northstandmark
UTC Legend
I see Van-Tam is going to speak again about the AZ at 3pm today, so we'll see what he has to say.
Agreed, there was certainly some issues with the US trial and in particular the dosage given on the second of the 2 vaccinations. Fortuitously the human error on dosage has led to a more effective dosage regime. Re efficacy the levels were always good enough for the vaccine to be approved, nothing below 50% and most data giving it in the 70% plus range. The other issue was the time between doses which again has turned out rather well with the longer period that we adopted now turning out to be more effective. At the time AZ themselves said they were not sure a 12 week wait was appropriate because not unreasonably it had not been trialled that way.Certainly the shambles over ordering the vaccines and messing up the contracts to try and get a cut price deal is indefensible.
It seems to me though that at least some of the blame for the uncertainly with the AZ vaccine for over 65s is down to the lacklustre initial trials, which included basic errors. The US regulators didn't mess about, no approval until you sort out proper trials. Their European equivalents had to push on because unlike the US the politicians had ballsed up procurement and left them with no backup options. Hence the messing around with certain age groups.
Arguably our regulators took a leap of faith that the US and European regulators weren't prepared to. Given that it was at that point a question of efficacy and not safety that seems reasonable to me. You can understand why others might not want to though. How would vaccinating a bunch of people with a vaccine that turned out not to work go down?
Macron didn't say there were not giving to old people because it hadn't been tested; he said they were not giving it to old people because the evidence showed it wasn't safe. That may be just ramblings of a buffoon, but more likely it was anti-AZ politicking.So you accept that your criticism of EU flipflopping is conflating two different concerns? They stopped giving it to oldies for the same reason the US wouldn't give it to anyone. They then stopped giving it to youngsters for the same reasons our regulators are concerned about it.
These blood coot issues were brought up on here weeks ago and dismissed as typical EU politics yet here we are with our regulator albeit confirming they are concerned. I'm simply pointing out the double standards. Any politics that may be present in EU decision making is certainly present in the comments on here.
So the Oxford vaccine has now been banned for the under 30s
No, they said 19 out of 79 possible cases had died. So about 1 in a million. they also said there was no definitive proof the vaccine had caused them.So the Oxford vaccine has now been banned for the under 30s
A review by the drugs watchdog the MHRA found that by the end of March. 79 out of 20million Britons vaccinated with the AstraZeneca vaccine had suffered deadly blood clots in the brain or arteries, a rate of about one in 250,000.
They kept that quite,
Not all so binary, but you choose to ignoreAs I say, reactions to UK regulatory caution the polar opposite to the reactions to the same caution from the EU.
No, they said 19 out of 79 possible cases had died. So about 1 in a million. they also said there was no definitive proof the vaccine had caused them.
Also it is not banned, under 30's can opt for the other jab if they want it.
Not all so binary, but you choose to ignore
Eh, the MHRA can withdraw a drug or vaccine if they consider it unsafe or unsuitable for certain age groups etc, they don't need politicians to approve it.The advisors can't ban it. We've not heard from the politicians yet.
So the Oxford vaccine has now been banned for the under 30s
A review by the drugs watchdog the MHRA found that by the end of March. 79 out of 20million Britons vaccinated with the AstraZeneca vaccine had suffered deadly blood clots in the brain or arteries, a rate of about one in 250,000.
They kept that quite,
#16,835What do you mean?
Charts sum it up quite nicely.
Eh, the MHRA can withdraw a drug or vaccine if they consider it unsafe or unsuitable for certain age groups etc, they don't need politicians to approve it.
After all the MHRA approve the vaccine for use, not the politicians.