Yeah, it seems like it. The only real issue the AZ vaccine seems to have is the South African mutation. The other so called "issues", efficiency for elderly, is just fake. Intentionally leaked by the German ministry of health by the looks of it. That claim was debunked, and it still got a hold on things. The press is still pushing it to some degree. Would be interesting to see the motive behind all that.
Also funny, the AZ contract is the only one that leaked. And they are by no means the only one to face production ramp up issues.
Biontech is getting the opposite reporting in Germany. That is somewhat puzzling.
Thr initial claim I am aware of came from a German newspaper, Bild (the Handelsblatt was quick with it as well, not sure which newspaper was first). That claim was "AZ only 8% efficient with patients over 60 (or 65, don't remember that with all the figures thrown around)". That claim was false, as the 8% related to the number of trial patients. That claim came from the German Ministry of Health, "informed circles".
Only after that AZ clarified what the 8% really mean. And yes, efficiency is not yet proven. Unproven efficiency is quite a different thing from a claimed 8% efficiency so.
I see a real pro Biontech and anti AZ campaign going on in the German media. One that is quite welcome, as it allows politicians to deflect blame. Brexit helps to mud the waters even further. Don't forget, we have elections in Germany this year.
As far as I know, the AZ contract is the only one with additional uncensored parts that was published. AZ is in the defensive now. For no real reasons. And over this discussion, in the EU and also in SA it seems, we totally miss the importance of a smooth vaccination campaign. And the lacking preparation thereof.
Most of the participants in these studies were between 18 and 55 years old. There are not yet enough results in older participants (over 55 years old) to provide a figure for how well the vaccine will work in this group. However, protection is expected, given that an immune response is seen in this age group and based on experience with other vaccines; as there is reliable information on safety in this population, EMA’s scientific experts considered that the vaccine can be used in older adults. More information is expected from ongoing studies, which include a higher proportion of elderly participants.
I'd assume the EMA's assessment is based on AZ's data and application, rather than on reports from German newspapers or politicians.
We can probably all agree with the EMA's assessment that AZ's effectiveness for the elderly is likely but not convincingly demonstrated yet. Based on this it's reasonable for different national EU agencies to give different recommendations for application to the elderly. For instance, in the Netherlands national agency recommends using Pfifer / Moderna for the 65+ and AZ for 65-.
Not to mention that President Macron came out with some genuinely anti vaxer statements on 29th Jan which are completely false
> “The real problem with AstraZeneca is that it doesn't perform as we expected. (…) Everything suggests that it is almost ineffective on people over 65. "
Anyone who has paid attention to the response around the failure of the EU vaccination program knows this is pretty standard diversionary politics.
I honestly believed, my optimism outpacing my zynism obviously, that authorities learned from, IMHO excusable, communications fuck-up regarding masks last year. This one is worse, way worse.
The only way vaccinations will work on scale will be to have vaccines that can be handled by every doctors practice. They are vaccinating million sof people already every year, they have the supply chain in place and the people. I for my part am not counting on vaccination centers and central appointment booking.
As I understand the conflict: EU negotiated a lower price than UK, but both parties got contracts guaranteeing a certain number of doses. When AstraZeneca got production problems which meant they couldn't fulfill all the promised deliveries, they decided to fully honor the UK contract and cut delivery to EU severely. This infuriated the EU, and they threatened blocking export of the vaccines produced in the EU.
More fun if it turns out the AstraZeneca vaccine is useless.
Where do you get this idea that contracts guaranteed a certain number of deliveries? The contract the EU signed said best effort everywhere.
Why would AZ agree to a contract to guarantee certain deliveries on a brand new vaccine with unproven manufacturing, on a non-profit basis? It doesn't make any sense.
The other thing which isn't mentioned is the UK's deliveries were also cut, probably even more severely than the EU ones. The UK was originally meant to get many tens of millions of doses by the end of 2020, in reality it was far far less.
> AstraZeneca has reduced its projected vaccine rollout to the EU, despite signing a contract to supply millions of doses, citing an issue with a plant in Belgium. It did not, however, cut its supplies to the UK.
My understanding is that while the EU contract said something like "best effort" the UK negotiated stricter language for their contract, which meant that when AZ lawyers interpreted both contracts together they concluded that they had to priorities the UK.
> The contract the EU signed said best effort everywhere.
If the contract really said best effort everywhere, they may have a leg to stand on, since that seems to preclude using different delivery guarantees in other contracts.
> The EU negotiated badly, and AZ used that to fool them. I think AZ deserves some moral blame here as well.
Completely unacceptable and unsupportable suggestion.
The EU had absolute clarity on the differing supply chains for differing contracts with AZ. No amount of contract negotiation increase culture yields in vaccine production lines.
The Belgian investigation into the production facility with the manufacturing problem: what did it evidence? I'm curious because I've not come across what the result was or if there was any evidence of dissembling from AZ.
They also checked the customs forms, but we didn't hear anything (to my knowledge after). The head of the UKs vaccine taskforce also said she thought it was very unlikely that AZ vaccines were shipped from the EU to the UK (this makes sense, how would you ship them if those factories are not up to speed yet?).
As a European, I am much angrier about the politically driven and scientifically inaccurate comments to this effect and the damage it will have on this and other vaccination programs long term than I am about the EC's slowness in procurement.
What is Macron going to do when he gets loads of this vaccine in Q3? "Never mind that stuff about it not working, please go get vaccinated?". It's Trump level (remember that guy) irresponsibility.
> What is Macron going to do when he gets loads of this vaccine in Q3? "Never mind that stuff about it not working, please go get vaccinated?". It's Trump level (remember that guy) irresponsibility.
Macron should be piloried for his antivaxxer comments. France has a serious issue with people refusing the vaccine as it is. Not helped by their deliberately complex steps to give it out.
