As if one vaccine having different trends of efficacy in various countries, probably because the degree of resistance to infection with Coronavirus varies due to people of different countries having differing immunity to a particular vaccine, it may be stressed that actual experience of the Swedish/British vaccine has thrown up a mixed bag of efficacy across different countries, much unlike the performance at the clinical trials, which observed a slightly different pattern of efficacy. Germany, France, Italy, Netherlands, Norway and Indonesia have suspended the use of this vaccine, while other countries have persisted with vaccination of its people. It is fairly conclusive that this vaccine has had varying degrees of efficacy across various countries thus having even made the makers of the vaccine go on the defensive, as clear side effects especially clotting of the blood, even bleeding and low count of blood platelets having been observed so far. It is known that this vaccine has 95% efficacy, but in terms of actual inoculation results, that figure is obviously not consistent across countries. Can inconsistency of efficacy be ascribed to its total percentage, as seen in the clinical trials? Would that argument suffice for countries to continue vaccination drive amidst an air of uncertainty? Is 5% risk, a tolerable percentage of risk?
