What exactly is happening with AstraZeneca?

Strazdas

robinph wrote: »

The only mention of anything even vaguely Brexit related in the last weeks news was to do with various cigarette manufacturers saying they would no longer supply NI because they couldn't be bothered to print three different versions of their packets, one for Eng/ Sco/ Wal, another for Ireland and another for NI.

But even those reports didn't actually mention Brexit, just the specific NI protocol.

Nobody has been mentioning Brexit in relation to vaccine roll out in the serious media, but if you go looking for something offensive in red tops it's probably a different story. But nobody buys or reads those papers, except the posters on here apparently who are looking for something to be offended by.

As for why the UK is interested in what is going on in the rest of Europe, it may have escaped your attention, but lots of people within Europe tend to know lots of other people around Europe, be related to other people around Europe and live and travel to other places around Europe... So its of interest if your friends/ family/ next holiday are going to be affected by whatever is going on. Not going to apologise for being interested in how other parts of the world are doing with dealing with the virus and the vaccines.

I wouldn't see any problem with Britain taking an interest in the EU vaccines story, that seems only natural. And I would agree that most people in GB are not physically buying these newspapers. But the version of the vaccines story they are pumping out seems to be feeding into the public consciousness.

I was reading one of the Financial Times articles on the EU vaccine rollout last night and the comments sections has been completely taken over by Brexiteers, unleashing rabid hatred on von der Leyen, Macron and Merkel. Crazy stuff, the FT is the last place you would expect to see a Brexiteer takeover (and it's a subscription only service).

PMBC

Wolf359f wrote: »

Most countries are quite open with what vaccines they have had delivered, and what has been distributed. If it wasn't for the AZ pause and check and the EU export licence, we would have never known how little domestic production has in the UK.

Their prized horse they bet on (AZ) has delivered less than 10% of their order.
Pfizer on the other had has delivered ~40% of their order.
I think the EU Pfizer plants may have actually produced more doses than American plants also. Then again the US are only supplying a market of 320mil, the EU plants are supplying a market of 7.3bil.

At the risk of seeming pedantic the pop of EU is more like 730 mil, 749 million actually. So a little over twice USA not twenty times

Bubbaclaus

PMBC wrote: »

At the risk of seeming pedantic the pop of EU is more like 730 mil, 749 million actually. So a little over twice USA not twenty times

EU population is way less than 749 million. Closer to 440m.

In any case, the poster was referring to the fact that the EU is exporting vaccines globally, (hence why he referenced global population), whereas the US has a vaccine export ban.

PMBC

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

EU population is way less than 749 million. Closer to 440m.

In any case, the poster was referring to the fact that the EU is exporting vaccines globally, (hence why he referenced global population), whereas the US has a vaccine export ban.

Apologies for incorrect number - you are correct; about 448 million.

fly_agaric

Strazdas wrote: »

I was reading one of the Financial Times articles on the EU vaccine rollout last night and the comments sections has been completely taken over by Brexiteers, unleashing rabid hatred on von der Leyen, Macron and Merkel. Crazy stuff, the FT is the last place you would expect to see a Brexiteer takeover (and it's a subscription only service).

Suppose it is a bit of a trope now, but bad actors and web/social media influence operations from countries that have some rep. for that sort of thing (Russia, China) must be considered too.

It is (imo) a heaven sent wedge issue for them to use in fomenting division between some of their main enemies (US/EU members/UK) and perhaps sow some FUD in public opinion of any other countries that might look to depend on these as allies in a crisis.

If fact, the "trolls" wouldn't even need to distort what is really going on that much, just amp it all up for the right audiences on every "side"! The complete failure of the Western governments or their publics to deal with the virus followed by the pathetic nationalist scramble for vaccines (USA under Trump leading the charge) to put a bandage on their situation really does pose some big + unsettling questions.

Melanchthon

Strazdas wrote: »

I was reading one of the Financial Times articles on the EU vaccine rollout last night and the comments sections has been completely taken over by Brexiteers, unleashing rabid hatred on von der Leyen, Macron and Merkel. Crazy stuff, the FT is the last place you would expect to see a Brexiteer takeover (and it's a subscription only service).

