>
The German regulator's FAQ explicitly called this out; they are not interested in determining the path that saves the most lives, they are simply following the process that checks all of the boxes that the regulations require.A drug regulator should do its job, which is following established rules for approving and recommending new medicines. Not invent new rules, not push experimental drugs when new problems are being discovered on the go. Advocating for "greater-good" trade-offs and risks is a political effort, the regulator should be immune from political pressures.
I'm glad people there prefer to err on the side of going with established rules and caution.
If what you want is experimental drug being accessible to as many people as possible as soon as possible, you should advocate for the option to bypass the regulator and letting the people decide for themselves.
Do not advocate for corrupting the regulator.
> In the EU this regulatory pause of AZ has likely killed thousands of people.
I don't know how you came to that conclusion, but even if so, how many thousands of people would be eventually harmed or killed if the pause wasn't introduced? We don't know, because we are discovering properties and effects of the vaccines on the go. The data and estimates we have are based on short-term experience with the vaccines. They will change.
In treating people for illness it is a long established rule that "first, do no harm". And vaccine does not even help the patient with any illness - it is rather to help in case the patient would get one in the future. For many people, getting vaccinated has zero to negative benefit.
Nobody is entitled to get a fast-tracked rubber stamp to push vaccines on people. If you want to take experimental drugs, I support your right to do so, however I expect you let other people decide for themselves, including the regulators.