Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman
Maybe they haven't approved the Astrazenica vaccine because they have concerns about it?
We had no option but to approve it because it's the only show in town. Even then we may not hit the herd immunity threshold with it. So I'd not count those chickens before they hatch. More lockdowns while we wait on more effective vaccines would be a sub-optimal outcome I'm sure you'd agree.
|
I appreciate you’re just trying to promote robust debate but you’re veering into vaccine conspiracy territory here. “No option but to approve it because it’s the only show in town” could very easily be taken to mean there has been corner-cutting. There has been no evidence of this and neither has there been any suggestion of concerns over safety at the EMA. In any case, the Pfizer vaccine was approved in the UK first, when it was the only show in town. Ox/AZ came second. The delay at the EMA is down to the efficacy data, which as we all know was compromised by the half-dose error during trials which also suggested it is possible to drive the Ox/AZ vaccine’s efficacy well over 90%.
The UK regulator was satisfied that the vaccine is safe and while it did review the trial data it saw no reason there not to allow the vaccine to be used. Why the EMA feels it has to spend so much longer on it is anyone’s guess. I suspect it probably has more to do with the vendors and quantities the EU has purchased causing them to focus on approving other vaccines first (principally Pfizer, followed by Moderna), though even here, they haven’t exactly moved nimbly. Across the pond, the FDA has a long-established reputation for refusing to accept conclusions drawn from trial data as presented by drug companies and for conducting its own exhaustive reviews of raw data. Approving drugs always takes longer there as a result.