[blub]

Doctors in the EU are obliged to educate the patient on the risks and benefits of vaccines. It's not unheard of that they don't, but it is our right as patients to know the basic information about any vaccine we are being administered. Sometimes there are multiple options which can be evaluated.

Don't preach about how we should accept anything that's thrown our way. Many of us are in a tough situation so we'll accept the crappy AZ, but if such a vaccine were released on the market and had to compete with the likes of Pfizer nobody would pick it.

[thu2111]

This is horrible. There is no difference between the AZ vaccine and Pfizer. One is not "crappy" - you're literally posting this on a thread that says it's safe and effective in multiple studies.

The EU is becoming a disaster zone of vaccine propaganda. I would never have imagined that national governments would become the primary source of anti-vax nonsense. Make no mistake about it - European politicians have been attacking the AZ vaccine because it originates from the UK and they are ideologically blinded by hatred of Brexit. They've been systematically lying about this particular vaccine and no other one right from the start.

They claimed it didn't work: false, based on a "misreading" of a German report. They claimed the UK had blocked export of it: false. They claimed AZ was in contract violation: false. They claimed it was dangerous: false.

Every time one lie is dispelled, another immediately emerges to take its place. And it's coming from people like Merkel and Macron. Unreal.

[dtf]

> European politicians have been attacking the AZ vaccine because it originates from the UK and they are ideologically blinded by hatred of Brexit.

There was a good piece in the Irish Times this weekend if you fancy a less UK-centric view on this. The view you've expressed above seems to be the only one I read among the British press/commentariat. Perhaps it is the UK that is blinded?

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/brexit-blinds-britain-to-...

"The Oxford/AstraZeneca team managed an extraordinary feat – producing a safe and effective vaccine against a novel coronavirus within a few months. Yet time and again, AstraZeneca has undermined its own efforts with communication blunders, a lack of transparency and a consistent record of overestimating its own capacity to deliver."

[thu2111]

Well, we know what the EU press are claiming, but that quoted paragraph isn't true is it? How has AZ undermined its own efforts? Where are the communication problems or lack of transparency? They have been doing pretty clear press releases where they address whatever the latest nonsense de jour is. For example, their response to the claims the vaccine was dangerous was very clear and unambiguous. The confusion here has been generated exclusively by one side.

As for the contract, the Commission released that contract specifically redacted to try and imply it said things it didn't, but they redacted it wrongly. Note that the EU committed itself to secrecy about their agreements as part of negotiating a lower price than other countries are paying. Then a Belgian minister violated that agreement too by publishing the prices. So it's hard to criticise AZ for lack of transparency when no company publishes customer contracts proactively and the EU itself has tried to hide the details of its own agreement as part of misleading the public. We know that the Commission was lying about things partly because they keep accidentally releasing information they intended to be kept secret.

The fact is, the EU has been taking measures and making statements here that are UK specific. When it declared it would require vaccine export licenses it exempted every neighbouring state, except the UK. When it suspended the Northern Ireland protocol over vaccines, it was a UK specific move. Now they are threatening to seize factories and block exports of already paid for vaccines, to the UK. If there's some explanation for this that isn't political it's not obvious what it is, because AZ has done nothing wrong, and nor has the UK.

[luckylion]

> The view you've expressed above seems to be the only one I read among the British press/commentariat.

I'm from Germany, and that has been pretty much my impression as well. Merkel gave vaccine orders as a PR gift to von der Leyen/EU, they messed up badly. While that came out piece by piece, surprise surprise, in came the "mistakes".

I'm sure it's not a large conspiracy, at some point there's enough FUD spread everywhere that everyone's threshold for "pause the campaign" is low enough, "just to be safe", but some parts of it very much did look like revenge.

[blub]

Your whole argument is undermined by the massive orders the EU put for this vaccine and how it was and is fighting to get those orders delivered in spite of all the screw-ups by AZ. Seriously, how do you come up with these conspiracy theories about Brexit hatred and then write with a straight face about "propaganda"?

[thu2111]

What screwups by AZ? There haven't been any, they've been doing the same things as other pharma firms, who have all always said that manufacturing is unpredictable and they'll try to make it all as quickly as possible but can't offer hard guarantees. The idea they're incompetent is more media propaganda - exactly the kind of thing that's causing people to stop taking it in EU states. Probably the Commission should try and fix the large stockpiles going unused due to this type of propaganda before they worry about export bans.

As for Brexit, see my other comment. A lot of the actions the EU has taken have been entirely UK specific. For instance the requirement for export licenses was waived for every non-EU state neighbouring the EU, except the UK.

[detaro]

The meme of "not enough people want to take AZ" needs to die. It's not backed by any reality on the ground, if you have the stuff its not difficult to find people to take it.

[thu2111]

Where did you get that idea? This is not a meme, it's repeats of widely available data and news reports. As of the 17th March nearly half of all delivered vaccines had not been used:

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/millions-oxford-astrazeneca-unused...

Germany alone was sitting on over 1 million. The article has a graph showing the backlog in each country. I am very skeptical they have managed to clear this in only 6 days given that around half the European population now incorrectly believes this vaccine is dangerous or useless.