Doesn't that always happen though, do you remember the Guardian comment section when it used to be less moderated, or the Journal over here, it doesn't mean much.

Financial Times generally has a pretty pro-EU viewpoint, I think the editor got an medal from Macron for services to Europe.Its a much better publication than most though.

Strazdas

Melanchthon wrote: »

Doesn't that always happen though, do you remember the Guardian comment section when it used to be less moderated, or the Journal over here, it doesn't mean much.

Financial Times generally has a pretty pro-EU viewpoint, I think the editor got an medal from Macron for services to Europe.Its a much better publication than most though.

It's very interesting to watch. The vaccines issue has been totally politicised in GB and is being used to boost Johnson and the Tories (it's quite bizarre to hear them in turn accuse "the EU" of politicising the vaccines issue, given that it doesn't have a government or run for election).

One wonders how long they can keep this up though. The EU states will soon be starting to catch up with vaccination numbers and the fizz beginning to ebb out of the story. Will the perceived "big win" for the Tories count for nought by early summer?

NeuralNetwork

The gap will just narrow and it’ll be a non issue in a couple of months but I think the U.K. is behaving like a bitter ex after a messy divorce.

The media ranting and raving probably best ignored. It’s not going to solve manufacturing bandwidth coming on stream and all it’s doing is driving all of our stress levels up.

The reality of it is a batch of vaccine takes around 100 days from very start of the process to the finish. There are various stages of manufacturing going on in different plants. The companies in general are working as fast as possible and there’s nothing the political world can really do other than support and resource that rollout.

The EU/EMA rollout is slower to get off the ground than the U.K. but those plants have been supporting multiple other rollouts because the EU didn’t stop exporting vaccines. However, the rollout is still significant ahead of many, many countries including places like Canada and Japan. We’re losing all perspective on this in the last while.

I’m actually getting sick of reading and watching U.K. media to the point I’m actually considering cancelling sky. It’s nothing but an endless ranting of outrage about Europe these days on British news media. If it’s not vaccines, it’s the NI protocol and if it’s not that it’s something else. I could do without that level of toxicity in my life. Things are bad enough during this global pandemic.

Strazdas

Strazdas wrote: »

It's very interesting to watch. The vaccines issue has been totally politicised in GB and is being used to boost Johnson and the Tories (it's quite bizarre to hear them in turn accuse "the EU" of politicising the vaccines issue, given that it doesn't have a government or run for election).

One wonders how long they can keep this up though. The EU states will soon be starting to catch up with vaccination numbers and the fizz beginning to ebb out of the story. Will the perceived "big win" for the Tories count for nought by early summer?

It isn’t being politicized at all. That’s just more sour grapes.

Melanchthon

Strazdas wrote: »

It's very interesting to watch. The vaccines issue has been totally politicised in GB and is being used to boost Johnson and the Tories (it's quite bizarre to hear them in turn accuse "the EU" of politicising the vaccines issue, given that it doesn't have a government or run for election).

One wonders how long they can keep this up though. The EU states will soon be starting to catch up with vaccination numbers and the fizz beginning to ebb out of the story. Will the perceived "big win" for the Tories count for nought by early summer?

The vaccine issue is politicised everywhere because its basically politics and geopolitics , we can't access vaccines anywhere as private citizens so it's not like normal business.

I don't buy that the UK is acting any different in terms of politics though than other countries though, look at the way there was so much attention from "state friendly" media here when the north and uk were screwing up, or M Martin actually standing up and lying when he said northern Ireland wasn't testing for variants.
It's gold for Borris Johnson, he can definitely make a good argument that he made the right call in not joining the EU scheme, and it's in response to articles like this, which probably weren't noticed as much if your in Ireland but were highly visible over there, Lib Dems calling it unforgivable.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/10/uk-poised-to-shun-eu-coronavirus-vaccine-scheme

Also Borris needs it, look at the big protest happening in London and the Tories unlike FF/FG have a serious anti-lockdown group and ass to that the way the UK really screwed up badly in terms of deaths and not locking down quick enough in the first stage and the PPE screw ups.

