Some further Austrian commentary on it here. Pretty much making the same points I’ve made above (and, therefore, this guy is obviously very erudite… 
)
In Ireland the National Immunisation Advisory Committee (NIAC) recommended the temporary deferral pending the receipt of more information from European regulators.As far as i am aware the majority of these are health professional and not government officials.I would also imagine that officials in other countries are taking decisions based on the advise of specific professionals within their health systems.
Vaccine safety: EU regulator ‘firmly convinced’ of AstraZeneca benefits - BBC News
Norway’s decision last week to pause the use of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine was taken as a precautionary measure, Sara Watle, senior physician at the Norwegian Institute of Public Health said.
She told BBC World News: "The four cases were clusters, so they were reported to us in a very short period of time.
“And the four cases have all occurred in patients under 50 years of age, and they all have a rare combination of symptoms with blood clots, haemorrhages and low platelet counts.”
It was “too difficult for us to conclude” whether there was a link between the blood clots and the vaccine, but pausing use of the AstraZeneca jab had been “a very difficult decision”, she added.
You’d hope so but there are a number of countries where the government has suspended the vaccinations despite their medical authorities advising vaccinations should continue, which is in line with the current EMA recommendation.
I think we will see NIAC recommend the reintroduction of the AZ vaccine over the coming days and with that i don’t see the temporary suspension causing people to have reservation regarding it’s use if they hadn’t previously had reservations.As i’ve said before the uptake of vaccine here is only slowed down by the lack of supply.
2 Likes
Honestly, it’s like there’s been a collective brain fade.
Meanwhile, most of France don’t want it. Can’t imagine why.
My point is that even if the EU countries have a just reason for withdrawing the vaccine, the antipathy toward AZ over the supply make this look like a politically motivated act, even if it isn’t.
The problem is that the EU have behaved disgracefully over the vaccine in general, so either this withdrawal is politically motivated, which is shit. Or it’s justified, which makes their previous game playing over supply even more shit.
1 Like
This reaction hasn’t been driven by the EU though. Especially in the context of Brexit animosity, there has to be a more carefully drawn line between faults of actors who are within the borders of the EU vs faults of those who are responsible for the functioning of the body as a political union.
1 Like
You mean like Ursula von Der Leyen, Charles Michel, Sandra Gallina or Stella Kyriakides, among many others?
You’re reinforcing my point. For as much scorn as you think the EU as a body and its bureaucrat deserve for other aspects of the vaccine roll out and messaging, this suspension has not been down to them. Continuing to throw rocks at the EU over this aspect of the roll out does feel like petty point scoring.
3 Likes
I don’t believe that you can ignore the part played by the genesis of general attitudes toward AstraZeneca.
At least from an outsider point of view, this seem to be politically motivated over Brexit. its a show of muscle and power. Not saying who is right or wrong even, this is just politics and how it is, I guess
https://memegenerator.net/img/instances/85334740.jpg
Every day woman take the pill, they understand there is a risk of clotting. Quite a high risk. (1 in 1000). Of these that develop a clot a further 1% die. (1 in 100,000)
Everything I have read and listened to has been the EU or European countries taking a safety first approach. Over the last few weeks the EMA or national health bodies have been criticised
- For slow authorisation
- Roll out for under 65s only
- Approval still pending for EU vaccine factory.
- Suspension of vaccine
To me that is a pattern. For at least three of the four bullet points above the message has been communicated that the primary reason for their actions is safety. We are being more safe than those countries that are not as cautious.
I listened to one those involved in Germanys decision to limit the AZ to under 65s (I think it was Lothar Wieler from Robert Koch Institute). He describe that in hindsight the actions may have unintentionally damaged uptake in Germany. The reality is that’s a political outcome, a behavioural outcome that has not been typically under their remit. I think that’s really the problem.
I perhaps would not describe it as a lack of experience (they have some fantastic scientists). More that its akin to the UKs follow the science. Governments absolving from responsibility. These bodies for good reasons are typically semi-independent from the government. But during the pandemic they need to be working closely. A broader perspective is needed. The loss of human life (either way), political fallout, economic, behavioural, even legal. In an emergency situation it is the role of the government to say having listened to the medical advice, seen the model scenarios, understood our legal position we need to go with option A. At the moment though it appears the tail is wagging the dog.
