EU and AstraZeneca

[Arena5]

Okay this is likely going to be a controversial post but AIBU to ask whether the EU has been deliberately scaremongering in respect of the AstraZeneca vaccine as a means of deflecting from their own failings with regards the vaccine rollout?

So I have read that some EU politicians have claimed or implied that one of the reasons the UK has progressed their vaccination rollout so quickly is because we have cut corners in assessing the safety of the vaccines. And I was thinking that this position is arguably validated the more that the EU trot out their numerous concerns with the AZ vaccine (so one of the main vaccines used in the UK and also the only UK led vaccine). Specially I’m referring to the EU concerns that it shouldn’t be used in over 65s, the concerns about the 12 week gap between doses, then the pauses due to the blood clots, then some EU countries not using them for under 55s and then the recent criticism surrounding the datasets used by AZ. I just haven’t noticed other vaccines (other than the AZ UK originating one) coming under the same level of scrutiny. It also seems notable that all these criticisms are being levelled at the one vaccine producer with whom the EU is in the middle of a bitter spat with. Surely there must have been bumps in the road (or purported bumps) with regards the other vaccines.

On the other hand I admit it seems totally implausible that the Commission would put its citizens lives at risk (by undermining the credibility of a viable vaccine) for political leverage or to save political face. And it makes me feel really cynical (or like some tin foil conspiracy theorist) for even thinking it. It’s just that many of the EUs decisions in respect of the AZ vaccine have seemed to lack any normal logic that it’s difficult to understand their thought process.

Lastly I should say this is a genuine question, I’m not trying to incite anyone or cause any upset around a sensitive subject

They don't want people in member states looking at Britain and thinking Leaving would be in their best interests too.

My impression too! The anti brigade have blood on their hands.
I also wonder if it is about AstroZeneca selling it at cost price so everyone can have access to a vaccine.
Sadly they now feel it was a big mistake and don't recommend this altruistic action. Other companies are making huge profits from their vaccines.

It does seem that way doesn’t it. And they must know the more they raise alarms bells over AZ then the more public trust in the AZ vaccine (and possibly other vaccines) will fall leaving more people vulnerable to the disease and dying. And I just can’t rationalise it when the European Medicine Agency and the WHO keep stressing the benefits far outweigh any risks associated with the AZ vaccine. I suppose that’s why I’m thinking is it all political?! But it just beggars belief that they would do that in a pandemic. Can’t tell if I’m being really naïeve or really cynical!

The Guardian had a good article analysing it. While Brexit plays a part, it also has to do with how AZ has been reporting its data, there seems to be a failure on AZ's part in terms of communication and reporting.

I tried to search on the Internet for the rate of effectiveness for AstraZeneca and you get a variety of numbers, their data is all over the place in comparison to Pfizer which leads people to not trust it.

@WhereamI88

I tried to search on the Internet for the rate of effectiveness for AstraZeneca and you get a variety of numbers, their data is all over the place in comparison to Pfizer which leads people to not trust it.

The thread yesterday in the Coronavirus section had lots of information about the efficacy of each vaccine after first and second doses. There are also loads of threads about the EU v UK thing.

I've also had the same thoughts, OP. Yes, these vaccines have received emergency approval and so haven't gone through the years of testing usually required, but the relevant authorities have deemed them safe and effective for use on an emergency basis. As PP said, the AZ figures seem to be reported slightly differently in different places. However, the thing that does seem to be abundantly clear is that having the vaccine is a lot lower risk than having COVID, and having the vaccine does lower your risk of catching COVID.

In most, if not all, trials, the AZ vaccine has been shown to be 100% effective at preventing severe COVID (i.e. hospitalisation and death) which is really the figure that matters.

Oh this is 100% the case OP and glaringly obvious imho.

The Italian regulator pretty much said that the temporary stop on vaccinations was a political decision. As for the quasi-ineffective French premier...

