In the betting a “deal” moves to a 72% chance following positive vibes from the talks – politicalbetting.com
While all eyes in the US are focused on the Electoral College vote count which is taking place today in Europe there’ve been positive indications from the talks in Brussels with the EU and UK agreeing to keep talks on a trade agreement going.
But if the European Parliament refuses to ratify it can the agreement be signed?
Probably, but it's not clear. In practice, the Commission and the Council of Ministers would probably try to find some fudge that purported to respect the European Parliament's veto.
And it's probably a lot worse in the recent weeks for which data is not yet available.
I asked earlier whether any other countries already had average daily virus death rates higher than during the spring first wave? Does anyone know without having to do lots of data crunching?
Breaking - Kent unhappy that, government having insisted it was impracticable to split the county despite its large size and varying rates, much smaller Essex and Hertfordshire have now been split because of their varying local rates.
Literally the only thing not sending me into a total depressions at the moment is that at least Scotland admissions are still trending downwards but I don't know how much this is a reporting artefact.
Ultimately none of this really matters as long as we get the vaccine out quickly. Could do with an Oxon-AZ approval quick sharp – then use that to inject under 55s while Pfizer/Moderna goes to the elderly.
If we luck into that strategy because of the regulator it will be great because the government will be forced into vaccinating the productive young on a much earlier and more aggressive schedule than what is currently under consideration.
I think that double-edge approach is most wise, simply because the Oxon jab is less effective but much easier to distribute. 70% is fine for the under-55s TBH (and it is 100% effective at stopping hospitalisations which is obviously fantastic).
So, let's bloody get on with it and have the young guns jabbed with the cheap and cheerful, quick Oxon juice and save the potent, trickier stuff for the oldies.
As you say, the govt might actually be bounced into that exact policy by the MHRA – I think @Charles was saying that they are likely to restrict it to under 55s.
Breaking - Kent unhappy that, government having insisted it was impracticable to split the county despite its large size and varying rates, much smaller Essex and Hertfordshire have now been split because of their varying local rates.
Point of order: Essex isn't much smaller than Kent.
Literally the only thing not sending me into a total depressions at the moment is that at least Scotland admissions are still trending downwards but I don't know how much this is a reporting artefact.
Ultimately none of this really matters as long as we get the vaccine out quickly. Could do with an Oxon-AZ approval quick sharp – then use that to inject under 55s while Pfizer/Moderna goes to the elderly.
If we luck into that strategy because of the regulator it will be great because the government will be forced into vaccinating the productive young on a much earlier and more aggressive schedule than what is currently under consideration.
I think that double-edge approach is most wise, simply because the Oxon jab is less effective but much easier to distribute. 70% is fine for the under-55s TBH (and it is 100% effective at stopping hospitalisations which is obviously fantastic).
So, let's bloody get on with it and have the young guns jabbed with the cheap and cheerful, quick Oxon juice and save the potent, trickier stuff for the oldies.
As you say, the govt might actually be bounced into that exact policy by the MHRA – I think @Charles was saying that they are likely to restrict it to under 55s.
Doesn't the WHO rate 50% effectiveness as sufficient for a vaccine so long as it can get out to a large enough population?
And it's probably a lot worse in the recent weeks for which data is not yet available.
I asked earlier whether any other countries already had average daily virus death rates higher than during the spring first wave? Does anyone know without having to do lots of data crunching?
I don't think any major Western countries have (although recent data may be missing) . There's a very good set of comparative graphs here:
Hancock says “highly unlikely they won’t work” ... Geeks at Portondown on the case.
This is potentially disasterous....
Good news! We have a vaccine!
[TWO WEEKS LATER]
The vaccine doesn't work on this new London strain
I personally would really appreciate toning down this sort of doom mongering. If you're wrong, it's not helpful, if you're right, it's not helpful either.
Apologies. I was not making a serious prediction! When things are bad I make jokes. Laughing is funnier than crying after all.
The more serious prediction would be that, with each mutation tending towards more contagious but less deadly (as you would expect from an evolutionary perspective), COVID will eventually finish up being seen as just another type of flu, with its annual death toll (of the unvaccinated, if immunity proves lasting).
Why would you expect a virus with a mortality rate of somewhere around 1%, which doesn't kill those who die until weeks after they became infectious, to tend to become less deadly any time soon ? Infectiousness is a different matter, though that's likely to be pretty complicated given you're starting with a pretty infectious virus in the first place.
Because death at the end correlates with more serious illness in the middle correlates with more significant symptoms at the beginning correlates with people who stay in bed rather than shrugging off being under the weather and hitting the party.
But as we know with this virus, those infected are at their most infectious well before they develop serious symptoms.
Literally the only thing not sending me into a total depressions at the moment is that at least Scotland admissions are still trending downwards but I don't know how much this is a reporting artefact.
Ultimately none of this really matters as long as we get the vaccine out quickly. Could do with an Oxon-AZ approval quick sharp – then use that to inject under 55s while Pfizer/Moderna goes to the elderly.
If we luck into that strategy because of the regulator it will be great because the government will be forced into vaccinating the productive young on a much earlier and more aggressive schedule than what is currently under consideration.
I think that double-edge approach is most wise, simply because the Oxon jab is less effective but much easier to distribute. 70% is fine for the under-55s TBH (and it is 100% effective at stopping hospitalisations which is obviously fantastic).
So, let's bloody get on with it and have the young guns jabbed with the cheap and cheerful, quick Oxon juice and save the potent, trickier stuff for the oldies.
As you say, the govt might actually be bounced into that exact policy by the MHRA – I think @Charles was saying that they are likely to restrict it to under 55s.
Doesn't the WHO rate 50% effectiveness as sufficient for a vaccine so long as it can get out to a large enough population?
Indeed, I just think the bar has been raised by Pfizer – the AZ one is great (in many ways better because it's so easy to distribute!)
