Best performing countries for Covid vaccine doses given out:
Israel (9.05 million) 47.90 per 100 population UAE (9.77 million) 27.107 per 100 population United Kingdom (67 million) 10.79 per 100 population
...
European Union (446 million) 2.11 per 100 population
Still @Nigel_Foremain reckons "big" "muscle" works when it comes to pharmaceuticals. "Big" doesn't work. "Muscle" doesn't work.
Small countries nimbly looking after themselves works.
Bear in mind, that % covers the entire population. But 21% of the UK population is under 18. So, as we have no plans to vaccinate Da Yoof yet, we have actually jabbed 10.79m of the total 53m pool - we have done over 20% of the adult population of the UK.
And we have probably jabbed a million more by now - so we are at 22.5% as of this moment.
Half-jabbed...
Which we are repeatedly told confer the majority of the protection.
Yes, we are repeatedly told that in the UK. A wing and a prayer springs to mind.
C'mon, you're not subscribing to that BMA nonsense are you? There's MASSIVE evidence around the world that the first jab, certainly of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine, provides a very high degree of protection, both in the published clinical trial data and in the real-world experience coming out of Israel. For the AZ vaccine, the boss himself confirmed the same yesterday.
As I said, it may be a gamble that comes off, but it is a gamble.
Israel is sticking to the protocol, so we have to wait until March to see if our different protocol works.
Isn't sticking to three weeks a gamble on the other side of the bet though? You are precluding people from Jab 1 to give others Jab 2.
1st dose 2nd dose Total 259306 1001 East Of England 29244 47 London 43555 445 Midlands 41813 131 North East And Yorkshire 38513 56 North West 35271 95 South East 39181 177 South West 29908 47
Clearly vaccine supply shortage hitting home. Time to go full CartmanEU on Pfizer and AZN.
So? We're discussing the effectiveness of a single jab.
LOL a medical expert as well as a Scotch one, what other talents do you hide Rob. You tell that consultant he does not know what he is talking about , daring to think he knows better than you.
The deviation is a calculated risk, in an ideal world AZN would be redoing their trial before approval....but the world isn't ideal, we have to get on with it and in reality i wouldn't be surprised in we are repeating this process next year. AZN said they are already working on a new vaccine.
It would only be interesting, indeed astonishing, if such caveats weren't in the contract.
It is completely inconceivable that the contract wouldn't include lots of such caveats. There is absolutely no way AZ would have given a firm commitment on delivery dates for a brand-new vaccine, involving new production facilities and dependent on other suppliers who themselves were also doing things for the first time, all in a super-fast timescale.
As AZ CEO has continually stated the contract is based on best endeavors.
I'm actually surprised how polite he is being in public considering the games the EU seem to be playing.
I don't know what the EU think they're playing at. They really are in a negotiation where AZ hold all the cards. After all, if the EU get too bolshie AZ have the option to simply walk away from the contract, close their European factory and concentrate on other markets.
And there is exactly feck all the EU can do about it.
So the 'win' here for the EU is they accept a lower delivery than they want, and the lose is that they get none at all.
Wrong. The EU is one of the largest markets for pharmaceuticals in the world. That gives them a lot of muscle. AZ will not want to antagonise them more than necessary, so no, AZ do not hold all the cards, far from it.
So - just to be clear - the EU might ban AZ from operating in the EU altogether if they decide to abrogate a contract?
Which would cause no medicine shortages of any kind, I trust?
The EU are behaving like complete fools. It's like watching the DUP over Theresa May's deal - only worse, because you expect the DUP to behave like idiots.
The EU feels that AZ have legged them over. So they are making a fuss. A resolution will be found that puts the EU in a better position than if they had not made a fuss. This is what I predict. Bet I'm right.
At the detriment to who?
I fear it might be you, Rob. But let's hope not.
It was a legitimate question. The EU are seeking to divert supplies rightfully destined for the UK.
Not really. That's a simplistic and jaundiced view. They are "rightfully" seeking to reduce their shortfall. In general, with fixed vaccine supply, every shot someone has means somebody else did not have it. Why are we diverting jabs from Italy? Why is Israel diverting jabs from us? Etc. It all depends on the contracts, the money, the moral view, the WHO, the balance of power, the politics etc etc. Bottom line is as I summarized and people should stop sanctimoniously moaning unless and until something that warrants it occurs. Which it hasn't yet. All that's happening is a frenzy of europhobes mutually wanking each other off and wallowing in europhobia. I'm finding it infantile and tedious.
"Rightfully"?
The EU signed their contracts three months late. It isn't europhobia to point this out.
Had Johnson's Government signed contracts three months after the EU and the UK was struggling as a result then would it be Anglophobia to point that out?
Just mimicking OP's equally 'arguable' use of the word. And yes, I'm afraid this is tickling up the europhobia of europhobes something rotten.
But anyway, thanks for the contribution. I maintain a list of your specialisms - you know how I am with lists - and I will now add 'big ticket pharma contracts' to it.
1st dose 2nd dose Total 259306 1001 East Of England 29244 47 London 43555 445 Midlands 41813 131 North East And Yorkshire 38513 56 North West 35271 95 South East 39181 177 South West 29908 47
Clearly vaccine supply shortage hitting home. Time to go full Cartman on Pfizer and AZN.
We are more f*cked than a stepmom on Pornhub when our 18 month clearing exemption ends and it isn't permanently renewed.
But those of us in the financial services sector we rank lower than fish.
Other than a hostile act of petty vengeance what reason would tbe EU have to give clearing equivalence to US but not UK?
Because the US companies have agreed to stick to the EU rules, whilst we want to ignore them. The EU position is if you want equivalency you have to stick to our rules, the US says fine, the UK less so.
Honestly, 'liquidation periods' and 'anti procyclicality measure' is all the rage.
We are more f*cked than a stepmom on Pornhub when our 18 month clearing exemption ends and it isn't permanently renewed.
But those of us in the financial services sector we rank lower than fish.
Other than a hostile act of petty vengeance what reason would tbe EU have to give clearing equivalence to US but not UK?
Because we haven't been negotiating for it?
Yep - as I just posted - Boris didn't ask for it because of "sovereignty" and clearly either no-one bothered to tell him of the importance or he didn't understand the importance.
I'm not sure which of the too options are worse for the Government.
And what a performance by the City of Cambridge ... the smallest excess in E,W & S.
No statistically significant excess deaths from COVID. In a City of 123k. Top of the Class.
Doesn't that just point out the limitation of the tool at this granular level?
If you look at the figures, 71 people in Cambridge died with COVID. The figure in similarly sized Norwich is 49. Yet Norwich is shown with a reasonably substantial 19% excess death rate whereas Cambridge, where to reiterate MORE people have died with COVID, is shown as having no excess deaths.
So what's happening here? Are Cambridge recording deaths in a very different way? Is Norwich having a whole load of people dying of COVID without any diagnosis? It seems more likely that Norwich has had a fairly low death rate in the period before COVID for whatever reason, and Cambridge a fairly high one. It also seems as if it probably isn't sensible to do this on a local authority level as it reflects more random variance in the numbers when looking at quite small samples, rather than some kind of story of success in Cambridge and failure in Norwich.
In details, I don't know the answer to your question, as I didn't construct the tool. However, the deaths in Cambridge City have been very, very, very low.
Do deaths in the huge Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge get recored as "in Cambridge" despite the fact that the patient may have come from outside Cambridge city? Maybe they are included in the first figure ("71 deaths in Cambridge"), but not in the second ?
Overall, the picture in the map makes a lot of sense, so I don't agree that the tool is limited because of its granularity.
We are more f*cked than a stepmom on Pornhub when our 18 month clearing exemption ends and it isn't permanently renewed.
But those of us in the financial services sector we rank lower than fish.
Other than a hostile act of petty vengeance what reason would tbe EU have to give clearing equivalence to US but not UK?
It's not petty vengeance, it's hard-headed commercial calculation, combined with an understandable wish to have direct regulatory oversight over the trading. They want the European timezone trading to move to their exchanges. Why shouldn't they? They don't owe the City or the UK any favours, it was entirely our decision to leave the Single Market and also entirely the decision of Boris not to bother even trying to include services in his thin trade deal.
I voted Remain, however as I said Leavers got what they voted for
No they haven't. If they get given swinging cuts in response to falling tax revenues. No leaver voted for cuts. They voted for increased spending. On them.
It would only be interesting, indeed astonishing, if such caveats weren't in the contract.
It is completely inconceivable that the contract wouldn't include lots of such caveats. There is absolutely no way AZ would have given a firm commitment on delivery dates for a brand-new vaccine, involving new production facilities and dependent on other suppliers who themselves were also doing things for the first time, all in a super-fast timescale.
As AZ CEO has continually stated the contract is based on best endeavors.
I'm actually surprised how polite he is being in public considering the games the EU seem to be playing.
I don't know what the EU think they're playing at. They really are in a negotiation where AZ hold all the cards. After all, if the EU get too bolshie AZ have the option to simply walk away from the contract, close their European factory and concentrate on other markets.
And there is exactly feck all the EU can do about it.
So the 'win' here for the EU is they accept a lower delivery than they want, and the lose is that they get none at all.
Wrong. The EU is one of the largest markets for pharmaceuticals in the world. That gives them a lot of muscle. AZ will not want to antagonise them more than necessary, so no, AZ do not hold all the cards, far from it.
So - just to be clear - the EU might ban AZ from operating in the EU altogether if they decide to abrogate a contract?
Which would cause no medicine shortages of any kind, I trust?
The EU are behaving like complete fools. It's like watching the DUP over Theresa May's deal - only worse, because you expect the DUP to behave like idiots.
The EU feels that AZ have legged them over. So they are making a fuss. A resolution will be found that puts the EU in a better position than if they had not made a fuss. This is what I predict. Bet I'm right.
At the detriment to who?
I fear it might be you, Rob. But let's hope not.
It was a legitimate question. The EU are seeking to divert supplies rightfully destined for the UK.
Not really. That's a simplistic and jaundiced view. They are "rightfully" seeking to reduce their shortfall. In general, with fixed vaccine supply, every shot someone has means somebody else did not have it. Why are we diverting jabs from Italy? Why is Israel diverting jabs from us? Etc. It all depends on the contracts, the money, the moral view, the WHO, the balance of power, the politics etc etc. Bottom line is as I summarized and people should stop sanctimoniously moaning unless and until something that warrants it occurs. Which it hasn't yet. All that's happening is a frenzy of europhobes mutually wanking each other off and wallowing in europhobia. I'm finding it infantile and tedious.
"Rightfully"?
The EU signed their contracts three months late. It isn't europhobia to point this out.
Had Johnson's Government signed contracts three months after the EU and the UK was struggling as a result then would it be Anglophobia to point that out?
