Boss im Gespräch - vfa-Präsident Steutel: Corona-Impfung für Kinder bald möglich

It's quite straightforward. I called my family doctor and they were going to make an appointment for the coming weeks, but that didn't work out for me. Then I was in Berlin and asked how things looked, jumped in the car and drove to him. I didn't ask which vaccine they would give me, and only asked afterwards — it turned out to be BioNTech. But I would have been willing to take any approved vaccine in Europe.

I can on one hand understand that, but on the other hand also not. When vaccines are available in sufficient quantities, as in all four cases we now have, I can understand a preference. But when there's scarcity, we must never forget that the risk of falling severely ill is much greater than the risk of a side effect from one of these four vaccines. The balance between effectiveness and side effect risk is very far apart. I can partially understand it, even though severe side effects have been seen. But it shouldn't be the case that people refuse vaccination because of that.

That is generally the case, absolutely. That's also the reason vaccines are approved at all. When we talk about vaccinations, we're not talking about sick patients — we're talking about healthy citizens. The balance between effectiveness and side effects is even more critical than when you're sick. If I have cancer and know it's not going well, I'm even willing to take a therapy where I might lose my hair. But for healthy people, risk awareness is naturally different, and the question of effectiveness is key.

That needn't be significant. What we've seen is differences in effectiveness between substances. But what really matters is ensuring people don't get seriously ill and hospitals aren't overwhelmed. All of them have very high effectiveness of more than 90 percent for that purpose.

We have to say: infected. That's naturally embarrassing, especially for an important minister. I can't fully judge it, but we know that for maximum protection after the first vaccination, you need two more weeks — the immune system needs time before it can produce an immune response. If he was infected shortly before or after the vaccination, it can still lead to illness. That could be one explanation. On the other hand, with both vaccines that have the highest effectiveness of more than 90 percent — people easily forget that. That is enormously high, much higher than flu vaccines where you still have ten percent unprotected. The question naturally arises why flu vaccine efficacy is so relatively low, between 60 and 70 percent, while here we're talking about 90. The difference is that COVID, as strange as it sounds, is still quite manageable. We've seen the British, African, Brazilian, and now Indian variants, but it's still about COVID. With flu vaccines, it's about various strains and you can't put all possible strains into a cocktail. It's a kind of scientific bet a year in advance. That's much more manageable with COVID.

The AHA rules are extremely good, and it is indeed remarkable that with COVID so massively present, no flu emerged. That has everything to do with the protective measures.

That's difficult to answer. It probably depends on how quickly the pandemic is brought under control globally. That will be decisive — how quickly we can vaccinate the entire world. America is far ahead, Europe is running, in Germany if we vaccinate 800,000 to a million daily it's still not fast enough. But we're only safe when the whole world is vaccinated. We've never had a task of this magnitude.

In Germany, we assume — and the Minister and the Robert Koch Institute say the same — that we should be quite far along by the third quarter. Otherwise we can't talk about relaxation or vacation.

The virus will probably remain with us. But if we all get vaccinated quickly — it will never be 100 percent, but when herd immunity is there, we'll benefit from it. The virus can no longer play such a dominant role. Cases will still occur but will be manageable. Hospitals won't face the enormous pressure of last year. That doesn't mean individuals can skip vaccination — the risk for any single person remains just as great.

We need to distinguish two things. First, we're still mid-process. Only when the pandemic is defeated should we compare approaches. When the Minister speaks like that, he wants vaccines distributed as quickly as possible. But prioritization still helps when there isn't enough vaccine for everyone. So: vaccinate, vaccinate, but maintain prioritization while supply is limited.

That's not our decision — the European Medicines Agency decides. I heard the happy news that 12-year-olds are now approved in the US. We can expect EU approval to follow. What age range that means, we still need to determine. Children can be infected without symptoms, but we should always remember: children are not small adults. You can't just give them a bit less. That needs to be well researched.

I didn't say that. I said children are not small adults. What works for adults doesn't automatically work for children — not for efficacy, not for side effects. That needs to be carefully examined. We don't need a new vaccine, just studies proving it's effective and safe. They started with 16- to 18-year-olds, then 12 to 16. If safe, they'll go further down. Children are extremely sensitive to substances.

I can't answer that precisely. But we've seen approval for over-16-year-olds coming in Europe and America, and for 12-year-olds we're on track. We only started in January, so it's reasonable to expect results in the coming months.

Good question, but I don't think I'm the best person to answer. Even within Germany there are quite different opinions between federal states. On a worldwide basis, with some countries barely affected and others hit hard — I'm overwhelmed by that question.

You're right that it happens, but it's more differentiated. The FDA acts autonomously, the Europeans also act autonomously, leading to sometimes different perspectives and decisions. The WHO also evaluates vaccines so it can advise countries — for example in Africa — on safety. This has its history: America, Europe, Russia, China, even Switzerland act independently. The British also left that authority.

It's phenomenal what we've seen. It started with BioNTech in Germany — very early on, before the pandemic had broadly arrived, without political contact, they used their mRNA technology to develop a vaccine that could be deployed quickly. We saw it with CureVac too, and companies deployed capacity for AstraZeneca and Janssen on a scale we've never seen.

You quoted me correctly — I said we could have a vaccine within a year, not that everyone would be vaccinated by then. I'm glad it went that way. Vaccine composition, clinical research, and regulatory questions — all went incredibly well. But distribution is completely different and not our responsibility. We've put enormous energy and money into research, development, and production, which increases monthly. Distribution is a task for the states and COVAX, which also buys from us.

We were surprised and can't really follow the reasoning. We discussed this in Germany before — extensively. We didn't talk about suspending patents, but whether more money would help. We said no — everything is ready to ramp up production. The problems are that existing capacity can't be fully utilized due to equipment, bioreactors, lipid nanoparticles — the world has never needed so many. Patent suspensions don't address that. Companies need to make money; it's no use producing a vaccine and going bankrupt. That's the basis of this business model.

Interesting thought that could help if implemented quickly. We have over 250 vaccine projects — unprecedented. Some companies will make money, many won't and will only lose. That's how our business works — it's always a gamble. I won't argue for covering everyone's costs at horrendous sums. This model has proven to work well. For getting vaccines to poorer countries, COVAX with WHO and Gavi has collected six billion and is raising more. Germany donated one billion euros.

We need to learn as much as possible — not just from Germany but worldwide — about the best way to handle a pandemic. I'm not blaming politicians; everything was new. But we need to look back, understand what worked and what didn't, and create a blueprint for the next pandemic. We and others have always warned such a pandemic could happen. Unfortunately we've now seen it. No one knows when the next one will come. We must ensure our lives aren't disrupted as they were over the last 16 to 18 months.

Interestingly, it went the opposite way from expected. At the start, we had positive signals from companies researching treatments. Now, looking back, vaccines went incredibly fast — we have several available. But understanding a truly new disease takes time and enormous effort. COVID initially manifests as a viral load, but then the immune system overreacts, which must be treated very differently. We're still working on that. Steroids help by suppressing the immune overreaction but don't have 100 percent efficacy in severe cases. We have antibodies but haven't developed medications guaranteeing prevention of severe complications.

The faster path is falling back on existing medications. That's what happened — long-established drugs, medications developed for other diseases that also have an effect, and newer preparations. Sometimes it works well, sometimes not. We're not yet at the point of guaranteeing treatment for every suffering patient. There's still an incredible amount of research happening, also in Germany.

The EMA didn't recommend it but set a neutral status. For me, it's always the approval authorities that have the expertise to judge whether a medication should be used. It gets used when efficacy is good and potential side effects aren't serious — it's always about that balance. The authorities looked at it and said it's not approvable. That's where it stands.