Yes. The original trial required a total number of X people spanning the full range of ages and co-morbidities. But with the blunder, fewer than X people were assessed. Until the missing portion of the patients receives the nominal regimen of two full doses, the study, as it was designed, remains incomplete. The diminished number of patients will reduce the statistical power of the results, presumably to fall below what was deemed necessary and approved for the trial.

It's still possible that regulators will decide that 1) a sufficient number and range of ages and co-morbidies have in fact been assessed and that 2) the differential outcomes of the two groups is big enough to show the necessary level of efficacy and safety. But the 90% efficacy group clearly does NOT yet satisfy constraint #1, so until more 55+ year old subjects are added to the 90% efficacy part of the study, I suspect authorization will have to be based only on the 62% efficacy portion of the study.

I'm not an expert but the obvious solution is to give the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine to the 18-55 population and the mRNA vaccines to those 65+. The mRNA vaccines also have stringent and extreme freezing requirements that the Oxford one doesn't.

Moderna's vaccine's refrigeration requirements are not extreme. It just needs -20 C (i.e what a kitchen freezer can do) for shipping, and then will be good for a month at 2-8 C, i.e. kitchen fridge temps.

From the leaked EU prices the Moderna vaccine is 10x the price of the Oxford one. I guess that will be a key factor.

Everything's been pre-ordered (at least in the west) so I doubt price will be a key factor.

First of all, your "10x the price" means a price point between 10$ and 50$. That's hardly a blocker.

Some people, when facing the choice of having a shot at a vaccine sometime in the future and have a reliable vaccine right now, would gladly pay 10x to speed it up.

Why not give the mRNA vaccines to everyone?

The mRNA vaccines can’t be produced quickly enough.