Good point. Can you please share that link again to the contract (did someone quote an extract upthread?).
You said that the UK signed the AZ vaccine contract three months before EU, so you had more time to tweak and fix the potential disruptions of the supply. Why then did you commit to similar contracts with the EU, if you knew that in a very short time there could be problems like the one the EU supply chain is experiencing right now? "First of all, we have different plants and they have different yields and different productivity. One of the plans with the highest yield is in the UK because it started earlier. It also had its own issues, but we solved all, it has a good productivity, but it's the UK plant because it started earlier. Anyway, we didn't commit with the EU, by the way. It's not a commitment we have to Europe: it’s a best effort, we said we are going to make our best effort. The reason why we said that is because Europe at the time wanted to be supplied more or less at the same time as the UK, even though the contract was signed three months later. So we said, “ok, we're going to do our best, we’re going to try, but we cannot commit contractually because we are three months behind UK”. We knew it was a super stretch goal and we know it's a big issue, this pandemic. But our contract is not a contractual commitment. It's a best effort. Basically we said we're going to try our best, but we can't guarantee we're going to succeed. In fact, getting there, we are a little bit delayed”.
There is huge focus on deviating from the Pfizer protocol, but aren't the majority of people getting the AZN vaccine? The talk was of 5m doses of Pfizer, 20m of AZN being in the current pipeline.
Any direct comparison to Israel is a bit flawed because they are only using Pfizer, which appear in PIII trials to give a higher level of protection after one or two doses.
At our vaccination last saturday all 1,000 vaccinations were Pfizer
Nor does Brussels understand Soriot's argument that the British government had ordered the vaccines earlier. The contract does not speak of the principle of "first come, first served".
We are more f*cked than a stepmom on Pornhub when our 18 month clearing exemption ends and it isn't permanently renewed.
But those of us in the financial services sector we rank lower than fish.
Other than a hostile act of petty vengeance what reason would tbe EU have to give clearing equivalence to US but not UK?
Because we haven't been negotiating for it?
Yep - as I just posted - Boris didn't ask for it because of "sovereignty" and clearly either no-one bothered to tell him of the importance or he didn't understand the importance.
I'm not sure which of the too options are worse for the Government.
Third option- people tried to tell him, but he drowned them out by singing Patriotic Songs? (Or less absurdly, he knew, understood and decided he didn't care?)
Can anyone explain to me how Bloomberg are getting their UK stats? They are always ahead of the UK official figures and this morning, for instance, are reporting the UK figure as 7,325,775 which would be an increase of 475,000 in 24 hours. Is this accurate?
Best performing countries for Covid vaccine doses given out:
Israel (9.05 million) 47.90 per 100 population UAE (9.77 million) 27.107 per 100 population United Kingdom (67 million) 10.79 per 100 population
...
European Union (446 million) 2.11 per 100 population
Still @Nigel_Foremain reckons "big" "muscle" works when it comes to pharmaceuticals. "Big" doesn't work. "Muscle" doesn't work.
Small countries nimbly looking after themselves works.
Bear in mind, that % covers the entire population. But 21% of the UK population is under 18. So, as we have no plans to vaccinate Da Yoof yet, we have actually jabbed 10.79m of the total 53m pool - we have done over 20% of the adult population of the UK.
And we have probably jabbed a million more by now - so we are at 22.5% as of this moment.
Half-jabbed...
Which we are repeatedly told confer the majority of the protection.
Yes, we are repeatedly told that in the UK. A wing and a prayer springs to mind.
C'mon, you're not subscribing to that BMA nonsense are you? There's MASSIVE evidence around the world that the first jab, certainly of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine, provides a very high degree of protection, both in the published clinical trial data and in the real-world experience coming out of Israel. For the AZ vaccine, the boss himself confirmed the same yesterday.
As I said, it may be a gamble that comes off, but it is a gamble.
Israel is sticking to the protocol, so we have to wait until March to see if our different protocol works.
Isn't sticking to three weeks a gamble on the other side of the bet though? You are precluding people from Jab 1 to give others Jab 2.
That's a gamble in and of itself.
You would be following the science, not gambling on anticipating it.
Gambles often come off, but gamblers should know there is no such thing as a sure thing.
I voted Remain, however as I said Leavers got what they voted for
No they haven't. If they get given swinging cuts in response to falling tax revenues. No leaver voted for cuts. They voted for increased spending. On them.
Spending as a percentage of gdp has also increased substantially since the austerity of the Cameron-Clegg-Osborne coalition years too
We are more f*cked than a stepmom on Pornhub when our 18 month clearing exemption ends and it isn't permanently renewed.
But those of us in the financial services sector we rank lower than fish.
It's quite amazing really. We had better hope for equivalence.
One of the chaps who is really impacted by this was a heavy backer of Brexit.
He is wistfully saying if you wanted to wilfully destroy the City of London/the UK's financial services pre-eminence then it would look a lot like Boris Johnson's Brexit deal.
There's a side betting market going on here, when will 'anti big bang' day happen, I'm going for the 4th of July 2022, plenty of people have gone for much earlier.
1st dose 2nd dose Total 259306 1001 East Of England 29244 47 London 43555 445 Midlands 41813 131 North East And Yorkshire 38513 56 North West 35271 95 South East 39181 177 South West 29908 47
Clearly vaccine supply shortage hitting home. Time to go full Cartman on Pfizer and AZN.
Can anyone explain to me how Bloomberg are getting their UK stats? They are always ahead of the UK official figures and this morning, for instance, are reporting the UK figure as 7,325,775 which would be an increase of 475,000 in 24 hours. Is this accurate?
That number is the same type of increase that has been happening for the last 5 or 6 days so it sounds accurate. For example both Saturday and Friday's number of jabs were around 480,000.
Best performing countries for Covid vaccine doses given out:
Israel (9.05 million) 47.90 per 100 population UAE (9.77 million) 27.107 per 100 population United Kingdom (67 million) 10.79 per 100 population
...
European Union (446 million) 2.11 per 100 population
Still @Nigel_Foremain reckons "big" "muscle" works when it comes to pharmaceuticals. "Big" doesn't work. "Muscle" doesn't work.
Small countries nimbly looking after themselves works.
Bear in mind, that % covers the entire population. But 21% of the UK population is under 18. So, as we have no plans to vaccinate Da Yoof yet, we have actually jabbed 10.79m of the total 53m pool - we have done over 20% of the adult population of the UK.
And we have probably jabbed a million more by now - so we are at 22.5% as of this moment.
Half-jabbed...
Which we are repeatedly told confer the majority of the protection.
Yes, we are repeatedly told that in the UK. A wing and a prayer springs to mind.
C'mon, you're not subscribing to that BMA nonsense are you? There's MASSIVE evidence around the world that the first jab, certainly of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine, provides a very high degree of protection, both in the published clinical trial data and in the real-world experience coming out of Israel. For the AZ vaccine, the boss himself confirmed the same yesterday.
As I said, it may be a gamble that comes off, but it is a gamble.
Israel is sticking to the protocol, so we have to wait until March to see if our different protocol works.
Isn't sticking to three weeks a gamble on the other side of the bet though? You are precluding people from Jab 1 to give others Jab 2.
That's a gamble in and of itself.
You would be following the science, not gambling on anticipating it.
Gambles often come off, but gamblers should know there is no such thing as a sure thing.
If the 90% figure is correct, the delayed strategy is entirely justified. I come at this from the angle of someone who would have not done things the UK way.
The EU are clearly in a mess and are lashing out at AZ. They're blaming the pharmaceuticals for supply problems which really stem back to their own over-centralised bureaucracy.
It is quite possible -- if the EU continue to behave like this -- that it magnifies Boris' "success".
Is CCHQ advIsing the EU ?
Because i really cannot think of much that could help Boris more than the EU over-reacting and blocking vaccine exports.
It simultaneously focuses voters' attention on Boris' one big success in the COVID pandemic, as well as one big advantage of Brexit.
And by over-reacting, the EU look like a mobster state.
It's really amazing - the EU couldn't be doing a better job for Boris and the Government if they'd been hired to do PR at a million pounds a day. You can't buy this kind of coverage.
A very generous gesture from our continental cousins
Why would the EU give a flying fuck what our voters think of their actions or whether Boris benefits from them or not? Its obligations are to its members, and we are no longer members. We have left the EU. It is strange how long this seems to be taking to sink in with some people!
1st dose 2nd dose Total 259306 1001 East Of England 29244 47 London 43555 445 Midlands 41813 131 North East And Yorkshire 38513 56 North West 35271 95 South East 39181 177 South West 29908 47
Bit disappointing while its up 10% vs yesterday its down vs 1 week ago:
Can anyone explain to me how Bloomberg are getting their UK stats? They are always ahead of the UK official figures and this morning, for instance, are reporting the UK figure as 7,325,775 which would be an increase of 475,000 in 24 hours. Is this accurate?
It would only be interesting, indeed astonishing, if such caveats weren't in the contract.
It is completely inconceivable that the contract wouldn't include lots of such caveats. There is absolutely no way AZ would have given a firm commitment on delivery dates for a brand-new vaccine, involving new production facilities and dependent on other suppliers who themselves were also doing things for the first time, all in a super-fast timescale.
As AZ CEO has continually stated the contract is based on best endeavors.
I'm actually surprised how polite he is being in public considering the games the EU seem to be playing.
I don't know what the EU think they're playing at. They really are in a negotiation where AZ hold all the cards. After all, if the EU get too bolshie AZ have the option to simply walk away from the contract, close their European factory and concentrate on other markets.
And there is exactly feck all the EU can do about it.
So the 'win' here for the EU is they accept a lower delivery than they want, and the lose is that they get none at all.
Wrong. The EU is one of the largest markets for pharmaceuticals in the world. That gives them a lot of muscle. AZ will not want to antagonise them more than necessary, so no, AZ do not hold all the cards, far from it.
So - just to be clear - the EU might ban AZ from operating in the EU altogether if they decide to abrogate a contract?
Which would cause no medicine shortages of any kind, I trust?
The EU are behaving like complete fools. It's like watching the DUP over Theresa May's deal - only worse, because you expect the DUP to behave like idiots.
The EU feels that AZ have legged them over. So they are making a fuss. A resolution will be found that puts the EU in a better position than if they had not made a fuss. This is what I predict. Bet I'm right.
At the detriment to who?
I fear it might be you, Rob. But let's hope not.
It was a legitimate question. The EU are seeking to divert supplies rightfully destined for the UK.