Yes I think it was deliberate. An orchestrated smear campaign.

A non EU European country have further postponed use of EZ till mid April. But as they " hint" in their evaluation, the risk benefit balance will be different in other countries (their mortality rate per Corona cases and per 100000 much lower than eg UK, so can better afford to wait till they have investigated ).

So I would vote yabvu

@RedGoldAndGreene

They don't want people in member states looking at Britain and thinking Leaving would be in their best interests too.

This!

@Arena5 while AZ have an great vaccine they have had numerous issues from a business, logistical and communications side. They are not as big or as experienced as the likes of Pfizer at this type of rollout so it’s likely to be expected. However those errors are going to cause concern which is only natural.

The decision to change the age group for AZ was based on data or lack of clinical data for the older group at time it was being rolled out and I think a good decision. Where I am AZ is being given to healthcare staff pharmacists etc who are under that age and Pfizer for above. I don’t have a problem with that approach and don’t see it as a bad thing about AZ.

The country who first flagged the blood clot issue and stopped using AZ was Norway who are not in the EU.

Overall I think YABU and reading into this too much as a conspiracy theory however having read daily mail and other headlines in U.K. media on this over the past week or so it’s not surprising you feel this way as they are really drawing comparisons of U.K. to EU and linking it to Brexit and making it all very personal.

Where I am the temporary stop and review has given faith to the authorities that even though rollout is so important they won’t let this let them over ride any concerns. A survey done pre and post and post post this stoppage showed that confidence in taking AZ dipped around 10% but then recovered once the results were in so no harm done.

@WhereamI88

The Guardian had a good article analysing it. While Brexit plays a part, it also has to do with how AZ has been reporting its data, there seems to be a failure on AZ's part in terms of communication and reporting.

This. Read more into it. There have been failings on the side of AZ too.

www.nytimes.com/2020/11/25/business/coronavirus-vaccine-astrazeneca-oxford.html At the very beginning there was that error where some participants were given half the dose. www.fiercebiotech.com/biotech/astrazeneca-probes-mistake-behind-90-covid-vaccine-efficacy As it turned out that was ok as it gave good results. Then other problems along the way. I think it’s safe, but you don’t want a random’s opinion. Hopefully, the regulators in each country are doing their jobs. I don’t think it’s a conspiracy against the UK and reporting it as such in the usual rags is irresponsible.

The Law Courts are open - and if the EU believe they were ‘promised’ something they can go to court to get a judgement.

But they haven’t and they won’t. Why? Because AZ ARE complying with the contract.

Call me a nasty cynic, but I wouldn’t drop dead from shock if it eventually turned out that there was some commercial influence at work. The AZ vaccine is being sold at cost, at a fifth of the price of the Pfizer, and is a great deal more practical, in that it can be stored in ordinary fridges, rather than super-freezers.

Not that I’m saying any influential European figures could possibly have been encouraged to rubbish it and thus persuade millions of people to reject it - perish the thought.,

It doesn’t make sense, though, why would you pay more when you can pay less for the same quality? What’s at play here?

Backhanders / self-interest / power - control ? I think it will all come out in years to come.

It’s just when the EU or individual member states pause rollout and that decision is contrary to the advice of the EMA and the WHO then their decision making can’t be primarily rooted in science otherwise you would accept the advice of the regulators with the expedite in the area. So this leads to believe the decisions have been more hecilt influenced by politics than science and it makes me question what is driving the politics. Is it simply fear of making a mistake and thereby losing votes which is resulted in an overly cautious approach. But then surely the European Medicines Agency must operate with an abundance of caution and they have repeatedly advised in favour of continuing use of AZ. I don’t know... it’s just that as a traditionally technocratic organisation you would expect the EU/Commission to bow down to the opinions of the experts it itself appoints to advise on issues of these (i.e the EMA). So I just can’t understand what is driving their approach here...

Sorry for all the typos! Hopefully still makes sense!