And it's probably a lot worse in the recent weeks for which data is not yet available.
Their covid deaths reduced for a time, but nowhere near the single and lower double figure results many places were getting between first and second waves. It seems like they never really left a first wave in some parts by the time a second wave hit in others.;
Breaking - Kent unhappy that, government having insisted it was impracticable to split the county despite its large size and varying rates, much smaller Essex and Hertfordshire have now been split because of their varying local rates.
Perhaps they will get back to their roots and indulge in a good old fashioned Kentish rebellion?
Literally the only thing not sending me into a total depressions at the moment is that at least Scotland admissions are still trending downwards but I don't know how much this is a reporting artefact.
Ultimately none of this really matters as long as we get the vaccine out quickly. Could do with an Oxon-AZ approval quick sharp – then use that to inject under 55s while Pfizer/Moderna goes to the elderly.
If we luck into that strategy because of the regulator it will be great because the government will be forced into vaccinating the productive young on a much earlier and more aggressive schedule than what is currently under consideration.
I think that double-edge approach is most wise, simply because the Oxon jab is less effective but much easier to distribute. 70% is fine for the under-55s TBH (and it is 100% effective at stopping hospitalisations which is obviously fantastic).
So, let's bloody get on with it and have the young guns jabbed with the cheap and cheerful, quick Oxon juice and save the potent, trickier stuff for the oldies.
As you say, the govt might actually be bounced into that exact policy by the MHRA – I think @Charles was saying that they are likely to restrict it to under 55s.
Doesn't the WHO rate 50% effectiveness as sufficient for a vaccine so long as it can get out to a large enough population?
Yeah but why use a lesser vaccine for older people when it gives a 90% effect in younger when and there's supply of 90% vaccine for older people that is already approved. The optimum roll out strategy is for old people to get the most effective vaccine rather than one which is 60% effective.
Breaking - Kent unhappy that, government having insisted it was impracticable to split the county despite its large size and varying rates, much smaller Essex and Hertfordshire have now been split because of their varying local rates.
Perhaps they will get back to their roots and indulge in a good old fashioned Kentish rebellion?
There may have been an argument at the beginning of December for this but at the moment every single district in Kent has rising cases and only two are outside of the top 10 worst in England.
Literally the only thing not sending me into a total depressions at the moment is that at least Scotland admissions are still trending downwards but I don't know how much this is a reporting artefact.
Ultimately none of this really matters as long as we get the vaccine out quickly. Could do with an Oxon-AZ approval quick sharp – then use that to inject under 55s while Pfizer/Moderna goes to the elderly.
If we luck into that strategy because of the regulator it will be great because the government will be forced into vaccinating the productive young on a much earlier and more aggressive schedule than what is currently under consideration.
I think that double-edge approach is most wise, simply because the Oxon jab is less effective but much easier to distribute. 70% is fine for the under-55s TBH (and it is 100% effective at stopping hospitalisations which is obviously fantastic).
So, let's bloody get on with it and have the young guns jabbed with the cheap and cheerful, quick Oxon juice and save the potent, trickier stuff for the oldies.
As you say, the govt might actually be bounced into that exact policy by the MHRA – I think @Charles was saying that they are likely to restrict it to under 55s.
Doesn't the WHO rate 50% effectiveness as sufficient for a vaccine so long as it can get out to a large enough population?
Yeah but why use a lesser vaccine for older people when it gives a 90% effect in younger when and there's supply of 90% vaccine for older people that is already approved. The optimum roll out strategy is for old people to get the most effective vaccine rather than one which is 60% effective.
Isn't there an issue with getting the super cold one into nursing homes?
And it's probably a lot worse in the recent weeks for which data is not yet available.
Their covid deaths reduced for a time, but nowhere near the single and lower double figure results many places were getting between first and second waves. It seems like they never really left a first wave in some parts by the time a second wave hit in others.;
Breaking - Kent unhappy that, government having insisted it was impracticable to split the county despite its large size and varying rates, much smaller Essex and Hertfordshire have now been split because of their varying local rates.
Perhaps they will get back to their roots and indulge in a good old fashioned Kentish rebellion?
If that rebellion includes a turkey BBQ with 30 of your mates, maybe....
Breaking - Kent unhappy that, government having insisted it was impracticable to split the county despite its large size and varying rates, much smaller Essex and Hertfordshire have now been split because of their varying local rates.
Perhaps they will get back to their roots and indulge in a good old fashioned Kentish rebellion?
If that rebellion includes a turkey BBQ with 30 of your mates, maybe....
Old traditions get modernised for a new era. Our ancestors may have sought to march on London and stab some townie in the guts with an improvised halberd, and we'll do things our own way.
I assume, being in the West Country, that we had plenty of rebellions, but marching to London seems an awful long way to go. Kept it local I imagine.
Breaking - Kent unhappy that, government having insisted it was impracticable to split the county despite its large size and varying rates, much smaller Essex and Hertfordshire have now been split because of their varying local rates.
Point of order: Essex isn't much smaller than Kent.
Breaking - Kent unhappy that, government having insisted it was impracticable to split the county despite its large size and varying rates, much smaller Essex and Hertfordshire have now been split because of their varying local rates.
Perhaps they will get back to their roots and indulge in a good old fashioned Kentish rebellion?
If that rebellion includes a turkey BBQ with 30 of your mates, maybe....
Old traditions get modernised for a new era. Our ancestors may have sought to march on London and stab some townie in the guts with an improvised halberd, and we'll do things our own way.
I assume, being in the West Country, that we had plenty of rebellions, but marching to London seems an awful long way to go. Kept it local I imagine.
Who from Devon is going to stab some Cockney townie in the guts with an improvised halberd when they can travel a fraction of the distance and do for a Somter townie instead?