Not really. That's a simplistic and jaundiced view. They are "rightfully" seeking to reduce their shortfall. In general, with fixed vaccine supply, every shot someone has means somebody else did not have it. Why are we diverting jabs from Italy? Why is Israel diverting jabs from us? Etc. It all depends on the contracts, the money, the moral view, the WHO, the balance of power, the politics etc etc. Bottom line is as I summarized and people should stop sanctimoniously moaning unless and until something that warrants it occurs. Which it hasn't yet. All that's happening is a frenzy of europhobes mutually wanking each other off and wallowing in europhobia. I'm finding it infantile and tedious.
The EU are trying to bully their way into more vaccines because they've completely buggered vaccine procurement and roll-out. They might have a point if they weren't three months behind the UK, and invested more than 1/7th of the UK and US totals.
If they are a consistent 3 months behind, this still has a month to run.
It would only be interesting, indeed astonishing, if such caveats weren't in the contract.
It is completely inconceivable that the contract wouldn't include lots of such caveats. There is absolutely no way AZ would have given a firm commitment on delivery dates for a brand-new vaccine, involving new production facilities and dependent on other suppliers who themselves were also doing things for the first time, all in a super-fast timescale.
As AZ CEO has continually stated the contract is based on best endeavors.
I'm actually surprised how polite he is being in public considering the games the EU seem to be playing.
I don't know what the EU think they're playing at. They really are in a negotiation where AZ hold all the cards. After all, if the EU get too bolshie AZ have the option to simply walk away from the contract, close their European factory and concentrate on other markets.
And there is exactly feck all the EU can do about it.
So the 'win' here for the EU is they accept a lower delivery than they want, and the lose is that they get none at all.
Wrong. The EU is one of the largest markets for pharmaceuticals in the world. That gives them a lot of muscle. AZ will not want to antagonise them more than necessary, so no, AZ do not hold all the cards, far from it.
So - just to be clear - the EU might ban AZ from operating in the EU altogether if they decide to abrogate a contract?
Which would cause no medicine shortages of any kind, I trust?
The EU are behaving like complete fools. It's like watching the DUP over Theresa May's deal - only worse, because you expect the DUP to behave like idiots.
The EU feels that AZ have legged them over. So they are making a fuss. A resolution will be found that puts the EU in a better position than if they had not made a fuss. This is what I predict. Bet I'm right.
At the detriment to who?
I fear it might be you, Rob. But let's hope not.
It was a legitimate question. The EU are seeking to divert supplies rightfully destined for the UK.
Not really. That's a simplistic and jaundiced view. They are "rightfully" seeking to reduce their shortfall. In general, with fixed vaccine supply, every shot someone has means somebody else did not have it. Why are we diverting jabs from Italy? Why is Israel diverting jabs from us? Etc. It all depends on the contracts, the money, the moral view, the WHO, the balance of power, the politics etc etc. Bottom line is as I summarized and people should stop sanctimoniously moaning unless and until something that warrants it occurs. Which it hasn't yet. All that's happening is a frenzy of europhobes mutually wanking each other off and wallowing in europhobia. I'm finding it infantile and tedious.
"Rightfully"?
The EU signed their contracts three months late. It isn't europhobia to point this out.
Had Johnson's Government signed contracts three months after the EU and the UK was struggling as a result then would it be Anglophobia to point that out?
Good point. Can you please share that link again to the contract (did someone quote an extract upthread?).
You said that the UK signed the AZ vaccine contract three months before EU, so you had more time to tweak and fix the potential disruptions of the supply. Why then did you commit to similar contracts with the EU, if you knew that in a very short time there could be problems like the one the EU supply chain is experiencing right now? "First of all, we have different plants and they have different yields and different productivity. One of the plans with the highest yield is in the UK because it started earlier. It also had its own issues, but we solved all, it has a good productivity, but it's the UK plant because it started earlier. Anyway, we didn't commit with the EU, by the way. It's not a commitment we have to Europe: it’s a best effort, we said we are going to make our best effort. The reason why we said that is because Europe at the time wanted to be supplied more or less at the same time as the UK, even though the contract was signed three months later. So we said, “ok, we're going to do our best, we’re going to try, but we cannot commit contractually because we are three months behind UK”. We knew it was a super stretch goal and we know it's a big issue, this pandemic. But our contract is not a contractual commitment. It's a best effort. Basically we said we're going to try our best, but we can't guarantee we're going to succeed. In fact, getting there, we are a little bit delayed”.
The irony is that the EU were expecting us to ask for something on financial services in return for not shafting the EU fishing industry. They were amazed that we didn't bother with the first bit, and then we went on to shaft the UK fishing industry instead.
1st dose 2nd dose Total 259306 1001 East Of England 29244 47 London 43555 445 Midlands 41813 131 North East And Yorkshire 38513 56 North West 35271 95 South East 39181 177 South West 29908 47
Clearly vaccine supply shortage hitting home. Time to go full Cartman on Pfizer and AZN.
That is behind the required rate by a good chalk.
Very worrying.
This was already mentioned last week - there is a short term shortfall due to ramping up issues.
Best performing countries for Covid vaccine doses given out:
Israel (9.05 million) 47.90 per 100 population UAE (9.77 million) 27.107 per 100 population United Kingdom (67 million) 10.79 per 100 population
...
European Union (446 million) 2.11 per 100 population
Still @Nigel_Foremain reckons "big" "muscle" works when it comes to pharmaceuticals. "Big" doesn't work. "Muscle" doesn't work.
Small countries nimbly looking after themselves works.
Bear in mind, that % covers the entire population. But 21% of the UK population is under 18. So, as we have no plans to vaccinate Da Yoof yet, we have actually jabbed 10.79m of the total 53m pool - we have done over 20% of the adult population of the UK.
And we have probably jabbed a million more by now - so we are at 22.5% as of this moment.
Half-jabbed...
Which we are repeatedly told confer the majority of the protection.
Yes, we are repeatedly told that in the UK. A wing and a prayer springs to mind.
C'mon, you're not subscribing to that BMA nonsense are you? There's MASSIVE evidence around the world that the first jab, certainly of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine, provides a very high degree of protection, both in the published clinical trial data and in the real-world experience coming out of Israel. For the AZ vaccine, the boss himself confirmed the same yesterday.
As I said, it may be a gamble that comes off, but it is a gamble.
Israel is sticking to the protocol, so we have to wait until March to see if our different protocol works.
Nate Silver makes the correct point that it's just Bayesian versus frequentist statistics. Bayesian stats does have a "gambling" feel to it in that it assigns a prior probability to a hypothesis. But it's probably the better approach to the problem in this case - frequentist caution makes you feel better because you've followed the recipe, but probably doesn't have as good an expected pay-off.
It is quite possible -- if the EU continue to behave like this -- that it magnifies Boris' "success".
Is CCHQ advIsing the EU ?
Because i really cannot think of much that could help Boris more than the EU over-reacting and blocking vaccine exports.
It simultaneously focuses voters' attention on Boris' one big success in the COVID pandemic, as well as one big advantage of Brexit.
And by over-reacting, the EU look like a mobster state.
Why does the EU give a damn how this makes Boris Johnson look? It's a very Anglocentric view of things.
The EU presumably see it as key to look to people in the EU as if they are playing hardball with a pharma company who have fallen short of their contractual obligations, and in fact to squeeze as much vaccine out of AZ as possible. If that also distracts British citizens from the massive death rate in the UK, and benefits Johnson, so what from their perspective?
There is no evidence yet that AZN have fallen short of their contractual obligations.
Anyway, I must go and teach some more, but here's a joke that's appropriate for today:
An American and a German architect bet who can build a skyscraper in the least amount of time. After a month the American mails the German: "Only 10 days and I'll be finished." The German writes back: "Hah, that's nothing. Only 10 forms left and I am allowed to start."
1st dose 2nd dose Total 259306 1001 East Of England 29244 47 London 43555 445 Midlands 41813 131 North East And Yorkshire 38513 56 North West 35271 95 South East 39181 177 South West 29908 47
Clearly vaccine supply shortage hitting home. Time to go full Cartman on Pfizer and AZN.
1st dose 2nd dose Total 259306 1001 East Of England 29244 47 London 43555 445 Midlands 41813 131 North East And Yorkshire 38513 56 North West 35271 95 South East 39181 177 South West 29908 47
Clearly vaccine supply shortage hitting home. Time to go full Cartman on Pfizer and AZN.
That is behind the required rate by a good chalk.
Very worrying.
I said at the very start I thought government were again in danger of over promising / under delivering by relying on factors outside their control to all go perfectly. They will get loads of.blame if the target is missed, when from the capacity side of things it is all there to do 500k/day, it is all supply side.
Israel didn't have a choice, and didn't have a reason to delay anyway. Their supply of the vaccine is predicated on supplying the data back to Pfizer, so they a) have the supplies they need to do the double jab as planned and b) they are required by the terms of their contract to do the jabs as and when Pfizer want them.
1st dose 2nd dose Total 259306 1001 East Of England 29244 47 London 43555 445 Midlands 41813 131 North East And Yorkshire 38513 56 North West 35271 95 South East 39181 177 South West 29908 47
Clearly vaccine supply shortage hitting home. Time to go full Cartman on Pfizer and AZN.
We are more f*cked than a stepmom on Pornhub when our 18 month clearing exemption ends and it isn't permanently renewed.
But those of us in the financial services sector we rank lower than fish.
It's quite amazing really. We had better hope for equivalence.
One of the chaps who is really impacted by this was a heavy backer of Brexit.
He is wistfully saying if you wanted to wilfully destroy the City of London/the UK's financial services pre-eminence then it would look a lot like Boris Johnson's Brexit deal.
There's a side betting market going on here, when will 'anti big bang' day happen, I'm going for the 4th of July 2022, plenty of people have gone for much earlier.
I think Cities of London and Westminster will be a Labour or LD gain next time, Kensington will also likely go back to Labour. The Tories could also lose West Central in the GLA elections in May.
Even in 1997 the Tories held those seats, now they are marginals along with commuter filled seats like Esher and Walton.
Formerly safe Labour seats like Grimsby and West Bromwich and Sedgefield and Bolsover though now have Tory MPs as the Tory Party has become more working class and less the party of financial services and the City of London
It would only be interesting, indeed astonishing, if such caveats weren't in the contract.
It is completely inconceivable that the contract wouldn't include lots of such caveats. There is absolutely no way AZ would have given a firm commitment on delivery dates for a brand-new vaccine, involving new production facilities and dependent on other suppliers who themselves were also doing things for the first time, all in a super-fast timescale.
As AZ CEO has continually stated the contract is based on best endeavors.
I'm actually surprised how polite he is being in public considering the games the EU seem to be playing.
I don't know what the EU think they're playing at. They really are in a negotiation where AZ hold all the cards. After all, if the EU get too bolshie AZ have the option to simply walk away from the contract, close their European factory and concentrate on other markets.
And there is exactly feck all the EU can do about it.
So the 'win' here for the EU is they accept a lower delivery than they want, and the lose is that they get none at all.
