLLMUnrestricte

SORGHUM YIELD AND ASSOCIATED SATELLITE-DERIVED METEOROLOGICAL PARAMETERS IN SEMI-ARID BOTSWANA

Africa has sparse meteorological stations, hence it is increasingly common to use satellite-derived meteorological parameters, where in-situ measuremnts are not available. The objective of this study was to determine if there is a relationship between sorghum yield and meteorological parameters (measured and satellite-derived). Sorghum ( Sorghum bicolor ) yield for five seasons (2005/6 to 2009/10) from the Botswana Department of Crop Production Station in Pandamatenga, actual rainfall from the Botswana Meteorologial Services, and Normalised Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) and Satellite Rainfall Estimates (RFEs) data from Famine Early Warning Systems Network (FEWSNET) were used in this study to determine relationships between the yield and satellite derived estimates. Although the NDVI and RFEs data were available for 2005 to 2011 (6 seasons), the limiting factor was the actual yield data which were only available for 2005 to 2010 (5 seasons). The Pearson Correlations Coefficient between seasonal rainfall and seasonal NDVI was 0.77 and seasonal RFE and seasonal NDVI was -0.19. Further correlation coefficient between sorghum yield and seasonal NDVI is 0.88. The correlation coefficient between sorghum yield and seasonal rainfall was 0.53; while correlation coefficient between sorghum yield and seasonal RFEs was -0.38. The sorghum NDVI signature reacted positively to the the seasonal rainfall, while sorghum NDVI signature was not correlated with the 1 Km resolution RFEs data. Furthermore, there was good correlation between sorghum yield and both the seasonal NDVI and seasonal rainfall, the seasonal NDVI seemed to predict yield slightly better than the seasonal rainfall. There seem to be a potential to use RFEs to predict yield though there are still problems associated with RFEs.L\u2019Afrique a des stations m\ue9t\ue9orologiques rares o\uf9 il est de plus en plus courant d\u2019utiliser des param\ue8tres provenant de satellites m\ue9t\ue9orologiques, o\uf9 in situ measuremnts ne sont pas disponibles. L\u2019objectif de cette \ue9tude \ue9tait de d\ue9terminer se il y avait une relation entre le rendement du sorgho et des param\ue8tres m\ue9t\ue9orologiques (mesur\ue9es et obtenues par satellite). Du sorgho ( Sorghum bicolor ) rendement pendant cinq saisons (2005/6-2009/10) du minist\ue8re du Botswana de la station de la production agricole \ue0 Pandamatenga, pr\ue9cipitations r\ue9elle de la Meteorologial services Botswana, et indice de v\ue9g\ue9tation normalis\ue9 (NDVI) et Satellite pr\ue9cipitations estimations (RFE) donn\ue9es de Famine Early Warning Systems Network (FEWSNET) ont \ue9t\ue9 utilis\ue9s dans cette \ue9tude pour d\ue9terminer les relations entre le rendement et le satellite estimations tir\ue9es. Bien que les donn\ue9es de NDVI et RFEs \ue9taient disponibles pour 2005-2011 (6 saisons), le facteur limitant \ue9tait les donn\ue9es de rendement r\ue9els qui ne \ue9tait disponible pour 2005-2010 (5 saisons). Les corr\ue9lations Pearson Coefficient entre les pr\ue9cipitations saisonni\ue8res et NDVI saisonni\ue8re \ue9tait de 0,77 et RFE saisonni\ue8re et saisonni\ue8re NDVI \ue9tait -0,19. En outre coefficient de corr\ue9lation entre le rendement du sorgho et NDVI saison est de 0,88. Enfin, le coefficient de corr\ue9lation entre le rendement de sorgho et pr\ue9cipitations saisonni\ue8re \ue9tait de 0,53; tandis que le coefficient de corr\ue9lation entre le rendement de sorgho et RFE saisonniers \ue9tait -0,38. La signature sorgho NDVI a r\ue9agi positivement \ue0 l\u2019pluies saisonni\ue8res, tandis que la signature sorgho NDVI ne est pas corr\ue9l\ue9e avec les 1 km de r\ue9solution RFEs donn\ue9es. En outre, il y avait une bonne corr\ue9lation entre le rendement de sorgho et \ue0 la fois le NDVI saison et des pr\ue9cipitations saisonni\ue8res, le NDVI saison semblait pr\ue9dire le rendement l\ue9g\ue8rement meilleur que les pluies saisonni\ue8res. Il semble y avoir un potentiel d\u2019utiliser RFE \ue0 pr\ue9dire le rendement se il ya encore des probl\ue8mes li\ue9s \ue0 RFE

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK

Background: A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. Methods: This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. Findings: Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0–75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4–97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8–80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3–4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. Interpretation: ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials. Funding: UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes for Health Research (NIHR), Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Lemann Foundation, Rede D’Or, Brava and Telles Foundation, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca

Single-dose administration and the influence of the timing of the booster dose on immunogenicity and efficacy of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine: a pooled analysis of four randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: The ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine has been approved for emergency use by the UK regulatory authority, Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, with a regimen of two standard doses given with an interval of 4-12 weeks. The planned roll-out in the UK will involve vaccinating people in high-risk categories with their first dose immediately, and delivering the second dose 12 weeks later. Here, we provide both a further prespecified pooled analysis of trials of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and exploratory analyses of the impact on immunogenicity and efficacy of extending the interval between priming and booster doses. In addition, we show the immunogenicity and protection afforded by the first dose, before a booster dose has been offered. METHODS: We present data from three single-blind randomised controlled trials-one phase 1/2 study in the UK (COV001), one phase 2/3 study in the UK (COV002), and a phase 3 study in Brazil (COV003)-and one double-blind phase 1/2 study in South Africa (COV005). As previously described, individuals 18 years and older were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive two standard doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (5 × 1010 viral particles) or a control vaccine or saline placebo. In the UK trial, a subset of participants received a lower dose (2·2 × 1010 viral particles) of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 for the first dose. The primary outcome was virologically confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 disease, defined as a nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT)-positive swab combined with at least one qualifying symptom (fever ≥37·8°C, cough, shortness of breath, or anosmia or ageusia) more than 14 days after the second dose. Secondary efficacy analyses included cases occuring at least 22 days after the first dose. Antibody responses measured by immunoassay and by pseudovirus neutralisation were exploratory outcomes. All cases of COVID-19 with a NAAT-positive swab were adjudicated for inclusion in the analysis by a masked independent endpoint review committee. The primary analysis included all participants who were SARS-CoV-2 N protein seronegative at baseline, had had at least 14 days of follow-up after the second dose, and had no evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection from NAAT swabs. Safety was assessed in all participants who received at least one dose. The four trials are registered at ISRCTN89951424 (COV003) and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606 (COV001), NCT04400838 (COV002), and NCT04444674 (COV005). FINDINGS: Between April 23 and Dec 6, 2020, 24 422 participants were recruited and vaccinated across the four studies, of whom 17 178 were included in the primary analysis (8597 receiving ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and 8581 receiving control vaccine). The data cutoff for these analyses was Dec 7, 2020. 332 NAAT-positive infections met the primary endpoint of symptomatic infection more than 14 days after the second dose. Overall vaccine efficacy more than 14 days after the second dose was 66·7% (95% CI 57·4-74·0), with 84 (1·0%) cases in the 8597 participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 248 (2·9%) in the 8581 participants in the control group. There were no hospital admissions for COVID-19 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group after the initial 21-day exclusion period, and 15 in the control group. 108 (0·9%) of 12 282 participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 127 (1·1%) of 11 962 participants in the control group had serious adverse events. There were seven deaths considered unrelated to vaccination (two in the ChAdOx1 nCov-19 group and five in the control group), including one COVID-19-related death in one participant in the control group. Exploratory analyses showed that vaccine efficacy after a single standard dose of vaccine from day 22 to day 90 after vaccination was 76·0% (59·3-85·9). Our modelling analysis indicated that protection did not wane during this initial 3-month period. Similarly, antibody levels were maintained during this period with minimal waning by day 90 (geometric mean ratio [GMR] 0·66 [95% CI 0·59-0·74]). In the participants who received two standard doses, after the second dose, efficacy was higher in those with a longer prime-boost interval (vaccine efficacy 81·3% [95% CI 60·3-91·2] at ≥12 weeks) than in those with a short interval (vaccine efficacy 55·1% [33·0-69·9] at <6 weeks). These observations are supported by immunogenicity data that showed binding antibody responses more than two-fold higher after an interval of 12 or more weeks compared with an interval of less than 6 weeks in those who were aged 18-55 years (GMR 2·32 [2·01-2·68]). INTERPRETATION: The results of this primary analysis of two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 were consistent with those seen in the interim analysis of the trials and confirm that the vaccine is efficacious, with results varying by dose interval in exploratory analyses. A 3-month dose interval might have advantages over a programme with a short dose interval for roll-out of a pandemic vaccine to protect the largest number of individuals in the population as early as possible when supplies are scarce, while also improving protection after receiving a second dose. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes of Health Research (NIHR), The Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Lemann Foundation, Rede D'Or, the Brava and Telles Foundation, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK.

BACKGROUND: A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. METHODS: This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. FINDINGS: Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0-75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4-97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8-80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3-4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. INTERPRETATION: ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes for Health Research (NIHR), Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Lemann Foundation, Rede D'Or, Brava and Telles Foundation, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK

Background A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. Methods This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. Findings Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0–75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4–97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8–80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3–4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. Interpretation ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials