Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris
But this is the point isn’t it. We’re in an emergency, but apparently not enough of an emergency for some governments. The science is what it is and doesn’t change regardless of which government is looking at it. There was ample evidence to infer efficacy in over 65s; for some, in an emergency, the inference was enough. For some it wasn’t.
Everyone followed the science, right up to the point when a political decision had to be taken. Which is why “they followed the science” is an inadequate explanation for the decisions that have been made.
|
There was ample inferred evidence but insufficient direct evidence, that's the point. The UK, the EU in the form of EMA and WHO recommended use in over 65s and a lot of countries were not convinced. Hey, Switzerland sent the application back and said try again. Some countries are more stringent than others when it comes to drug safety. That's the remit of the regulatory bodies. Of course, the current picture with infections and the options for other vaccines in each country will influence the decision and that's more health policy. I guess in this country that will be the MHRA and JCVI - MHRA says the vaccine is safe and effective and JCVI decides how the vaccine will be implemented.
If there's an alternative that is proven to be effective in over 65s rather than inferred, then the pressure is off to take the chance, however small.