Millions of people in dozens of countries have received the AstraZeneca Covid vaccine with few reports of ill effects, and its prior testing in tens of thousands of people found it to be safe.
But recently, blood clots and abnormal bleeding in a small number of vaccine recipients in European countries have cast doubt on its safety, although no causative link has been found between the patients’ conditions and the vaccine. The reports have prompted more than a dozen countries to either partly or fully suspend the vaccine’s use while the cases are investigated. Most of the nations said they were doing so as a precaution until leading health agencies could review the cases.
This is from Denise Grady and Rebecca Robbins, “Should You Be Concerned About Blood Clots, Bleeding and the AZ-Vaccine?,” New York Times, March 15, 2021.
The countries that have paused include Germany, Italy, France, Spain, Denmark, Ireland, Norway, the Netherlands, and Iceland.
This makes no sense, but it is, unfortunately, not so unusual for governments to substitute their own risk assessments for those of their sheep citizens.
There’s such an obvious solution: have the governments of those countries warn people that there might be blood clots, tell them the data, and leave them free to choose. I guarantee that millions of Europeans would be willing to take the small risk of blood clots and go ahead and get vaccinated.
Oh and, by the way, my solution applies to the United States, whose government is even worse: the Food and Drug Administration has not yet allowed people to take the AstraZeneca vaccine.
Economist Thomas Sowell is famous for saying “There are no solutions. There are only tradeoffs.” I don’t agree. I’ve just given a solution, one that lets people make their own tradeoffs.
READER COMMENTS
Thomas Hutcheson
Mar 17 2021 at 7:25am
The governments are also going against the recommendation of experts.
Christophe Biocca
Mar 18 2021 at 11:26am
At least in the case of the Germans they are listening to their own experts. If you have enough distinct experts, you can always get a recommendation to do what you were planning to do anyways.
MarkW
Mar 17 2021 at 7:40am
An insane public-health decision. EU countries are far behind the UK and US in vaccination rates already and are facing more spikes, more deaths, and more lockdowns. But it’s also not surprising. An ‘at your own risk’ policy, I believe, would be unpopular with European voters. You and I would say that they’d be no worse off if given a choice than they are now with no choice, but I don’t think they’d see it that way. Instead, they’d resent being put in the position of having to make such a decision and possibly making the wrong one. But if the government and the official experts decide for everyone, then they need not worry. Part of the government’s job after all is to protect them from that kind of uncertainty.
And there’s the political angle. European leaders have been under pressure because their vaccination rollout has been so slow. But if the vaccine is defective? Well then maybe it was a good thing that wise European politicians were cautious unlike those Anglo-Saxon cowboys in the UK and US, n’est pas?
Vivian Darkbloom
Mar 17 2021 at 8:11am
I’m reluctant to infer bad intentions; however, in this case circumstantial evidence shows that, at least in the case of France, this is a case of spite and not simply a matter of faulty risk assessment.
The circumstantial evidence is:
The French (and German) leaders were very upset that the UK deigned to leave the Union, a project that was spear-headed by the French. That resentment is palbable in all the relations and not simply the politics surrounding the vaccine;
At first, the French and the EU complained loudly that AZ was not delivering enough doses manufactured in the UK to the EU and France and blamed this on UK nationalism rather than contract obligations (and the obvious short-sightedness of the EU leaders) or shortcomings in the EU part of the supply chain; https://www.sortiraparis.com/news/coronavirus/articles/241757-astrazeneca-vaccine-new-shipping-delays-in-the-eu/lang/en
The French leaders and other EU countries were then the first to state (without good reason) that the AZ vaccine was not suitable for those over 65 years of age because there was “not enough information regarding efficacy for that group (apparently zero efficacy of nothing is better than 70 percent of the AZ vaccine!).
https://www.bbc.com/news/55919245
This was later retracted, but not after it reduced public confidence in the AZ vaccine not only in France but the rest of the world and delayed vaccination of hundreds of thousands of those most at risk;
Now, the same leaders illogically put a halt on the AZ vaccine completely, again eroding public confidence.
