SHARE
COPY LINK

FEATURE

OPINION: European governments were cautious on AstraZeneca vaccines but they were neither stupid nor ‘political’

It is the best of decisions and the worst of decisions. Everyone can claim to be right. Everyone is partly wrong, writes John Lichfield on the pausing of the AstraZeneca vaccination campaign across Europe.

OPINION: European governments were cautious on AstraZeneca vaccines but they were neither stupid nor 'political'
Photo: Christophe Stache/AFP

The European Medicines Agency handed down its judgement on Thursday. The AstraZeneca vaccine is effective and safe to use. Most European countries which had suspended AZ vaccinations are expected to resume today or in the next couple of days.

But – despite what is being reported by some – the EMA did not dismiss out of hand concerns that AZ shots can lead to blood clotting disorders in perfectly healthy young people.

The agency said that there was indeed evidence of “a small number of cases of rare and unusual but very serious” clotting problems associated with AZ.  Nonetheless, on balance, the EMA said, it had come to a “clear scientific conclusion” that AZ shots were safe to use. The huge benefits far outweighed the tiny risks.

Fair enough. Balance and clarity have been in short supply in this sorry saga until now.

Unfortunately, there is no sign that will change soon.

Were European governments wrong to suspend their AZ roll-out at the start of the week? The pause will undoubtedly have dangerous side-effects on vaccine resistance, and specifically AZ resistance, in European countries.

On the other hand, ploughing ahead regardless of the evidence of rare clotting disorders emerging in several places – in Norway, in Germany, in Austria and in Italy –  might have had an even more calamitous effect on public opinion.

Let us, for once, be fair to governments. They were placed in a very difficult situation. France, for instance, where there were very few AZ side-effects, did not want to suspend an AstraZeneca programme which had just started to take wing.

President Emmanuel Macron was bounced into his decision by a domino-tumble of suspensions imposed by Germany, the Netherlands, Italy and others.

France is the most vaccine-sceptic country in the world. How could Macron say that there was no reason to stop briefly to think when all his neighbours were stopping briefly to think?

READ ALSO How worried should France be about its vaccine-sceptics?

Little of this was reflected in the coverage in the British media. With some honourable exceptions, the consensus view in the UK was that the EU was being “stupid” or seizing on flimsy reasons to attack the AstraZeneca vaccines because a) AZ was British or b) AZ had failed to supply the EU with all its promised doses.

In other words, it was all “political”. In truth, it was the opposite. Politicians in a score of European governments decided, rightly or wrongly, that their political interest – the belatedly accelerating vaccine programme – must briefly give way to medical and legal considerations.

Only Belgium stood up to this trend. The Belgian government said that it would be “irresponsible” to interrupt an AZ vax roll-out which WOULD save thousands of lives because very rare side-effects  MIGHT take a handful of young, healthy lives.

That was a courageous decision by Belgium but I don’t think that it makes the decision taken by the others irresponsible. We live in a time of instant experts and easy answers but sometimes there are no easy answers.

It has been widely asserted in the UK media, and by the UK government, that there is no obvious connection between the AZ vaccine and clotting disorders. It is also asserted that such “thromboses” have actually been less common among the AZ-vaccinated than in the population as a whole.

Neither of these things, it now turns out, are true.

A Norwegian study found on Thursday that there was a clear link between AZ vaccinations and three youngish Norwegians who suffered rare brain thromboses or strokes, one of whom died. On Tuesday, Germany’s health ministry of health said that there had been seven cases of “cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST), including three deaths, among the 1.6m million Germans people who had received an AZ shot. That was three or four times higher than the normal rate.

Science magazine reported that in five countries 13 people aged 20 to 50 had suffered from widespread blood clots, low platelet counts, and internal bleeding. Seven had died. This was “more frequent than would be expected by chance”.

“It’s a very special picture” of symptoms, said Steinar Madsen, medical director of the Norwegian Medicines Agency. “Our leading haematologist said he had never seen anything quite like it.”

I am not trying to start – or re-start – a scare story.

I think vaccination is great. I think the AZ vaccine is wonderful. One week ago I had my first shot in a French doctor’s surgery. It was AstraZeneca. I have a history of blood clotting problems. I have no regrets that I took the shot. I’m looking forward to my second in June.

The EMA and Belgium are right. The need to vaccinate rapidly against Covid is so urgent that, on balance, a small risk of clotting problems is a risk worth taking.

But that’s not so simple a choice as much of the British media – BBC included – would have us believe. Life-death accountancy is not straightforward.

Is it worth risking the lives of few young people who are broadly unthreatened by Covid to protect the lives of tens of thousands of vulnerable older people?

European governments had little choice but to stop to review the evidence. The easiest way to fuel anti-vaccine feeling in France – and probably other EU countries –  is to create the impression that vaccination is a politico-industrial juggernaut which cares nothing  for potential or actual side-effects.

Yes, EU countries are sometimes more risk-averse than Britain.

Yes, the UK has, so far, got away with, even hugely benefitted, from a series of risky short-cuts on vaccines.

Yes, the EU should find a way to make these common health decisions in advance, not after the damage is done.

Yes, President Macron and others were wrong to make baseless accusation against the AZ vaccine in the past.

Yes, the blood-clot scare will cause greater AZ-scepticism in the EU for a while (and then the effect will, hopefully, fade).

But for Britain to shout down understandable caution as “stupid” or “political” or “an EU attack on our vaccine” is foolish and hazardous. 

John Lichfield is the former foreign editor of the UK’s Independent newspaper. He also worked in Brussels covering the EU and spent 20 years as the France correspondent for the newspaper. He now writes opinion & analysis articles for a number of publications including The Local.

Member comments

  1. You have to make exceptions for the gammons as most only “read” the British guttersnipe press and believe every word that they print. Brexit is a prime example of that.

    1. Boggy, glad to see you and Joanne are sticking up for the privileged youth of Europe, lucky to have a choice of vaccines (when the EU eventually gets its act together?)
      Can I suggest that when you both are offered a vaccine, you decline to have it and request that your dose be donated to an older less privileged person in Africa or some other poor country who have no chance in the for seeable future of getting a life saving drug. You would of course give up any other entitlement to a vaccine, as this would mean stealing another person’s. Only fair don’t you think.
      As for me, i’m a gammon, guttersnipe reading older person who will have any vaccine offered and be thank full for it.

      1. You are obviously a prime example of a gammon. It’s such a great pity the Fourth Reform Act was passed and gave people like you and women the right to vote. My great grandfather used to say that England took a step back when women were allowed into the Lower House and it was even worse with the Life Peerages Act of 58′.

        Just because I would prefer the J & J vaccine does not mean I will participate in getting vaccinated. I prefer to let you guinea pigs test it first.

        1. Thats quite alright – choosing not to have the vaccine is entirely your right. However, it is worth remembering that Smallpox was eradicated because enough people had the vaccine. The only reason measles is still in circulation is because too many people refused the MMR – that has put the rest of the population at risk. So if you choose not to have the covid vaccine yet, just don’t expect to have the same freedom to interact with others until after you have had the vaccine as your choices shouldn’t impact on the health of others, just as you shouldn’t be forced to have the vaccine if you dont want it (unless of course there is a very god medical reason why you cant have the vaccine like allergy, pregnancy, suppressed etc).

      2. I quite agree – people who have no medical reason should not be permitted a choice of vaccine – if they choose to refuse a vaccine – as is their right – then they should go the bottom of the queue after everyone else. There are some very limited numbers of people where there is s a medical reason not to have a specific vaccine (allergy to ingredients, immunosuppressed, high risk of clotting etc) and that should be catered for, but for everyone else – take what you are offered or wait until everyone else has had their vaccines first.

      3. I have to donate to a less priviledged older person in Africa? Can you explain this opinion exactly please, because to me this does not make sense. It is the same as telling a child ‘eat your bread because in Africa children do not have bread’.
        It is the same as ‘this vaccine is safe because the WHO or whoeverr says so. The drug companies do not make statements ‘our vaccine is 100% safe’, they make sure not to be reliable if something goes wrong. And nobody knows at this point in time or it is as safe as anyone wants you to believe. Short term? reasonable safe. Long term? ???? nobody knows.
        Today they say A, tomorrow B, astrazeneca is today so safe that the french goverment does not allow it for under 55, while a week or two ago it was no good in the elderly. Are they crazy? maybe…… maybe they know more than we do………. maybe not crazy. Get a flower pull off the leaves, crazy, not crazy, crazy, not crazy, crazy etc. Time will tell…….

  2. Just refuse AZ, than the goverment will soon give a choice of vaccins! They want everyone vaccinated, I do not think many younger healthy people who will not die from covid like this risk! Why would you want to take it? Pain in the arm, feeling a bit tired, yes no problem to help others. Risking a brain bleed or death? not really. And even without the blood problems, nobody knows long term side effects yet, so how much risk is acceptable for the healthy younger population. Pain in arm plus tiredness plus some vague other side effects plus 0% guarantee this is safe long term, is enough risk in itself. So who refuses AZ is not a granny killer or selfish in my books!
    Am I going to take it when it is my turn in May or so? To be honest I feel very reluctant right now! Today they say A, tomorrow B. I think J&J is a better option, but who knows?

      1. That’s like delaying your car insurance. It might pay off for you , it might not. You’re assuming you won’t get the disease in the interim. Good luck.

          1. Yes but you are extremely unlikely to end up in hospital or die from Covid – seems like a no brainier

          2. Astrazeneca apparently changed name: Vaxzevria (previously COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca)
            Why? I guess because too many young died, now people refusing. They hope it is quickly forgotten, in the weeks to come they only mention Vaxzevria, and no association with Astrazeneca, until the same happens………oops. All feels a bit dodgy, like a cover up.

    1. Refusing the vaccine without a good medical reason to do so should absolutely not result in you getting a choice of other vaccines – it should put you to the bottom of the queue after absolutely everyone else. The only people who should have a “choice” in which vaccines in this circumstance are those who are medically at risk from a certain type due to allergy or preexisitng medical condition which makes a certain type of vaccine an issue for them. There are too many people waiting for vaccines for fussy people to be catered for. If you dont want the vaccine fair enough but then you shouldn’t expect another until after everyone else has had theirs. Just remember EMA, WHO and all of the recognised bodies have repeatedly stated these vaccines are safe (except in very limited circumstances for very specfiic types of people).

      1. wow, I prefer not to have an injectable stuck in my arm without knowing long term side effects. Have you read the patient leaphley from Astra zeneca? I have even called them. They are unable to explain when feeling naussia is just a commen side effect (more often than 1 in 10 or when you urgently need to call in medical care. The answer is ‘we do not suggest you take this vaccin nor do we say don’t take it. I refuse Astra zeneca, you obviously trust whtever they tell you. First it was useless in the old, now healthy young people dropped dead and voila, France says only for those over 55. They say that because the who or whoever told them it is perfectly safe. I prefer not to have AZ simply because most people react quite badly to it, some say that’s good, extra immunity, I think the reaction is too strong for most people and I think too this might trigger other responses, auto mmune problems later on. The fact that several healthy 20 to 50 year old dropped dead is something I find hard to accept as ‘the price to pay for sociery. Another point is the goverment want everyone vaccinated, if they want that they might give people choice and not threaten ‘if you do not take it now, your turn is last’. Well if they want it that way…… I wait. This strategy might be unwise because I am sort of a super spreader…….. by not changing my mask when I sneeze or cough, not poisoning myself with desinfected gel every time I enter a shop, by touching my mask, by being alife and breathing.

        1. I must comment on your statement that “ most people react quite badly to it “ that is the AZ jab. I live in the UK and know many, many people who have had the vaccine with no side effects other that a sore arm and/or feeling of tiredness.
          I agree in an ideal world we shouldn’t be injecting rapidly developed vaccines into people. However, I think you might have noticed that this not an ideal world and our chances of dying from Covid are massively higher than from a possibly resultant blood cot or any other possible side effect. But ultimately it is a personal decision and I respect people’s decision not to have a vaccine although I really do not understand it !
          Also a comment to the author of the article – the consensus in the UK is not that we think European decision making is stupid or political ( unless you take the “ gutter press “ seriously), we are just bemused by the lack of a clear plan and the constant smoke from various politicians trying to blame others for what has been a very poor vaccination programme from start to finish.

  3. Mr. Lichfield, how many people do you estimate will become seriously ill or die as a result of the suspension? I’II be surprised if that figure is lower than the estimated 40 (forty) in 17 million that caused the now discredited link between the vaccine and blood clotting; because there is no proven causal link. More damaging, is the further undermining of confidence to now take up the vaccine (look at earlier post as it’s now typical). You say you’re not trying to restart a scare story, then suggest that the UK has “so far, got away with, even hugely benefitted, from a series of risky short-cuts on vaccines.” A company wouldn’t usually consider mass producing a new vaccine until they were sure that it worked, that’s obvious. However, the UK initiative took the financial risk to mass-produce the AZ vaccine in advance of study results, just in case they were successful, which they were. The ‘risk’ was to the UK government. If this is what you meant, you should make it clear rather than leave it open to misinterpretation that the risk is applied to the vaccine itself. However, I’m pleased that you have received the AZ vaccine yourself. For clarity, to all readers, my understanding is that the WHO, the EU drug regulator, and the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) approved the vaccine as safe to use for all adults.

  4. It would help if a greater number of available vaccines had been administered instead of being left in the fridge or freezer! The EU is woefully slow in organising an effective vaccination programme, the result of which, the alarming resurgence of incidence and death rates, euro-wide.

  5. France waited on the EMA authorisations before starting their vaccination programme so why didn’t they follow their advice before stopping it ?

  6. Why don’t the authorities just get on with vaccinating the ‘forgotten’ tranche, and stop this pointless arguing about who’s vaccine it is. All the while its not in somebodies arm its useless.

  7. The EU “governments” have been both “stupid” and “political” sir, and many Europeans will now pay for it with their lives. The worst article I have read during this whole pandemic.

  8. This vaccine has undergone rigorous trials in the face of a pandemic. It has been authorised by the WHO, the EMA and MHRA and after today’s latest trials, shortly by the FDA. Macro et al should hang their heads in shame.

  9. I read a very long and detailed analysis of the issue with vaccine production and supply, especially as it relates to the AstraZeneca vaccine and the exclusivity clause that the British government inserted into their contract for supply (which is behind a large part of the supply issues into Europe). One comment that was made in that very long chain of discussion that is relevant here is this: Most EU countries take responsibility for the welfare of their citizens, and that demands caution when side effects were reported from this vaccine (as the side effects were statistically higher than expected). The UK government appears to have thrown caution to the wind and is willing to take risks with its population in its drive to get everyone vaccinated.

    You can decide for yourself which approach you prefer…If you think the risk is acceptable…I suspect if you think it is, it will remain acceptable only so long as it is not you or your loved ones that fall victim to that risk…

    1. Hi Rob. I think in reply I would say the view that the UK government has thrown caution to the wind and doesn’t take care of its citizens welfare is inaccurate, indeed very harsh. It was the UK government that financed the development of this vaccine which holds huge distribution advantages over many of the others when it comes to a global vaccination program. Equally, they have pursued strong lock-down measures, even if a week late in the first wave. Surely their strong pro-active vaccination approach including the 12 week vaccination gap (so that more people get protection) fully supports just how much they are caring for public health.
      The debate about this vaccines safety may continue for some time. Of course I understand that potential side-effects should not be ignored – that would be insane. But as at this time there is no proven link with the vaccine; indeed I have read (but not fact-checked) that the risk of clots is lower than that from taking the contraceptive pill. However what is for sure is the risk of hospitalization and death, even amongst the 18-49 year age group, from Covid, is significantly higher without being vaccinated.
      Meanwhile the virus is again out of control leading to further EU lockdowns and further economic hardship which will bring its own repercussions. I noticed Merkel said “everything is based on one principal and that is trust”. I wonder how many trust Sputnik V, a still unauthorised, adenoviral vaccine that may now be sourced from our beloved, trusted Russian friends.
      Terrible times. I hope everyone can receive their jab asap, whichever one is offered.

