Tuesday, February 06, 2024
COVID-19 Vaccination Rates Near Collapse in Europe--Market for mRNA Vaccines in Danger
The European Center for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) releases the COVID-19 vaccination coverage data for the 2023-24 season vaccination campaigns. The ECDC by September 2023, updated its COVID-19 vaccination coverage data analysis process. The latest data report is an interim description of COVID-19 vaccination in the European Union/European Economic Area (EU/EEA) between September 2023 and January 2024.
What becomes clear is much like in America, a precipitous drop in COVID-19 vaccination rates. In fact, TrialSite suggests a collapse in market demand, such a collapse that the vaccine makers will consider their options as time progresses to the next vaccination season.
A handful of countries on the continent report high rates (Denmark for example) but the overall rates have plummeted. A pattern emerges in that eastern nations in Europe have all but dropped the mRNA vaccine product. Moderna is locked out of the lucrative European market, and while Pfizer’s partnership with Germany’s BioNTech ensured it the overwhelming lead position, its COVID-19 vaccine and antiviral sales all but collapsed.
During the reporting period, 24/30 EU/EEA countries reported data on COVID-19 vaccination coverage for at least one target group (people aged 60 years and above, people aged 80 years and above, healthcare workers, individuals with chronic conditions, pregnant women). Approximately 19.4 million people during this period, aged 60 years and up received one COVID-19 vaccine dose.
At least 5.5 million people aged 80 years and above opted to receive the jab. The median COVID-19 vaccination coverage among the most high-risk cohorts in Europe—persons aged 60 years and above equaled 11.1% (range 0.01-65.8%). This specific median indicates the rates skewed to the lower end. The even more high-risk cohort of 80 years of age and up were vaccinated at 16.3% (0.01-88.2%) with high variation among countries, but clearly among the whole content much like in America the demand for COVID-19 vaccination all but collapsed.
Only a handful of nations’ populations went out in force to get the COVID-19 jab during the 2023-2024 season. Of the 24 European countries reporting, three countries reported a vaccination coverage of ≥50% for the age group 60 years and above, while eight countries reported a vaccination coverage of ≥50% for the age group 80 years and above.
What was the most used vaccine brand? The Pfizer-BioNTech product was originally developed by Germany’s BioNTech. A majority of the 22.7 million COVID-19 vaccine doses administered in the EU/EEA during this period in the overall population were the Comirnaty Omicron XBB.1.5 (Pfizer BioNTech) vaccine (around 22 million doses; 97% of the total doses administered). Moderna’s all but cut out of the European market which should have a profound impact on its vaccine sales forecasts.
The ECDC reminds all analysts that the preliminary results herein must be interpreted with caution. A higher degree of data consolidation and data completeness is expected in the coming weeks and months.
*************************************************
Australian Employer Ordered to Pay Compensation for Vaccine Injured in ‘Significant Precedent’
An Australian court has ordered an employer to pay weekly compensation and medical expenses to an employee after ruling that a vaccine injury that occurred from a workplace directive is compensable under the law.
Daniel Shepherd, 44, worked as a child and youth support worker with South Australia’s Department of Child Protection when he developed pericarditis after receiving his third Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine in February 2022.
Pericarditis is inflammation of the pericardium, a thin sac that surrounds the heart. The condition is reported to be more common in males aged 18 to 49, with an estimated 27 cases per 100,000 doses.
Mr. Shepherd was told by his employer that his employment would be terminated if he did not receive the third dose of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine. The directions for the mandate were made under Section 25 of South Australia’s Emergency Management Act in January 2022, which required support and healthcare workers to receive a third dose of the COVID-19 vaccine to continue working.
Mr. Shepherd received two COVID-19 vaccinations on Aug. 19, 2021, and Sept. 9, 2021, respectively, according to documents submitted to the South Australian Employment Tribunal.
On the first dose, Mr. Shepherd experienced aching joints, cold, and flu symptoms, and minor chest pain for one to two weeks. He experienced similar symptoms on his second dose.
Mr. Shepherd then received his third booster dose on Feb. 24, 2022, after receiving a message from his employer saying that employees needed to have a third dose of vaccine within four months of having a second vaccine.
The following day, Mr. Shepherd experienced severe chest pain, which worsened over the next two weeks.
On March 11, 2022, the chest pain was so unbearable that he felt “like someone was kneeling on his chest.” Having thought he was experiencing a heart attack, Mr. Shepherd was taken by ambulance to the Ashford Hospital, where cardiologists diagnosed him with pericarditis.
The 44-year-old husband and father of a 5-year-old boy noted some improvement four to five months after the chest pain; however, further episodes of severe chest pain followed and symptoms returned.
Mr. Shepherd has not worked since March 2022, except for two months when he worked part-time in an administrative role.
Vaccine-Injured Files Claim Against the State
Mr. Shepherd filed a claim for compensation against his employer, the State of South Australia, which was initially rejected.
The state had initially contested the connection between the vaccine and the injury but later acknowledged that the third dose caused Mr. Shepherd’s pericarditis and subsequent incapacity to work.
Despite that, the state argued that the injury didn’t arise from his employment under the Return to Work Act, and that the injury was linked to the Emergency Management Act.
The state argued that if criteria under the Return to Work Act are met, they are exempt from liability in relation to the broader management of the pandemic under the Emergency Management Act.
But Tribunal deputy president Judge Mark Calligeros rejected those arguments.
“The injury was a direct consequence of an Emergency Management Act vaccination direction and of Mr. Shepherd’s employment,” Judge Calligeros said.
“The connection between employment and the injury is a strong one, given I have found that Mr. Shepherd would not have had a third dose of the vaccine if he had not been required to in order to continue working.
“The state required Mr. Shepherd to be vaccinated to continue working in a healthcare setting because it sought to protect and reduce the risk of infection to the public and general and those members of the public receiving healthcare services in particular.
“It would be ironic and unjust if Mr. Shepherd was denied financial and medical support by complying with the state’s desire to preserve public health.
“The rejection of Mr. Shepherd’s claim should be set aside, and it should be ordered instead that he receive weekly payments of income support and payment of medical expenses.”
Ongoing Pain
Currently, Mr. Shepherd tires easily, and becomes tired after walking his son to school, some 400 metres (437 yards) from his home. Prior to the injury, he was able to hike up and down Mount Lofty, walk, and do Chinese boxing, which he is now unable to do.
In an interview with 9News, Mr. Shepherd said he now has the heart of a 90-year-old. “Even today with just mild exertion [I get] chest pains and then it’s followed by fatigue, like severe fatigue,” he said. “It’s heartbreaking to have to say, ‘Sorry buddy, daddy’s tired’.”
In a social media post, Senator Gerard Rennick said the ruling is a “significant precedent.”
“[E]mployers are now going to think twice about forcing people to get a vaccine if they have to fork out for potentially significant medical costs if the employee then incurs a vaccine injury,” Mr. Rennick said.
“This is only one case, and I suspect it will be appealed.
“I hope the decision is upheld because it will then open up the option of employers suing governments who mandate vaccines or pharmaceutical companies for unsafe or ineffective vaccines.”
********************************************************
Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)
https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)
https://awesternheart.blogspot.com (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs
*********************************************************
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment