4 ms·

> AstraZeneca’s vaccine remains in use in Australia, but official health advice is to opt for Pfizer or Moderna if you’re under 60. But AstraZeneca continues to

> AstraZeneca’s vaccine remains in use in Australia, but official health advice is to opt for Pfizer or Moderna if you’re under 60. But AstraZeneca continues to be distributed, particularly in low-income countries. Interesting thing of note here: I keep reading this. Even the Wikipedia page on AstraZeneca suggests that it’s still used in many European countries. In Austria (where I live) while if’s technically possible to vaccinate with it, you absolutely will not be able to get it. It hasn’t been stocked for more than a year and a half. It has been effectively suspended since and everyone who got it, was boosted with one of the MRNA vaccines instead. I would like to understand why the reporting on in (including the Wikipedia page) is so reluctant to mention the effective suspension of it. I’m not familiar with the situation in Australia but I would be quite surprised if it’s still in use.

Traubenfuchs 4y ago
In Australia, everyone 18 years and above can book an AstraZeneca vaccination appointment: https://covid-vaccine.healthdirect.gov.au/booking/ https://covid-vaccine.healthdirect.gov.au/booking/ Meanwhile they rolled the dice and decided that Moderna is no longer available for 6 years and up, but remains available for children aged 6 months to <6 years.
- the_mitsuhiko 4y ago
  Ah. That makes more sense then. The European numbers on the manufacturers are on ourworldindata and you can see there that it's effectively unused beyond July/December of 2021 (some refreshes were still made with it in December): https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/covid-vaccine-doses-by-manufacturer https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/covid-vaccine-doses-by-ma...
  - bratwurst3000 4y ago
    I think you read the data wrong. If I choose the time from July 22 to now astrazeneka is the third most used vaccine and that with a certain constant
    - the_mitsuhiko 4y ago
      I am not sure how you are reading this. The dose count across the entire EU in July 2022 for Astrazeneca is 67.18 Million doses in both July 2022 as well as December 2022. It has been at 67.17 Million at the beginning of 2022. In Austria the dose count for Astrazeneca is unchanged since September 2021.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - bratwurst3000 4y ago
        Oh sorry totaly my bad. I read it as new doses but its all doses.
gonzo41 4y ago
I'm under 60 and have had AZ, both shots, then Moderna, then Pfizer. Pfizer was the worst for side effects. Like a bad cold for 12 hours. Other than that, no COVID.
- the_mitsuhiko 4y ago
  I'm not here to judge the vaccine, at least in Europe it's fact that Astrazenca is not used any more for more than a year (except for really, really rare cases) and yet there has not been a note on this in Wikipedia.
  - mellosouls 4y ago
    there has not been a note on this in Wikipedia If you think it is lacking thoroughness, edit the page with a reference, it will then have a note. The following source [1] indicates that its deprecation is due to relative efficacy compared to the other leading vaccines. If you think there is another reason (and/or has a wider regional block in place), you would need to source that in whichever article you find. [1] https://www.bhf.org.uk/informationsupport/heart-matters-magazine/news/coronavirus-and-your-health/astrazeneca-covid-vaccine https://www.bhf.org.uk/informationsupport/heart-matters-maga...
    - the_mitsuhiko 4y ago
      I do not know the reason. I just know that it’s not used.
- hcks 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - archagon 4y ago
    You are being rude.
chiefalchemist 4y ago
> But AstraZeneca continues to be distributed, particularly in low-income countries. "Give it to the poor"? Why isn't this considered unethical?
- gjm11 4y ago
  Because giving people useful things generally does them good rather than harm, and doing people good isn't unethical just because you could have done them more good at greater cost? Because if you are poor then buying more of something cheaper, rather than less of something more expensive, isn't unethical? Poorer countries tend to have worse everything. Smaller houses. Less robust cars. Fewer doctors. Bumpier roads. Worse internet access. Worse schools. That's what being poorer means. It seems to me that whatever ethical problems there are here aren't in the fact that poorer countries are using a cheaper and probably less effective COVID-19 vaccine, but in the fact that some countries are much poorer than others in the first place.
  - chiefalchemist 4y ago
    The oath is "Do no harm." Unloading a "procedure" that's unacceptable in The First World on other markets is unethical. We're not talking about cars, etc. There's no shortage of alternatives. There's no lack of manufacturing capavity. Etc. All there is is shoddy rationalization that the poor get what they deserve. Pray you're never on the wrong side of such ethics.
    - gjm11 4y ago
      First of all, a disclaimer: I am not a COVID-19 expert and my understanding might be out of date. Accordingly, I am not certain that the AZ vaccine still provides sufficient protection against current variants of SARS-CoV-2 for that benefit to outweigh the very small risk of side effects. I am pretty sure it does, though. If I am wrong about that, then I agree that giving people the AZ vaccine is no longer to their benefit, and none of what follows is applicable any longer (though it would have been in the recent past when the AZ vaccine definitely was net helpful even if slightly less so than the mRNA vaccines). Giving someone who would otherwise go unvaccinated a dose of the AstraZeneca vaccine is not doing them harm: it makes them less likely to get a severe case of COVID-19. Vaccination with the AZ vaccine is only "unacceptable in The First World" in the sense that a better alternative is available if you don't mind paying the higher prices. Most people's (and communities', and religions', and ...) ethical systems do not hold that it is unethical to do something that benefits someone unless what you are doing is the most beneficial thing you could possibly do, regardless of the cost to you. I think it is a good thing that they don't, because that would mean e.g. that if you have the capacity to manufacture an effective COVID-19 vaccine in large quantities then you are obliged to provide it to everyone in the world for free, and if that requirement were in place then it would be a disincentive for any company that prefers not going out of business to develop that capacity, and that would be bad for everyone. Without looking at the actual relevant numbers (how much it costs Pfizer or Moderna to make a given number of doses, how much it cost them to develop the vaccines, the costs of distribution, etc.) I don't have a definite opinion on whether (e.g.) wealthy Western governments have been much less generous than they should have been; I strongly suspect that they have. But you are not saying "they should have been more generous", they are saying "no one should be using the AZ vaccine for anything", and if the AZ vaccine is cheaper than alternatives then I think that's just plain wrong. But maybe I am misunderstanding what you're claiming. What, specifically, do you think should have been done instead of what has actually been done? If it's more expensive than what was actually done, who should have paid? And, if the answer is anything less than "provide everyone in the world, for free, with the best available COVID-19 vaccine, regardless of cost", why are you confident that your proposal is better than one that uses the lower price of the AZ vaccine to provide more doses of that in preference to fewer doses of more expensive ones? It is not my opinion that "the poor get what they deserve". I see no reason to think that any such belief is responsible for the fact that some poorer countries are using the AZ vaccine. If you disagree, then I would like to see some evidence rather than mere indignation.
alfiedotwtf 4y ago
The Prime Minister of Australia at the time signed up to AZ as our eggs in one basket vaccine. Also, because we were in heavy lockdown, we were virtually COVID-free for a long time meaning we were de-prioritised in allocation. Double-whammy, and so people from 30-and-over got AZ as their primary (and only vaccine). ... tl;dr: Australia was heavy AZ because of politics
- defrost 4y ago
  Please, please, please do not mention that the Prime Minister of Australia at the time was also secretly the * Minister of Health, * Minister of Finance, * Minister of Treasury, * Minister of Home Affairs and Industry, and * Minister of Science, Energy and Resources at the same time as being PM. People from other countries will start asking difficult questions and calling us a banana republic and such things. [1] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-11-25/key-takeaways-from-scott-morrison-secret-ministries-report/101699078 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-11-25/key-takeaways-from-sc...
  - vernon99 4y ago
    My first reaction was “wow, what?” - but after reading the link you provided, it seems this was a plan B and a safeguard in case actual ministers would get sick. “Mr Morrison only used the powers of his appointments once: to refuse an application for a petroleum exploration licence, PEP-11, using powers as head of the Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources.” Thanks for giving the link but please don’t overexaggerate :)
    - defrost 4y ago
      The two specific parts that made this beyond the pale are: * this was done in complete secrecy, no one was told, not even the Ministers whose portfolios he assumed the powers of, * this was unneccesary and a very poor "backup plan" to have one single person be the only person that was "pre approved" with multiple normally silo'd powers. This was both a first and a last, rules are being rewritten to prevent this kind of behaviour in the future.

