Quote:
Originally Posted by jonbxx
They followed the science.
At the time of submission, there was insufficient data to support the effectiveness of the AZ vaccine in over 65s. There is no reason to expect the reaction over over 65s to be significantly different based on the reactions to COVID infections but also no hard evidence to say it will work. That's good enough for an Emergency Use Authorisation but probably not for a Conditional Market Authorisation.
Probably explained better by people with brains much bigger than mine here - https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/e...for-under-65s/ |
This is a tad naïve - you offer “they followed the science” as if it’s an absolute statement that can be offered without qualification, when clearly, as you acknowledge yourself, it is not. Those countries that authorised it for over 65s and those that did not were all following the science and yet somehow came to different conclusions.
There was actually perfectly adequate scientific data to support emergency use authorisation, and we are after all in an emergency. The phase 3 trials lacked sufficient test subjects in that age group to produce definitive data but there was ample data on antibody response and equally ample understanding that it was most likely this would translate into comparable vaccine efficacy in that group.
Given the problem Germany and France have with anti-vax movements they more than anyone should have understood that you can’t simply say you’re following the science as if science exists in a cultureless vacuum. How the science is communicated and how it is used politically are vitally important - as Germany is now discovering to its cost.