Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris
There are two parallel questions really. 1. Should they investigate? (Obviously yes) and 2. Should they halt use while they investigate? (Depends).
In the present circumstances the precautionary principle is liable to kill more people than it saves. The number of people suffering these clots is vanishingly small. The number of people dying from them is even smaller. Covid itself is clearly the far greater and deadlier threat. Some national regulators seem to have inadequate investigative procedures for pandemic situations. Their basic premise (that it is safer to do nothing) is flawed.
The MHRA's far more sensible pandemic operating principle has been to allow use of the vaccine to continue while a thorough review of the evidence was conducted. It has now concluded that review and is unequivocal. There is no evidence of a causal link between the Ox-AZ vaccine and the cerebral thromboses reported to it (five of them, one fatal, from the 11 million vaccinations reviewed).
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56447367
What will be interesting to see now, is how quickly those national regulators that have ordered suspensions, will lift them. The MHRA has shown how quickly this sort of work can be done when an emergency situation demands it. Somehow, I suspect the regulators in some other countries still haven't twigged that this is a public health emergency and that they need to start behaving accordingly. |
Great post. Too many regulators appear to be in business as usual mode and not doing the maths.