Germany saying AZ vaccine only 8% effective in over 65s *MNHQ noting that this story has been widely debunked*

[dbIdb]

What fresh hell is this.

Why, why, why was the Oxford trial/data reporting so sloppy?

How has it come to this??

I'd just see it as a different protocol, like the delay in dosage in the UK. I'm 65 - when eligible, I'll be more than happy to have the AZ vaccine.

Anyway I’m just posting as I got torn to shreds when data came out and I raised issues. It’s been obvious since then it’s messy. EMA obviously take a more orthodox approach to approvals than MHRA (potentially if this is indeed confirmed Friday).

@Baileysforchristmas I’m under 55 so it’s irrelevant to me, there’s sufficient data showing effectiveness for my age group.

Hopefully the real life data from U.K. vaccinations will be coming in soon. That will obviously answer the question.

I see the DM is running a story that the German source of this claim is sticking to this claim:
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9188831/German-paper-AstraZeneca-vaccine-story-continues-run-article.html

I worry that my DM has finally got an appointment later this week. She has not been indoors in a public place since last March apart from essential medical appointments. So just going for the vaccine will put her at massively increased risk of catching Covid-19. Is it really worth it for 8% reduced risk? I know she will be getting the AZ Oxford one because where her appointment is won't be able to do Pfizer.

It’s not 8% risk 🤦‍♀️ It was 8% of people over 65 that were in the trials

@itwilltakemorethanbullies I wouldn’t read into the 8% I think it’s the fact the sample size of elderly was v small, the 8% isn’t reflective of anything. Apparently AZ have supplied more data. My issue with Oxford is it’s been a total dogs dinner from Day 1 but because it’s BRITISH people can’t criticise.

@Baileysforchristmas

It’s not 8% risk 🤦‍♀️ It was 8% of people over 65 that were in the trials

OK, I am quite late to the thread and it is very long to go back and RTFT. The newspaper says that it has not made a mistake and it would be impossible to mix up the numbers like that

[quote Oaktree55]@itwilltakemorethanbullies I wouldn’t read into the 8% I think it’s the fact the sample size of elderly was v small, the 8% isn’t reflective of anything. Apparently AZ have supplied more data. My issue with Oxford is it’s been a total dogs dinner from Day 1 but because it’s BRITISH people can’t criticise.[/quote]
Yes, it seems like if there wasn't a massive time constraint and public health emergency AZ Oxford would have been told to go back and do it again properly. That is why EMA has so many reservations.

I’be read the article but there is no data to back up this claim. Let’s see what happens Friday.

That article with the CEO of AZ makes it clear why only 8% of the Oxford trials were over 65.

Oxford university decided it was not ethical to begin vaccinating over 65's until they were sure there were going to be no nasty side effects. So the trials started with those under 65 and the over 65's were added in later.

So when they released their initial results there weren't many people over age 65.

The USA AZ trials did not do this as Oxford had already demonstrated the side effects were fine.

So that data wil include lots more results from the elderly.

But if the EU don't approve it for the over 65's then they are going to want as much Pfizer and moderna as they can get their hands on.

Well that’s their lookout isn’t it. Our regulatory body wax obviously satisfied with what they saw abd have approved the vaccine. Would it stop me from getting it? No it wouldn’t.

It’s worth noting the data from the USA trial of Ox/AZ will be in end January hopefully. That will give answers I believe as more comprehensive than data so far.

Hopefully the EU won’t need as many vaccines and AZ will be able to fulfill there order and this will be a big storm in a teacup.

Tbh though trialling on over 65 who are likely to be more careful or not working would likely make a vsx look more effective.
Over 65 GPs maybe or nurse.

I really hope that the EU don’t limit the Pfizer exports, but we should be very clear that if they were to, it would simply be copying the export restrictions the U.K. has imposed on the Oxford vaccine.

I’m sure it won’t happen, but if we impose export bans in contracts, there is a risk it comes back to bite us, if others also do.

@HSHorror

Tbh though trialling on over 65 who are likely to be more careful or not working would likely make a vsx look more effective. Over 65 GPs maybe or nurse.

That’s a fair point but would be equally true for all the vaccine trials? A friend of my parents in his late 70’s in the U.K. was a trial participant for the Pfizer vaccine and is long retired. He would have just been pottering around, walks, trips to the supermarket etc like many in his age group, certainly not commuting to work or in a high risk job.

The EU also backed the wrong horse, with both Sanofi and Merck not being successful.

@Eyewhisker

I really hope that the EU don’t limit the Pfizer exports, but we should be very clear that if they were to, it would simply be copying the export restrictions the U.K. has imposed on the Oxford vaccine.

I’m sure it won’t happen, but if we impose export bans in contracts, there is a risk it comes back to bite us, if others also do.

The interview with the CEO of AZ doesn't state that the UK has imposed an export ban, but rather that the UK contract, signed three months ahead of the one with the EU, says in effect "We signed first so you supply us first". It also makes it very clear that the EU knew that when they signed, three months later.

That's very different from imposing an export ban months after contracts have been signed.

If the EU had signed with Pfizer months ahead of the UK, and made a condition of the contract that they be supplied first, then I would agree with you that the situations were analogous. But that's not what happened. It is a matter of accepted fact that the EU signed with Pfizer significantly after the UK did.

@ChardonnaysPetDragon

The EU also backed the wrong horse, with both Sanofi and Merck not being successful.

It was lottery back in the early days of the pandemic, it could have easily gone either way.

I can only imagine the hate the govt would be getting if OxZ was a failure and Sanofi was the vaccine of choice.

The EU did after all, order 80m OxZ doses.

I really do hate the superiority some have, this is a global crisis, unless we all work together and eradicate Covid-19, no one will be safe from potentially a new variant that is far more deadly, one that could threaten human life on earth as we know it.

True. It is different to impose it after contracts - although I think this is what Trump has done with Moderna in the US.

However, our contracts did include export bans and the EU ones did not. There would have been absolute outrage here if we could not have got access to Pfizer/BioNTech until the EU was supplies.

I'd be interested in the % of participants over 65 in the Pfizer trial (more than 8% obviously!) The information I can find on the Pfizer trial gives about 39% of the participants as over 56. I can't find a further breakdown of that, but may be looking at too much of an "overview".

The EU did after all, order 80m OxZ doses

Yes, but that's between them and AZ, not between them and the UK government, surely.

Threatening to block the Pfizer deliveries is a bit like me asking Ocado to make up for Waitrose not delivering my avocados.

Perhaps instead of warring of with our neighbours, who have vaccinated at a rate per capita that is a fifth of us, we should all look across the pond to the US, who appear to be accumulating a vast reservoir of vaccine doses and don’t seem to give a shit about the rest of the world.

@Eyewhisker source, please? There's nothing in the interview with the AZ CEO that refers to an export ban. And he makes it clear that the EU knew at the point of signing that UK manufacturing capacity would not initially be available to them.

He also makes clear that the EU "is getting 17 percent of our global supply for a month for 5 percent of the world population" which certainly suggests that there's a similar element of restriction/prioritisation in the EU contract with AZ as there is in the UK one.

If you know otherwise, or have evidence of an export ban, I'd be grateful if you could link to it.