"I still consider AstraZeneca's vaccine to be a good vaccine. Covid-19 is very dangerous, even for younger people, and the risk of contracting Covid-19 and dying is in any case greater than the risk of side effects for the affected population. But sinus vein thrombosis, while rare, is clearly more common after vaccination with AstraZeneca than in the average population and should be taken seriously. This is especially true for younger people. They can be treated, but they are life-threatening. It is good that the EMA has now finally recognized the link between the rare cerebral venous thrombosis and the vaccine. From the point of view of many experts and also from my personal point of view, this was overdue. The side effects are rare, but that the accumulation is a coincidence is simply very unlikely. The experts in several member states have acted faster and more consequently here. Today's decision of the EMA is unsatisfactory because there is no clear link yet between specific risk factors or the age. Based on the available information, I believe that the practice in some other member states, meaning to offer a different vaccination to younger people, is correct. Firstly, the cases occur in larger numbers in those age groups, and secondly, the risk of dying from Covid-19 is lower for younger people compared to those over 60. Despite all the criticism of the vaccine supply in Europe, we can consider ourselves lucky to have alternatives.
"Of course, the vaccine procurement in the European Union could have been better. The European People’s Party (EPP) already asked for the creation of a European institution for the procurement of vaccines and other pharmaceuticals in March last year and one reason why the US is faster in vaccination is that this institution existed already since 2006 which means not Donald Trump has created it but George W. Bush,” said the health spokesperson of the largest political group in the European Parliament (EPP, Christian Democrats), Dr med. Peter Liese.
“However, the most important reason for the different situation in the US and the UK compared to the European Union is that Europe is supplying the world and the US has an export ban. This has been introduced by Donald Trump but unfortunately, Joe Biden has not lifted it but even extended the respective rule until June. In this case, Biden is behaving like Trump and we should not let him go with this. Especially on the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine the difference is significant. The US production is only supplying the US and Europe serves the world. The BioNTech vaccine that is produced in Germany and filled and finished in Puurs, Belgium, is going not only to the whole EU but also to the rest of the world including Mexico and Canada. If the US only supply themselves and we supply the world, this cannot work out. Even worse is the case in the UK because we know that significant amounts of the AstraZeneca vaccine went from the continent to the UK, for example, from the plant in Dessau IDT Biologika in Dessau, Germany, and still the company is not ready to give vaccine that is produced in the UK to supply the European Union. They even wanted to export from the European Union to third countries. It was more than right that Italy blocked this export and in my view, this should have only been the first step. When we speak about mistakes of the European Commission, the main mistake was that the export control mechanism was not introduced earlier. This could have avoided the delivery of AstraZeneca vaccine from the continent to the United Kingdom. With BioNTech/Pfizer the case is different, because they live up to their commitment to the European Union, but still I think we should consider a more active approach here. The WTO rules allow an export ban, when it is necessary to protect people’s health and this is definitely the case here,” the EPP-MEP and doctor stated.
"We should not underestimate the danger posed by the new variants of the coronavirus in any case," said the health policy spokesman for the largest group in the European Parliament (EPP, Christian Democrats), Dr. med. Peter Liese to journalists in Brussels on Wednesday. "It is necessary to continue to be careful and follow the rules. The discussion not paying attention to the incidence rate alone, but also considering other things, is dangerous. Currently, in all EU countries, high incidence rates still lead to a high hospital occupancy rate and also rising death rates. In the view of some people, I may have been too pessimistic as far as the danger of the disease is concerned. However, I have to say that I was still too optimistic. In fall, I never expected that there would be such a bad second wave and that we would be running into a dramatic third wave by now. The coronavirus is even more dangerous than I had imagined. That’s why it is even more regrettable that the vaccination campaigns are not proceeding fast enough," said Liese.
The European Medicines Agency (EMA) today launched a so-called rolling review procedure for the Russian vaccine Sputnik V. This is the first step in the EU's vaccine authorisation process. The Russian Gamaleja Institute of Epidemiology and Microbiology now has the opportunity to gradually submit its scientific findings on the efficacy, safety and quality of the vaccine. The scientific experts will review these and if this scientific analysis is positive, a marketing authorisation application can be officially submitted. Sputnik is the seventh vaccine now being examined in this procedure. In addition to the three authorised vaccines from Biontech/Pfizer, Moderna and AstraZeneca and the vaccine from Johnson&Johnson whose authorisation is expected on 11 March, the American company Novavax and the German-based company Curevac long ago begun the rolling review.
“Sputnik is therefore only number seven in this question,” noted MEP and health policy spokesperson of the largest group in the European Parliament (EPP-Christian Democrats), Dr. med. Peter Liese. "I welcome the fact that independent, scientific experts are now analysing and evaluating the Russian data. As with the other vaccine candidates, the data will be assessed on a purely scientific basis. I do not rule out the possibility that the vaccine will be assessed as effective and can be used in Europe. Anything that helps us fight the pandemic is of course welcome. However, I remain sceptical. The clinical data presented by the Gamaleja Institute on Sputnik V still have a big question mark for me, and the publication in the scientific journal Lancet has raised critical questions.