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

‘Chemical crayfish’: Why does the Swedish media love killjoy festive news?

It's time for this year's "kräftskivor", Swedish crayfish-eating parties! A cause for celebration? Not if the Swedish media has its way.

'Chemical crayfish': Why does the Swedish media love killjoy festive news?

Sweden’s main newswire this week ran a story warning that an analysis of the eight brands of Swedish crayfish available in the country’s supermarkets contained elevated levels of PFAS, a persistent pollutant which can damage your liver and kidneys, disrupt your hormones, and even cause cancer. 

But don’t worry. If you weigh 70kg or more, you can still safely eat as many as six of the outsized prawn-like crustaceans a week without being in the risk zone. 

While I’m sure the news story, which was covered by pretty much every paper, is accurate, it is also part of a grand Swedish media tradition: running miserable, killjoy news stories whenever there’s a sign that people might be planning to have a bit of festive fun. 

The two public service broadcasters, Swedish Radio (SR) and Swedish Television (SVT) are by far the worst offenders, their reporters unusually skilled at finding a downbeat, depressing angle for every public celebration. 

To give readers a sense of the genre, we’ve spent half an hour or so searching through the archives. 

‘This is how dangerous your Christmas tree is’ (and other yuletide cheer)

Source: Screenshot/SR

Christmas is a time for good food, drinking a little too much, and cheery decorations to ward away the winter darkness. But have you considered the risks?

SR has.

In “This is how dangerous your Christmas tree is”, a local reporter in Kronoberg looked into the possibility that your tree might have been sprayed with pesticide, or if not, might be covered in pests you will then bring into your house. 

By far the most common recurring Christmas story reflects Sweden’s guilt-loaded relationship with alcohol. 

You might enjoy a few drinks at Christmas, but what about the trauma you are inflicting on your children?

In this typically festive report from SVT in Uppsala, a doctor asks, ‘why wait for the New Year to give up alcohol? Why not start before Christmas?’, while the reporter notes that according to the children’s rights charity BRIS, one in five children in Sweden has a parent with an alcohol problem, with many finding drunk adults both “alarming and unpleasant”. 

God Jul! 

The Swedish media finds ways to make you feel guilty about the food you eat at Christmas too. You might enjoy a slap-up Christmas dinner, but what about those who suffer from an eating disorder? SVT asked in this important, but less than cheery, story published in the run-up to the big day. “This is the worst time of the year,” Johanna Ahlsten, who suffered from an eating disorder for ten years, told the reporter. 

Don’t you just love a cosy Christmas fire? Well, perhaps you shouldn’t. A seasonal favourite in Sweden’s media is to run warnings from the local fire services on the risk of Christmas house fires. Here’s some advice from SVT in Blekinge on how to avoid burning your house down. 
 
Those Christmas lights. So mysigt. But have you ever added up how much those decorations might be adding to your electricity bill? SVT has. Read about it all here
 
Finally, isn’t it wonderful that people in Sweden get the chance to go and visit their relatives and loved ones over Christmas.
 
Well, it’s wonderful if you’re a burglar! Here’s SVT Jämtland on the risk of house break-ins over the Christmas period. 
 
Eat cheese to protect your teeth! and other Easter advice 
 
 
“Eat cheese after soda”. Good advice from Swedish Radio. Photo: Screenshot/Richard Orange
 
For the Swedish media, Easter is a fantastic opportunity to roll out all the same stories about the risks of open fires and alcohol abuse, and that they do. But the Easter celebration has an additional thing to be worried about: excess consumption of chocolate and sweets. 
 
Here’s Swedish Radio, with a helpful piece of advice to protect your teeth from all that sugary ‘påskmust’, Sweden’s Easter soft drink. “Eat cheese!”. 
 
Yes, you and your children might enjoy eating all those pick-and-mix sweets packed into a decorated cardboard egg, but have you thought who else has had their grubby hands on them? SVT has. In this less than joyous Easter article  a reporter gives viewers the lowdown on “how hygienic are pick-and-mix sweets?” (According to the doctor they interview, sugar acts as an antibacterial agent, so they are in fact less dangerous than the newsroom probably hoped). 
 
Perhaps though, it’s better to avoid those unhealthy sweets altogether, and instead cram your mouth with healthy raw food alternatives, as SVT advises in this Easter report
 
Aren’t daffodils lovely? Well they’re not if you’re a dog. They’re deadly, according to this Easter report from Swedish Radio on all the “dangers lurking for pets over Easter“.
 
Glad Påsk!
 
Midsommar drowning  
 
Midsommar, again, has all the same possibilities for worried articles about excess drinking etc, but in the summer there’s the added risk of drowning. 
 
From Midsummer until the start of August, the temp reporters who take over Sweden’s newsrooms as everyone else goes on their summer holidays churn out a steady stream of drowning stories, all of them with a slightly censorious tone. After all, most of these accidents are really about excess drinking.
 
Here’s SVT Västmanland tallying up the Midsummer weekend’s death toll in a typical story of Midsommar misery. 
 
So, what is the reason for the Swedish media’s taste for removing as much mirth from festivities as possible?
 
It’s partly because Sweden’s media, unlike that of many other countries, sees its public information role as at least as important as entertaining or interesting readers, so an editor is likely to choose a potentially useful story over a heart-warming one. 
 
This is the aspect of the Swedish media beautifully captured by the singer Lou Reed when talking about how he’s more scared in Sweden than in New York in the film Blue in the Face
 
“You turn on the TV, there’s an ear operation. These things scare me. New York, no.” 
 
But it is also reflects the puritanical streak that runs straight through Swedish society, leading to a powerful temperance movement, which meant that by 1908, a staggering 85 percent of Socialist parliamentarians in Sweden were teetotallers.
Sweden is now a liberal country where you can get good food and drink, and enjoy a decent nightlife, but sometimes that old puritanism bubbles up.
SHOW COMMENTS