Log in here to leave a comment.
Become a Member to leave a comment.

OPINION & ANALYSIS

OPINION: Germany has failed to do its energy ‘homework’ – and faces years of catching up

Germany's energy crisis is the result of decades of failing to take action - and now residents face tough times. Brian Melican looks at what went wrong and asks why Germany isn't doing more to become energy independent given the scale of the problem.

OPINION: Germany has failed to do its energy 'homework' - and faces years of catching up

One of the most common figures of speech in German political debate is “doing one’s homework”. “Da hat die Politik mal wieder ihre Hausaufgaben nicht gemacht!” – “Once again, the politicians haven’t done their homework!” – is the usual refrain when something has gone quite predictably awry. Part and parcel of day-to-day politics in Germany, into other cultural spheres, this accusation is considered insufferably patronising. During the Euro crisis of 2012, for instance, the Greeks grew tired of being told, like petulant teenagers, to “go away and do (their) homework”. So it’s hard to begrudge them their audible Schadenfreude now that the self-styled schoolmaster has been caught with a briefcase full of unmarked essays.

While the details of the current energy crisis into which Germany has manoeuvred itself are technically complex – turbines and export permits; prolonging the service life of nuclear reactors or even recommissioning them; adjusting the amount of gas-generated electricity in the grid to varying degrees between north and south – the overall picture is so simple that every schoolchild can understand it: we have been putting off our homework for too long. 

READ ALSO: Energy crisis to labour shortage: Five challenges facing Germany right now

Years of inaction 

The assignment was set long ago. Back in the late 1990s, climate change first hit the political agenda and the Kyoto Protocol bound signatories to reduce greenhouse emissions. What’s more, Germany, as a country with few natural resources but a large industrial economy, has long been dependent on in importing astronomical amounts of oil and gas from foreign regimes – an approach whose weaknesses started to become apparent in the Oil Crises of the 1970s. As such, the task was clear – to radically reduce our dependency on fossil fuels – and the student understood the learning objectives: contribute to saving the planet and gain a degree of strategic freedom.

We got off to a good start in 1998 by, for the first time ever, electing the Greens, who promptly proclaimed the Energiewende (green energy transition) and set about creating Europe’s leading solar and wind power industry. Unfortunately, however, the Chancellor they were under was SPD-man Gerhard “Greenhouse gasses? Russian gas!” Schröder and, in the background, industrials were assured that they wouldn’t have to take all the ecological stuff too seriously. 

Gerhard Schröder and Vladimir Putin

Gerhard Schröder hugs Vladimir Putin at a meeting in Moscow in 2018. Photo: picture alliance/dpa/TASS | Alexei Druzhinin

Then, in 2005 we elected Chancellor Merkel – and re-elected her three times on a more or less explicit platform of Keeping Everything The Way It Is. This could only be achieved by continuing to import fossil fuels – an ever increasing proportion of which came, in spite of the many clear and pressing dangers, from Russia – and shrinking our renewables sector so that money could still be lavished on tax breaks for motorists and nobody’s view would be spoiled by wind farms.

Now, the due date for our homework has come around and we have a serious crisis. Things, for the first time ever, can no longer be Kept The Way They Are: public buildings are no longer being heated/cooled, swimming pools are being shut, and monuments are not being lit; those of us on gas heating (i.e. the majority of households in Germany) will soon be paying anything from double to quadruple our current bills.

READ ALSO: Reader question – Should I modernise my heating system in Germany?

Everywhere we look, there are shortages: not enough gas means, in anti-wind-power southern Germany, not enough electricity too. Yet sales figures from DIY chain stores show skyrocketing sales of electric heaters; shutting public buildings reduces consumption there, but increases it in people’s homes… Like a schoolboy on Sunday evening counting and re-counting the hours, whichever way we divide our time, there’s not enough of it.