NeuralNetwork

I think the problem isn’t the way the U.K. is acting but rather that because the Tories are rather desperate to justify Brexit, they’ll metaphorically kick the EU when it’s having any kind of hiccup an that’s also played out across a large portion of British media.

It’s an unusual and unfortunate timing of a major global crisis, a very nationalistic type of populist politics and a recent divorce from the EU.

The EU’a problem is that it both didn’t move quickly enough in the very early stages and didn’t recognise the real risk of the US, which was then under Trump, moving in a very nationalistic direction, leaving the EU with the vast majority of the burden for global production of vaccines that are largely transatlantic partnerships in tens of the companies and R&D cycles that developed them.

The relatively enormous scale of the EU orders are also inevitably going to be more of a challenge than a single country like the U.K. and I think there’s been a lot of nativity about the scaling up issues. Had you had 27 countries, all wealthy, scrambling chaotically for the same supply it would have been a mess though and far worse than this situation.

When the pandemic broke out, you also had a lot of EU countries doing pretty well in terms of numbers. Italy etc were hammered but many others were being smug about how well they were handling it and I suspect that played into a lack of urgency about securing vaccines.

In hindsight, the EU should have purchased vaccines and taken them into storage controlled by the EU itself before it approved anything. The EMA approval wasn’t needed to do that, but it would have created a stock pile.

Instead, we saw ramping up of supply only after approval. Yeah, it might have meant facing having spend hundreds of millions on potentially useless products if approval failed, but that was a risk worth taking.

I also don’t think political commentary or media commentary understands the complexities and time scales or biotech products.

You’re looking at 100 days or so to get from first step to an injectable vaccine. A lot of the intermediate steps are fairly fast, but this involves brewing up vaccines in biological processes that take time.

We’re not just printing widgets or mixing up chemicals. These products are literally grown and there’s no way of speeding that up,

I think the U.K. and USA clearly understood that at the start. They also both had made a total mess of containment and were facing utterly out of control pandemics. Israel also is in strategic defence mode all the time, recognised the issue and that’s why they rushed to secure supplies early on.

The EU got caught up in a lot of discussions and hands off pre orders. That’s turned out not to have been sufficient and you can blame the member states as much as the commission itself. The competency for health didn’t exist at EU level and the budgets weren’t forthcoming initially either.

The lesson that needs to come from this is we need an EU crisis management agency like FEMA and probably some kind of department of health, even if it’s only for this kind of thing but it could also work long term on strategic EU interests in health technology and healthcare generally.

JacksonHeightsOwn

NeuralNetwork wrote: »

I think the problem isn’t the way the U.K. is acting but rather that because the Tories are rather desperate to justify Brexit, they’ll metaphorically kick the EU when it’s having any kind of hiccup an that’s also played out across a large portion of British media.

It’s an unusual and unfortunate timing of a major global crisis, a very nationalistic type of populist politics and a recent divorce from the EU.

The EU’a problem is that it both didn’t move quickly enough in the very early stages and didn’t recognise the real risk of the US, which was then under Trump, moving in a very nationalistic direction, leaving the EU with the vast majority of the burden for global production of vaccines that are largely transatlantic partnerships in tens of the companies and R&D cycles that developed them.

The relatively enormous scale of the EU orders are also inevitably going to be more of a challenge than a single country like the U.K. and I think there’s been a lot of nativity about the scaling up issues. Had you had 27 countries, all wealthy, scrambling chaotically for the same supply it would have been a mess though and far worse than this situation.

When the pandemic broke out, you also had a lot of EU countries doing pretty well in terms of numbers. Italy etc were hammered but many others were being smug about how well they were handling it and I suspect that played into a lack of urgency about securing vaccines.

In hindsight, the EU should have purchased vaccines and taken them into storage controlled by the EU itself before it approved anything. The EMA approval wasn’t needed to do that, but it would have created a stock pile.

Instead, we saw ramping up of supply only after approval. Yeah, it might have meant facing having spend hundreds of millions on potentially useless products if approval failed, but that was a risk worth taking.

I also don’t think political commentary or media commentary understands the complexities and time scales or biotech products.

You’re looking at 100 days or so to get from first step to an injectable vaccine. A lot of the intermediate steps are fairly fast, but this involves brewing up vaccines in biological processes that take time.

We’re not just printing widgets or mixing up chemicals. These products are literally grown and there’s no way of speeding that up,

I think the U.K. and USA clearly understood that at the start. They also both had made a total mess of containment and were facing utterly out of control pandemics. Israel also is in strategic defence mode all the time, recognised the issue and that’s why they rushed to secure supplies early on.

The EU got caught up in a lot of discussions and hands off pre orders. That’s turned out not to have been sufficient and you can blame the member states as much as the commission itself. The competency for health didn’t exist at EU level and the budgets weren’t forthcoming initially either.

The lesson that needs to come from this is we need an EU crisis management agency like FEMA and probably some kind of department of health, even if it’s only for this kind of thing but it could also work long term on strategic EU interests in health technology and healthcare generally.

Some great points there

I was reading an article in the guardin recently and it was explaining with some detail on the complexity of getting the 27 states on board in the first place.

Basically hot it worked, the EU did a deal with a vaccine supplier, then asked each member state to stump up their part of the kitty. Poland, where hymning and hawing about price and everything else, they didnt actually lodge their funds for ages apparently, and in that time other countries jumped the queue.

You can imagine if you where a pharma company, it would be much easier to deal with just one nation, ie, the UK or the US, as opposed to 27. Its like the old saying, "you can please some of the people some of the time, but not all the people all of the time"

I suppose in hindsight the block should have just stumped up the cash and got it off the block members when they delivered it, but hindsight is always 20/20 isnt it

NeuralNetwork

I think to a large degree we have to accept the EU for what it is, which has huge benefits but recognise that it it has limitations too, particularly around speed of decision making and ability to access budgets.

For all the tabloid ranting about the allegedly all powerful autocracy that resides in Brussels, the reality is the polar opposite. The EU simply is not a federal government. It has extremely limited executive powers, it’s entirely about consensus and collective decision making and its financial resources and powers to act are entirely dependent on what members are willing to pool with it.

So when it came to a vaccine purchase it’s effectively has to build systems and infrastructure that it didn’t have and getting the members to pony up the cash was initially like herding cats.

If we don’t want a federal EU, we can’t then criticise the EU for not being federal.

My view is we are where we are and we need to learn from it, but having everyone ripping each other apart with great benefit of hindsight, is absolutely counterproductive. I would include the ranting at AstraZeneca in that too.

Also buying into Tory spin lines is just going to drive us mad.

Would the result of 27 rich countries, some of whom have some but not all the prices of the puzzle rushing into a vicious scramble for resources have been worse than them cooperating? The answer is almost certainly yes and it could have been an absolute mess.

Is the response we’ve had flawed? Absolutely and we need to recognise that and understand why.

Get the volumes during Q2 and let’s just get on with it.

This has to be analyse, learn, adapt, react and move forward. There isn’t time or energy for naval gazing, fights and Oh! misery me acts.

Strazdas

NeuralNetwork wrote: »

I think to a large degree we have to accept the EU for what it is, which has huge benefits but recognise that it it has limitations too, particularly around speed of decision making and ability to access budgets.

For all the tabloid ranting about the allegedly all powerful autocracy that resides in Brussels, the reality is the polar opposite. The EU simply is not a federal government. It has extremely limited executive powers, it’s entirely about consensus and collective decision making and its financial resources and powers to act are entirely dependent on what members are willing to pool with it.

So when it came to a vaccine purchase it’s effectively has to build systems and infrastructure that it didn’t have and getting the members to pony up the cash was initially like herding cats.

If we don’t want a federal EU, we can’t then criticise the EU for not being federal.

My view is we are where we are and we need to learn from it, but having everyone ripping each other apart with great benefit of hindsight, is absolutely counterproductive. I would include the ranting at AstraZeneca in that too.

Also buying into Tory spin lines is just going to drive us mad.

Would the result of 27 rich countries, some of whom have some but not all the prices of the puzzle rushing into a vicious scramble for resources have been worse than them cooperating? The answer is almost certainly yes and it could have been an absolute mess.

Is the response we’ve had flawed? Absolutely and we need to recognise that and understand why.

Get the volumes during Q2 and let’s just get on with it.

This has to be analyse, learn, adapt, react and move forward. There isn’t time or energy for naval gazing, fights and Oh! misery me acts.

I think too the Brexit press are overstating the significance of the UK being further ahead of EU countries in their vaccination programme. Does it really make a huge amount of difference? Britain is still under total lockdown. All we're probably talking about here is a few very short weeks in difference as to when countries can come out of lockdown.

Melanchthon

Strazdas wrote: »

I think too the Brexit press are overstating the significance of the UK being further ahead of EU countries in their vaccination programme. Does it really make a huge amount of difference? Britain is still under total lockdown. All we're probably talking about here is a few very short weeks in difference as to when countries can come out of lockdown.

I would be working in the UK, I am not working here and there is a fairly significant amount of people in the same boat

Strazdas

Melanchthon wrote: »

I would be working in the UK, I am not working here and there is a fairly significant amount of people in the same boat

Well, apparently the Irish restrictions are the strictest in Europe. But I'm not sure there's much difference between the UK and many EU states.....which makes me wonder what the supposed pay off is for the UK being a bit ahead of the EU in vaccinations. There doesn't seem to be much of a tangible benefit, for all the tabloid chest thumping.

fly_agaric

chrisbonnie wrote: »

Basically hot it worked, the EU did a deal with a vaccine supplier, then asked each member state to stump up their part of the kitty. Poland, where hymning and hawing about price and everything else, they didnt actually lodge their funds for ages apparently, and in that time other countries jumped the queue.

Yeah, had read an article that I think was linked here before claiming there were divisions between those who have Biopharma/Pharma industry (West and North, wealthy countries) who would indirectly benefit from all this EU funding for vaccine production (in fairness - most of it would be their money) vs those who were purely purchasers (East and South - poorer countries, wanting to spend as little as possible).

Also suspicion of funding new/unproven technologies in mRNA vaccines (Germany wanting to funnel lots of money at Pfizer/Biontech) which as it turned out would have been the smarter move.

https://www.politico.eu/article/europe-coronavirus-vaccine-struggle-pfizer-biontech-astrazeneca/

Germany, however, wanted to throw more money at the problem. Specifically, it wanted to bet even bigger on its homegrown mRNA vaccines — especially given that BioNTech was well into Phase 3 trials. In mid-September, Berlin announced it was giving €375 million to BioNTech and €252 million to CureVac.

Other capitals were quick to push back. Why invest in expensive, unproven technologies that need to be transported at super low temperatures? Some countries, most notably Bulgaria, thought the portfolio was too broad. Poland spoke out against having mRNA vaccines represent half the stock.

Tensions were building between the countries who had vaccine producers “on their shores,” including France, Germany, Italy, Sweden and the Netherlands, and “those who just pay for it” as one diplomat put it. The latter — generally in the east — questioned the motives of countries with big pharma industries, assuming they were eager to spend more because their companies would benefit from taxpayer dollars.

robinph

Strazdas wrote: »

I think too the Brexit press are overstating the significance of the UK being further ahead of EU countries in their vaccination programme. Does it really make a huge amount of difference? Britain is still under total lockdown. All we're probably talking about here is a few very short weeks in difference as to when countries can come out of lockdown.

Too early to tell. The third wave in the UK seems to have come back down in sync with the vaccines kicking off and bringing the hospitalisations down quicker than would have been expected otherwise, but the cases coming down was from lockdown not vaccines. The likes of France now getting hit with the same strain as was in the UK badly from December might yet result in lower deaths for this wave as they have a higher rate of vaccination at this point in their curve than the UK did on the downside of their peak.

The big risk I think is just that central Europe doesn't reach any useful level of vaccination for their population before the winter and no amount of having started a week or so earlier would change that. Governments telling their people that vaccines don't work is never going to help that. No telling what low take up could then result in next winter.

BonnieSituation

Aegir wrote: »

It isn’t being politicized at all. That’s just more sour grapes.

This is just patent nonsense.

Strazdas

robinph wrote: »

Too early to tell. The third wave in the UK seems to have come back down in sync with the vaccines kicking off and bringing the hospitalisations down quicker than would have been expected otherwise, but the cases coming down was from lockdown not vaccines. The likes of France now getting hit with the same strain as was in the UK badly from December might yet result in lower deaths for this wave as they have a higher rate of vaccination at this point in their curve than the UK did on the downside of their peak.

The big risk I think is just that central Europe doesn't reach any useful level of vaccination for their population before the winter and no amount of having started a week or so earlier would change that. Governments telling their people that vaccines don't work is never going to help that. No telling what low take up could then result in next winter.

I've noticed indeed that case numbers and deaths appear to be lower in the UK than the continental EU (and this may well be attributable to earlier vaccinating). But as I said, it's debatable how significant this really is vis a vis comparisons with the EU states - we know that hundreds of millions of doses are going to flood into the EU in the next eight weeks (four different vaccines).

robinph

Strazdas wrote: »

- we know that hundreds of millions of doses are going to flood into the EU in the next eight weeks (four different vaccines).

Getting them into arms is the biggest problem. Nothing that anyone has been doing the last few weeks is helping with that.

Danzy

Strazdas wrote: »

I've noticed indeed that case numbers and deaths appear to be lower in the UK than the continental EU (and this may well be attributable to earlier vaccinating). But as I said, it's debatable how significant this really is vis a vis comparisons with the EU states - we know that hundreds of millions of dose
Hopefullys are going to flood into the EU in the next eight weeks (four different vaccines).

Hopefully and hopefully they'll be given out with some reasonable effort.

Strazdas

Danzy wrote: »

Hopefully and hopefully they'll be given out with some reasonable effort.

If they're not, that's totally down to the individual countries. The EU's sole role is to procure the vaccines and send them to the member states : what happens after that is 100% down to each country.

_Whimsical_

I wondered about this and would love to hear anyone's thoughts on it.
Mostly to set my mind at ease.

They say the risk of death from Covid is greater than the risk of injury or death by this vaccine, and that certainly is true when you apply the risk of Covid to the population as a whole as it includes the elderly and vulnerable.

The cerebral clotting issue with Astraveneca however is primarily affecting young healthy women age 20 - 50. Germany reported 13 cases, 12 in women in this age bracket.

I wonder what the prevalence of negative outcomes of Covid infection are in this specific cohort, and if the risk really outstrips that from Covid when you adjust for age and sex.
Anyone know if that was addressed in any statement?

Wolf359f

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

I wondered about this and would love to hear anyone's thoughts on it.
Mostly to set my mind at ease.

They say the risk of death from Covid is greater than the risk of injury or death by this vaccine, and that certainly is true when you apply the risk of Covid to the population as a whole as it includes the elderly and vulnerable.

The cerebral clotting issue with Astraveneca however is primarily affecting young healthy women age 20 - 50. Germany reported 13 cases, 12 in women in this age bracket.

I wonder what the prevalence of negative outcomes of Covid infection are in this specific cohort, and if the risk really outstrips that from Covid when you adjust for age and sex.
Anyone know if that was addressed in any statement?

It's a valid argument to make.
I'm sure all or most counties report the same stats as we do, number of a certain age infected, that age group hospitalised and end up in ICU and death etc...

But for young people, some any see themselves are immune to covid (with good reason for the most part)
But when they hear young and healthy people have died after taking a vaccine, they will obviously weigh up that risk and decide themselves if it's worth taking.
That's the selfish route, ignoring the fact being vaccinated is proven to protect others.
But ultimately it's their choice.

Dangle the issues of vaccine passports in their face of the thought of needing to pay for a test etc... And for the majority of them, they will cast aside that risk of vaccination for a good holiday abroad.

_Whimsical_

Wolf359f wrote: »

It's a valid argument to make.
I'm sure all or most counties report the same stats as we do, number of a certain age infected, that age group hospitalised and end up in ICU and death etc...

But for young people, some any see themselves are immune to covid (with good reason for the most part)
But when they hear young and healthy people have died after taking a vaccine, they will obviously weigh up that risk and decide themselves if it's worth taking.
That's the selfish route, ignoring the fact being vaccinated is proven to protect others.
But ultimately it's their choice.

