A doctor administers the Astrazeneca vaccine at a mass coronavirus (COVID-19) drive-through clinic in Milan, Italy on March 15, 2021.
Anadolu Agency | Anadolu Agency | Getty Images
LONDON – The decision of many European countries to stop using Oxford University.AstraZeneca According to analysts, a coronavirus shot could have far-reaching consequences as vaccine uptake and the wider immunization program are already lagging behind in the region.
Sweden and Latvia were the last countries to suspend the use of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine on Tuesday about blood clot concerns. The move follows, among others, Germany, France, Spain, Italy and Ireland to temporarily suspend use of the vaccine as a precautionary measure, while assessing whether there is a connection between the shot and an increased risk of blood clots.
The World Health Organization, drug regulators, and the vaccine maker itself have tried to downplay persistent safety concerns. There is currently no evidence to suggest that there is a link between the shot and an increased risk of developing blood clots, which are common in the general population.
In particular, the WHO has asked the countries not to pause with the shot in their vaccination rollouts. The Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety has checked the available data and is in close contact with the EU Medicines Agency, the European Medicines Agency.
Additional expert guidance is expected to be announced shortly after the security reviews: the WHO Security Committee will meet on Tuesday, while the EMA will meet on Thursday.
EMA Executive Director Emer Cooke said in a news conference on Tuesday that EU member states’ decision to suspend use of the vaccine could result in lower public confidence in the shot, which affects vaccines confidence, but our job is to make sure that the products we approve are safe. “
It’s not the first time Oxford-AstraZeneca’s vaccine has come under pressure as the drug maker was previously asked about its testing method and data, the effectiveness of the shot in those over 65, and a publicized dispute with the EU Delivery of supplies to the block.
However, health professionals and policy analysts are asking questions whether much of Europe’s decision to suspend use of the AstraZeneca shot is wrong and likely to further damage the confidence of the vaccine or even cost lives at a time when a third wave of infections can be observed from Paris to Prague, and the introduction of shots by the EU is already slow.
“At this stage, national regulators are likely to act conservatively and out of caution. A risk-averse approach will help reassure the public and limit the impact on future adoption. But the prospect of a longer review or an outright ban cannot be ruled out, “said Federico Santi, Senior Europe Analyst at Eurasia Group, in a statement on Monday.
“Either way, the damage has been done. Willingness to take the AstraZeneca vaccine has already been lower than that of mRNA vaccines available in the EU, as the effectiveness of the headlines and initial confusion about its suitability for those over 65 years of age initially began were confused, “he said.
Some wonder if there was a political element behind the decision to pause the vaccine, as there have been disputes about it in the past.
Several European countries initially decided not to recommend the vaccine for people over 65 as there was insufficient evidence that it was effective before reversing that decision as more data became available to support it Highly effective in reducing the number of serious Covid infections, hospital stays and deaths.
Such decisions, which were not supported by derogatory remarks from some European heads of state and government (French President Emmanuel Macron once said the vaccine was “virtually ineffective” for those over 65), were viewed by some Europeans only as reluctant to Oxford -AstraZeneca viewed vaccine. The introduction of vaccination in the EU is already much slower than in the UK and US, and the bloc leadership has come under fire for its vaccination strategy.
“We know where this is going, it will lead to a loss of confidence in the vaccine,” Natasha Loder, health policy editor for The Economist, told the BBC’s “Today” program on Tuesday.
When asked whether the suspension had a political dimension, Loder said, “It could be that this vaccine feels bad.” Nevertheless, the decision has “no rational basis” and could be dangerous. “This precautionary principle is nonsense when you are in the middle of a pandemic,” Loder said.
“This is a safe vaccine and when they realize that this is a safe vaccine in Europe they will have to face the aftermath of all this media coverage.”
However, not all EU countries are following the same path. Belgium, Poland and the Czech Republic say they will continue to use the shot, saying the benefits outweigh the risks.
AstraZeneca has vigorously defended its vaccine and in a Explanation Sunday that the number of blood clots recorded after vaccination was fewer than what was naturally expected.