Traubenfuchs 4y ago

In Australia, everyone 18 years and above can book an AstraZeneca vaccination appointment: https://covid-vaccine.healthdirect.gov.au/booking/ https://covid-vaccine.healthdirect.gov.au/booking/ Meanwhile they rolled the dice and decided that Moderna is no longer available for 6 years and up, but remains available for children aged 6 months to <6 years.

the_mitsuhiko 4y ago
Ah. That makes more sense then. The European numbers on the manufacturers are on ourworldindata and you can see there that it's effectively unused beyond July/December of 2021 (some refreshes were still made with it in December): https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/covid-vaccine-doses-by-manufacturer https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/covid-vaccine-doses-by-ma...
- bratwurst3000 4y ago
  I think you read the data wrong. If I choose the time from July 22 to now astrazeneka is the third most used vaccine and that with a certain constant
  - the_mitsuhiko 4y ago
    I am not sure how you are reading this. The dose count across the entire EU in July 2022 for Astrazeneca is 67.18 Million doses in both July 2022 as well as December 2022. It has been at 67.17 Million at the beginning of 2022. In Austria the dose count for Astrazeneca is unchanged since September 2021.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - bratwurst3000 4y ago
      Oh sorry totaly my bad. I read it as new doses but its all doses.

gonzo41 4y ago

I'm under 60 and have had AZ, both shots, then Moderna, then Pfizer. Pfizer was the worst for side effects. Like a bad cold for 12 hours. Other than that, no COVID.

the_mitsuhiko 4y ago
I'm not here to judge the vaccine, at least in Europe it's fact that Astrazenca is not used any more for more than a year (except for really, really rare cases) and yet there has not been a note on this in Wikipedia.
- mellosouls 4y ago
  there has not been a note on this in Wikipedia If you think it is lacking thoroughness, edit the page with a reference, it will then have a note. The following source [1] indicates that its deprecation is due to relative efficacy compared to the other leading vaccines. If you think there is another reason (and/or has a wider regional block in place), you would need to source that in whichever article you find. [1] https://www.bhf.org.uk/informationsupport/heart-matters-magazine/news/coronavirus-and-your-health/astrazeneca-covid-vaccine https://www.bhf.org.uk/informationsupport/heart-matters-maga...
  - the_mitsuhiko 4y ago
    I do not know the reason. I just know that it’s not used.
hcks 4y ago
[flagged]
- archagon 4y ago
  You are being rude.

chiefalchemist 4y ago

> But AstraZeneca continues to be distributed, particularly in low-income countries. "Give it to the poor"? Why isn't this considered unethical?

