[Goose]

Overall, I think the MHRA is in fact being bold and not wantonly dangerous, though it is not a risk-free gamble. 


BC

While I understand the rationale presented, I think the MHRA is being "bold" and taking a gamble. The safety data is pretty good, so probably the vaccine isn't going to harm any significant number of people. There is some indication that it may prevent serious illness and some indication it may provide a non-zero degree of immunity. There are also some indications that a longer period between immunizations is more effective. Unfortunately, as we know from hard experience many drugs that gave "some indication" don't live up to expectations. Given the emergency, taking a gamble may be a reasonable risk.

The problem is that the public doesn't understand that rationale and the MHRA isn't really going out of their way to explain that. BC was kind enough to tease out this analysis from available data, but I don't thing it is published in the Times. The public will believe they are getting an effective vaccine that will "protect them". If it is only 50% effective, it isn't going to really do that. The public reaction to that outcome will probably be quite vociferous, and may set back confidence in the MHRA to the point they will no longer be effective going forward.

[Goose]

Overall, I think the MHRA is in fact being bold and not wantonly dangerous, though it is not a risk-free gamble. 


BC

While I understand the rationale presented, I think the MHRA is being "bold" and taking a gamble. The safety data is pretty good, so probably the vaccine isn't going to harm any significant number of people. There is some indication that it may prevent serious illness and some indication it may provide a non-zero degree of immunity. There are also some indications that a longer period between immunizations is more effective. Unfortunately, as we know from hard experience many drugs that gave "some indication" don't live up to expectations. Given the emergency, taking a gamble may be a reasonable risk.

The problem is that the public doesn't understand that rationale and the MHRA isn't really going out of their way to explain that. BC was kind enough to tease out this analysis from available data, but I don't thing it is published in the Times. The public will believe they are getting an effective vaccine that will "protect them". If it is only 50% effective, it isn't going to really do that. The public reaction to that outcome will probably be quite vociferous, and may set back confidence in the MHRA to the point they will no longer be effective going forward.