According to the Guardian he spoke in rather mealy mouthed fashion on that several months ago. At a press conference on Saturday Trump said he did not know much about the case and heard powerful arguments for and against a pardon. He then added that he would look into the matter. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/aug/15/edward-snowden-trump-pardon
He's an odd one though, as he usually claims to know everything, but then when he wants to equivocate he brings out the stock phrase of not knowing much about it with notable frequency. It's like he cannot half bluff and obfuscate, so must claim omnipotence or complete ignorance.
Hancock says “highly unlikely they won’t work” ... Geeks at Portondown on the case.
This is potentially disasterous....
Good news! We have a vaccine!
[TWO WEEKS LATER]
The vaccine doesn't work on this new London strain
I personally would really appreciate toning down this sort of doom mongering. If you're wrong, it's not helpful, if you're right, it's not helpful either.
Apologies. I was not making a serious prediction! When things are bad I make jokes. Laughing is funnier than crying after all.
The more serious prediction would be that, with each mutation tending towards more contagious but less deadly (as you would expect from an evolutionary perspective), COVID will eventually finish up being seen as just another type of flu, with its annual death toll (of the unvaccinated, if immunity proves lasting).
Why would you expect a virus with a mortality rate of somewhere around 1%, which doesn't kill those who die until weeks after they became infectious, to tend to become less deadly any time soon ? Infectiousness is a different matter, though that's likely to be pretty complicated given you're starting with a pretty infectious virus in the first place.
Because death at the end correlates with more serious illness in the middle correlates with more significant symptoms at the beginning correlates with people who stay in bed rather than shrugging off being under the weather and hitting the party.
But as we know with this virus, those infected are at their most infectious well before they develop serious symptoms.
The only working assumpion with Covid is that if the guy in the queue next to you looks to be in fine fettle, then HE HAS INFECTIOUS ASSYMPTOMATIC COVID! Flee!
Breaking - Kent unhappy that, government having insisted it was impracticable to split the county despite its large size and varying rates, much smaller Essex and Hertfordshire have now been split because of their varying local rates.
Perhaps they will get back to their roots and indulge in a good old fashioned Kentish rebellion?
If that rebellion includes a turkey BBQ with 30 of your mates, maybe....
Old traditions get modernised for a new era. Our ancestors may have sought to march on London and stab some townie in the guts with an improvised halberd, and we'll do things our own way.
I assume, being in the West Country, that we had plenty of rebellions, but marching to London seems an awful long way to go. Kept it local I imagine.
Out spake their Captain brave and bold: A merry wight was he: Though London Tower were Michael's hold, We'll set Trelawny free! We'll cross the Tamar, land to land: The Severn is no stay: With "one and all," and hand in hand; And who shall bid us nay?
And shall Trelawny live? Or shall Trelawny die? Here's twenty thousand Cornish men Will know the reason why!
And when we come to London Wall, A pleasant sight to view, Come forth! come forth! ye cowards all: Here's men as good as you. Trelawny he's in keep and hold; Trelawny he may die: Here's twenty thousand Cornish bold Will know the reason why
Literally the only thing not sending me into a total depressions at the moment is that at least Scotland admissions are still trending downwards but I don't know how much this is a reporting artefact.
Ultimately none of this really matters as long as we get the vaccine out quickly. Could do with an Oxon-AZ approval quick sharp – then use that to inject under 55s while Pfizer/Moderna goes to the elderly.
If we luck into that strategy because of the regulator it will be great because the government will be forced into vaccinating the productive young on a much earlier and more aggressive schedule than what is currently under consideration.
I think that double-edge approach is most wise, simply because the Oxon jab is less effective but much easier to distribute. 70% is fine for the under-55s TBH (and it is 100% effective at stopping hospitalisations which is obviously fantastic).
So, let's bloody get on with it and have the young guns jabbed with the cheap and cheerful, quick Oxon juice and save the potent, trickier stuff for the oldies.
As you say, the govt might actually be bounced into that exact policy by the MHRA – I think @Charles was saying that they are likely to restrict it to under 55s.
Doesn't the WHO rate 50% effectiveness as sufficient for a vaccine so long as it can get out to a large enough population?
Yeah but why use a lesser vaccine for older people when it gives a 90% effect in younger when and there's supply of 90% vaccine for older people that is already approved. The optimum roll out strategy is for old people to get the most effective vaccine rather than one which is 60% effective.
Isn't there an issue with getting the super cold one into nursing homes?
I think that's why they're organising transports to GP surgeries and hospitals for care home residents.
Does anyone have any idea why the EU has not approved the Pfizer vaccine?
They are following the procedures for 'provisional' authorisation, which are more onerous and take longer than those required for the 'emergency' authorisation we used.
Seems pretty daft to me - if this isn't an emergency, what is? They'll have lost a month.
Hancock says “highly unlikely they won’t work” ... Geeks at Portondown on the case.
This is potentially disasterous....
Good news! We have a vaccine!
[TWO WEEKS LATER]
The vaccine doesn't work on this new London strain
I personally would really appreciate toning down this sort of doom mongering. If you're wrong, it's not helpful, if you're right, it's not helpful either.
Apologies. I was not making a serious prediction! When things are bad I make jokes. Laughing is funnier than crying after all.
The more serious prediction would be that, with each mutation tending towards more contagious but less deadly (as you would expect from an evolutionary perspective), COVID will eventually finish up being seen as just another type of flu, with its annual death toll (of the unvaccinated, if immunity proves lasting).
Why would you expect a virus with a mortality rate of somewhere around 1%, which doesn't kill those who die until weeks after they became infectious, to tend to become less deadly any time soon ? Infectiousness is a different matter, though that's likely to be pretty complicated given you're starting with a pretty infectious virus in the first place.
Because death at the end correlates with more serious illness in the middle correlates with more significant symptoms at the beginning correlates with people who stay in bed rather than shrugging off being under the weather and hitting the party.
