Is this the same Christian Wakeford who on top of his MPs role, stayed on for over 6 months as a councillor and on council committees earning an extra £22k per year and attending only one full council meeting and one council committee meeting over that time? Surely some mistake?
You are allowed to be an MP and a Councillor. I don't see how either role gets appropriate attention if so, but you can.
It may be allowed but it is poor form regardless and relevant to criticising other MPs for their behaviour around outside earnings.
Ben Bradley is not only MP for Mansfield but also leader of Nottinghamshire county council
So which job does he consider worthy of being part time? Or is it both? Very disrespectful to the electorate imo.
MP is a part time job. It really should have a part time salary.
How else do you think Ministers can do anything while still being a full time MP?
If it were up to me I would halve the number of ministerial patronage roles, and shadows, available but in return allow ministers extra funding to hire a proxy to cover some home constituency tasks that they would otherwise do.
I’d go the other way
Have a directly elected head of government (either running with a slate or on their own). Make the legislature the legislature not the government
Depending on details, not particularly averse to that either, my suggestion was more making it work better within the current framework. There are lots of different options.
Problem is the payroll vote + the ambitious juniors will still be a large number
If Goldsmith doesn’t rent his house out (and I assume he doesn’t) how do you get a price for it? The PM stayed with a friend. Because the friend is a minister it was disclosed. The “value” doesn’t matter
You get a price for Zac's villa by getting prices for similar villas. How would you get a price for a night at the Savoy without asking the Savoy? Try the Dorchester or Ritz. It will be correct within an order of magnitude.
Is this the same Christian Wakeford who on top of his MPs role, stayed on for over 6 months as a councillor and on council committees earning an extra £22k per year and attending only one full council meeting and one council committee meeting over that time? Surely some mistake?
You are allowed to be an MP and a Councillor. I don't see how either role gets appropriate attention if so, but you can.
It may be allowed but it is poor form regardless and relevant to criticising other MPs for their behaviour around outside earnings.
Ben Bradley is not only MP for Mansfield but also leader of Nottinghamshire county council
So which job does he consider worthy of being part time? Or is it both? Very disrespectful to the electorate imo.
That's interesting. I wonder what West Bridgford thinks of a Ripley (see Monocled Mutineer) leading the County.
Amongst other things it confirms the overall redaction in rates across England, that we have seen in from the numbers testing positive. (also in Scotland, and wales, with a small rise in NI)
And form the age breakdown, level or small falls in most age groups, but a big drop in the 'School years' 7 - 11 from 9.1% to 7.5%
At this rate in 5 weeks time there will be nobody in that age group with the virus!!! (which is off course not accurate, the fall will attenuated down, but still....)
Although there is more error margin, the daily prevalence rates (in the attached dataset) are even better - with school-aged children falling to 6.2% (error margins 5.07%-7.52%)
A small drop in the 70+ category (very important and possible sign of booster effect) and a drop in the age 35-49 (parent-age) category as well.
We need to see the 50-69 category turn around as well, but I'm increasingly confident we'll see that next week or so. At that point, the hospitalisation pressure should start to alleviate considerably.
Following a fall earlier this year my nan is against her and my grandad's wishes in a care home. Care workers have a choice whether to be vaccinated or not. She has no choice but to be there.
Throughout the pandemic my nan wouldn't let anyone into her home apart from essential people whom she'd keep a distance from, until after the vaccines were rolled out. Now she's compelled to be in a home with people who are potentially unvaccinated putting her life at risk?
If care workers don't give enough of a shit about the people they're caring for that they will get vaccinated to protect them, then I don't think they should be in the care sector.
I realise that we are dealing with probabilities here but vaccinated people can still pass the virus on. I know you don't like unvaccinated people - are you letting this feeling overrule logic? Just sayin'.
I think you have hit on something here. The situation has changed from when these rules were first thought of. At that time it was thought that vaccine would grant immunity. It doesn't. As an alternative it was thought that it significantly reduced the risk of the virus being passed on because you would have a lower viral load. I do not think, with Delta, that there is any compelling evidence of that. What the vaccines do is reduce the risk to the person vaccinated and all sensible people should be vaccinated as a result.
But can we actually say that you being vaccinated makes someone else safer? I am not sure. Maybe. Those who are not vaccinated are, I think, still more likely to become infected and therefore more likely, statistically, to infect others. Whether that risk is both robust and material needs looked at again.