Wrong. The EU is one of the largest markets for pharmaceuticals in the world. That gives them a lot of muscle. AZ will not want to antagonise them more than necessary, so no, AZ do not hold all the cards, far from it.
So - just to be clear - the EU might ban AZ from operating in the EU altogether if they decide to abrogate a contract?
Which would cause no medicine shortages of any kind, I trust?
The EU are behaving like complete fools. It's like watching the DUP over Theresa May's deal - only worse, because you expect the DUP to behave like idiots.
The EU feels that AZ have legged them over. So they are making a fuss. A resolution will be found that puts the EU in a better position than if they had not made a fuss. This is what I predict. Bet I'm right.
At the detriment to who?
I fear it might be you, Rob. But let's hope not.
It was a legitimate question. The EU are seeking to divert supplies rightfully destined for the UK.
Not really. That's a simplistic and jaundiced view. They are "rightfully" seeking to reduce their shortfall. In general, with fixed vaccine supply, every shot someone has means somebody else did not have it. Why are we diverting jabs from Italy? Why is Israel diverting jabs from us? Etc. It all depends on the contracts, the money, the moral view, the WHO, the balance of power, the politics etc etc. Bottom line is as I summarized and people should stop sanctimoniously moaning unless and until something that warrants it occurs. Which it hasn't yet. All that's happening is a frenzy of europhobes mutually wanking each other off and wallowing in europhobia. I'm finding it infantile and tedious.
The EU are trying to bully their way into more vaccines because they've completely buggered vaccine procurement and roll-out. They might have a point if they weren't three months behind the UK, and invested more than 1/7th of the UK and US totals.
Or, having made poor decisions on vaccine which put them behind the 8 ball, they were distressed to find their position made even worse due to AZ shortfalls. They are now seeking to mitigate the damage as one might expect they would and are entitled to do. It's an "in progress" negotiation and we will see what the upshot is. If the upshot justifies outrage, then outrage is what should "rightfully" ensue.
It would only be interesting, indeed astonishing, if such caveats weren't in the contract.
It is completely inconceivable that the contract wouldn't include lots of such caveats. There is absolutely no way AZ would have given a firm commitment on delivery dates for a brand-new vaccine, involving new production facilities and dependent on other suppliers who themselves were also doing things for the first time, all in a super-fast timescale.
As AZ CEO has continually stated the contract is based on best endeavors.
I'm actually surprised how polite he is being in public considering the games the EU seem to be playing.
I don't know what the EU think they're playing at. They really are in a negotiation where AZ hold all the cards. After all, if the EU get too bolshie AZ have the option to simply walk away from the contract, close their European factory and concentrate on other markets.
And there is exactly feck all the EU can do about it.
So the 'win' here for the EU is they accept a lower delivery than they want, and the lose is that they get none at all.
Wrong. The EU is one of the largest markets for pharmaceuticals in the world. That gives them a lot of muscle. AZ will not want to antagonise them more than necessary, so no, AZ do not hold all the cards, far from it.
So - just to be clear - the EU might ban AZ from operating in the EU altogether if they decide to abrogate a contract?
Which would cause no medicine shortages of any kind, I trust?
The EU are behaving like complete fools. It's like watching the DUP over Theresa May's deal - only worse, because you expect the DUP to behave like idiots.
The EU feels that AZ have legged them over. So they are making a fuss. A resolution will be found that puts the EU in a better position than if they had not made a fuss. This is what I predict. Bet I'm right.
At the detriment to who?
I fear it might be you, Rob. But let's hope not.
It was a legitimate question. The EU are seeking to divert supplies rightfully destined for the UK.
Not really. That's a simplistic and jaundiced view. They are "rightfully" seeking to reduce their shortfall. In general, with fixed vaccine supply, every shot someone has means somebody else did not have it. Why are we diverting jabs from Italy? Why is Israel diverting jabs from us? Etc. It all depends on the contracts, the money, the moral view, the WHO, the balance of power, the politics etc etc. Bottom line is as I summarized and people should stop sanctimoniously moaning unless and until something that warrants it occurs. Which it hasn't yet. All that's happening is a frenzy of europhobes mutually wanking each other off and wallowing in europhobia. I'm finding it infantile and tedious.
"Rightfully"?
The EU signed their contracts three months late. It isn't europhobia to point this out.
Had Johnson's Government signed contracts three months after the EU and the UK was struggling as a result then would it be Anglophobia to point that out?
Good point. Can you please share that link again to the contract (did someone quote an extract upthread?).
You said that the UK signed the AZ vaccine contract three months before EU, so you had more time to tweak and fix the potential disruptions of the supply. Why then did you commit to similar contracts with the EU, if you knew that in a very short time there could be problems like the one the EU supply chain is experiencing right now? "First of all, we have different plants and they have different yields and different productivity. One of the plans with the highest yield is in the UK because it started earlier. It also had its own issues, but we solved all, it has a good productivity, but it's the UK plant because it started earlier. Anyway, we didn't commit with the EU, by the way. It's not a commitment we have to Europe: it’s a best effort, we said we are going to make our best effort. The reason why we said that is because Europe at the time wanted to be supplied more or less at the same time as the UK, even though the contract was signed three months later. So we said, “ok, we're going to do our best, we’re going to try, but we cannot commit contractually because we are three months behind UK”. We knew it was a super stretch goal and we know it's a big issue, this pandemic. But our contract is not a contractual commitment. It's a best effort. Basically we said we're going to try our best, but we can't guarantee we're going to succeed. In fact, getting there, we are a little bit delayed”.
Oops. 🤦🏻♂️
Thanks has the contract been released?
Why should it be? Unless you're saying the CEO is lying in saying that it was a best endeavours contract? Is that what you're claiming? 🤔
It is quite possible -- if the EU continue to behave like this -- that it magnifies Boris' "success".
Is CCHQ advIsing the EU ?
Because i really cannot think of much that could help Boris more than the EU over-reacting and blocking vaccine exports.
It simultaneously focuses voters' attention on Boris' one big success in the COVID pandemic, as well as one big advantage of Brexit.
And by over-reacting, the EU look like a mobster state.
It's really amazing - the EU couldn't be doing a better job for Boris and the Government if they'd been hired to do PR at a million pounds a day. You can't buy this kind of coverage.
A very generous gesture from our continental cousins
Why would the EU give a flying fuck what our voters think of their actions or whether Boris benefits from them or not? Its obligations are to its members, and we are no longer members. We have left the EU. It is strange how long this seems to be taking to sink in with some people!
Try reading the header on the site. It is called "politicalbetting"
There are elections coming up. That is why people are commenting on this site about possible electoral implications of a row over vaccines.
A big phoney Vaccine War, with Boris winning, is likely to have an effect on the results.
FWIW, I'd like to be rid of Boris -- but if Ursula wishes to play the General Leopoldo Galtieri role, that is pretty unlikely.
We are more f*cked than a stepmom on Pornhub when our 18 month clearing exemption ends and it isn't permanently renewed.
But those of us in the financial services sector we rank lower than fish.
It's quite amazing really. We had better hope for equivalence.
One of the chaps who is really impacted by this was a heavy backer of Brexit.
He is wistfully saying if you wanted to wilfully destroy the City of London/the UK's financial services pre-eminence then it would look a lot like Boris Johnson's Brexit deal.
There's a side betting market going on here, when will 'anti big bang' day happen, I'm going for the 4th of July 2022, plenty of people have gone for much earlier.
You can see it that's for sure.
I never thought Brexit would be drop on your foot bad for the UK/The City just a gradual diminution of influence and a gradual seeping away of importance. Things are moving a tad quicker than I had thought.
As for the EU/US deal what did we think? That the EU wouldn't be looking to do trade deals with the US also? The difference seems to be, however, that they have managed to do one.
Sanofi switching it's capacity to produce Astra? I think is positive - will result in replacement of the GSK/Sanofi envisioned capacity feeding through the pipeline.
Best performing countries for Covid vaccine doses given out:
Israel (9.05 million) 47.90 per 100 population UAE (9.77 million) 27.107 per 100 population United Kingdom (67 million) 10.79 per 100 population
...
European Union (446 million) 2.11 per 100 population
Still @Nigel_Foremain reckons "big" "muscle" works when it comes to pharmaceuticals. "Big" doesn't work. "Muscle" doesn't work.
Small countries nimbly looking after themselves works.
Bear in mind, that % covers the entire population. But 21% of the UK population is under 18. So, as we have no plans to vaccinate Da Yoof yet, we have actually jabbed 10.79m of the total 53m pool - we have done over 20% of the adult population of the UK.
And we have probably jabbed a million more by now - so we are at 22.5% as of this moment.
Half-jabbed...
Which we are repeatedly told confer the majority of the protection.
Yes, we are repeatedly told that in the UK. A wing and a prayer springs to mind.
C'mon, you're not subscribing to that BMA nonsense are you? There's MASSIVE evidence around the world that the first jab, certainly of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine, provides a very high degree of protection, both in the published clinical trial data and in the real-world experience coming out of Israel. For the AZ vaccine, the boss himself confirmed the same yesterday.
As I said, it may be a gamble that comes off, but it is a gamble.
Israel is sticking to the protocol, so we have to wait until March to see if our different protocol works.
Isn't sticking to three weeks a gamble on the other side of the bet though? You are precluding people from Jab 1 to give others Jab 2.
That's a gamble in and of itself.
You would be following the science, not gambling on anticipating it.
Gambles often come off, but gamblers should know there is no such thing as a sure thing.
If the 90% figure is correct, the delayed strategy is entirely justified. I come at this from the angle of someone who would have not done things the UK way.
All people are saying, all I am saying, is that there was no trial designed specifically to determine the efficacy of a single jab although there are data from the two-jab trials which are very informative.
As such, the manufacturers, and increasingly it seems the medico-scientists won't endorse a single jab regime.
Because no one knows. Yes infection rates drop off as we have seen from that famous graph vs placebo, but no one knows after or between that what happens. Because it wasn't in a designed trial.
The EU are clearly in a mess and are lashing out at AZ. They're blaming the pharmaceuticals for supply problems which really stem back to their own over-centralised bureaucracy.
Ah thanks finally. It appears that you have seen the contract. Could you share the link.
I don't doubt that the EU has been the EU over this I would just like to look at the details.
It would only be interesting, indeed astonishing, if such caveats weren't in the contract.
It is completely inconceivable that the contract wouldn't include lots of such caveats. There is absolutely no way AZ would have given a firm commitment on delivery dates for a brand-new vaccine, involving new production facilities and dependent on other suppliers who themselves were also doing things for the first time, all in a super-fast timescale.
As AZ CEO has continually stated the contract is based on best endeavors.
