It surely wouldn't make sense to approve it at all if efficacy is only 8%? The Sanofi/GSK vaccine has had to start the whole trial process again as it was shown to be effective for younger age groups but far less for older groups. You can't imagine that one was only 8% either.
As I said, I'm only speculating. Unless there is new data submitted (in which case the MHRA would be all over it like a rash) showing this, it seems vanishingly unlikely 8% is really what the data shows, from everything published to date.
So, it appears that this is a politically motivated story, presumably something to do with the supply issues - timing can't be a coincidence. I don't at all understand why it would be to German advantage to do that, but presumably that's what's going on given that Handelsblatt is a respectable publication and they're quoting govt sources.
The 8% then, must have come from somewhere. The only way I could see to get to 8% is to calculate a confidence interval from the sparse data there is, and the low end of that confidence interval could well be 8% (might be for instance 8-96% or something. But it wouldn't be a meaningful figure.
Now, it would be a perfectly respectable position to take not to approve for over 65s until more data is available, and it wouldn't surprise me if that's what EMA does. Regulatory agencies take different views on where the risk/benefit lies. The FDA have asked for more data before approving, for instance. But to leak it to the press in such a way is deeply unethical, and those responsible should be ashamed.
My parents have got the call for vaccination this Thursday, and I'd be happy for them to get any of the vaccines. The data is very strong on all of them from everything I've seen.
www.theguardian.com