There is evidence that:
- The chance of a selected vaccinated person becoming infected (and thus able to carry the virus) is far lower than that of a selected unvaccinated person (if you don't catch it, you can't pass it on) - The viral load reaches equivalent levels early on, but drops away significantly faster (remains at infectious levels about 60% as long) - At an equivalent viral load, vaccinated people are noticeably less infectious than unvaccinated people.
This doesn't mean that vaccinated people cannot pass on the virus, but it does mean that they are a lot less likely to do so. You're looking at an order of magnitude drop in likelihood to infect someone between unvaccinated and vaccinated at a period of endemic (or, indeed, epidemic) virus levels.
Away with your Bad Facts*.
*I was told at a company seminar on er... modern social mores that some things are Bad Facts and should not be mentioned, since they upset various groups.
So give me a Bad Fact.
According to the lecturer, contradicting conspiracy theories held by minority groups is "talking down"
She actually gave the example of "AIDs is CIA biowarfare".
But, if you don't contradict that, are you not trampling all over the rights of CIA operatives (also a minority group) who claim it not to be true?
Claiming that a small group of *privileged people* is a "minority" was given as an example of "negative behaviour" in the seminar.
Oh dear. Off to Con Home the naughty step for me, then
It was at that seminar I first propounded my theory that the Green Belt is Institutionally Racist.
We were asked to come up with examples of institutional racism, in places not previously associated with it.
A fellow contractor at the bank, a Russian who'd served in the USSR military (conscript, did some funky electronic stuff apparently) giggled, and sent me a text saying I was the Political Officers Pet. Apparently in the communism seminars that the Political Officers ran in the USSR, 99% kept their heads down, but a couple of people always tried to be more Communist than the Political Officer....
That one again. It's cute sounding but unless I'm mistaken you argue it to try and demonstrate not that the Green Belt is institutionally racist - although I'd bet my bottom dollar it is - but that "institutional racism" is a woolly term much abused by the precious types who get a rough time at your soirees. That's right, isn't it?
John Burn-Murdoch @jburnmurdoch NEW: Covid cases, hospitalisations & deaths on the rise again across Europe, with rates of all three metrics surpassing the UK in many countries
Starting in the west: Belgium, Netherlands & Germany in particular experiencing sharp increases in not only cases but ICU & deaths too
Luckily for the anti Borisers they can move on from their hopecasts of Covid getting worse and focus on Sleaze
I'm actually a tiny bit emosh about that Pfizer result. Probably over-reacting, but still
If it is as good as it seems, fucking hell. GET IN
It's great but it's also $700 per course so not particularly accessible to developing nations. Vaccines are still the way out of this, anti-virals can be useful for the unable to vaccinate cohort bit it's not a silver bullet like vaccines.
I strongly suspect the price will come way down very quickly as these drugs are copied. Which they will be. As with the vax
Anti-virals are usually fairly expensive because the manufacturing process is horribly ineffective and you need a shit load of expensive feed in materials to get just a few doses of pure enough end product. Additionally I don't see Pfizer or Merck waving their patents for these products for generics to be easily produced and distributed. Vaccines are the way out, anti-virals are a side show. Three doses of any of the three major vaccines is how we win. The government here is missing a trick by not opening up booster doses for all age groups.
The Russians and Chinese will have their spies on this tomorrow., They will be copied
That's "bad" but also good
More maths
The UK has 250,000 doses (or courses) of this apparent Pfizer game-changer
That's £175m, at $700 a pop. Quite a lot of money. But set against the overwhelming cost of a crashed health system, or another lockdown, or 50,000 dead and 200,000 in hospital, it is fuck all
So we will have to spend £175m every winter to avoid Covid horrors? It's peanuts. We've spent 300 BILLION so far
Most countries will be able to afford this
I agree with you that they will be a useful tool, I just don't think it's as big of a deal as you think is. As Charles has outlined the use of these needs a lot of stars to align. When they do it will prevent a lot of people from needing ICU treatment which is a huge benefit, but there will be a lot of cases where this doesn't happen. Really the silver bullet is preventing people from getting it in the first place which means giving everyone three vaccine doses and that should be the target, produce 20bn doses of vaccines in the next year.
Does anyone have a source for what the UK is paying?
WHO or whichever body it is talking of getting the cost down to $10 a pop.
