LeSving wrote:
It’s not an EU decision, only 3 EU countries has taken this stand + one non-EU. But, for the vaccine program there are huge gains in this. It removes one uncertainty. That’s one uncertainty that will not occur in the news, in social media, on TV. It’s a “peace keeping” decision quite literally actually. One less uncertainty about these vaccines to create fuzz about.
Interesting – but isnt it a bit of a political gamble as well? Peace now, but trouble later?
Graham wrote:
Yes, it is true there is not that much data.
And quite shortly there will be mountains of data from one of the most severely hit countries in the world.
Graham wrote:
At the present rate (~3% of population per month, and that is a slightly generous figure) you are looking at two years to reach the whole adult population.
This pandemic is not over anytime soon. FHI (the institute of public health) made two scenarios yesterday, one “best case” and one “worst case”. Even with the “best case” only about 1/2 of the population is vaccinated in august, but that includes all “risk groups”. A prerequisite is the English, SA and Brazilian mutations do not get a foothold, and even if they do get some foothold, the vaccines works as promised.
The worst case is pretty abysmal. Here the English variant dominates sometime in March, then other mutations come and the vaccines has poor efficiency. Nothing really changes from todays status, except harder measures will be taken, which leads to riots and general misery.
The “best case” is the aiming point, and perhaps the most probable, but it is only a best case scenario, it can quickly change for the worse.
Those who live will see 
(not a nice joke, put to the point 
) A Norwegian company, Vaccibody, has developed a new corona vaccine using their technology in cancer vaccines. It’s still early, but all tests are good so far. It is one shot, storage in 2-8 deg C, but the most important part is it targets only specific immune cells, thus making it more accurate, more efficient, and more tailorable. Vaccibody has no production however. The cancer vaccines are licensed out to Roche for clinical tests/production. It’s rather obvious to me that we need not only the tech/science, but also production facilities, which is the Achilles heel now, and in the foreseeable future.
Fuji_Abound wrote:
but isnt it a bit of a political gamble as well? Peace now, but trouble later?
What do you mean, what trouble later? Anyway, the decision is purely technical; remove uncertainties if possible. A perfectly reasonable stand and decision. Any political/public side effects is academic at this point.
LeSving wrote:
The institute of public health won’t approve the vaccine for people over 65. Only those under 65 will get it. The reason is that AZ cannot document any effect for people over 65. The same is done in Sweden, France and Germany.
I think it’s a good thing, always thought that it would be much more effective to prioritize people with more social interaction rather than oldest less mobile section of the population. This decision, for other reason will mean an acceleration in vaccinating younger people, more likely to spread the virus.
LeSving wrote:
Even with the “best case” only about 1/2 of the population is vaccinated in august
Well I guess that’s the difference made by the timing of vaccine procurement and thus the availability of supply. The UK is planning for all adults by Aug/Sep, and that is not a best-case scenario – indeed if continued at January’s rate we would have done all adults sometime in July.
WingsWaterAndWheels wrote:
I think it’s a good thing, always thought that it would be much more effective to prioritize people with more social interaction rather than oldest less mobile section of the population.
Many of us suggested this quite some time ago – the problem is it’s not a choice available to most politicians because it’s too clinical and not compassionate enough to win public support. I suppose it’s possible that’s its a clever move to use this strategy while appearing not to have made that explicit choice, but I doubt it because the EU isn’t going to have enough AZ vaccine in the short term to make a dent in transmission via that approach.
Have these four countries suggested they will bifurcate their vaccination programmes, starting on the U65s with the AZ product immediately?
Graham wrote:
If it’s just 3 EU countries (albeit including the two biggest and most influential) plus Norway, then it is something of a minority report – no?
How many countries in the EU beyond those 3 routinely do their own efficacy evaluations and hence have the required knowledge, organization, infrastructure, etc.?
Malibuflyer wrote:
How many countries in the EU beyond those 3 routinely do their own efficacy evaluations and hence have the required knowledge, organization, infrastructure, etc.?
I couldn’t say. Perhaps such capabilities are important?
Graham wrote:
Well I guess that’s the difference made by the timing of vaccine procurement and thus the availability of supply. The UK is planning for all adults by Aug/Sep, and that is not a best-case scenario – indeed if continued at January’s rate we would have done all adults sometime in July.
I think you misunderstand. The Institute of Public Health (FHI) is an independent government agency, similar to the CAA, or more like an “engineering branch or R&D branch” of the CAA in fact. FHI does not “make politics”. The Directorate of Health is more of a “CAA” in fact, but FHI and the directorate are two independent units. On almost every corona press conference, there is at least one person from the government, one person from directorate and one person from FHI. Sometimes they argue with each other, not on press conferences, but in interviews and media
The government makes the politics. FHI is in charge of the analysis parts (analysis as in DNA analysis for instance, but also analysis about the pandemic in general), the scientific parts, while the directorate is more on the operational side of things, practical stuff, hospitals. It’s FHI that has said AZ shall only be used for people under 65, not the directorate and not the government. The government is free to make another stand on this, but when it’s in the open as it is now, I can never see that happening.
LeSving wrote:
I think you misunderstand. The Institute of Public Health (FHI) is an independent government agency, similar to the CAA, or more like an “engineering branch or R&D branch” of the CAA in fact. FHI does not “make politics”. The Directorate of Health is more of a “CAA” in fact, but FHI and the directorate are two independent units. On almost every corona press conference, there is at least one person from the government, one person from directorate and one person from FHI. Sometimes they argue with each other, not on press conferences, but in interviews and mediaThe government makes the politics. FHI is in charge of the analysis parts (analysis as in DNA analysis for instance, but also analysis about the pandemic in general), the scientific parts, while the directorate is more on the operational side of things, practical stuff, hospitals. It’s FHI that has said AZ shall only be used for people under 65, not the directorate and not the government. The government is free to make another stand on this, but when it’s in the open as it is now, I can never see that happening.
I’m not sure what you think I misunderstand. I made no comment whatsoever on the role or the pronouncements of the FHI with respect to any decision on how to use the AZ vaccine.
I commented on the predictions you told me it has given on vaccination roll-out, and indicated that such predictions were necessarily driven by being (indirectly, via Sweden) a party to the EU vaccine procurement programme.
