Meanwhile, AstraZeneca's COVID-19 vaccine, which was developed with the University of Oxford, continues to face safety doubts.
The jab has been suspended in several European countries over reports of rare blood clots.
A top official in the European Medicines Agency on Sunday suggested that it might be worth abandoning AstraZeneca's coronavirus vaccine for all age groups where alternatives are available.
But the EMA said the body's head of vaccine strategy, Marco Cavaleri, had been misrepresented, and that he believed its benefits outweigh its risks.
"The decision on its use in different populations and ages is the prerogative of the EU Member States, based on specific factors such as virus circulation and vaccine availability," a spokeswoman said.
However, a study from British health authorities showed on Monday that two doses of AstraZeneca-Oxford or rival Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines stopped the need for in-patient treatment in more than 90 per cent of cases of the Delta variant....CNA
The above report showed that AstraZeneca vaccine is unsafe in general and should not be approved for use. That is why several European countries have banned its used. Outside Europe and the USA, the users are countries that are desperate for vaccines, cannot get hold of other vaccines or refused to use Chinese vaccines and willing to risk the lives of their people in using AstraZeneca. Some countries donated this vaccines that they no longer want to use on their citizens to other desperado countries that do not mind the risk involved.
Can you imagine what the West would say if it is made in
China? Dangerous, unfit for use, must be banned immediately, it causes
more harm than good etc etc. The different and biased standard of the
West is very apparent here. Now which silly country is still using this
vaccine?
Take note of the last paragraph that said 'two doses of AstraZeneca-Oxford or rival Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines stopped the need for in-patient treatment in more than 90 per cent of cases of the Delta variant....'
The way these reports about efficacy of vaccines must be read carefully. The 90% is about no need for in-patient treatment, or no need for hospitalisation. The efficacy to prevent infection is definitely very much lower than this. Efficacy data could mean from infection, mild symptoms, need for hospitalisation/serious cases, and death. Do not be duped by such numbers as they mean different things.