I'm actually surprised how polite he is being in public considering the games the EU seem to be playing.
I don't know what the EU think they're playing at. They really are in a negotiation where AZ hold all the cards. After all, if the EU get too bolshie AZ have the option to simply walk away from the contract, close their European factory and concentrate on other markets.
And there is exactly feck all the EU can do about it.
So the 'win' here for the EU is they accept a lower delivery than they want, and the lose is that they get none at all.
Wrong. The EU is one of the largest markets for pharmaceuticals in the world. That gives them a lot of muscle. AZ will not want to antagonise them more than necessary, so no, AZ do not hold all the cards, far from it.
So - just to be clear - the EU might ban AZ from operating in the EU altogether if they decide to abrogate a contract?
Which would cause no medicine shortages of any kind, I trust?
The EU are behaving like complete fools. It's like watching the DUP over Theresa May's deal - only worse, because you expect the DUP to behave like idiots.
The EU feels that AZ have legged them over. So they are making a fuss. A resolution will be found that puts the EU in a better position than if they had not made a fuss. This is what I predict. Bet I'm right.
At the detriment to who?
I fear it might be you, Rob. But let's hope not.
It was a legitimate question. The EU are seeking to divert supplies rightfully destined for the UK.
Not really. That's a simplistic and jaundiced view. They are "rightfully" seeking to reduce their shortfall. In general, with fixed vaccine supply, every shot someone has means somebody else did not have it. Why are we diverting jabs from Italy? Why is Israel diverting jabs from us? Etc. It all depends on the contracts, the money, the moral view, the WHO, the balance of power, the politics etc etc. Bottom line is as I summarized and people should stop sanctimoniously moaning unless and until something that warrants it occurs. Which it hasn't yet. All that's happening is a frenzy of europhobes mutually wanking each other off and wallowing in europhobia. I'm finding it infantile and tedious.
"Rightfully"?
The EU signed their contracts three months late. It isn't europhobia to point this out.
Had Johnson's Government signed contracts three months after the EU and the UK was struggling as a result then would it be Anglophobia to point that out?
Just mimicking OP's equally 'arguable' use of the word. And yes, I'm afraid this is tickling up the europhobia of europhobes something rotten.
But anyway, thanks for the contribution. I maintain a list of your specialisms - you know how I am with lists - and I will now add 'big ticket pharma contracts' to it.
If you add 'ability to read' then you can make a shorter list.
Sanofi switching it's capacity to produce Astra? I think is positive - will result in replacement of the GSK/Sanofi envisioned capacity feeding through the pipeline.
Won't happen for a number of months though, and not up to speed for even longer.
As well as lots of caveats around 'best endeavours, I bet there are two further conditions in the AZ-EU contract:
1. 'Subject to approval by the EMA', which would be an interesting one to bring into the mix.
2. A clause stipulating that AZ won't favour other clients over the EU. The EU might think this gives them the right to dip into our supplies, but I doubt whether a proper reading of the various contracts would support that, assuming the AZ lawyers know what they are doing (which is a very, very good assumption).
I mean it is a bunch of half-rate politicians that couldn't make it in national politics vs. lawyers that probably charge thousands an hour.
Von der Leyen is leagues above corporate lawyer material.
As well as lots of caveats around 'best endeavours, I bet there are two further conditions in the AZ-EU contract:
1. 'Subject to approval by the EMA', which would be an interesting one to bring into the mix.
2. A clause stipulating that AZ won't favour other clients over the EU. The EU might think this gives them the right to dip into our supplies, but I doubt whether a proper reading of the various contracts would support that, assuming the AZ lawyers know what they are doing (which is a very, very good assumption).
I mean it is a bunch of half-rate politicians that couldn't make it in national politics vs. lawyers that probably charge thousands an hour.
Von der Leyen is leagues above corporate lawyer material.
Having our weekly delivery from Sainsbury's later on today, only have a few substitutions (Cod fillets instead of cod loins, different type of yoghurt from what was ordered,)
The issue is not being able to order things in the first place, no courgettes, avocado, and aubergines, that sort of thing.
Prices have gone up quite a few things.
You need to shop at a more competent supermarket, avocados are in plentiful supply at Waitrose and I am sure courgettes and aubergines were on the shelves. The avocado I'm having for lunch comes from Colombia so presumably unaffected by Brexit
We ordered a supplementary shop from Waitrose a fortnight ago, no courgettes, aubergines, or avocados arrived.
I've never been that fortunate. One person in our house enjoys all three of these. It isn't me!
Didn't James Bond once eat an avocado pear as a dessert because Ian Fleming had only heard about these exotic fruit second hand?
He had been living partly in Jamaica for 7 years before writing the first novel, so it seems incredibly unlikely.
Hmm. Maybe it was someone else. I might need to spend the rest of the week leafing through old books.
Golly, never knew M&S did food in 1959, I thought it was something they branched into in the 80s.
The T in my BLT yesterday hailed from Belgium. If the poor little Belgians can produce fresh tomatoes in January why not farmer Giles? I assume the vital ingredient is LPG, though it isn't mentioned on the packet.
They've got some greenhouses
I am getting a large box of English tomatoes delivered weekly from The Tomato Stall based on the Isle of Wight. Greenhouse grown and absolutely fresh as you could wish ever week of the year.
Best performing countries for Covid vaccine doses given out:
Israel (9.05 million) 47.90 per 100 population UAE (9.77 million) 27.107 per 100 population United Kingdom (67 million) 10.79 per 100 population
...
European Union (446 million) 2.11 per 100 population
Still @Nigel_Foremain reckons "big" "muscle" works when it comes to pharmaceuticals. "Big" doesn't work. "Muscle" doesn't work.
Small countries nimbly looking after themselves works.
Bear in mind, that % covers the entire population. But 21% of the UK population is under 18. So, as we have no plans to vaccinate Da Yoof yet, we have actually jabbed 10.79m of the total 53m pool - we have done over 20% of the adult population of the UK.
And we have probably jabbed a million more by now - so we are at 22.5% as of this moment.
Half-jabbed...
Which we are repeatedly told confer the majority of the protection.
Yes, we are repeatedly told that in the UK. A wing and a prayer springs to mind.
C'mon, you're not subscribing to that BMA nonsense are you? There's MASSIVE evidence around the world that the first jab, certainly of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine, provides a very high degree of protection, both in the published clinical trial data and in the real-world experience coming out of Israel. For the AZ vaccine, the boss himself confirmed the same yesterday.
As I said, it may be a gamble that comes off, but it is a gamble.
Israel is sticking to the protocol, so we have to wait until March to see if our different protocol works.
Isn't sticking to three weeks a gamble on the other side of the bet though? You are precluding people from Jab 1 to give others Jab 2.
That's a gamble in and of itself.
You would be following the science, not gambling on anticipating it.
Gambles often come off, but gamblers should know there is no such thing as a sure thing.
If the 90% figure is correct, the delayed strategy is entirely justified. I come at this from the angle of someone who would have not done things the UK way.
All people are saying, all I am saying, is that there was no trial designed specifically to determine the efficacy of a single jab although there are data from the two-jab trials which are very informative.
As such, the manufacturers, and increasingly it seems the medico-scientists won't endorse a single jab regime.
Because no one knows. Yes infection rates drop off as we have seen from that famous graph vs placebo, but no one knows after or between that what happens. Because it wasn't in a designed trial.
AZ CEO was surely endorsing a single jab in his interview, saying "First of all, we believe that the efficacy of one dose is sufficient: 100 percent protection against severe disease and hospitalisation"
Sounds like a decent endorsement from a manufacturer?
We are more f*cked than a stepmom on Pornhub when our 18 month clearing exemption ends and it isn't permanently renewed.
But those of us in the financial services sector we rank lower than fish.
Other than a hostile act of petty vengeance what reason would tbe EU have to give clearing equivalence to US but not UK?
Because the US companies have agreed to stick to the EU rules, whilst we want to ignore them. The EU position is if you want equivalency you have to stick to our rules, the US says fine, the UK less so.
Honestly, 'liquidation periods' and 'anti procyclicality measure' is all the rage.
I very much doubt the US has agreed to follow the EU's regulatory regime.
It would only be interesting, indeed astonishing, if such caveats weren't in the contract.
It is completely inconceivable that the contract wouldn't include lots of such caveats. There is absolutely no way AZ would have given a firm commitment on delivery dates for a brand-new vaccine, involving new production facilities and dependent on other suppliers who themselves were also doing things for the first time, all in a super-fast timescale.
As AZ CEO has continually stated the contract is based on best endeavors.
I'm actually surprised how polite he is being in public considering the games the EU seem to be playing.
I don't know what the EU think they're playing at. They really are in a negotiation where AZ hold all the cards. After all, if the EU get too bolshie AZ have the option to simply walk away from the contract, close their European factory and concentrate on other markets.
And there is exactly feck all the EU can do about it.
So the 'win' here for the EU is they accept a lower delivery than they want, and the lose is that they get none at all.
Wrong. The EU is one of the largest markets for pharmaceuticals in the world. That gives them a lot of muscle. AZ will not want to antagonise them more than necessary, so no, AZ do not hold all the cards, far from it.
So - just to be clear - the EU might ban AZ from operating in the EU altogether if they decide to abrogate a contract?
Which would cause no medicine shortages of any kind, I trust?
The EU are behaving like complete fools. It's like watching the DUP over Theresa May's deal - only worse, because you expect the DUP to behave like idiots.
The EU feels that AZ have legged them over. So they are making a fuss. A resolution will be found that puts the EU in a better position than if they had not made a fuss. This is what I predict. Bet I'm right.
At the detriment to who?
I fear it might be you, Rob. But let's hope not.
It was a legitimate question. The EU are seeking to divert supplies rightfully destined for the UK.
Not really. That's a simplistic and jaundiced view. They are "rightfully" seeking to reduce their shortfall. In general, with fixed vaccine supply, every shot someone has means somebody else did not have it. Why are we diverting jabs from Italy? Why is Israel diverting jabs from us? Etc. It all depends on the contracts, the money, the moral view, the WHO, the balance of power, the politics etc etc. Bottom line is as I summarized and people should stop sanctimoniously moaning unless and until something that warrants it occurs. Which it hasn't yet. All that's happening is a frenzy of europhobes mutually wanking each other off and wallowing in europhobia. I'm finding it infantile and tedious.
"Rightfully"?
The EU signed their contracts three months late. It isn't europhobia to point this out.
Had Johnson's Government signed contracts three months after the EU and the UK was struggling as a result then would it be Anglophobia to point that out?
Good point. Can you please share that link again to the contract (did someone quote an extract upthread?).