If Goldsmith doesn’t rent his house out (and I assume he doesn’t) how do you get a price for it? The PM stayed with a friend. Because the friend is a minister it was disclosed. The “value” doesn’t matter
Agreed. The value doesnt matter. Making a mate who was recently kicked out by the electorate a Minister and a Lord should have done.
I don’t like Goldsmith.
But I have never encountered him professionally - according to @NickPalmer he is an effective and thoughtful minister.
The voters of Richmond are entitled to say they don’t want Goldsmith as their MP. But if he’s a good minister why not find a way to enable that?
"The end of the pandemic at least as it relates to the United States is in sight right now," says @ScottGottliebMD . "The bottom line is we have an overwhelming toolbox right now to combat COVID."
Following a fall earlier this year my nan is against her and my grandad's wishes in a care home. Care workers have a choice whether to be vaccinated or not. She has no choice but to be there.
Throughout the pandemic my nan wouldn't let anyone into her home apart from essential people whom she'd keep a distance from, until after the vaccines were rolled out. Now she's compelled to be in a home with people who are potentially unvaccinated putting her life at risk?
If care workers don't give enough of a shit about the people they're caring for that they will get vaccinated to protect them, then I don't think they should be in the care sector.
I realise that we are dealing with probabilities here but vaccinated people can still pass the virus on. I know you don't like unvaccinated people - are you letting this feeling overrule logic? Just sayin'.
I think you have hit on something here. The situation has changed from when these rules were first thought of. At that time it was thought that vaccine would grant immunity. It doesn't. As an alternative it was thought that it significantly reduced the risk of the virus being passed on because you would have a lower viral load. I do not think, with Delta, that there is any compelling evidence of that. What the vaccines do is reduce the risk to the person vaccinated and all sensible people should be vaccinated as a result.
But can we actually say that you being vaccinated makes someone else safer? I am not sure. Maybe. Those who are not vaccinated are, I think, still more likely to become infected and therefore more likely, statistically, to infect others. Whether that risk is both robust and material needs looked at again.
There is evidence that:
- The chance of a selected vaccinated person becoming infected (and thus able to carry the virus) is far lower than that of a selected unvaccinated person (if you don't catch it, you can't pass it on) - The viral load reaches equivalent levels early on, but drops away significantly faster (remains at infectious levels about 60% as long) - At an equivalent viral load, vaccinated people are noticeably less infectious than unvaccinated people.
This doesn't mean that vaccinated people cannot pass on the virus, but it does mean that they are a lot less likely to do so. You're looking at an order of magnitude drop in likelihood to infect someone between unvaccinated and vaccinated at a period of endemic (or, indeed, epidemic) virus levels.
That's also my understanding. Being vaccinated makes you far less likely to catch Delta, and far less likely to pass it on or be seriously ill if you do.
That's fact, isn't it? Or is it still in play as a debating point?
No I think that's pretty clearly the case. The issue is that too many lay people have imbibed the idea that vaccination means total immunity, which was never the case. Even with 95% protection against infection, 1 in 20 would still get it. Its like the dickhead in chief, Andrew Marr, thinking he was immune after getting two shots, then moaning about how ill he was (and yet back to work in a few days).
The Israel data locks great for boosters, and having just had my Pfizer (after two goes at AZ) I think in 10 days or so I'm going to be pretty well protected.
How were your Pfizer side-effects after 2 Astras? Were they significantly different?
In the old quote - too early to say. (It was 9.30 this morning). I'll let you know if anything turns up later... So far so good!
1959 advert for the Guardian (in the Spectator) - I am certain Guardian readers still see themselves the same way! (I reckon "alert and aware, open-eyed and lively minded" is surely 1950speak for woke )
With a black eye from the missus?
I always thought this delusional sense of moral and intellectual superiority was a recent affliction. It appears not.
It's a very frustrating newspaper - some decent journalism, but far too much attitude with it. (Declining along with all the other papers now)
Yes, when the Indy started, and for many years, it kept a sharp line between reporting the facts and opinion pieces. It is something that has sadly gone completely out of fashion and the Guardian probably led the way amongst the broadsheets.
Following a fall earlier this year my nan is against her and my grandad's wishes in a care home. Care workers have a choice whether to be vaccinated or not. She has no choice but to be there.
Throughout the pandemic my nan wouldn't let anyone into her home apart from essential people whom she'd keep a distance from, until after the vaccines were rolled out. Now she's compelled to be in a home with people who are potentially unvaccinated putting her life at risk?
