Thread by @robfordmancs

I wonder if the German health authorities will now reassess their decision to not give AZ vaccine to under 65s, thus sending a signal to their citizens that the AZ vaccine was less effective. A signal which has depressed take up. This was presented as "prudent" at the time.

https://twitter.com/ThatRyanChap/status/1363783319243079680

Illustrates how default bureaucratic patterns of risk assessment can go horribly wrong in a high uncertainty pandemic environment. Yes, it probably is "prudent" to wait for more data in normal circs.

But if, with a pandemic raging, you signal to citizens that something is less effective and safe, and they respond (understandably) with greater vaccine hesitatancy/refusal, then you put lots of extra people at risk, for longer. That is the *less* prudent choice.

Should read "not give AZ to over 65s" or "only give AZ to undewr 65s" in first tweet. Sorry!

I remember when this decision was made a lot of people defended it by saying if subsequent data on AZ showed low efficacy this would be bad for public acceptance of the vaccine.

What they neglected was to consider the effect of their "prudent" restrictions on the same outcome.

If you say to your populace "oh, this is safe and effective, but only if you're under 65" - and regardless of caveats, that's what they'll hear - you should not be surprised when 60 or 50 or 40 year olds go "no thanks I'll wait for the other one".

In addition, I hope President Macron will now make a public statement fully retracting his previous nonsense re: this vaccine, nonsense which may end up needlessly increasing French deaths from COVID when all is said and done.

For example, this report on Germans rejecting AZ vaccine. Their government's "prudent" public health messaging has increased the risk they all face, by encouraging this behaviour:

https://twitter.com/MattSingh_/status/1363756546128248833