display
Everyone has been waiting for this decision from the European Medicines Agency (EMA): How would the experts rate AstraZeneca's suspected vaccine?
Would the EMA recommend further vaccination so that the pandemic is over as quickly as possible - regardless of an apparently increased risk for younger people?
Or would the EMA only approve the vaccine for older people with a very high Covid 19 risk and few side effects?
Now the decision is there.
And it is surprising: The benefits of the AstraZeneca vaccine should be rated higher than the risks, according to the explanation.
It is a dubious decision.
The reservations that exist about the AstraZeneca vaccine are not over.
On the contrary: a close examination of the data has shown that the substance increases the risk of dangerous, even life-threatening cerebral vein thrombosis, especially in younger women.
Younger people in particular, men and women, have a comparatively low risk of a severe Covid course.
display
So why should a young woman - or a young man - choose this vaccine?
However, the voluntary decision to vaccinate people whose risk of disease is low is essential for ending the pandemic.
Only if many people are vaccinated quickly will we have a chance of an end to the eternal lockdown phases.
Only then do we have a chance to be faster than the mutations.
Only then do we have a chance of not having to endure a second Corona Christmas.
But this goal, the broad vaccination coverage, can only be achieved if one does not stubbornly inoculate everything that is available.
70, 80 or even 90 percent of the population will only be vaccinated if people's trust in the vaccines is not gambled away.
display
If there are reservations, they need to be examined.
If risks are confirmed, as in the case of sinus vein thrombosis, the authorities must respond.
Trust can only be built when people have the feeling that they are constantly being checked and weighed up, that risks and fears are taken seriously and that the advantages and disadvantages of vaccination are carefully weighed up.
In the end, simply wiping risks and fears off the table does not help anyone; it would possibly lead to an increase in vaccination skepticism.
Especially in vaccine-skeptical Germany, the Paul Ehrlich Institute and the Standing Vaccination Commission should stick to their line.
For people under 60, the risk of AstraZeneca vaccination is higher than the risk of corona infection.
And even if all vaccines are currently in short supply, it is not as if there is no alternative vaccine.
Biontech and Moderna are a safer alternative.
And that's always better than jeopardizing trust in vaccines in general.