[detaro]

That there aren't enough people that want the vaccine is a meme. There's lots and lots of people waiting for a chance to get it. Number of willing people is not a limiting factor, and won't be for a long time. And it's effing insulting to hear people parrot "Oh Germans don't want to be vaccinated" when at the same time nearly everyone around you is struggling to get an appointment for elderly/vulnerable relatives and would jump at a chance to get it themselves but will have to wait months to even be considered.

(and re numbers, since the 17th Germany has administered 1.2 million vaccinations, "unused" vaccinations can be reserved second doses, ... I certainly won't claim that this is all running perfectly, but any suggestion that more vaccine available wouldn't be used just doesn't make any sense)

[blub]

Missing every delivery target counts for you as success? Your business partners/managers will likely disagree.

[kcartlidge]

> Many of us are in a tough situation so we'll accept the crappy AZ

The AZ is pretty much equal (at least) in effectiveness to the other vaccines. This is agreed by the UK regulators (and until Brexit the UK were considered expert enough to run the EU one), the EU regulators, the German regulators, etc, and now the US regulators (not yet approved, I know, but their opinion is now released). How many of these world-reknowned establishments need to say the same thing before you get it?

By saying "crappy AZ" your choice of words is a major part of the problem. You are part of the problem.

As for "competing with the likes of Pfizer", I have the greatest respect for the science behind Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, and all the others - but with equal performance, at normal temperatures, at a fraction of the cost of the others, and with sub-licensed manufacturing around the world, the AZ vaccine is currently aiming to be the one that 90% of the global population will be relying on.

The "crappy" Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine is by a long way the world's best hope (in medical terms). It's very gracious of you to "accept the crappy AZ" (talk about ungrateful) - but if you're willing to take the benefit the least you could do is stop undermining it by posting rubbish on a thread discussing the very story that contradicts you.

[blub]

In an alternative universe, where we only had AZ maybe it would be considered awesome, but in our dimension, we have vaccines which offer better protection and fewer side-effects than AZ.

AZ's always been clouded in controversy from the botched trials, to the reduced effectiveness against variants up to the significant discomfort after vaccination in a non-negligible amount of people. And then there was the rare form of thrombosis, which is not 100% elucidated yet.

Why would anyone with a choice want AZ when there's Pfizer? And this is exactly what was happening all over Europe, but also in the US and Israel - people choose Pfizer in spite of the costs and complicated distribution.

It's particularly telling that the US prefers keeping tens of millions of doses of the super-awesome AZ on ice and continues with Pfizer.

[kcartlidge]

Better protection just isn't true. The figures are not only within a few percent in most studies, but in some studies AZ is ahead. This is all about stats, and those will vary depending upon the sample size and population.

Side-effects? Fair enough. But so what? Most medication has side effects. Incidentally the US CDC says that with the Pfizer one "77.4% reported at least one systemic reaction" and "fatigue, headache and new or worsened muscle pain were most common". This isn't to say AZ may not have higher incidence, but to point out that it doesn't matter which you choose there may still be side-effects, and anecdotes about AZ are faster to spread due to the unwarranted distrust.

The controversy AZ has been clouded in has mostly been politically motivated, AZ miscommunications, natural issues with vaccine yields, or plain wrong. Apart from the rare blood issue, most of it has been either not genuine or irrelevant. Even for the blood issue there are more regulators, governments, and doctors who say it is not a statistical issue than there are who do. It's all about the optics though.

People should not be turning down an AZ vaccine to wait potentially months for a different vaccine (which will still have it's own side effects even if lower). A day or two of side effects vs an extra few months protection is a no-brainer.

People choose Pfizer (which I am not knocking; I'd gladly have it if offered) based on what they read - and the press war is being won by AZ detractors despite the number of times they are wrong (eg Macron saying quasi-inneffective for older people and then France only wanting to use it for older people, or the UK choosing to wait longer than a couple of weeks between doses, being called terrible and irresponsible, but now even the WHO says that improves protection).

As for the US keeping doses on ice, that's not "particularly telling" at all. It isn't approved for use there yet. And they aren't in a hurry as they have enough of the other vaccines. Plus, they are 'loaning' millions of AZ vaccine doses to Mexico and Canada which they wouldn't do unless they thought it was pretty safe (as their FDC has already publicly said it is).

Pfizer seems to be a great vaccine. But so is AstraZeneca and continual unwarranted attacks risks destroying trust in a vaccine (AZ) which is being produced at cost in over a dozen countries and is intended to form up to 90% of the world's protection.

---

To risk being overly melodramatic, unlike their counterparts (and admittedly at the prompting of the UK government and Oxford University) AstraZeneca producing billions of doses (the plan) at cost in multiple countries using local production is actually the rare example of a drug company almost literally saving the world without profiteering whilst they do it. They should be applauded, not continually attacked.

In the same way (and I don't like saying this as I believe in the EU and voted remain in the British referendum) the EU attacks the UK for not sharing, when the British government co-funded vaccine development at a British university and ensured a British/Swedish partner providing at-cost production for the world, whilst the EU haggled about prices.

[rutthenut]

> so we'll accept the crappy AZ

It's the use of crappy sort of phrases like this that lead to fear, uncertainty and doubt.

[blub]

No, it's the botched trials, reports about reduced effectiveness from politicians and specialists and reports about side-effects.