Would this have happened if the vaccine were produced by a French company, such as Sanofi? I suspect not.
Vivian Darkbloom
Mar 17 2021 at 8:25am
And, here’s the message I get as a result of this policy when I try to make a reservation for a vaccination:
“L’utilisation du vaccin AstraZeneca est suspendue, en attendant une décision de l’Agence européenne des médicaments. Par conséquent, vous ne pouvez plus vous faire vacciner pour le moment si vous avez entre 50 et 74 ans et souffrez de comorbidités ou si vous êtes un professionnel du secteur de la santé ou du secteur médico-social de moins de 65 ans.”
Because of the decision, there is an overall shortage of doses and the vaccination schedule has been delayed for everyone, not just those that would have gotten an AZ dose.
David Henderson
Mar 17 2021 at 2:12pm
Interesting. Thanks, Vivian.
And here, using the French in learned over 50 years ago in Carman Collegiate and the University of Winnipeg, is my translation:
Use of the AstraZeneca vaccine is suspended, awaiting a decision of the European Medical Agency. Therefore you may not not be vaccinated for now if you are between ages 50 and 74 and suffer from co-morbidities or if you are a professional in the health sector or the medical/social [?] sector and less than 65 years old.
Short version: You’re screwed, blued, and tattooed.
Jon Murphy
Mar 17 2021 at 10:28am
It is disappointing, but not surprising, that national prejudice would play a role in government policy of vaccines in the EU. You may recall that President Trump did the same thing here: refusing to allow importation of Chinese-made PPE and seizing state’s stockpiles of equipment that was made abroad.
TMC
Mar 17 2021 at 7:27pm
A large percentage of China’s PPE tested to be ineffectual. Several countries banned them. Basic anti-fraud .
Capt. J Parker
Mar 18 2021 at 1:50pm
Jon Murphy,
No, I don’t seem to recall reports that the Trump banned PPE made in China. Nor can I recall it being reported that Trump seized items made in China because of “national prejudice.” I do recall Trump administration officials seizing counterfeit N95 masks and other items from China and other countries that were not legal based on US import/export laws. A practice that has continued under the Biden administration.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/17/us/counterfeit-n95-masks-seized.html
https://www.wsj.com/articles/millions-of-counterfeit-masks-flooded-u-s-customs-facilities-last-year-11612436403
Jon Murphy
Mar 18 2021 at 2:23pm
Trump never explicitly said “national prejudice,” just like Germany and France aren’t using that same language. But, for example, here in MD the Feds seized much of the PPE Annapolis bought (which, BTW, just happened to be imported) for the supposed goal of going to FEMA. But the shipment was then destroyed.
Capt. J Parker
Mar 18 2021 at 3:05pm
Jon Murphy,
You are alleging the the Trump administration, during a pandemic, seized critically needed imported product from legitimate US supply chains and then destroyed it for no other reason than it was made in China. If true, this would be an illegal act under US law, not to mention a reprehensible thing to do during a pandemic. Do you have a source verifiable for your allegations that you would care to share with us?
Jon Murphy
Mar 18 2021 at 3:22pm
That’s the thing. It’s not illegal. The Defense Production Act (as well as several others) allows the Federal Government to seize assets deemed necessary for national defense. And, indeed, that’s exactly what they did. They even cancelled some state’s orders.
There were a number of stories on it: NYT has a story from April 6 2020 called “Swept Up by FEMA.” WSJ ran a much more detailed story on 31 August called “How Trump Sowed COVID Supply Chaos.”
I’m surprised you don’t remember this. It was a huge scandal. Maybe it just sticks in my mind because I live in MD and am from MA, two states heavily affected (also run by governors who are very critical of Trump).
Capt. J Parker
Mar 18 2021 at 3:48pm
Jon Murphy,
I remember reports of Feds seizing PPE because it was fake product. I presume they would destroy such seized product. I remember reports of Feds seizing PPE to divert it for uses that the Feds deemed of higher priority. I do not recall any reports of the Feds seizing PPE and then surreptitiously destroying it as you are alleging. I also recall reports of importers altering product, such as removing labels from PPE that said “not for medical use.”