You said that the UK signed the AZ vaccine contract three months before EU, so you had more time to tweak and fix the potential disruptions of the supply. Why then did you commit to similar contracts with the EU, if you knew that in a very short time there could be problems like the one the EU supply chain is experiencing right now? "First of all, we have different plants and they have different yields and different productivity. One of the plans with the highest yield is in the UK because it started earlier. It also had its own issues, but we solved all, it has a good productivity, but it's the UK plant because it started earlier. Anyway, we didn't commit with the EU, by the way. It's not a commitment we have to Europe: it’s a best effort, we said we are going to make our best effort. The reason why we said that is because Europe at the time wanted to be supplied more or less at the same time as the UK, even though the contract was signed three months later. So we said, “ok, we're going to do our best, we’re going to try, but we cannot commit contractually because we are three months behind UK”. We knew it was a super stretch goal and we know it's a big issue, this pandemic. But our contract is not a contractual commitment. It's a best effort. Basically we said we're going to try our best, but we can't guarantee we're going to succeed. In fact, getting there, we are a little bit delayed”.
Oops. 🤦🏻♂️
Thanks has the contract been released?
Why should it be? Unless you're saying the CEO is lying in saying that it was a best endeavours contract? Is that what you're claiming? 🤔
Good point because no CEO in the history of CEOs has ever lied.
So we don't have the contract is what you're saying?
As well as lots of caveats around 'best endeavours, I bet there are two further conditions in the AZ-EU contract:
1. 'Subject to approval by the EMA', which would be an interesting one to bring into the mix.
2. A clause stipulating that AZ won't favour other clients over the EU. The EU might think this gives them the right to dip into our supplies, but I doubt whether a proper reading of the various contracts would support that, assuming the AZ lawyers know what they are doing (which is a very, very good assumption).
I mean it is a bunch of half-rate politicians that couldn't make it in national politics vs. lawyers that probably charge thousands an hour.
Von der Leyen is leagues above corporate lawyer material.
Her work as German defence minister was er.... interesting.
Essentially, she won the Gavin Williamson award for skill in running her department. Beating the real Gavin Williamson.....
Leave the EU tick, end free movement tick, keep Nissan in Sunderland tick, reduce the influence of the City of London tick
A smaller City is on my (very short) list of TBOBs - tangible benefits of Brexit. Trouble is, the bits I wanted to be smaller - the spivvy cowboy bits - are those likely to prosper. So it's come off. All that's left on there now is cheaper tampons and houses.
As well as lots of caveats around 'best endeavours, I bet there are two further conditions in the AZ-EU contract:
1. 'Subject to approval by the EMA', which would be an interesting one to bring into the mix.
2. A clause stipulating that AZ won't favour other clients over the EU. The EU might think this gives them the right to dip into our supplies, but I doubt whether a proper reading of the various contracts would support that, assuming the AZ lawyers know what they are doing (which is a very, very good assumption).
I mean it is a bunch of half-rate politicians that couldn't make it in national politics vs. lawyers that probably charge thousands an hour.
Von der Leyen is leagues above corporate lawyer material.
Her work as German defence minister was er.... interesting.
Essentially, she won the Gavin Williamson award for skill in running her department. Beating the real Gavin Williamson.....
Its seems Drakeford has stopped storing vaccines for a rainy day as if he is some squirrel burying his nuts for winter.
It would be so, so wonderful if Mark 'Loser' Drakeford lucks out & wins the race.
I could hug the big, gruff, adorable sweetie. I have never said a word against him.
It may be the first time Mark has won anything, but he is such a 'big tent' kinda person, I am sure he'll invite the whole of Wales up onto the winner's podium to share the triumph.
And Mark and BigG and YDoethur and YBarddCwsc and MexicanPete will all be reconciled & we will party together.
We are more f*cked than a stepmom on Pornhub when our 18 month clearing exemption ends and it isn't permanently renewed.
But those of us in the financial services sector we rank lower than fish.
Other than a hostile act of petty vengeance what reason would tbe EU have to give clearing equivalence to US but not UK?
Because the US companies have agreed to stick to the EU rules, whilst we want to ignore them. The EU position is if you want equivalency you have to stick to our rules, the US says fine, the UK less so.
Honestly, 'liquidation periods' and 'anti procyclicality measure' is all the rage.
I very much doubt the US has agreed to follow the EU's regulatory regime.
It is quite possible -- if the EU continue to behave like this -- that it magnifies Boris' "success".
Is CCHQ advIsing the EU ?
Because i really cannot think of much that could help Boris more than the EU over-reacting and blocking vaccine exports.
It simultaneously focuses voters' attention on Boris' one big success in the COVID pandemic, as well as one big advantage of Brexit.
And by over-reacting, the EU look like a mobster state.
Why does the EU give a damn how this makes Boris Johnson look? It's a very Anglocentric view of things.
The point is WE give a damn. This is a betting site, and there are elections coming up.
This is politicalbetting.com, not remainerwanking.com.
(And don't ever call me ANGLOcentric, again).
Look, my point was simply that the EU's approach is understandable from their perspective. I agree it tends to help Johnson politically, looked at from a betting angle.
On "Anglo" most dictionaries take the approach that the prefix "Anglo" in normal usage refers to the UK. I think the history is that an Anglo-American would be anyone from English speaking Europe which at the time would be the whole British Isles. Since Ireland separated, it tends to mean the remaining UK. I know that's not the original etymology, but blame centuries of common usage rather than me, please.
Nate Silver makes the correct point that it's just Bayesian versus frequentist statistics. Bayesian stats does have a "gambling" feel to it in that it assigns a prior probability to a hypothesis. But it's probably the better approach to the problem in this case - frequentist caution makes you feel better because you've followed the recipe, but probably doesn't have as good an expected pay-off.
I'm not sure it's even that, because either way you have to assign a prior probability, given the limited supply and the massive urgency. @Foxy wants us to believe that it's less of a gamble to use the second dose on someone already vaccinated than as a first dose for someone else. In other words, he thinks that the efficacy of a single dose (over the few weeks we're talking about) is less than 50% of the efficacy of two doses. He hasn't explained where he gets this prior probability from; there is no data supporting it that I'm aware of. Conversely, there's plenty of data that the single dose efficacy is probably close to that of two doses, again over the few weeks we're talking about. Of course this isn't something for which we can cite full, properly-conducted clinical trials, but that proviso works equally on both sides of the argument.
As well as lots of caveats around 'best endeavours, I bet there are two further conditions in the AZ-EU contract:
1. 'Subject to approval by the EMA', which would be an interesting one to bring into the mix.
2. A clause stipulating that AZ won't favour other clients over the EU. The EU might think this gives them the right to dip into our supplies, but I doubt whether a proper reading of the various contracts would support that, assuming the AZ lawyers know what they are doing (which is a very, very good assumption).
I mean it is a bunch of half-rate politicians that couldn't make it in national politics vs. lawyers that probably charge thousands an hour.
Von der Leyen is leagues above corporate lawyer material.
Her work as German defence minister was er.... interesting.
Essentially, she won the Gavin Williamson award for skill in running her department. Beating the real Gavin Williamson.....
Best performing countries for Covid vaccine doses given out:
Israel (9.05 million) 47.90 per 100 population UAE (9.77 million) 27.107 per 100 population United Kingdom (67 million) 10.79 per 100 population
...
European Union (446 million) 2.11 per 100 population
Still @Nigel_Foremain reckons "big" "muscle" works when it comes to pharmaceuticals. "Big" doesn't work. "Muscle" doesn't work.
Small countries nimbly looking after themselves works.
Bear in mind, that % covers the entire population. But 21% of the UK population is under 18. So, as we have no plans to vaccinate Da Yoof yet, we have actually jabbed 10.79m of the total 53m pool - we have done over 20% of the adult population of the UK.
And we have probably jabbed a million more by now - so we are at 22.5% as of this moment.
Half-jabbed...
Which we are repeatedly told confer the majority of the protection.
Yes, we are repeatedly told that in the UK. A wing and a prayer springs to mind.
C'mon, you're not subscribing to that BMA nonsense are you? There's MASSIVE evidence around the world that the first jab, certainly of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine, provides a very high degree of protection, both in the published clinical trial data and in the real-world experience coming out of Israel. For the AZ vaccine, the boss himself confirmed the same yesterday.
As I said, it may be a gamble that comes off, but it is a gamble.
Israel is sticking to the protocol, so we have to wait until March to see if our different protocol works.
Isn't sticking to three weeks a gamble on the other side of the bet though? You are precluding people from Jab 1 to give others Jab 2.
That's a gamble in and of itself.
You would be following the science, not gambling on anticipating it.
Gambles often come off, but gamblers should know there is no such thing as a sure thing.
If the 90% figure is correct, the delayed strategy is entirely justified. I come at this from the angle of someone who would have not done things the UK way.
All people are saying, all I am saying, is that there was no trial designed specifically to determine the efficacy of a single jab although there are data from the two-jab trials which are very informative.
As such, the manufacturers, and increasingly it seems the medico-scientists won't endorse a single jab regime.
Because no one knows. Yes infection rates drop off as we have seen from that famous graph vs placebo, but no one knows after or between that what happens. Because it wasn't in a designed trial.
AZ CEO was surely endorsing a single jab in his interview, saying "First of all, we believe that the efficacy of one dose is sufficient: 100 percent protection against severe disease and hospitalisation"
Sounds like a decent endorsement from a manufacturer?
There's belief in one's products, and then there's proof for clinical trials, two different things. Let's hope he's right, but we just don't know for sure, and nor does he. The whole area is one of weighing up alternative risks.
It would only be interesting, indeed astonishing, if such caveats weren't in the contract.
It is completely inconceivable that the contract wouldn't include lots of such caveats. There is absolutely no way AZ would have given a firm commitment on delivery dates for a brand-new vaccine, involving new production facilities and dependent on other suppliers who themselves were also doing things for the first time, all in a super-fast timescale.
As AZ CEO has continually stated the contract is based on best endeavors.
I'm actually surprised how polite he is being in public considering the games the EU seem to be playing.
I don't know what the EU think they're playing at. They really are in a negotiation where AZ hold all the cards. After all, if the EU get too bolshie AZ have the option to simply walk away from the contract, close their European factory and concentrate on other markets.
And there is exactly feck all the EU can do about it.
So the 'win' here for the EU is they accept a lower delivery than they want, and the lose is that they get none at all.
Wrong. The EU is one of the largest markets for pharmaceuticals in the world. That gives them a lot of muscle. AZ will not want to antagonise them more than necessary, so no, AZ do not hold all the cards, far from it.
So - just to be clear - the EU might ban AZ from operating in the EU altogether if they decide to abrogate a contract?
Which would cause no medicine shortages of any kind, I trust?
The EU are behaving like complete fools. It's like watching the DUP over Theresa May's deal - only worse, because you expect the DUP to behave like idiots.
The EU feels that AZ have legged them over. So they are making a fuss. A resolution will be found that puts the EU in a better position than if they had not made a fuss. This is what I predict. Bet I'm right.
At the detriment to who?
I fear it might be you, Rob. But let's hope not.
It was a legitimate question. The EU are seeking to divert supplies rightfully destined for the UK.
Not really. That's a simplistic and jaundiced view. They are "rightfully" seeking to reduce their shortfall. In general, with fixed vaccine supply, every shot someone has means somebody else did not have it. Why are we diverting jabs from Italy? Why is Israel diverting jabs from us? Etc. It all depends on the contracts, the money, the moral view, the WHO, the balance of power, the politics etc etc. Bottom line is as I summarized and people should stop sanctimoniously moaning unless and until something that warrants it occurs. Which it hasn't yet. All that's happening is a frenzy of europhobes mutually wanking each other off and wallowing in europhobia. I'm finding it infantile and tedious.
"Rightfully"?
The EU signed their contracts three months late. It isn't europhobia to point this out.
Had Johnson's Government signed contracts three months after the EU and the UK was struggling as a result then would it be Anglophobia to point that out?
Good point. Can you please share that link again to the contract (did someone quote an extract upthread?).
You said that the UK signed the AZ vaccine contract three months before EU, so you had more time to tweak and fix the potential disruptions of the supply. Why then did you commit to similar contracts with the EU, if you knew that in a very short time there could be problems like the one the EU supply chain is experiencing right now? "First of all, we have different plants and they have different yields and different productivity. One of the plans with the highest yield is in the UK because it started earlier. It also had its own issues, but we solved all, it has a good productivity, but it's the UK plant because it started earlier. Anyway, we didn't commit with the EU, by the way. It's not a commitment we have to Europe: it’s a best effort, we said we are going to make our best effort. The reason why we said that is because Europe at the time wanted to be supplied more or less at the same time as the UK, even though the contract was signed three months later. So we said, “ok, we're going to do our best, we’re going to try, but we cannot commit contractually because we are three months behind UK”. We knew it was a super stretch goal and we know it's a big issue, this pandemic. But our contract is not a contractual commitment. It's a best effort. Basically we said we're going to try our best, but we can't guarantee we're going to succeed. In fact, getting there, we are a little bit delayed”.
Oops. 🤦🏻♂️
Thanks has the contract been released?
Why should it be? Unless you're saying the CEO is lying in saying that it was a best endeavours contract? Is that what you're claiming? 🤔
Good point because no CEO in the history of CEOs has ever lied.
So we don't have the contract is what you're saying?
I'm saying we have the fact it was a best endeavours contract. A fact that is unchallenged.
You don't need the contract, unless you're a bottom-feeding shit stirrer looking for mud to sling rather than acknowledging reality here.
A best endeavours contract means something. Its not a commitment, and he explained why they wouldn't commit in the extract I gave you earlier - because the EU f***ed up and signed the deal late. Though he was a bit more diplomatic than that.
Best performing countries for Covid vaccine doses given out:
Israel (9.05 million) 47.90 per 100 population UAE (9.77 million) 27.107 per 100 population United Kingdom (67 million) 10.79 per 100 population
...
European Union (446 million) 2.11 per 100 population
Still @Nigel_Foremain reckons "big" "muscle" works when it comes to pharmaceuticals. "Big" doesn't work. "Muscle" doesn't work.
Small countries nimbly looking after themselves works.
Bear in mind, that % covers the entire population. But 21% of the UK population is under 18. So, as we have no plans to vaccinate Da Yoof yet, we have actually jabbed 10.79m of the total 53m pool - we have done over 20% of the adult population of the UK.
And we have probably jabbed a million more by now - so we are at 22.5% as of this moment.
Half-jabbed...
Which we are repeatedly told confer the majority of the protection.
Yes, we are repeatedly told that in the UK. A wing and a prayer springs to mind.
C'mon, you're not subscribing to that BMA nonsense are you? There's MASSIVE evidence around the world that the first jab, certainly of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine, provides a very high degree of protection, both in the published clinical trial data and in the real-world experience coming out of Israel. For the AZ vaccine, the boss himself confirmed the same yesterday.
As I said, it may be a gamble that comes off, but it is a gamble.
Israel is sticking to the protocol, so we have to wait until March to see if our different protocol works.
Isn't sticking to three weeks a gamble on the other side of the bet though? You are precluding people from Jab 1 to give others Jab 2.
That's a gamble in and of itself.
You would be following the science, not gambling on anticipating it.
Gambles often come off, but gamblers should know there is no such thing as a sure thing.
If the 90% figure is correct, the delayed strategy is entirely justified. I come at this from the angle of someone who would have not done things the UK way.
All people are saying, all I am saying, is that there was no trial designed specifically to determine the efficacy of a single jab although there are data from the two-jab trials which are very informative.
As such, the manufacturers, and increasingly it seems the medico-scientists won't endorse a single jab regime.
Because no one knows. Yes infection rates drop off as we have seen from that famous graph vs placebo, but no one knows after or between that what happens. Because it wasn't in a designed trial.
AZ CEO was surely endorsing a single jab in his interview, saying "First of all, we believe that the efficacy of one dose is sufficient: 100 percent protection against severe disease and hospitalisation"
Sounds like a decent endorsement from a manufacturer?
Yep that is true. Interesting. Pfizer's response was difference IIRC (don't have it to hand).
Nate Silver makes the correct point that it's just Bayesian versus frequentist statistics. Bayesian stats does have a "gambling" feel to it in that it assigns a prior probability to a hypothesis. But it's probably the better approach to the problem in this case - frequentist caution makes you feel better because you've followed the recipe, but probably doesn't have as good an expected pay-off.
I'm not sure it's even that, because either way you have to assign a prior probability, given the limited supply and the massive urgency. @Foxy wants us to believe that it's less of a gamble to use the second dose on someone already vaccinated than as a first dose for someone else. In other words, he thinks that the efficacy of a single dose (over the few weeks we're talking about) is less than 50% of the efficacy of two doses. He hasn't explained where he gets this prior probability from; there is no data supporting it that I'm aware of. Conversely, there's plenty of data that the single dose efficacy is probably close to that of two doses, again over the few weeks we're talking about. Of course this isn't something for which we can cite full, properly-conducted clinical trials, but that proviso works equally on both sides of the argument.
Hmm, is there not a hidden assumption there? That the effect X of the single dose lasts as well time wise as the effect x + y of the single dose followed up by a second one within three weeks?
Worth repeating, it is thought deliveries next week will be a 1/3 down on this week....
It is thought by whom?
The supply of covid vaccine to the North West region is set to be cut by around a third in February, seemingly due to national shortages and the need for other regions to catch up with vaccinating their priority groups.
Now the government have been a bit contradictory about if you do redirect and if so how much. Lets say some of that is due to redirection to other regions, but this does give a rough feel that there is significant reduction in the amount of new deliveries next week and the week after.
But sovereignty. And perhaps they can ring up Sleepy Joe and explain to him how his banks and the US are losing it with this deal.
I'm afraid I'm yet another one who voted Remain, as I've mentioned before, though I am indeed happy to accept the outcome of Brexit. What exactly would the EU have demanded in exchange for safeguarding the primacy of the City?
Best performing countries for Covid vaccine doses given out:
Israel (9.05 million) 47.90 per 100 population UAE (9.77 million) 27.107 per 100 population United Kingdom (67 million) 10.79 per 100 population
...
European Union (446 million) 2.11 per 100 population
Still @Nigel_Foremain reckons "big" "muscle" works when it comes to pharmaceuticals. "Big" doesn't work. "Muscle" doesn't work.
Small countries nimbly looking after themselves works.
Bear in mind, that % covers the entire population. But 21% of the UK population is under 18. So, as we have no plans to vaccinate Da Yoof yet, we have actually jabbed 10.79m of the total 53m pool - we have done over 20% of the adult population of the UK.
And we have probably jabbed a million more by now - so we are at 22.5% as of this moment.
Half-jabbed...
Which we are repeatedly told confer the majority of the protection.
Yes, we are repeatedly told that in the UK. A wing and a prayer springs to mind.
C'mon, you're not subscribing to that BMA nonsense are you? There's MASSIVE evidence around the world that the first jab, certainly of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine, provides a very high degree of protection, both in the published clinical trial data and in the real-world experience coming out of Israel. For the AZ vaccine, the boss himself confirmed the same yesterday.
As I said, it may be a gamble that comes off, but it is a gamble.
Israel is sticking to the protocol, so we have to wait until March to see if our different protocol works.
Isn't sticking to three weeks a gamble on the other side of the bet though? You are precluding people from Jab 1 to give others Jab 2.
That's a gamble in and of itself.
You would be following the science, not gambling on anticipating it.
Gambles often come off, but gamblers should know there is no such thing as a sure thing.
If the 90% figure is correct, the delayed strategy is entirely justified. I come at this from the angle of someone who would have not done things the UK way.
All people are saying, all I am saying, is that there was no trial designed specifically to determine the efficacy of a single jab although there are data from the two-jab trials which are very informative.
As such, the manufacturers, and increasingly it seems the medico-scientists won't endorse a single jab regime.
Because no one knows. Yes infection rates drop off as we have seen from that famous graph vs placebo, but no one knows after or between that what happens. Because it wasn't in a designed trial.
AZ CEO was surely endorsing a single jab in his interview, saying "First of all, we believe that the efficacy of one dose is sufficient: 100 percent protection against severe disease and hospitalisation"
Sounds like a decent endorsement from a manufacturer?
There's belief in one's products, and then there's proof for clinical trials, two different things. Let's hope he's right, but we just don't know for sure, and nor does he. The whole area is one of weighing up alternative risks.
What we do know for sure is the consequences of giving zero doses to somebody.
I wish those piping up in favour of bumping public sector workers up the list, or giving double-doses to the same people, were open and honest about who they would bump down the list to compensate.
Which seven million people from the 14 million highest priority would you choose to leave 100% unvaccinated in order to give double-doses to the first 7 million instead?
It would only be interesting, indeed astonishing, if such caveats weren't in the contract.
It is completely inconceivable that the contract wouldn't include lots of such caveats. There is absolutely no way AZ would have given a firm commitment on delivery dates for a brand-new vaccine, involving new production facilities and dependent on other suppliers who themselves were also doing things for the first time, all in a super-fast timescale.
As AZ CEO has continually stated the contract is based on best endeavors.
I'm actually surprised how polite he is being in public considering the games the EU seem to be playing.
I don't know what the EU think they're playing at. They really are in a negotiation where AZ hold all the cards. After all, if the EU get too bolshie AZ have the option to simply walk away from the contract, close their European factory and concentrate on other markets.
And there is exactly feck all the EU can do about it.