gjm11 4y ago
Because giving people useful things generally does them good rather than harm, and doing people good isn't unethical just because you could have done them more good at greater cost? Because if you are poor then buying more of something cheaper, rather than less of something more expensive, isn't unethical? Poorer countries tend to have worse everything. Smaller houses. Less robust cars. Fewer doctors. Bumpier roads. Worse internet access. Worse schools. That's what being poorer means. It seems to me that whatever ethical problems there are here aren't in the fact that poorer countries are using a cheaper and probably less effective COVID-19 vaccine, but in the fact that some countries are much poorer than others in the first place.
- chiefalchemist 4y ago
  The oath is "Do no harm." Unloading a "procedure" that's unacceptable in The First World on other markets is unethical. We're not talking about cars, etc. There's no shortage of alternatives. There's no lack of manufacturing capavity. Etc. All there is is shoddy rationalization that the poor get what they deserve. Pray you're never on the wrong side of such ethics.
  - gjm11 4y ago
    First of all, a disclaimer: I am not a COVID-19 expert and my understanding might be out of date. Accordingly, I am not certain that the AZ vaccine still provides sufficient protection against current variants of SARS-CoV-2 for that benefit to outweigh the very small risk of side effects. I am pretty sure it does, though. If I am wrong about that, then I agree that giving people the AZ vaccine is no longer to their benefit, and none of what follows is applicable any longer (though it would have been in the recent past when the AZ vaccine definitely was net helpful even if slightly less so than the mRNA vaccines). Giving someone who would otherwise go unvaccinated a dose of the AstraZeneca vaccine is not doing them harm: it makes them less likely to get a severe case of COVID-19. Vaccination with the AZ vaccine is only "unacceptable in The First World" in the sense that a better alternative is available if you don't mind paying the higher prices. Most people's (and communities', and religions', and ...) ethical systems do not hold that it is unethical to do something that benefits someone unless what you are doing is the most beneficial thing you could possibly do, regardless of the cost to you. I think it is a good thing that they don't, because that would mean e.g. that if you have the capacity to manufacture an effective COVID-19 vaccine in large quantities then you are obliged to provide it to everyone in the world for free, and if that requirement were in place then it would be a disincentive for any company that prefers not going out of business to develop that capacity, and that would be bad for everyone. Without looking at the actual relevant numbers (how much it costs Pfizer or Moderna to make a given number of doses, how much it cost them to develop the vaccines, the costs of distribution, etc.) I don't have a definite opinion on whether (e.g.) wealthy Western governments have been much less generous than they should have been; I strongly suspect that they have. But you are not saying "they should have been more generous", they are saying "no one should be using the AZ vaccine for anything", and if the AZ vaccine is cheaper than alternatives then I think that's just plain wrong. But maybe I am misunderstanding what you're claiming. What, specifically, do you think should have been done instead of what has actually been done? If it's more expensive than what was actually done, who should have paid? And, if the answer is anything less than "provide everyone in the world, for free, with the best available COVID-19 vaccine, regardless of cost", why are you confident that your proposal is better than one that uses the lower price of the AZ vaccine to provide more doses of that in preference to fewer doses of more expensive ones? It is not my opinion that "the poor get what they deserve". I see no reason to think that any such belief is responsible for the fact that some poorer countries are using the AZ vaccine. If you disagree, then I would like to see some evidence rather than mere indignation.

alfiedotwtf 4y ago

The Prime Minister of Australia at the time signed up to AZ as our eggs in one basket vaccine. Also, because we were in heavy lockdown, we were virtually COVID-free for a long time meaning we were de-prioritised in allocation. Double-whammy, and so people from 30-and-over got AZ as their primary (and only vaccine). ... tl;dr: Australia was heavy AZ because of politics

defrost 4y ago
Please, please, please do not mention that the Prime Minister of Australia at the time was also secretly the * Minister of Health, * Minister of Finance, * Minister of Treasury, * Minister of Home Affairs and Industry, and * Minister of Science, Energy and Resources at the same time as being PM. People from other countries will start asking difficult questions and calling us a banana republic and such things. [1] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-11-25/key-takeaways-from-scott-morrison-secret-ministries-report/101699078 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-11-25/key-takeaways-from-sc...
- vernon99 4y ago
  My first reaction was “wow, what?” - but after reading the link you provided, it seems this was a plan B and a safeguard in case actual ministers would get sick. “Mr Morrison only used the powers of his appointments once: to refuse an application for a petroleum exploration licence, PEP-11, using powers as head of the Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources.” Thanks for giving the link but please don’t overexaggerate :)
  - defrost 4y ago
    The two specific parts that made this beyond the pale are: * this was done in complete secrecy, no one was told, not even the Ministers whose portfolios he assumed the powers of, * this was unneccesary and a very poor "backup plan" to have one single person be the only person that was "pre approved" with multiple normally silo'd powers. This was both a first and a last, rules are being rewritten to prevent this kind of behaviour in the future.