But as we know with this virus, those infected are at their most infectious well before they develop serious symptoms.
Yes, but more serious infections tend to produce more serious symptoms, and milder infections milder ones. So a milder infection is also likely to have more people who are asymptomatic (or who don’t notice whatever mild symptoms they might have) and go about their life as normal. Such a virus would spread more quickly.
The only way your position (that there’s no difference) would work is if contagion disappeared altogether before any symptoms arise. I don’t believe that is the case?
Does anyone have any idea why the EU has not approved the Pfizer vaccine?
They are following the procedures for 'provisional' authorisation, which are more onerous and take longer than those required for the 'emergency' authorisation we used.
Seems pretty daft to me - if this isn't an emergency, what is? They'll have lost a month.
I don't think it matters because they aren't due any deliveries in Europe until mid January and all of the first shipments are going to Germany.
Breaking - Kent unhappy that, government having insisted it was impracticable to split the county despite its large size and varying rates, much smaller Essex and Hertfordshire have now been split because of their varying local rates.
Perhaps they will get back to their roots and indulge in a good old fashioned Kentish rebellion?
What it tells us is that Wednesdays review will likely put some lines through the county
Does anyone have any idea why the EU has not approved the Pfizer vaccine?
They are following the procedures for 'provisional' authorisation, which are more onerous and take longer than those required for the 'emergency' authorisation we used.
Seems pretty daft to me - if this isn't an emergency, what is? They'll have lost a month.
The delay will cost lives, clearly the vaccine is safe, Covid in old and ill people is deadly. Its complete madness.
Does anyone have any idea why the EU has not approved the Pfizer vaccine?
They are following the procedures for 'provisional' authorisation, which are more onerous and take longer than those required for the 'emergency' authorisation we used.
Seems pretty daft to me - if this isn't an emergency, what is? They'll have lost a month.
The delay will cost lives, clearly the vaccine is safe, Covid in old and ill people is deadly. Its complete madness.
Not really, all of the Pfizer deliveries in Europe are set for the UK until mid January anyway. If they don't approve it by then it would be a disaster as Germany would be be taking deliveries but be unable to start using it.
Does anyone have any idea why the EU has not approved the Pfizer vaccine?
They are following the procedures for 'provisional' authorisation, which are more onerous and take longer than those required for the 'emergency' authorisation we used.
Seems pretty daft to me - if this isn't an emergency, what is? They'll have lost a month.
There is zero point rushing things if there are no vaccines available to be given.
And I suspect Pfizer are happy to direct the existing stock to the Uk and the USA while the EU gets organised.
Does anyone have any idea why the EU has not approved the Pfizer vaccine?
They are following the procedures for 'provisional' authorisation, which are more onerous and take longer than those required for the 'emergency' authorisation we used.
Seems pretty daft to me - if this isn't an emergency, what is? They'll have lost a month.
The delay will cost lives, clearly the vaccine is safe, Covid in old and ill people is deadly. Its complete madness.
Not really, all of the Pfizer deliveries in Europe are set for the UK until mid January anyway. If they don't approve it by then it would be a disaster as Germany would be be taking deliveries but be unable to start using it.
So if the EU approved the vaccine tomorrow, Belgium would continue sending the vaccine to the UK and not have any for its own citizens? I cant see that
Does anyone have any idea why the EU has not approved the Pfizer vaccine?
They are following the procedures for 'provisional' authorisation, which are more onerous and take longer than those required for the 'emergency' authorisation we used.
Seems pretty daft to me - if this isn't an emergency, what is? They'll have lost a month.
The delay will cost lives, clearly the vaccine is safe, Covid in old and ill people is deadly. Its complete madness.
Not really, all of the Pfizer deliveries in Europe are set for the UK until mid January anyway. If they don't approve it by then it would be a disaster as Germany would be be taking deliveries but be unable to start using it.
So if the EU approved the vaccine tomorrow, Belgium would continue sending the vaccine to the UK and not have any for its own citizens? I cant see that
Why wouldn't they. Unless you think the EU will seize vaccines rightfully belonging to the UK?
Does anyone have any idea why the EU has not approved the Pfizer vaccine?
They are following the procedures for 'provisional' authorisation, which are more onerous and take longer than those required for the 'emergency' authorisation we used.
Seems pretty daft to me - if this isn't an emergency, what is? They'll have lost a month.
The delay will cost lives, clearly the vaccine is safe, Covid in old and ill people is deadly. Its complete madness.
Not really, all of the Pfizer deliveries in Europe are set for the UK until mid January anyway. If they don't approve it by then it would be a disaster as Germany would be be taking deliveries but be unable to start using it.
So if the EU approved the vaccine tomorrow, Belgium would continue sending the vaccine to the UK and not have any for its own citizens? I cant see that
They don't have a choice. Pfizer is contracted to supply the UK, Belgium doesn't come into the reckoning.
Does anyone have any idea why the EU has not approved the Pfizer vaccine?
They are following the procedures for 'provisional' authorisation, which are more onerous and take longer than those required for the 'emergency' authorisation we used.
Seems pretty daft to me - if this isn't an emergency, what is? They'll have lost a month.
The delay will cost lives, clearly the vaccine is safe, Covid in old and ill people is deadly. Its complete madness.
Not really, all of the Pfizer deliveries in Europe are set for the UK until mid January anyway. If they don't approve it by then it would be a disaster as Germany would be be taking deliveries but be unable to start using it.
So if the EU approved the vaccine tomorrow, Belgium would continue sending the vaccine to the UK and not have any for its own citizens? I cant see that
They don't have a choice. Pfizer is contracted to supply the UK, Belgium doesn't come into the reckoning.
Does anyone have any idea why the EU has not approved the Pfizer vaccine?
