Editorial: How a key weapon against the coronavirus was blunted

Pharmacist Rajan Shah prepares a syringe of the AstraZeneca vaccine at St John's Church, in Ealing, London. Photo / AP

Editorial

EDITORIAL

The furore surrounding the Oxford/AstraZeneca jab is a cautionary tale on the potential pitfalls of developing a vaccine in record time - even if other doses get through the same process with their reputations unscathed.

From being touted as the great hope for getting a vaccine out quickly to millions of people, the British-Swedish shot has become caught in a nightmare.

Several European countries last week suspended use of it even as the European Medicines Agency said that there was no evidence of a link between the shot and incidents of a rare type of blood clot.

On Friday the EMA confirmed there was a "clear scientific conclusion" that the vaccine was "safe and effective". It said "a causal link with the vaccine is not proven" but the blood clot issue "deserves further analysis". The Wall Street Journal reports it can be easily treated if caught early.

Countries have now resumed use of the vaccine but regrettable damage has been done.

AstraZeneca says there have been 37 reports of blood clots among the more than 17 million people who have received the vaccine in Britain and continental Europe, adding: "This is much lower than would be expected to occur naturally ... and is similar across other licensed Covid-19 vaccines."

European officials said that they acted out of caution over safety and legal concerns; to be transparent; and protect public confidence.

But arguably lives were put at risk during a new surge in infections on the continent where half a million people have died. The clear and present danger is Covid-19.

Already-sluggish vaccine rollouts were affected. And trust in the vaccine was undercut. Credibility is coin for vaccines, especially in an ongoing crisis.

Trials and real-world data show that all the major vaccines are effective at preventing hospitalisations and deaths from the coronavirus. It is safer to have any one of the vaccines than not.

Impressive numbers from AstraZeneca's US trial.

"The vaccine was 100% effective against severe or critical disease and hospitalisation and was safe, the drugmaker said on Monday" https://t.co/qhPs0uS34y

— Carl T. Bergstrom (@CT_Bergstrom) March 22, 2021

In New Zealand, although the AstraZeneca vaccine was one of four set to be used here, the Government has chosen to concentrate on the Pfizer/BioNTech shot for its rollout.

Using the same vaccine makes distribution easier. It's also easier to make the case for safety and overcome hesitancy through word of mouth and medical advice.

The blood-clot row is just the latest safety scare or problem to surround the AstraZeneca vaccine.

Last year, the single-shot AstraZeneca vaccine had initial advantages over the double-dose Pfizer/BioNTech. The AstraZeneca vaccine was cheaper and could be stored at normal fridge temperatures. It is the main vaccine in the Covax initiative to help poor countries.

Actions have consequences: suspension of #AstraZeneca #COVID19 vaccine last week damaged confidence in vaccine across #EU. Numbers who think it unsafe:
🇫🇷 61%
🇩🇪 55%
🇪🇸 52%
🇮🇹 43%
🇩🇰 42%
🇬🇧 9%https://t.co/QpmBYOrQZN pic.twitter.com/RsHtylQOG0

— Jon Williams (@WilliamsJon) March 22, 2021

But the vaccine got off on the wrong foot with confusing early test results. An error meant volunteers received a half-dose. There was also a lack of data on its use in older people.

The vaccine got caught up in the tense political aftermath of Brexit between Britain and the EU, and there have been controversies over supply orders and the hoarding of doses. More than half of the EU's 15 million AstraZeneca doses have been in storage.

Yet the vaccine has proved to be effective, especially in Britain where 11 million people have had it. Three-quarters of people aged over 80 now have Covid immunity there.

The major losers in all this appear to be the people needing a vaccine.