Please provide a source for your allegation that the Feds seized PPE and then destroyed it without a justifiable cause such as determining the seized product was adulterated.
Jon Murphy
Mar 18 2021 at 4:42pm
No. You are boring me. This is not a courtroom. You do not get to make demands and casually toss around words like “alligation.”
I made an observation akin to Vivian’s. You don’t like it? Too bad.
Capt. J Parker
Mar 19 2021 at 2:00pm
Jon Murphy,
Your statement is not an “observation.” It is accusation the Trump refused to allow importation of PPE made in China and this was motivated by “national prejudice.” There was no refusal to allow importation of PPE unless it was counterfeit. Since there was no refusal to allow importation, any claim of Trump having a illegitimate motivation in that matter is be definition false.
There was seizure of equipment. The stated reason was that some of seized equipment was seized because it was counterfeit and some equipment was seized for reallocation by the federal government. So, the claim that the seizures were motivated by “national prejudice” is again false.
I remain open to the possibility that I’m mistaken and welcome the opportunity to review any evidence to that effect.
I have the honor to be your obedient servant
J dot Parker
Vivian Darkbloom
Mar 19 2021 at 4:13am
As I expected, the Europeans and the French have now reversed their decision on the AZ vaccine. But, the damage has already been done by slowing down vaccination and further eroding confidence in the vaccine that will never been fully recovered. Astra Zeneca has been suitably punished, but at what cost?
Following is a news report so that David can further brush up on his French language skills:
https://www.linternaute.com/actualite/guide-vie-quotidienne/2526380-direct-vaccin-astrazeneca-reprise-de-la-vaccination-ce-jeudi-castex-optimiste/
Mark Pynenburg
Mar 17 2021 at 12:37pm
The precautionary principle may make for good environmental policy but it does not follow as a policy for pharmaceutical risk management. This article does a good job of breaking down what is going right and wrong in the EU.
https://anthonycox.substack.com/p/is-it-safe-vaccination-safety-plans
Jens
Mar 18 2021 at 4:24am
The suspension took place at very short notice in Germany. The responsible institute issued a positive assessment last week on March 11th, but this was revised at a press conference on Monday of this week. There is an acute accumulation of a type of cerebral vein thrombosis with very specific accompanying symptoms in younger women. The complication is very rare but dangerous. It is not about leg vein thrombosis or the like. In Germany there is a lot of AZ vaccination in the health system. It could also be that this is the reason why this was not noticed in the UK, because the vaccine was also used there in the elderly. The suspension is also commented very critically here. However it really looks like new information has arrived. Regardless, overall it’s a good and effective vaccine. It may be better to vaccinate younger women with an alternative.
Peter Watt
Mar 17 2021 at 3:14pm
The mistake was to transfer the risk of adverse reactions from those best placed to assess and manage the risk (the drug companies) to the taxpayer who is badly equipped for both of those tasks.
So, for example, governments do not usually remove liability for car accidents from drivers and instead shoulder it themselves.
Knut P. Heen
Mar 18 2021 at 10:15am
It is more complicated. In Norway, we cannot get any vaccine on demand. They ration the vaccines and you have to wait in line until it is your turn.
The AstraZeneca vaccine is currently given to health care workers. The Pfizer vaccine goes to the elderly. The ones who died were all health care workers. Experts claim the symptoms (the combination of blood clot and bleeding is unusual) can only be triggered by medicine.
When they say they are suspending the vaccination, they are doing that more as an employer (labor unions are involved, I bet they want Pfizer) than as a government. I cannot get any vaccine anyhow.
Luckily, I live in a city with less than 200 cases and no deaths so far during the pandemic. I actually go to my office and give lectures as in a normal year.
Jens
Mar 19 2021 at 2:53am
There is now a concrete statement from the EMA. The inoculation of AZ will probably continue in many countries now. It is an effective and safe vaccine. But one should think about vaccinating younger women with something else as a priority.
https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/covid-19-vaccine-astrazeneca-benefits-still-outweigh-risks-despite-possible-link-rare-blood-clots
Comments are closed.