Has AstraZeneca Been Treated Unfairly?
(Originally Published 30th of March 2021 at 'https://www.yourlocalguardian.co.uk/youngreporter/19198967.astrazeneca-treated-unfairly-hasan-zaidi/')
Pharmaceutical giant AstraZeneca has helped develop a vaccine against the COVID-19 pandemic to be sold on a not-for-profit basis. Despite this, politicians have been reserved in their praise, with many European leaders outright criticising the firm. What has caused this breakdown in trust?
First approved within the UK on the 30th December 2020, the Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine has been developed by Oxford University, in partnership with the British-Swedish AstraZeneca. With a promising price of $3 a dose the vaccine is both cost-efficient and successful; the vaccine has demonstrated 90% efficacy in mixed trials with no participants over the age of 55 when one half-dose is followed by a full-dose after a month has passed.
Their vaccine uses a viral vector (vehicle used to transfer genetic code) based upon a weakened form of an adenovirus (common-cold) that infects chimpanzees, containing the genetic material of the SARS-CoV-2 virus surface spike protein. When injected into a human the surface spike protein is produced, stimulating an immune response that leaves the immune system with immunological memory – the ability to recognise and attack the virus before symptoms appear during a later infection.
Notably, the vaccine can be stored at fridge-temperatures, making it a vital part of the COVID-19 Vaccines Global Access Facility (COVAX) – an initiative that aims to provide doses for less economically developed countries that lack the advanced technologies of the NHS. Everyone needs to be vaccinated on a global scale so that the virus spreads and mutates less, less likely to become resistant to existing vaccines.
However, many European governments have expressed medical concerns. A correlation has been suggested between the vaccine and cases of pulmonary embolisms (blood clots in the arteries in the lungs), deep vein thrombosis (the formation of blood clots in a deep vein), and thrombocytopenia (a shortage of platelets that help the blood clot to prevent bleeding).
Consequently, multiple countries – including Ireland, Germany, and France – halted vaccine distribution whilst any causal link was investigated by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). Whilst they have yet to conclude the further analysis, they have made clear that the vaccine’s benefits outweigh any risks and have indicated that the coronavirus itself could have caused the blood clots.
AstraZeneca reports that out of the 17 million people who have received jabs, they had received only 15 cases of deep vein thrombosis and 22 instances of pulmonary embolism as of the 8th of March– a rate no more concerning than that within the general population.
Despite offering reassurances over the rarity of such thrombotic events, the vaccine has still been politicised. French President Macron has described the vaccine as “quasi-ineffective” for over 65s before changing his mind and deciding that he would personally take the vaccine. He has also backed the EU’s decision to block AstraZeneca exports after they decided to backtrack on a promised delivery of 120 million doses to the EU, caused by production shortages. However, AstraZeneca continues to meet the UK’s expectations due to a clause in their vaccine supply contract that requires the UK to be treated preferentially, perhaps leading to increased tensions.
The well-intentioned AstraZeneca has produced a vaccine that has largely been deemed safe for use but the firm may struggle to meet demand.
For more information regarding vaccines, visit: ‘https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/coronavirus-covid-19/coronavirus-vaccination/coronavirus-vaccine/’