Vaccine Paradoxes
The effect of COVID-19 vaccines, in general, is still greater than expected in clinical sessions. In the most advanced vaccination countries it is observed that the introduction of the most vulnerable groups of the population has direct consequences on mortality and hospital admissions, they are even able to some extent to interrupt the transmission of the virus. Success is so remarkable, as the percentage of people who rejected vaccines has declined in many countries, even where opposition was important.
In this sense, it is paradoxical that in Hego Euskal Herria, where in reality it is the main attitude in favor of vaccines, there are groups that are now full of doubts. This is what the authorities have achieved in the templates with the first Astrazeneca vaccine.
In fact, when they learned that there were unusual thrombotic events, they stopped vaccination to better investigate these strange side effects. The European Medicines Agency (less than a hundred thousand) found that the risk of it was really low. He specified this in the vaccine leaflet and recommended continuing vaccination because the vaccine benefits were much higher than the risks.
However, many European governments modified their vaccination criteria, leaving Spain waiting for the second dose. From the first dose of Astrazeneca, I wanted to know the consequences of the second being Pfizer. Claiming that the provisional results of the clinical sessions have been satisfactory, he decides to give Pfizer. This decision goes against the EMA recommendation. In addition, the experience of clinical trials in the UK and elsewhere shows that if the first dose did not affect, the second does not. And this is what is stated in the application sheet.
But there seems to be a shortage of Astrazeneca doses. Therefore, the government has prioritized the issuance of the second Pfizer. However, instead of explaining it, it has offered the possibility of receiving Astrazeneca, but for this, and paradoxically, the recipient must sign a document recognizing the damage involved in the Astrazeneca vaccine. There is much more evidence, however, that if we take the first dose of Astrazeneca, the second dose of the same house is safe and effective, the second more than that of Pfizer.
It seems that the Spanish government is confident that people can decide what vaccine they will take with their information. But only those of that group, those of the rest cannot choose. And, neither one nor the other, nobody seems able to decide, paradoxically, on a much simpler subject: being outdoors, when it is needed and when not, put on the mask. That is why it is mandatory for the moment.
It is also paradoxical that clinical sessions are held to introduce young people over 12 years of age and to see if a third dose is necessary, when it is not yet guaranteed that those over 18 years of age are incorporated within a reasonable time. And not only in impoverished countries; in Europe, there is still enough for 70% of the population over 18 to be integrated, and there are difficulties in reaching certain groups.
Perhaps the greatest paradox, however, is that vaccines are so effective and that so much attention has been paid to coping strategies for covid-19, as issues relating to other aspects of sindemia are sidelined. Such a close example is nursing homes: the vaccine has significantly reduced deaths, but at the same time has silenced the debate on caring for older people. And further, the same has happened with discussions on the socio-economic model and the environmental crisis. The solution for them will not be suitable in a pharmaceutical laboratory, but the answer must come from society.
Buletina
Bidali zure helbide elektronikoa eta jaso asteroko buletina zure sarrera-ontzian