Its very easy for us to say the decision is obvious. But the role these bodies is narrow in the bigger picture. People have trained in the mindset, is this medicine safe and what is the acceptable risk in a normal population. That is a different question to do the pros outweigh the cons during a pandemic. The risk profile should be completely different.
I believe there is a gap where no one is taking responsibility overall. Politicians are instead following the science… but not taking advice from experts that provide more practical implications.
Every day woman take the pill, they understand there is a risk of clotting. Quite a high risk. (1 in 1000). Of these that develop a clot a further 1% die. (1 in 100,000)
Incidentally, I was having this conversation with my wife two weeks ago. I asked her “hey did you know there’s a high risk of blood clots with the pill?” Her: " yeah I know". Me: “but you’ve been taking that for years” Her: “Yeah. What’s the alternative?” Me: “Well unless you really really like taking the pill then we’ll find another way”.
So we both decided that she wasn’t taking the oral contraceptive, specifically because of the high risk of blood clots and we are using alternative means. I guess I never paid attention to that sort of stuff.
I don’t think men would in general accept that risk knowing that there would be a risk of clotting and no real consequences if not taken like there is for a woman. Probably one of the reasons the male pill has never previously got legs (though starting to). For women its basically “shut up and accept it”.
4 Likes
Yesterday “paracetamol” was trending on twitter. This was why
Communicating ‘safety’ now that things haven’t exactly worked out. But at the time, I doubt international optics was high on their priority list. As the saying goes, hindsight is 20/20:
-
I think its fair to say getting approval between 27 culturally quite different member states is more difficult to do than across 4 nations Experts say similar. Its important to remember that the EU approved 19 days after the UK while the USA 9 days after the UK. UK was quick to approve rather than the EU being particularly slow. I’m not sure in hindsight this could have been changed much.
-
At the time there was very little data for over 65’s. The EMA even made mention in their approval statement that data for over 55’s wasn’t adequate to draw proper conclusions but that the immune response suggested that over 55’s would be protected. In hindsight was it justified for some nations to not inoculate the over 65’s with AZ? Firstly I am not sure it was wise to make that public and from what I can gather it was a leak, but they could have easily not inoculated the 65+ with AZ but not make it public which was the first nail in the AZ coffin. Even if the justification was there for the lack of data (the UK was taking a risk, even if it was a calculated risk), making it public knowledge was not smart.
-
Im not going to just take the commission’s word for it, but these are their words anyway on the factory in Netherlands:
Asked about the Halix situation, the commission said on Friday that the EMA was ready to fast-track authorisation of new production facilities once it received an application and the necessary information from AstraZeneca. “It is, however, the responsibility of the company to request plants to be covered by a marketing authorisation and to submit all necessary data to that effect,” it said. “The commission encourages the company to do so.”
A spokesman for AstraZeneca said: “The approval of the site with the EMA remains on track with our original plans and we can confirm that it forms part of our delivery plans.”
- The EMA hasn’t suspended the vaccine, and although I know you are being tongue in cheek about the risks associated with the pill, that distinction makes a difference. The EMA didnt block the sale of the pill. It hasnt blocked the vaccine and in fact has said the benefits outweigh the risk, suggesting that even if there was a connection shown, they wouldn’t block it. The suspensions need to be put at the foot of the door of the individual nations.
1 Like
The link you provide in point 1 references one of the many statements made that set the tone from the outset,
Petra De Sutter, Belgium’s deputy prime minister, said on Tuesday that London was taking fewer precautions.
She said the UK, like Russia and China, was “in the process of vaccinating people with vaccines not having the same standards as those we use”.
I’ve also read that the main reason EMA approval is generally slower [note: it has approved Janssen before the MHRA] is not to do with 27 member states (+3) but because the data is often backloaded. It could have followed the same process as the MHRA but chose not to.
The recent decisions of individual countries to suspend AZ (but not Pfizer despite similar findings) cannot be seen in isolation. They have been taken in the context of doubts about the efficacy/safety/trustworthiness of AZ and its vaccine being constantly expressed since the beginning of the year.
Statements such as the quote from Belgium’s deputy prime minister, above, and then the public maligning of AZ (wrongly) that started in late January and continues now. The seemingly deliberate intention to cast the UK and AZ as the enemy of the EU.
This is the key thing. Both vaccines have reported an incidence of clots in around 0.0002% of people who have taken it.
Which vaccine do European countries pull? The one that they had a massive public shit fit about not being able to get enough of because the UK were quicker in regulating and ordering it.
2 Likes