4 ms·

EU approved the vaccines over a month later IIRC, and Germany and France won't use the easy to distribute vaccine (astraveneca) in over 65s, the major target gr

EU approved the vaccines over a month later IIRC, and Germany and France won't use the easy to distribute vaccine (astraveneca) in over 65s, the major target group. So I'm not sure it's only a supply issue.

hef19898 6y ago
The AZ story is a very interessting one. This whole debate started after the Handelsblatt, a German newspaper, pblished an article saying that the AZ vaccine is only 8% effective for people over 65. Totally wrng of course, as 8% was the number of trial patients above thaage. Yet, the source was apparently someone in the German Ministry of Health. Obviously, that story went viral, it got all the uplift it needed when Bild and Spiegel jumped on the bandwagon. The latter has a, IMHO, obvious pro-Biontech agenda. With countries like France having already a problem with low vaccine willingness, and some smaller screw ups in AZs trial data, EMA restricted the AZ use for patients over 65 due to "insufficeint data", even if EMA thinks AZ will be effective. That detal, obviously, is way too small for online news. My pet theory is, that someone looked for a scapegoat why German vaccinations are so low. AZ was a welcome one, especially after the question of whether AZ had to use its UK factories for EU orders. After that stunt, I have the impression AZ is somewhat pissed.
- danhor 6y ago
  The handelsblatt report is (probably) based on a draft from the STIKO, which included a 6% effectiveness rate (most likely a different draft), but with a huge confidence interval (https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n414 https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n414), so it's probably correct but irresponsibly misleading. The EMA allowed the use of AZ for patients over 65 (because they guess that it'll probably be effective), but the STIKO and other government institutions of the various EU countries restricted it. I don't think it'll make a huge difference, since more than a third of german vaccine doses were used based on occupation, where AZ can be used. The obvious scapegoat for slow vaccinations is that AZ cut deliveries by a large amount, which might not be AZs fault, so the different scapegoat wasn't needed.
bodyfour 6y ago
The issue with the EMA approval date is a red herring, in my opinion. Unfortunately it gets given a lot of attention (especially in the UK press) even by organisations that should know better. The most important thing to remember is that both the UK and EU pre-paid for AZ to manufacture their vaccine pre-approval. The date of regulatory approval and the manufacturing schedule are supposed to be completely decoupled. It's true that the UK got their vaccine order in first and nobody is denying that. That's why the UK was getting shipments from AZ back in December. When the EU finally signed their contract they were told that their deliveries could start in February. While I doubt the EMA is going to comment publicly on the timing of their decisions, I don't think it's a coincidence that their approval of AZ was done in late January. They already knew that the meaningful supplies were starting in February so they simply collected as much data as they could before making the "go/no-go" decision. So while the "feckless EU bureaucrats screwed it up" storyline is forever popular (both in the UK and EU press) they seem pretty blameless on the issue of AZ approval. They just had to get it approved before the manufacturer was ready to start deliveries and they managed that. What kicked this into a crisis is that AZ announced that their February deliveries to the EU would be less than half of the expected amount. The EU's position is that the UK and EU should be treated equivalently at this point: they both pre-paid for certain quantities to be delivered in February, so any production shortfall should be shared. Needless to say, the UK sees it differently and doesn't want any UK-based manufacturing to go to the EU. Hence we got this ugly diplomatic standoff.
- chmod600 6y ago
  The EU thinks it should be treated equivalently, but what do the contracts actually say? If the contract is weaker than the UK one, then that could be called an EU screwup.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]

hef19898 6y ago

The AZ story is a very interessting one. This whole debate started after the Handelsblatt, a German newspaper, pblished an article saying that the AZ vaccine is only 8% effective for people over 65. Totally wrng of course, as 8% was the number of trial patients above thaage. Yet, the source was apparently someone in the German Ministry of Health. Obviously, that story went viral, it got all the uplift it needed when Bild and Spiegel jumped on the bandwagon. The latter has a, IMHO, obvious pro-Biontech agenda. With countries like France having already a problem with low vaccine willingness, and some smaller screw ups in AZs trial data, EMA restricted the AZ use for patients over 65 due to "insufficeint data", even if EMA thinks AZ will be effective. That detal, obviously, is way too small for online news. My pet theory is, that someone looked for a scapegoat why German vaccinations are so low. AZ was a welcome one, especially after the question of whether AZ had to use its UK factories for EU orders. After that stunt, I have the impression AZ is somewhat pissed.

danhor 6y ago
The handelsblatt report is (probably) based on a draft from the STIKO, which included a 6% effectiveness rate (most likely a different draft), but with a huge confidence interval (https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n414 https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n414), so it's probably correct but irresponsibly misleading. The EMA allowed the use of AZ for patients over 65 (because they guess that it'll probably be effective), but the STIKO and other government institutions of the various EU countries restricted it. I don't think it'll make a huge difference, since more than a third of german vaccine doses were used based on occupation, where AZ can be used. The obvious scapegoat for slow vaccinations is that AZ cut deliveries by a large amount, which might not be AZs fault, so the different scapegoat wasn't needed.

bodyfour 6y ago

The issue with the EMA approval date is a red herring, in my opinion. Unfortunately it gets given a lot of attention (especially in the UK press) even by organisations that should know better. The most important thing to remember is that both the UK and EU pre-paid for AZ to manufacture their vaccine pre-approval. The date of regulatory approval and the manufacturing schedule are supposed to be completely decoupled. It's true that the UK got their vaccine order in first and nobody is denying that. That's why the UK was getting shipments from AZ back in December. When the EU finally signed their contract they were told that their deliveries could start in February. While I doubt the EMA is going to comment publicly on the timing of their decisions, I don't think it's a coincidence that their approval of AZ was done in late January. They already knew that the meaningful supplies were starting in February so they simply collected as much data as they could before making the "go/no-go" decision. So while the "feckless EU bureaucrats screwed it up" storyline is forever popular (both in the UK and EU press) they seem pretty blameless on the issue of AZ approval. They just had to get it approved before the manufacturer was ready to start deliveries and they managed that. What kicked this into a crisis is that AZ announced that their February deliveries to the EU would be less than half of the expected amount. The EU's position is that the UK and EU should be treated equivalently at this point: they both pre-paid for certain quantities to be delivered in February, so any production shortfall should be shared. Needless to say, the UK sees it differently and doesn't want any UK-based manufacturing to go to the EU. Hence we got this ugly diplomatic standoff.

chmod600 6y ago
The EU thinks it should be treated equivalently, but what do the contracts actually say? If the contract is weaker than the UK one, then that could be called an EU screwup.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]