3 ms·

Some observations just from watching the news reports about AZ, especially here in Germany: - over 30 cases were observed, that is statistically higher than ex

by _ph_ 6y ago

Some observations just from watching the news reports about AZ, especially here in Germany: - over 30 cases were observed, that is statistically higher than expected, that would have been less than 5. - all cases were below 55, very few men - due to the approval process in EU, AZ wasn't approved for people over 65 until very recently, as the initial approval didn't contain the necessary data in this age group. As a consequence, AZ was used for young people that qualified for a vaccination, e.g. health workers, teachers. Other than these groups, general vaccination only happened above 70 for the scarcity of vaccine. - As AZ is now approved for any age group, last week the vaccination plan was altered, AZ is now used only for people over 60, everyone else gets other vaccines (mostly BioNTech) - the UK always used AZ for all age groups, starting with the oldest. Currently people down to the age 50. So the majority of the vaccinated people in the UK was above the age group in which the cases had been observed in the EU.

raverbashing 6y ago
> due to the approval process in EU, AZ wasn't approved for people over 65 until very recently No, the EMA was perfectly happy with giving it to people over 65, it was the local health authorities who wanted to "have their say" and nitpicked it. Now look and behold, it seems it maybe was a better idea to keep it to the older cohorts. And yes, the fact that the UK went to the older cohorts first might explain why they have seen fewer cases.
- libertine 6y ago
  >No, the EMA was perfectly happy with giving it to people over 65, it was the local health authorities who wanted to "have their say" and nitpicked it. Why are you framing the event of AZ doing a bad job at their trails and submitted literally bad data, and tried to mix it up with different data, as being the authorities "having their say"? It wasn't just one local health authority, it was even health authorities that has no influence from EMA, like Switzerland. At best your critic would be... they are rigorous and extremely demanding about these subjects? Maybe, just maybe, a large pharmaceutical that got hundreds of millions in funding simply shouldn't fuck up trials?
  - raverbashing 6y ago
    I'm not arguing that the AZ trials weren't messy, but the EMA also based their decision on antibody titers of the older cohorts (and on initial UK real use data if I'm not mistaken). > they are rigorous and extremely demanding about these subjects? While the older cohort is the one that suffers the most Covid causalities? MHRA thought it was a "risk" worth taking no? (because in the end it wasn't risky - maybe a slight smaller efficiency but that's it) > Maybe, just maybe Oh there's no maybe there, their trials were a mess, hence why the FDA asked for another trial.

by _ph_ 6y ago

raverbashing 6y ago

> due to the approval process in EU, AZ wasn't approved for people over 65 until very recently No, the EMA was perfectly happy with giving it to people over 65, it was the local health authorities who wanted to "have their say" and nitpicked it. Now look and behold, it seems it maybe was a better idea to keep it to the older cohorts. And yes, the fact that the UK went to the older cohorts first might explain why they have seen fewer cases.

libertine 6y ago
>No, the EMA was perfectly happy with giving it to people over 65, it was the local health authorities who wanted to "have their say" and nitpicked it. Why are you framing the event of AZ doing a bad job at their trails and submitted literally bad data, and tried to mix it up with different data, as being the authorities "having their say"? It wasn't just one local health authority, it was even health authorities that has no influence from EMA, like Switzerland. At best your critic would be... they are rigorous and extremely demanding about these subjects? Maybe, just maybe, a large pharmaceutical that got hundreds of millions in funding simply shouldn't fuck up trials?
- raverbashing 6y ago
  I'm not arguing that the AZ trials weren't messy, but the EMA also based their decision on antibody titers of the older cohorts (and on initial UK real use data if I'm not mistaken). > they are rigorous and extremely demanding about these subjects? While the older cohort is the one that suffers the most Covid causalities? MHRA thought it was a "risk" worth taking no? (because in the end it wasn't risky - maybe a slight smaller efficiency but that's it) > Maybe, just maybe Oh there's no maybe there, their trials were a mess, hence why the FDA asked for another trial.