They are following the procedures for 'provisional' authorisation, which are more onerous and take longer than those required for the 'emergency' authorisation we used.
Seems pretty daft to me - if this isn't an emergency, what is? They'll have lost a month.
The delay will cost lives, clearly the vaccine is safe, Covid in old and ill people is deadly. Its complete madness.
Not really, all of the Pfizer deliveries in Europe are set for the UK until mid January anyway. If they don't approve it by then it would be a disaster as Germany would be be taking deliveries but be unable to start using it.
So if the EU approved the vaccine tomorrow, Belgium would continue sending the vaccine to the UK and not have any for its own citizens? I cant see that
They don't have a choice. Pfizer is contracted to supply the UK, Belgium doesn't come into the reckoning.
It is fair to say that however unbelievably shit our government has been, Belgium's has been worse.
Do they actual have one right now, or is it the interim government buggering it all up?
Literally the only thing not sending me into a total depressions at the moment is that at least Scotland admissions are still trending downwards but I don't know how much this is a reporting artefact.
Ultimately none of this really matters as long as we get the vaccine out quickly. Could do with an Oxon-AZ approval quick sharp – then use that to inject under 55s while Pfizer/Moderna goes to the elderly.
If we luck into that strategy because of the regulator it will be great because the government will be forced into vaccinating the productive young on a much earlier and more aggressive schedule than what is currently under consideration.
I think that double-edge approach is most wise, simply because the Oxon jab is less effective but much easier to distribute. 70% is fine for the under-55s TBH (and it is 100% effective at stopping hospitalisations which is obviously fantastic).
So, let's bloody get on with it and have the young guns jabbed with the cheap and cheerful, quick Oxon juice and save the potent, trickier stuff for the oldies.
As you say, the govt might actually be bounced into that exact policy by the MHRA – I think @Charles was saying that they are likely to restrict it to under 55s.
Doesn't the WHO rate 50% effectiveness as sufficient for a vaccine so long as it can get out to a large enough population?
Yeah but why use a lesser vaccine for older people when it gives a 90% effect in younger when and there's supply of 90% vaccine for older people that is already approved. The optimum roll out strategy is for old people to get the most effective vaccine rather than one which is 60% effective.
Isn't there an issue with getting the super cold one into nursing homes?
Does anyone have any idea why the EU has not approved the Pfizer vaccine?
They are following the procedures for 'provisional' authorisation, which are more onerous and take longer than those required for the 'emergency' authorisation we used.
Seems pretty daft to me - if this isn't an emergency, what is? They'll have lost a month.
I don't think it matters because they aren't due any deliveries in Europe until mid January and all of the first shipments are going to Germany.
Yes, but maybe that's because they've missed the early allocations as a result of the delay in approval.
Does anyone have any idea why the EU has not approved the Pfizer vaccine?
They are following the procedures for 'provisional' authorisation, which are more onerous and take longer than those required for the 'emergency' authorisation we used.
Seems pretty daft to me - if this isn't an emergency, what is? They'll have lost a month.
The delay will cost lives, clearly the vaccine is safe, Covid in old and ill people is deadly. Its complete madness.
Not really, all of the Pfizer deliveries in Europe are set for the UK until mid January anyway. If they don't approve it by then it would be a disaster as Germany would be be taking deliveries but be unable to start using it.
So if the EU approved the vaccine tomorrow, Belgium would continue sending the vaccine to the UK and not have any for its own citizens? I cant see that
Send in the Royal Navy to sort them out! That seems to be the knee-jerk response from HMG to Johnny Foreigner misbehaving.
Does anyone have any idea why the EU has not approved the Pfizer vaccine?
They are following the procedures for 'provisional' authorisation, which are more onerous and take longer than those required for the 'emergency' authorisation we used.
Seems pretty daft to me - if this isn't an emergency, what is? They'll have lost a month.
The delay will cost lives, clearly the vaccine is safe, Covid in old and ill people is deadly. Its complete madness.
Not really, all of the Pfizer deliveries in Europe are set for the UK until mid January anyway. If they don't approve it by then it would be a disaster as Germany would be be taking deliveries but be unable to start using it.
So if the EU approved the vaccine tomorrow, Belgium would continue sending the vaccine to the UK and not have any for its own citizens? I cant see that
They don't have a choice. Pfizer is contracted to supply the UK, Belgium doesn't come into the reckoning.
Imagine if the UK did that
Why do you think the UK has signed early delivery contracts? It's so that it won't happen that way. It's also why the government rejected the EU scheme as the terms at the time was to take over the existing deals that the UK already had.
AZ Dem 1.03 GA Dem 1.03 MI Dem 1.03 NV Dem 1.02 PA Dem 1.02 WI Dem 1.04
Trump to leave before end of term NO 1.06 Trump exit date 2021 1.05
That doesn`t bode well for a settlement tomorrow.
Having totally messed settlement up their best hope is to settle of the ostensibly biggest thing. That's tomorrow.
They are so lucky that the settlement as per their rules and the settlement (as is almost certainly the case) tomorrow will be the same.
There is no sign of the huge sums available at extreme odds being withdrawn. This isn't normal punter money, but rather money being laundered. Until it diminishes, there must be every chance Betfair keep the market(s) open.
Does anyone have any idea why the EU has not approved the Pfizer vaccine?
They are following the procedures for 'provisional' authorisation, which are more onerous and take longer than those required for the 'emergency' authorisation we used.
Seems pretty daft to me - if this isn't an emergency, what is? They'll have lost a month.
I don't think it matters because they aren't due any deliveries in Europe until mid January and all of the first shipments are going to Germany.
Yes, but maybe that's because they've missed the early allocations as a result of the delay in approval.
Yes, that's a possibility. I guess part of why the government pressed so hard for early delivery is because the approval timetable was set to be so early.
And it's probably a lot worse in the recent weeks for which data is not yet available.
