IT is becoming increasingly apparent that the fanfare over the vaccine trial results from Oxford University/AstraZeneca and the UK Government may have been overblown in regards to the potential protection elicited by the 100 million doses of vaccine bought by the UK from AstraZeneca.
With headlines such as “Covid-19: Oxford University vaccine is highly effective” from the BBC and similar hype from other media outlets it is now time for scrutiny.
The information (in form of clarifications) that has been drip-fed by AstraZeneca over the last few days is quite frankly astonishing and should be ringing alarm bells. This could have major consequences for a vaccination strategy both in Scotland and in the UK in general.
The following has now come to light: the low-dose “regime” was in fact a result of a serious dosing error – the amount of vaccine was apparently miscalculated for the Brazilian portion of the trial. This has now been admitted by AstraZeneca.
Luckily the error was in the form of a dilution and, according to reports, the vaccine trial volunteers suffered no harm as a result. The error was picked up only after the volunteers received the vaccine – they apparently suffered fewer inflammatory adverse events.
While such a serious breach of a clinical trial protocol is astonishing in itself, the hype over efficacy levels of 90% now needs serious examination. It has been revealed by the Oxford/AstraZeneca consortium that this level of efficacy only pertains to the cohort in Brazil who received the low dose in error.
The numbers involved in the dosage given in error now rebranded as the “half dose, full dose” regime was just 2741 but crucially no one over 55 received this dose.
Therefore there is no scientific evidence, yet presented, that the vaccine is effective at 90% in the over-55s. The best that can be said at this stage is the 62% efficacy claim based on the 8895 volunteers (presumably from a wider age group range) who received the correct dose.
This raises immediate concerns in regard to immunising the over-55s in the immediate future with a vaccine that appears to provide a relatively poor level of protection compared to those being produced by other companies.
Since the bulk of vaccines ordered by the UK Government are from AstraZeneca, the question arises – do we really want to give our elderly and vulnerable a vaccine that is only 62% effective when other vaccine vaccines are available with apparently higher protection rates?
Imagine if only around 60% of the residents and staff of a care home are protected while the bulk of the population are still waiting for their immunisation or worse still a sizeable proportion refuse a vaccine. Furthermore, it is possible that foreign travel in a few months time may depend on individuals proving they have been vaccinated.
If the efficacy of the Oxford vaccine is relatively poor in older age groups – people vaccinated with it may be seen as problematic by destination countries.
Given all this, the Scottish Government needs to consider prioritising the vaccines which show better levels of protection for the older age groups.
Furthermore, questions need to be asked about how much Mr Hancock and Prime Minister Johnson knew about the problems over the Oxford/AstraZeneca trial when the “interim results” were announced a few days ago and why they failed to be transparent over the lack of evidence for high levels of efficacy in the over-55s comparable with other vaccines emerging.
Iain Forbes
Edinburgh
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel