Created a new group to evaluate the vaccine

This was stated by Minister of Health Bent Høie (H) on Thursday. The government has thus not followed the recommendation from FHI – and the break continues.

The expert group has been tasked with assessing the consequences of using or not using both the AstraZeneca vaccine and the Johnson & Johnson vaccine. It consists of experts from Norway and abroad – but none from FHI.

NIPH director Camilla Stoltenberg says NIPH was informed that the government would appoint the expert group after they submitted their recommendation on Monday. When asked if FHI was not asked to participate in or contribute to the expert group, she answers no.

– Then I perceived that they wanted a broader assessment, and that they were primarily critical of the fact that it seemed that we would not under any circumstances open up to use the AstraZeneca vaccine again.

– But do you think you do?

– I think we actually do it, but they have read us differently there, says Stoltenberg.

– It’s just that we have not looked at it as realistic given what we think will happen in the future – both when we look at the epidemiological situation, the availability of vaccines, and what we know about the side effects

– Do you perceive that the expert committee is a new assessment of their assessment?

– Both yes and no. They will have some more time to gain new knowledge about the same as we have considered. But without knowing the mandate they are given, it seems as if they will also be tasked with looking at other aspects of the case than we have done, and perhaps make their own and more thorough socio-economic analyzes and look more at the international aspects of such an assessment.

According to the plan, Norway will vaccinate people in their 50s at the beginning of May, when the government’s expert group has finished its assessment. FHI mean The AstraZeneca vaccine would mainly be relevant for those over 65 if it were used now – but that it is greater risk of side effects of the vaccine than covid-19.

– Want more

Minister of Health Bent Høie told VG on Thursday that the government would reduce the committee because they considered the consequence of making a decision to be great.

– We see that there is a lot of new knowledge in the area. We wanted the opening that it gives both to get that knowledge, and an assessment from another professional group.

– What was also part of the assessment of the government, was that making a decision about AstraZeneca could now have too strong guidelines for a future conclusion about Johnson & Johnson. This committee’s mandate is about virus vector vaccines – and thus both vaccines.

– Why did not you put down the expert group right away?

– It was because we first wanted FHI’s assessment – and it showed us that this was just very complicated.

– So it was not enough?

– We want more.

He says they will, among other things, look at more international data, and the health consequences of having stricter measures longer.

– Do not think so

One of the reasons why the government wanted a new assessment from the expert committee was that it was worried that a decision on AstraZeneca would lay the groundwork for a future conclusion on Johnson & Johnson.

But FHI sees this as two separate decisions, says FHI director Camilla Stoltenberg.

– No, we have not thought so. There will be independent assessments. What may affect the assessment of Johnson & Johnson’s vaccine is not what one decides on the AstraZeneca vaccine, but whether the serious side effects associated with the two vaccines are the same.

NIPH is the leading professional authority to decide which vaccines should be in the vaccination program.

– Does FHI interpret this as a lack of trust?

– No, we do not. The government will also make difficult decisions on this and will have a broader basis for decision-making. These have been and are very complicated assessments for NIPH, and we also say that the assessments may change with new knowledge or if the country finds itself in a new situation.

– FHI has made its assessments

When asked if FHI had an impact on the decision to set up an expert committee, Stoltenberg answers that they did not. So does FHI’s director of infection control, Geir Bukholm, who has led FHI’s work to examine the vaccine over the past month.

– It is an assessment and a decision that the government has made completely independently of us, he says.

As to why FHI is not part of the expert group, State Secretary Saliba Korkunc answers in the Ministry of Health:

– FHI has made its assessments and made a recommendation. NIPH’s assessments will be an important part of the decision basis when the government draws its conclusion. The committee will make independent assessments, but will of course also draw on FHI’s expertise and assessments that have already been presented.

– Have you thought about whether it can be perceived as a lack of confidence in FHI’s assessment?

– No. Both FHI’s work and the work of the expert committee will form the basis for the government’s final decision. The committee will look at other perspectives on the consequences of using or not using the AstraZeneca vaccine and other viral vector vaccines than the FHI has done.

–