I asked earlier whether any other countries already had average daily virus death rates higher than during the spring first wave? Does anyone know without having to do lots of data crunching?
"Death rates" depend on what the denominator is. If it is positive cases, then almost all countries will have lower death rates because there is sooooo much more testing going on now, and the mjority of cases are being found.
If you mean number of deaths per week, then Germany is easily over their death rate in April and I think many countries are.
Does anyone have any idea why the EU has not approved the Pfizer vaccine?
They are following the procedures for 'provisional' authorisation, which are more onerous and take longer than those required for the 'emergency' authorisation we used.
Seems pretty daft to me - if this isn't an emergency, what is? They'll have lost a month.
The delay will cost lives, clearly the vaccine is safe, Covid in old and ill people is deadly. Its complete madness.
Not really, all of the Pfizer deliveries in Europe are set for the UK until mid January anyway. If they don't approve it by then it would be a disaster as Germany would be be taking deliveries but be unable to start using it.
So if the EU approved the vaccine tomorrow, Belgium would continue sending the vaccine to the UK and not have any for its own citizens? I cant see that
Send in the Royal Navy to sort them out! That seems to be the knee-jerk response from HMG to Johnny Foreigner misbehaving.
That didn't happen when France seized PPE destined for the UK, did it?
Does anyone have any idea why the EU has not approved the Pfizer vaccine?
They are following the procedures for 'provisional' authorisation, which are more onerous and take longer than those required for the 'emergency' authorisation we used.
Seems pretty daft to me - if this isn't an emergency, what is? They'll have lost a month.
The delay will cost lives, clearly the vaccine is safe, Covid in old and ill people is deadly. Its complete madness.
Not really, all of the Pfizer deliveries in Europe are set for the UK until mid January anyway. If they don't approve it by then it would be a disaster as Germany would be be taking deliveries but be unable to start using it.
So if the EU approved the vaccine tomorrow, Belgium would continue sending the vaccine to the UK and not have any for its own citizens? I cant see that
They don't have a choice. Pfizer is contracted to supply the UK, Belgium doesn't come into the reckoning.
Imagine if the UK did that
Why do you think the UK has signed early delivery contracts? It's so that it won't happen that way. It's also why the government rejected the EU scheme as the terms at the time was to take over the existing deals that the UK already had.
Its brilliant that the UK Government have done this, Im surprised that Scott has not retweeted in favour of it, it just surprises me that the EU have allowed this to happen. Surely the role of any government is to protect its own citizens.
Does anyone have any idea why the EU has not approved the Pfizer vaccine?
They are following the procedures for 'provisional' authorisation, which are more onerous and take longer than those required for the 'emergency' authorisation we used.
Seems pretty daft to me - if this isn't an emergency, what is? They'll have lost a month.
The delay will cost lives, clearly the vaccine is safe, Covid in old and ill people is deadly. Its complete madness.
Not really, all of the Pfizer deliveries in Europe are set for the UK until mid January anyway. If they don't approve it by then it would be a disaster as Germany would be be taking deliveries but be unable to start using it.
So if the EU approved the vaccine tomorrow, Belgium would continue sending the vaccine to the UK and not have any for its own citizens? I cant see that
They don't have a choice. Pfizer is contracted to supply the UK, Belgium doesn't come into the reckoning.
Imagine if the UK did that
Why do you think the UK has signed early delivery contracts? It's so that it won't happen that way. It's also why the government rejected the EU scheme as the terms at the time was to take over the existing deals that the UK already had.
Its brilliant that the UK Government have done this, Im surprised that Scott has not retweeted in favour of it, it just surprises me that the EU have allowed this to happen. Surely the role of any government is to protect its own citizens.
Perhaps the problem is the individual governments have limited say in the matter.
Does anyone have any idea why the EU has not approved the Pfizer vaccine?
They are following the procedures for 'provisional' authorisation, which are more onerous and take longer than those required for the 'emergency' authorisation we used.
Seems pretty daft to me - if this isn't an emergency, what is? They'll have lost a month.
The delay will cost lives, clearly the vaccine is safe, Covid in old and ill people is deadly. Its complete madness.
Not really, all of the Pfizer deliveries in Europe are set for the UK until mid January anyway. If they don't approve it by then it would be a disaster as Germany would be be taking deliveries but be unable to start using it.
So if the EU approved the vaccine tomorrow, Belgium would continue sending the vaccine to the UK and not have any for its own citizens? I cant see that
They don't have a choice. Pfizer is contracted to supply the UK, Belgium doesn't come into the reckoning.
Imagine if the UK did that
Why do you think the UK has signed early delivery contracts? It's so that it won't happen that way. It's also why the government rejected the EU scheme as the terms at the time was to take over the existing deals that the UK already had.
Its brilliant that the UK Government have done this, Im surprised that Scott has not retweeted in favour of it, it just surprises me that the EU have allowed this to happen. Surely the role of any government is to protect its own citizens.
The EU have bet big on other vaccines. Not everything has to be a EU vs UK fight.
We've done well to secure big early orders of Pfizer and AZ. Let's hope it all pays off otherwise 2021 is going to be pretty miserable.
Literally the only thing not sending me into a total depressions at the moment is that at least Scotland admissions are still trending downwards but I don't know how much this is a reporting artefact.
Ultimately none of this really matters as long as we get the vaccine out quickly. Could do with an Oxon-AZ approval quick sharp – then use that to inject under 55s while Pfizer/Moderna goes to the elderly.
If we luck into that strategy because of the regulator it will be great because the government will be forced into vaccina young on a much earlier and more aggressive schedule than what is currently under consideration.
I think that double-edge approach is most wise, simply because the Oxon jab is less effective but much easier to distribute. 70% is fine for the under-55s TBH (and it is 100% effective at stopping hospitalisations which is obviously fantastic).
So, let's bloody get on with it and have the young guns jabbed with the cheap and cheerful, quick Oxon juice and save the potent, trickier stuff for the oldies.
As you say, the govt might actually be bounced into that exact policy by the MHRA – I think @Charles was saying that they are likely to restrict it to under 55s.
Doesn't the WHO rate 50% effectiveness as sufficient for a vaccine so long as it can get out to a large enough population?
Yeah but why use a lesser vaccine for older people when it gives a 90% effect in younger when and there's supply of 90% vaccine for older people that is already approved. The optimum roll out strategy is for old people to get the most effective vaccine rather than one which is 60% effective.
Isn't there an issue with getting the super cold one into nursing homes?
The problem is the batch size (which I have seen variously as 750 or 950), which is way too large for even a few nearby care homes, yet has all to be used within three days.
The difficulty must be breaking the batch whilst it is still super frozen.....
Does anyone have any idea why the EU has not approved the Pfizer vaccine?
They are following the procedures for 'provisional' authorisation, which are more onerous and take longer than those required for the 'emergency' authorisation we used.
Seems pretty daft to me - if this isn't an emergency, what is? They'll have lost a month.
The delay will cost lives, clearly the vaccine is safe, Covid in old and ill people is deadly. Its complete madness.
Does anyone have any idea why the EU has not approved the Pfizer vaccine?
They are following the procedures for 'provisional' authorisation, which are more onerous and take longer than those required for the 'emergency' authorisation we used.
Seems pretty daft to me - if this isn't an emergency, what is? They'll have lost a month.
The delay will cost lives, clearly the vaccine is safe, Covid in old and ill people is deadly. Its complete madness.
Does anyone have any idea why the EU has not approved the Pfizer vaccine?
They are following the procedures for 'provisional' authorisation, which are more onerous and take longer than those required for the 'emergency' authorisation we used.
Seems pretty daft to me - if this isn't an emergency, what is? They'll have lost a month.
The delay will cost lives, clearly the vaccine is safe, Covid in old and ill people is deadly. Its complete madness.
Not really, all of the Pfizer deliveries in Europe are set for the UK until mid January anyway. If they don't approve it by then it would be a disaster as Germany would be be taking deliveries but be unable to start using it.
So if the EU approved the vaccine tomorrow, Belgium would continue sending the vaccine to the UK and not have any for its own citizens? I cant see that
They don't have a choice. Pfizer is contracted to supply the UK, Belgium doesn't come into the reckoning.
Imagine if the UK did that
Why do you think the UK has signed early delivery contracts? It's so that it won't happen that way. It's also why the government rejected the EU scheme as the terms at the time was to take over the existing deals that the UK already had.
Its brilliant that the UK Government have done this, Im surprised that Scott has not retweeted in favour of it, it just surprises me that the EU have allowed this to happen. Surely the role of any government is to protect its own citizens.
The EU have bet big on other vaccines. Not everything has to be a EU vs UK fight.
We've done well to secure big early orders of Pfizer and AZ. Let's hope it all pays off otherwise 2021 is going to be pretty miserable.
They have quite a balanced vaccine portfolio, with the Pfizer vaccine taking up a similar portion to others. From the FT - https://i.imgur.com/f8cATzw.png
AZ Dem 1.03 GA Dem 1.03 MI Dem 1.03 NV Dem 1.02 PA Dem 1.02 WI Dem 1.04
Trump to leave before end of term NO 1.06 Trump exit date 2021 1.05
That doesn`t bode well for a settlement tomorrow.
Having totally messed settlement up their best hope is to settle of the ostensibly biggest thing. That's tomorrow.
They are so lucky that the settlement as per their rules and the settlement (as is almost certainly the case) tomorrow will be the same.
There is no sign of the huge sums available at extreme odds being withdrawn. This isn't normal punter money, but rather money being laundered. Until it diminishes, there must be every chance Betfair keep the market(s) open.
So now we’re waiting until the inauguration, basically.
AZ Dem 1.03 GA Dem 1.03 MI Dem 1.03 NV Dem 1.02 PA Dem 1.02 WI Dem 1.04
Trump to leave before end of term NO 1.06 Trump exit date 2021 1.05
That doesn`t bode well for a settlement tomorrow.
Having totally messed settlement up their best hope is to settle of the ostensibly biggest thing. That's tomorrow.
They are so lucky that the settlement as per their rules and the settlement (as is almost certainly the case) tomorrow will be the same.
There is no sign of the huge sums available at extreme odds being withdrawn. This isn't normal punter money, but rather money being laundered. Until it diminishes, there must be every chance Betfair keep the market(s) open.
So we’re waiting until the inauguration, basically.
AZ Dem 1.03 GA Dem 1.03 MI Dem 1.03 NV Dem 1.02 PA Dem 1.02 WI Dem 1.04
Trump to leave before end of term NO 1.06 Trump exit date 2021 1.05
That doesn`t bode well for a settlement tomorrow.
Having totally messed settlement up their best hope is to settle of the ostensibly biggest thing. That's tomorrow.
They are so lucky that the settlement as per their rules and the settlement (as is almost certainly the case) tomorrow will be the same.
There is no sign of the huge sums available at extreme odds being withdrawn. This isn't normal punter money, but rather money being laundered. Until it diminishes, there must be every chance Betfair keep the market(s) open.
So we’re waiting until the inauguration, basically.
Chatter on Betfair forum speculating that they won`t settle until 6 Jan.
A comment from one poster:
"I guess it's possible that someone high up has decided that:
a) they're still raking in the money (and commission) on this market
b) they're going to spend the next month+ dealing with angry people who feel cheated regardless of what they do
So they may as well double down and just wait for 6th / 20th Jan. However, whilst the Trump backers don't have an actual case, those with money tied up on Biden most certainly do, and you'd think the Gambling Commission might HAVE to do something if they continue to pretend that this outcome isn't already plenty decided (on the basis of their own market rules). But who knows!"