Gas heaters on display in Hornbach Baumarkt in Fröttmaning.

Electric heaters are among the many heating devices lining store shelves right now, like these on display in a Hornbach Baumarkt in Fröttmaning Photo: picture alliance/dpa | Felix Hörhager

What’s astonishing, by the way, is not actually how bad things have got – and how bad they’re looking this autumn and winter – but rather that they aren’t already far worse. This is primarily due to Economics Minister Robert Habeck’s decisive early action and brutally honest communication: as a result, we have been unexpectedly successful in reducing dependency on Russian gas from 55 percent to 35 percent within four months and have, due to various comparatively painless efficiency savings, managed to cut our gas consumption by 14 percent compared to last summer. As such, the Federal Network Agency is now cautiously optimistic that, if this winter is not a particularly cold one, we may just about make it through without having to shut off the gas supply to swathes of our industry or whole cities.

This may sound like a national success story – and if we are indeed successful in maintaining this thin, increasingly wobbly veneer of normality into 2023, there will be a strong temptation to sell it as such, patting ourselves on the back for having been far-sighted enough to switch off the hot water in town halls across the country before it was too late and then allowing ourselves to get distracted. Yet depriving civil servants of warm water to wash their hands during some of the hottest months on record while half of them are on holiday anyway (Why wasn’t this already standard practice?!) does not a green energy transition make. It is the equivalent of writing the last line on that essay just as the bus pulls into the stop opposite the school.

READ ALSO: Cold showers to turning off lights: How German cities are saving energy ahead of winter

Winter is first obstacle of many

Any short-term successes must be put in the context of a mountain of uncompleted tasks in the medium term. Firstly, getting through this winter by the skin of our teeth will mean that gas stocks are even lower next April than they were this year. So we’d better hope that those liquefied natural gas terminals being rush-built on the coast are operational by then, and that Qatar – that oh-so reliable regime thousands of miles away on the Persian Gulf that totally shares all of our values – honours the contracts Robert Habeck managed to grovel us into earlier this year.

Robert Habeck, Minister for Economic Affairs and Climate Protection, takes part in a boat tour for liquefied natural gas imports to Germany on Wednesday in Wilhelmshaven.

Robert Habeck, Minister for Economic Affairs and Climate Protection, takes part in a boat tour for liquefied natural gas imports to Germany earlier in 2022 in Wilhelmshaven. Photo: picture alliance/dpa | Sina Schuldt

We’d also better hope that the Suez Canal, through which tankers filled with the much-needed LNG will need to pass, remains open the whole time and that Russian submarines sneaking their way through the Bosphorus don’t generate “incidents at sea”; then there’s Putin’s air units stationed in Syria… After that, in 2024, we’ll also need to keep a close eye on the US elections: another chunk of the LNG planned to replace Russian gas is from across the Atlantic, and a second Trump Administration would probably be only marginally more reliable a supplier than Putin’s regime.

So despite the flurry of activity this summer and the understandable angst ahead of autumn, it’s not really this winter that we should be worried about. There is, quite simply, a massive disconnect between the monumental scale of action which would be required to make Germany truly energy independent and the diminutive dimensions of what is currently happening.

Right now, we should be making it a legal requirement for landlords to switch heating systems from gas and legislating for state-funded factories to meet the demand this would generate; we should be immediately reactivating some of the thousands of kilometres of freight tracks Deutsche Bahn has dismantled in recent years – and drafting laws to make hauliers use these rail connections. Instead, we are jerry-rigging up LNG terminals and mucking about with flash-in-the-pan €9 tickets while we continue subsidising car-drivers enormous sums to burn petrol. 

Oh, and given that – who could have guessed? – Russia is barely respecting its supply commitments anyway, we should finally do the decent thing and stop importing Russian gas now. Would that add to our dire predicament? Yes. But perhaps, in order for us to start taking our homework seriously, we need to learn a few lessons first.

READ ALSO: OPINION: How many massacres will it take for Germany to turn off Russian gas?

SHOW COMMENTS