If care workers don't give enough of a shit about the people they're caring for that they will get vaccinated to protect them, then I don't think they should be in the care sector.
I realise that we are dealing with probabilities here but vaccinated people can still pass the virus on. I know you don't like unvaccinated people - are you letting this feeling overrule logic? Just sayin'.
I think you have hit on something here. The situation has changed from when these rules were first thought of. At that time it was thought that vaccine would grant immunity. It doesn't. As an alternative it was thought that it significantly reduced the risk of the virus being passed on because you would have a lower viral load. I do not think, with Delta, that there is any compelling evidence of that. What the vaccines do is reduce the risk to the person vaccinated and all sensible people should be vaccinated as a result.
But can we actually say that you being vaccinated makes someone else safer? I am not sure. Maybe. Those who are not vaccinated are, I think, still more likely to become infected and therefore more likely, statistically, to infect others. Whether that risk is both robust and material needs looked at again.
There is evidence that:
- The chance of a selected vaccinated person becoming infected (and thus able to carry the virus) is far lower than that of a selected unvaccinated person (if you don't catch it, you can't pass it on) - The viral load reaches equivalent levels early on, but drops away significantly faster (remains at infectious levels about 60% as long) - At an equivalent viral load, vaccinated people are noticeably less infectious than unvaccinated people.
This doesn't mean that vaccinated people cannot pass on the virus, but it does mean that they are a lot less likely to do so. You're looking at an order of magnitude drop in likelihood to infect someone between unvaccinated and vaccinated at a period of endemic (or, indeed, epidemic) virus levels.
Away with your Bad Facts*.
*I was told at a company seminar on er... modern social mores that some things are Bad Facts and should not be mentioned, since they upset various groups.
So give me a Bad Fact.
According to the lecturer, contradicting conspiracy theories held by minority groups is "talking down"
She actually gave the example of "AIDs is CIA biowarfare".
But, if you don't contradict that, are you not trampling all over the rights of CIA operatives (also a minority group) who claim it not to be true?
Claiming that a small group of *privileged people* is a "minority" was given as an example of "negative behaviour" in the seminar.
Oh dear. Off to Con Home the naughty step for me, then
It was at that seminar I first propounded my theory that the Green Belt is Institutionally Racist.
We were asked to come up with examples of institutional racism, in places not previously associated with it.
A fellow contractor at the bank, a Russian who'd served in the USSR military (conscript, did some funky electronic stuff apparently) giggled, and sent me a text saying I was the Political Officers Pet. Apparently in the communism seminars that the Political Officers ran in the USSR, 99% kept their heads down, but a couple of people always tried to be more Communist than the Political Officer....
That one again. It's cute sounding but unless I'm mistaken you argue it to try and demonstrate not that the Green Belt is institutionally racist - although I'd bet my bottom dollar it is - but that "institutional racism" is a woolly term much abused by the types who get a rough time at your soirees. That's right, isn't it?
I actually got a thumbs up from the lecturer for that one. She thought it showed I really was thinking about the issues.
Since the premise of Institutional Racism is that the outcome is the only metric, and the outcome of Green Belt policy is that people from disadvantaged minorities have worse and more expensive housing... What is the problem? Unless it is that the Green Belt policy is a "protected" one, and shouldn't have the same metric applied to it?
EDIT: I'm actually arguing for consistency. And a fuckton of house building. Outcome based policy making does have it's place and is often useful.
1959 advert for the Guardian (in the Spectator) - I am certain Guardian readers still see themselves the same way! (I reckon "alert and aware, open-eyed and lively minded" is surely 1950speak for woke )
With a black eye from the missus?
I always thought this delusional sense of moral and intellectual superiority was a recent affliction. It appears not.
It's a very frustrating newspaper - some decent journalism, but far too much attitude with it. (Declining along with all the other papers now)
Yes, when the Indy started, and for many years, it kept a sharp line between reporting the facts and opinion pieces. It is something that has sadly gone completely out of fashion and the Guardian probably led the way amongst the broadsheets.
1959 advert for the Guardian (in the Spectator) - I am certain Guardian readers still see themselves the same way! (I reckon "alert and aware, open-eyed and lively minded" is surely 1950speak for woke )
That actually sounds like @kinabalu describing himself, in total seriousness
lol
Women couldn't read, of course, in 1959.