Chatter on Betfair forum speculating that they won`t settle until 6 Jan.
A comment from one poster:
"I guess it's possible that someone high up has decided that:
a) they're still raking in the money (and commission) on this market
b) they're going to spend the next month+ dealing with angry people who feel cheated regardless of what they do
So they may as well double down and just wait for 6th / 20th Jan. However, whilst the Trump backers don't have an actual case, those with money tied up on Biden most certainly do, and you'd think the Gambling Commission might HAVE to do something if they continue to pretend that this outcome isn't already plenty decided (on the basis of their own market rules). But who knows!"
The risk of an asymmetry in the settlement should have had them settling as soon as they could.
Every day they're opening themselves up to risk. In that it's arguable that people are betting on a sure thing. Those laying the prices could argue that it wasn't clear because BF themselves had decided it wasn't clear.
Comments
https://twitter.com/pastormarkburns/status/1338518866683686915
So, let's bloody get on with it and have the young guns jabbed with the cheap and cheerful, quick Oxon juice and save the potent, trickier stuff for the oldies.
As you say, the govt might actually be bounced into that exact policy by the MHRA – I think @Charles was saying that they are likely to restrict it to under 55s.
Point of order: Essex isn't much smaller than Kent.
https://www.ft.com/content/a2901ce8-5eb7-4633-b89c-cbdf5b386938
(Excess death charts by country about a third of the way down the page).
Trump does little that is not transactional.
https://twitter.com/sbauerAP/status/1338529253936263173
If so, the razor wire on the roads to Skipton and Harrogate can come down and we'll be free to visit North Yorkshire again.
https://twitter.com/angie_rasmussen/status/1338524160054595584
I assume, being in the West Country, that we had plenty of rebellions, but marching to London seems an awful long way to go. Kept it local I imagine.
Kent 1.855m vs Essex 1.842m
At a press conference on Saturday Trump said he did not know much about the case and heard powerful arguments for and against a pardon. He then added that he would look into the matter.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/aug/15/edward-snowden-trump-pardon
He's an odd one though, as he usually claims to know everything, but then when he wants to equivocate he brings out the stock phrase of not knowing much about it with notable frequency. It's like he cannot half bluff and obfuscate, so must claim omnipotence or complete ignorance.
A merry wight was he:
Though London Tower were Michael's hold,
We'll set Trelawny free!
We'll cross the Tamar, land to land:
The Severn is no stay:
With "one and all," and hand in hand;
And who shall bid us nay?
And shall Trelawny live?
Or shall Trelawny die?
Here's twenty thousand Cornish men
Will know the reason why!
And when we come to London Wall,
A pleasant sight to view,
Come forth! come forth! ye cowards all:
Here's men as good as you.
Trelawny he's in keep and hold;
Trelawny he may die:
Here's twenty thousand Cornish bold
Will know the reason why
https://edition.cnn.com/politics/live-news/electoral-college-vote-2020-biden-trump/index.html
Current Betfair prices:-
Biden 1.03
Democrats 1.03
Biden PV 1.02
Biden PV 49-51.9% 1.03
Trump PV 46-48.9% 1.03
Trump ECV 210-239 1.03
Biden ECV 300-329 1.03
Biden ECV Hcap -48.5 1.03
Biden ECV Hcap -63.5 1.03
Trump ECV Hcap +81.5 no offers
AZ Dem 1.03
GA Dem 1.03
MI Dem 1.03
NV Dem 1.02
PA Dem 1.02
WI Dem 1.04
Trump to leave before end of term NO 1.06
Trump exit date 2021 1.05
Seems pretty daft to me - if this isn't an emergency, what is? They'll have lost a month.
It's live on PBS, Betfair, if you want to see the action before settling that market.
The only way your position (that there’s no difference) would work is if contagion disappeared altogether before any symptoms arise. I don’t believe that is the case?
It's the taking of the money that's the problem.
They are so lucky that the settlement as per their rules and the settlement (as is almost certainly the case) tomorrow will be the same.
And I suspect Pfizer are happy to direct the existing stock to the Uk and the USA while the EU gets organised.
V. little evidence so far that it's of any more significance than the previous ones.
https://twitter.com/firefoxx66/status/1338533710178775047
Do they actual have one right now, or is it the interim government buggering it all up?
https://mobile.twitter.com/BetfairCS/status/1338537074035728387
The actual result is 306 to 232, difference 74, so Biden wins by more than 63.5.
If you mean number of deaths per week, then Germany is easily over their death rate in April and I think many countries are.
We've done well to secure big early orders of Pfizer and AZ. Let's hope it all pays off otherwise 2021 is going to be pretty miserable.
The problem is the batch size (which I have seen variously as 750 or 950), which is way too large for even a few nearby care homes, yet has all to be used within three days.
The difficulty must be breaking the batch whilst it is still super frozen.....
Oh, sorry, is that not what you meant?
https://twitter.com/MillerStream/status/1338203809114296321
A comment from one poster:
"I guess it's possible that someone high up has decided that:
a) they're still raking in the money (and commission) on this market
b) they're going to spend the next month+ dealing with angry people who feel cheated regardless of what they do
So they may as well double down and just wait for 6th / 20th Jan. However, whilst the Trump backers don't have an actual case, those with money tied up on Biden most certainly do, and you'd think the Gambling Commission might HAVE to do something if they continue to pretend that this outcome isn't already plenty decided (on the basis of their own market rules). But who knows!"
https://twitter.com/sashaslater77/status/1338422352313544704
Every day they're opening themselves up to risk. In that it's arguable that people are betting on a sure thing. Those laying the prices could argue that it wasn't clear because BF themselves had decided it wasn't clear.
Madness.