Dangle the issues of vaccine passports in their face of the thought of needing to pay for a test etc... And for the majority of them, they will cast aside that risk of vaccination for a good holiday abroad.

Well in this instance there are alternatives, pivot phizer or moderna towards the cohort most affected by clotting issues,give Astrazeneca to those less likely to suffer negative outcomes.

A brain clot invariably leaves consequences in its wake for the person who experiences, often life changing devastating consequences. These are young women, mothers of children. If an issue is identified in a certain cohort I'd hope alternative arrangement would be put in place for them.
However this won't happen unless the issue is identified clearly,that's why I'm wondering if covid risk vs clotting risk in this exact cohort have been examined or reported on.

When there is an alternative I hope this won't be brushed under the carpet. It needs closer examination.

Melanchthon

But this is the thing that's mad about say the French proposal, your basically saying that a less than 1 in a couple of hundred thousand chance of severe complications is too risky to inoculate younger people.
That's fair enough on a strictly neutral standpoint, but it also then highlights how the risk of serious impacts for catching Covid for younger people is minuscule as well.
Basically even if the calculators are right the logical thing is then that means younger people have nothing to worry about really from the virus which plays hell with public messaging.

murphaph

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

I wondered about this and would love to hear anyone's thoughts on it.
Mostly to set my mind at ease.

They say the risk of death from Covid is greater than the risk of injury or death by this vaccine, and that certainly is true when you apply the risk of Covid to the population as a whole as it includes the elderly and vulnerable.

The cerebral clotting issue with Astraveneca however is primarily affecting young healthy women age 20 - 50. Germany reported 13 cases, 12 in women in this age bracket.

I wonder what the prevalence of negative outcomes of Covid infection are in this specific cohort, and if the risk really outstrips that from Covid when you adjust for age and sex.
Anyone know if that was addressed in any statement?

Your point is well made and stands but it should be pointed out that the UK (barely reported upon as far as I could see) also found 5 cases after they went looking (in fairness to them it would really be needle in a haystack stuff because they've vaccinated way more people with AZ) and they were all male. One man died.

The sample sizes appear to simply be too small to draw any conclusions about which sex is more affected, if either. But younger people of both sexes clearly are (assuming the UK has caught all the cases now)

The French seem to have reversed the age guidelines. Now only older people should receive AZ. The UK has provided enough data to show it's safe in that cohort. It appears a reasonable course of action to me, when you have an alternative which has no such possible problems in one cohort over another.

The UK is relying much more on AZ so they might just have to take the chance.

What I find sad is that despite the (now seemingly likely) connection between AZ and these very rare clots, there has been little attempt to make younger and middle aged Brits aware of what symptoms to actually look out for once they've had their shot. The condition is treatable if caught in time. I wonder has a call been made to downplay the specific risk of these very rare events because they fear people will be put off getting the vaccine at all.

murphaph

Melanchthon wrote: »

But this is the thing that's mad about say the French proposal, your basically saying that a less than 1 in a couple of hundred thousand chance of severe complications is too risky to inoculate younger people.
That's fair enough on a strictly neutral standpoint, but it also then highlights how the risk of serious impacts for catching Covid for younger people is minuscule as well.
Basically even if the calculators are right the logical thing is then that means younger people have nothing to worry about really from the virus which plays hell with public messaging.

It's tricky but as long as AZ is only delivering a fraction of the agreed amounts to the EU the logical thing is indeed to give it to older people where the UK has proven it safe (at least for immediate side effects).

I think it's best to be totally upfront and honest with people. Present the data. Explain the reasoning. I would have had far less confidence in AZ had these clots been reported on but then nothing had happened. Now, despite being middle aged, I would take the AZ shot as I know what symptoms to look out for and can call an ambulance if I get them.

Honesty and absolute transparency trump "staying on message" to me but I can understand the counterargument.

Danzy

Strazdas wrote: »

If they're not, that's totally down to the individual countries. The EU's sole role is to procure the vaccines and send them to the member states : what happens after that is 100% down to each country.

Fair enough but the lethargy around giving vaccines in Europe is also informing the EU approach to date.

The 3rd wave on the continent will finish that hesitancy.