But looking at what PHE aren't saying, they're trying very hard to not say what exactly the immune response was, and very hard not to say that they have no idea if it works for older people.
Makes my spider senses tingle all over.
It might be hard to recruit older people, but you simply have to if you're going to put it into older people. No excuse.
There's no reason to think the scientists weren't being sensible, NA. If they are told solid logistical reasons not to study the reaction in older people, they don't do it, and that's fine because you ethically don't need to if not giving the jab to older people. Neither is that a reflection on the quality of the paper - the science might all be good.
But at some point it's ok'd for use in older people...no reason to think the scientists who did the study are implicated, but at that point stops being ethical.
But why would a perfectly competent organisation create a study designed not to find out if a vaccine should be given to older people, and then, when it doesn't find out, try to spin the argument that it should be given to older people anyway?
Absolutely agree ID, lack of evidence of efficacity doesn't equate to lack of efficacity. But there's a small risk in giving a vaccine, even one's which like AZ's appear to be very safe. Not just from the vaccine, but shielders have to leave their homes etc. This might be outweighed by the benefits even with very low levels of efficacity. But you need to know what that level is to know if it's safer than not giving it.
But there are other implications. Vaccine hesitancy is increased by giving a vaccine if you don't know if it'll work or not. Giving it to older people when it might be a waste when there are others who it could work for is unethical. When you consider the aim is herd immunity, and that these vaccinations in younger population would deffo be working toward that goal whereas in older people it might not be, well that's a potential further waste. And further potential waste, if all those older people then have to be vaccinated 3 times instead of 2. That money for vaccinations, and all the logistics involved, could have gone on measures that had a higher chance of success.
An ethical and sensible thing to do would be to have given it to younger people, and older people with allergies incompatible with pfizer's/moderna's. More difficult, and much slower, but better in the long run.
But we wanted 5 million vaccinations by January, to what? Save face? Save Johnson's career? I mean! Fuck!
The EU's contract with CureVac has been published, apparently. The best efforts clause is only 'reasonable', but caveated that it involves creating sufficient production capacity. If they've created this capacity, then diverted it to the UK that's likely to be a breach unless the AZ contract says that diverted production is covered. If, as the EU say(?), the contract specifically mentions plants in the UK being part of this EU production capacity (wouldn't surprise me, as UK production is ultimately designed for export even if it's serving the UK for the present, and very easy to have overlooked a time limit), then AZ are fucked (note they've already found 9m extra vaccines from somewhere).
