‘Astra’nomical Problem Or ‘Temporary’ Setback?

‘Astra’nomical Problem Or ‘Temporary’ Setback?

Maybe it's complacency or maybe it's the number of safe (as far as we know) and effective alternatives, but markets seem largely unconcerned with proliferating suspensions of AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine. More than a dozen countries have halted (or partially halted) the shot after a handful of recipients developed blood clots. The suspensions are described as "precautionary," which in this case is supposed to be a synonym for "temporary." So far, experts say there's no evidence to support
Subscribe or log in to read the rest of this content.

5 thoughts on “‘Astra’nomical Problem Or ‘Temporary’ Setback?

  1. Yet another Catch 22 for the world. It will be interesting to see how this plays out across the globe. I think the average knee jerk reaction will be downplaying the significance of negative results so as not to undermine confidence in vaccination programs.

  2. The politicians own this. The medical regulators including the EMA have stated repeatedly that the number cases of clots is, if anything, lower than would be expected given the tens of millions of doses that have already been administered. The sensible thing to do was to say something along the lines of, “We will be guided by science, the EMA are monitoring the situation, and we will respond to any concerns they have with utmost urgency.” Instead they have played politics with this, and added to a war of words and actions with AstraZeneca. The only loser of this war has been the vulnerable people of Europe.
    I assume tomorrow the suspension will be lifted (when the EMA gives its formal report), but the mud will have stuck.

Leave a Reply to John Banjo Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.