By that date iirc it had been in a Tax Avoiding structure for 30 years.
If Goldsmith doesn’t rent his house out (and I assume he doesn’t) how do you get a price for it? The PM stayed with a friend. Because the friend is a minister it was disclosed. The “value” doesn’t matter
Agreed. The value doesnt matter. Making a mate who was recently kicked out by the electorate a Minister and a Lord should have done.
I don’t like Goldsmith.
But I have never encountered him professionally - according to @NickPalmer he is an effective and thoughtful minister.
The voters of Richmond are entitled to say they don’t want Goldsmith as their MP. But if he’s a good minister why not find a way to enable that?
People keep saying that the value of Brexit and FPTP is that the voters can eject people they don't like from office.
Using the Lords to bring them back again after they've been rejected by the voters is directly contrary to that argument.
1959 advert for the Guardian (in the Spectator) - I am certain Guardian readers still see themselves the same way! (I reckon "alert and aware, open-eyed and lively minded" is surely 1950speak for woke )
That actually sounds like @kinabalu describing himself, in total seriousness
lol
I get the Times actually. If you really want to know I am not a good person but I strive to be. I'm full of all sorts of bias and prejudice, some trivial some less so, but I don't celebrate this in myself, I don't wallow in it, or try and justify it, I fight it. Using logic, mainly, and the core egalitarianism felt in my bones, I self-audit and progress, think clearly and progress, and the description I'd want for myself is therefore exactly this - a Clear Thinking Progressive. But as I say, I get the Times.
But it doesn't just echo your description of yourself, it has your exact TONE OF VOICE
It is identical
"I am at once a man alert, open eyed and lively minded. A man who has come of age mentally. In short, a man of judgement. That's me. Kinabalu"
That's pure @kinabalu from the vanity to the pompousness to the precise, slightly fastidious use of commas
Well I don't mind your style so I won't be titting for tat. I think you're better than Giles Coren. Don't understand why he's all over the place and you're in the shadows.
So I mess up on commas then iyo? That's interesting and useful feedback. Please read my next longish one and see if I've sorted that out.
Sir Keir Stumblingblock Sir Keir Stopcock Sir Keir Stubtoe Sir Keir Sturgid Sir Keir Stuffshirt Sir Keir Stiffhead Sir Keir Strap-On Sir Keir Stoppedclock
1959 advert for the Guardian (in the Spectator) - I am certain Guardian readers still see themselves the same way! (I reckon "alert and aware, open-eyed and lively minded" is surely 1950speak for woke )
That actually sounds like @kinabalu describing himself, in total seriousness
lol
I get the Times actually. If you really want to know I am not a good person but I strive to be. I'm full of all sorts of bias and prejudice, some trivial some less so, but I don't celebrate this in myself, I don't wallow in it, or try and justify it, I fight it. Using logic, mainly, and the core egalitarianism felt in my bones, I self-audit and progress, think clearly and progress, and the description I'd want for myself is therefore exactly this - a Clear Thinking Progressive. But as I say, I get the Times.
But it doesn't just echo your description of yourself, it has your exact TONE OF VOICE
It is identical
"I am at once a man alert, open eyed and lively minded. A man who has come of age mentally. In short, a man of judgement. That's me. Kinabalu"
That's pure @kinabalu from the vanity to the pompousness to the precise, slightly fastidious use of commas
I think you're missing some of the self-satirising element of kinabalu's work which is odd because you're capable of it yourself, occasionally.
If Goldsmith doesn’t rent his house out (and I assume he doesn’t) how do you get a price for it? The PM stayed with a friend. Because the friend is a minister it was disclosed. The “value” doesn’t matter
Agreed. The value doesnt matter. Making a mate who was recently kicked out by the electorate a Minister and a Lord should have done.
I don’t like Goldsmith.
But I have never encountered him professionally - according to @NickPalmer he is an effective and thoughtful minister.
The voters of Richmond are entitled to say they don’t want Goldsmith as their MP. But if he’s a good minister why not find a way to enable that?
People keep saying that the value of Brexit and FPTP is that the voters can eject people they don't like from office.
Using the Lords to bring them back again after they've been rejected by the voters is directly contrary to that argument.
Is there any evidence that Lord Goldsmith has any relevant capability or experience save that he is a friend of nutnut’s?
Yes I know he was an environmentalist, but so are all manner of trust-funded chumps.
I wonder what the scale up and manufacture of Paxlovid will bring.
From the bit I know, vaccine developmemt and roll out is more geared to rapid turnaround than the multistep pharmaceutical manufacture of a new active ingredient.
The methods used to make a little of the active in the lab will be substantially unrelated to those that would be needed at scale, again perhaps moreso than for vaccines. You'd hope some parallel development would have started after early trials. A lot of the challenge may be dependent on dosage. If one batch / campaign will make 10 million pills worth of active that's a different story in terms of availability to market than if one campaign makes 100k pills worth. The former would imply fulfilling a lot of demand from one plant with perhaps less upfront optimisation but on consistent equipment, the latter may imply validation on multiple of the right types of plants, with differing vessels, control systems etc, and multiple FDA manufacturing approvals. If the manufacture is many chemical steps away from existing commercial precursors, there may also need to be deals and development work for intermediates molecules, possibly utilising other manufacturers, and which may be needed in substantially higher quantities than the final product, due to loss of yield along the way.
If, qualitatively, the vaccine industry faced all this in getting to market (in fact these are pretty standard questions of commercialisation and supply chain), then quantitatively this could be somewhat different. I suspect also, the number of different development horses you had to be ready to cover to get an all green book on manufacturing readiness is far higher and more varied for pharmaceuticals than for vaccines.
To summarise, how quickly supply can scale up will be at least, if not more, as live a question here as it will for vaccines.
Comments
Ben Bradley is only about 32.
A small drop in the 70+ category (very important and possible sign of booster effect) and a drop in the age 35-49 (parent-age) category as well.
We need to see the 50-69 category turn around as well, but I'm increasingly confident we'll see that next week or so. At that point, the hospitalisation pressure should start to alleviate considerably.
WHO or whichever body it is talking of getting the cost down to $10 a pop.
But I have never encountered him professionally - according to @NickPalmer he is an effective and thoughtful minister.
The voters of Richmond are entitled to say they don’t want Goldsmith as their MP. But if he’s a good minister why not find a way to enable that?
"The end of the pandemic at least as it relates to the United States is in sight right now," says
@ScottGottliebMD
. "The bottom line is we have an overwhelming toolbox right now to combat COVID."
Since the premise of Institutional Racism is that the outcome is the only metric, and the outcome of Green Belt policy is that people from disadvantaged minorities have worse and more expensive housing... What is the problem? Unless it is that the Green Belt policy is a "protected" one, and shouldn't have the same metric applied to it?
EDIT: I'm actually arguing for consistency. And a fuckton of house building. Outcome based policy making does have it's place and is often useful.
https://mobile.twitter.com/hwallop/status/1456536004098203650
Using the Lords to bring them back again after they've been rejected by the voters is directly contrary to that argument.
NEW THREAD
So I mess up on commas then iyo? That's interesting and useful feedback. Please read my next longish one and see if I've sorted that out.
Yes I know he was an environmentalist, but so are all manner of trust-funded chumps.
From the bit I know, vaccine developmemt and roll out is more geared to rapid turnaround than the multistep pharmaceutical manufacture of a new active ingredient.
The methods used to make a little of the active in the lab will be substantially unrelated to those that would be needed at scale, again perhaps moreso than for vaccines. You'd hope some parallel development would have started after early trials. A lot of the challenge may be dependent on dosage. If one batch / campaign will make 10 million pills worth of active that's a different story in terms of availability to market than if one campaign makes 100k pills worth. The former would imply fulfilling a lot of demand from one plant with perhaps less upfront optimisation but on consistent equipment, the latter may imply validation on multiple of the right types of plants, with differing vessels, control systems etc, and multiple FDA manufacturing approvals. If the manufacture is many chemical steps away from existing commercial precursors, there may also need to be deals and development work for intermediates molecules, possibly utilising other manufacturers, and which may be needed in substantially higher quantities than the final product, due to loss of yield along the way.
If, qualitatively, the vaccine industry faced all this in getting to market (in fact these are pretty standard questions of commercialisation and supply chain), then quantitatively this could be somewhat different. I suspect also, the number of different development horses you had to be ready to cover to get an all green book on manufacturing readiness is far higher and more varied for pharmaceuticals than for vaccines.
To summarise, how quickly supply can scale up will be at least, if not more, as live a question here as it will for vaccines.
Narcos Mexico Season 3 has just hit Netflix