So the 'win' here for the EU is they accept a lower delivery than they want, and the lose is that they get none at all.
Wrong. The EU is one of the largest markets for pharmaceuticals in the world. That gives them a lot of muscle. AZ will not want to antagonise them more than necessary, so no, AZ do not hold all the cards, far from it.
So - just to be clear - the EU might ban AZ from operating in the EU altogether if they decide to abrogate a contract?
Which would cause no medicine shortages of any kind, I trust?
The EU are behaving like complete fools. It's like watching the DUP over Theresa May's deal - only worse, because you expect the DUP to behave like idiots.
The EU feels that AZ have legged them over. So they are making a fuss. A resolution will be found that puts the EU in a better position than if they had not made a fuss. This is what I predict. Bet I'm right.
At the detriment to who?
I fear it might be you, Rob. But let's hope not.
It was a legitimate question. The EU are seeking to divert supplies rightfully destined for the UK.
Not really. That's a simplistic and jaundiced view. They are "rightfully" seeking to reduce their shortfall. In general, with fixed vaccine supply, every shot someone has means somebody else did not have it. Why are we diverting jabs from Italy? Why is Israel diverting jabs from us? Etc. It all depends on the contracts, the money, the moral view, the WHO, the balance of power, the politics etc etc. Bottom line is as I summarized and people should stop sanctimoniously moaning unless and until something that warrants it occurs. Which it hasn't yet. All that's happening is a frenzy of europhobes mutually wanking each other off and wallowing in europhobia. I'm finding it infantile and tedious.
"Rightfully"?
The EU signed their contracts three months late. It isn't europhobia to point this out.
Had Johnson's Government signed contracts three months after the EU and the UK was struggling as a result then would it be Anglophobia to point that out?
Good point. Can you please share that link again to the contract (did someone quote an extract upthread?).
You said that the UK signed the AZ vaccine contract three months before EU, so you had more time to tweak and fix the potential disruptions of the supply. Why then did you commit to similar contracts with the EU, if you knew that in a very short time there could be problems like the one the EU supply chain is experiencing right now? "First of all, we have different plants and they have different yields and different productivity. One of the plans with the highest yield is in the UK because it started earlier. It also had its own issues, but we solved all, it has a good productivity, but it's the UK plant because it started earlier. Anyway, we didn't commit with the EU, by the way. It's not a commitment we have to Europe: it’s a best effort, we said we are going to make our best effort. The reason why we said that is because Europe at the time wanted to be supplied more or less at the same time as the UK, even though the contract was signed three months later. So we said, “ok, we're going to do our best, we’re going to try, but we cannot commit contractually because we are three months behind UK”. We knew it was a super stretch goal and we know it's a big issue, this pandemic. But our contract is not a contractual commitment. It's a best effort. Basically we said we're going to try our best, but we can't guarantee we're going to succeed. In fact, getting there, we are a little bit delayed”.
Oops. 🤦🏻♂️
Thanks has the contract been released?
Why should it be? Unless you're saying the CEO is lying in saying that it was a best endeavours contract? Is that what you're claiming? 🤔
Good point because no CEO in the history of CEOs has ever lied.
So we don't have the contract is what you're saying?
I'm saying we have the fact it was a best endeavours contract. A fact that is unchallenged.
You don't need the contract, unless you're a bottom-feeding shit stirrer looking for mud to sling rather than acknowledging reality here.
A best endeavours contract means something. Its not a commitment, and he explained why they wouldn't commit in the extract I gave you earlier - because the EU f***ed up and signed the deal late. Though he was a bit more diplomatic than that.
The facts are all there in black and white.
How do we know the fact that it is a best endeavours contract. Because the CEO said so (apols have been a bit out of the loop here)?
And "bottom-feeding shit stirrer" to look at the terms of a contract. LOL
Please let me sell you a house or indeed anything at all in the near future!
1st dose 2nd dose Total 259306 1001 East Of England 29244 47 London 43555 445 Midlands 41813 131 North East And Yorkshire 38513 56 North West 35271 95 South East 39181 177 South West 29908 47
Bit disappointing while its up 10% vs yesterday its down vs 1 week ago:
One of my current pet peeves is the assumption, especially prevalent on Twitter, that masks are the solution. It is obvious that not having the tournament is the solution.....
Comments
That's a gamble in and of itself.
https://twitter.com/SenTedCruz/status/1354429807300374531?s=20
But anyway, thanks for the contribution. I maintain a list of your specialisms - you know how I am with lists - and I will now add 'big ticket pharma contracts' to it.
Honestly, 'liquidation periods' and 'anti procyclicality measure' is all the rage.
I'm not sure which of the too options are worse for the Government.
City have been very, very, very low.
Do deaths in the huge Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge get recored as "in Cambridge" despite the fact that the patient may have come from outside Cambridge city? Maybe they are included in the first figure ("71 deaths in Cambridge"), but not in the second ?
Overall, the picture in the map makes a lot of sense, so I don't agree that the tool is limited because of its granularity.
Give us the vaccine, or we'll f**k your banks.
You said that the UK signed the AZ vaccine contract three months before EU, so you had more time to tweak and fix the potential disruptions of the supply. Why then did you commit to similar contracts with the EU, if you knew that in a very short time there could be problems like the one the EU supply chain is experiencing right now?
"First of all, we have different plants and they have different yields and different productivity. One of the plans with the highest yield is in the UK because it started earlier. It also had its own issues, but we solved all, it has a good productivity, but it's the UK plant because it started earlier. Anyway, we didn't commit with the EU, by the way. It's not a commitment we have to Europe: it’s a best effort, we said we are going to make our best effort. The reason why we said that is because Europe at the time wanted to be supplied more or less at the same time as the UK, even though the contract was signed three months later. So we said, “ok, we're going to do our best, we’re going to try, but we cannot commit contractually because we are three months behind UK”. We knew it was a super stretch goal and we know it's a big issue, this pandemic. But our contract is not a contractual commitment. It's a best effort. Basically we said we're going to try our best, but we can't guarantee we're going to succeed. In fact, getting there, we are a little bit delayed”.
Oops. 🤦🏻♂️
Not that they understand one end of it all.
But sovereignty. And perhaps they can ring up Sleepy Joe and explain to him how his banks and the US are losing it with this deal.
This is politicalbetting.com, not remainerwanking.com.
(And don't ever call me ANGLOcentric, again).
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/covid-vaccine-tracker-global-distribution/
Gambles often come off, but gamblers should know there is no such thing as a sure thing.
He is wistfully saying if you wanted to wilfully destroy the City of London/the UK's financial services pre-eminence then it would look a lot like Boris Johnson's Brexit deal.
There's a side betting market going on here, when will 'anti big bang' day happen, I'm going for the 4th of July 2022, plenty of people have gone for much earlier.
Very worrying.
This House believes lockdown was a mistake
For: Tice, Brady, Toby Y
Against: Moran, Spinney, Whitaker
Should be streamed on YouTube
Total: 260,307 -41,055
First: 259,306 -39,067
Second: 1,001 -1,988
Why not just stick to the official UK, England, Wales erc sites?
Will be ... interesting.
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/george-galloways-application-new-party-23390859
Shame. He adds to the gaiety of nations.
Boris Johnson is just pissed that he ranks much lower than us.
https://twitter.com/MattChorley/status/1353991515677339648
America has changed since I was last there.
An American and a German architect bet who can build a skyscraper in the least amount of time. After a month the American mails the German: "Only 10 days and I'll be finished."
The German writes back: "Hah, that's nothing. Only 10 forms left and I am allowed to start."
Triple J vaccine should be with us shortly.
https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus-data-explorer?zoomToSelection=true&time=2020-12-20..latest&country=~ISR®ion=World&vaccinationsMetric=true&interval=daily&perCapita=true&smoothing=0&pickerMetric=total_vaccinations_per_hundred&pickerSort=desc
That's the actual daily rates in Israel. They are all over the place, on a daily basis.
Here is the US
https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus-data-explorer?zoomToSelection=true&time=2020-12-20..latest&country=~USA®ion=World&vaccinationsMetric=true&interval=daily&perCapita=true&smoothing=0&pickerMetric=total_vaccinations_per_hundred&pickerSort=desc
See a pattern developing?
Even in 1997 the Tories held those seats, now they are marginals along with commuter filled seats like Esher and Walton.
Formerly safe Labour seats like Grimsby and West Bromwich and Sedgefield and Bolsover though now have Tory MPs as the Tory Party has become more working class and less the party of financial services and the City of London
Prefer this.
https://twitter.com/HugoGye/status/1354430144568557569?s=20
Oh man
There are elections coming up. That is why people are commenting on this site about possible electoral implications of a row over vaccines.
A big phoney Vaccine War, with Boris winning, is likely to have an effect on the results.
FWIW, I'd like to be rid of Boris -- but if Ursula wishes to play the General Leopoldo Galtieri role, that is pretty unlikely.
I never thought Brexit would be drop on your foot bad for the UK/The City just a gradual diminution of influence and a gradual seeping away of importance. Things are moving a tad quicker than I had thought.
As for the EU/US deal what did we think? That the EU wouldn't be looking to do trade deals with the US also? The difference seems to be, however, that they have managed to do one.
As such, the manufacturers, and increasingly it seems the medico-scientists won't endorse a single jab regime.
Because no one knows. Yes infection rates drop off as we have seen from that famous graph vs placebo, but no one knows after or between that what happens. Because it wasn't in a designed trial.
I don't doubt that the EU has been the EU over this I would just like to look at the details.
If you bothered to read this you might not make such silly remarks about contracts and what the EU is "rightfully" trying to do.
https://www.repubblica.it/cronaca/2021/01/26/news/interview_pascal_soriot_ceo_astrazeneca_coronavirus_covid_vaccines-284349628/
Its amazing what you can pick up with an ability to read.
Thankfully already awake.
Sounds like a decent endorsement from a manufacturer?
https://twitter.com/DrEricDing/status/1354244068751126531
So we don't have the contract is what you're saying?
Essentially, she won the Gavin Williamson award for skill in running her department. Beating the real Gavin Williamson.....
I could hug the big, gruff, adorable sweetie. I have never said a word against him.
It may be the first time Mark has won anything, but he is such a 'big tent' kinda person, I am sure he'll invite the whole of Wales up onto the winner's podium to share the triumph.
And Mark and BigG and YDoethur and YBarddCwsc and MexicanPete will all be reconciled & we will party together.
Were it not for the lockdown being extended another 3 weeks and the fact it's technical mumbo-jumbo that few people will understand.
On "Anglo" most dictionaries take the approach that the prefix "Anglo" in normal usage refers to the UK. I think the history is that an Anglo-American would be anyone from English speaking Europe which at the time would be the whole British Isles. Since Ireland separated, it tends to mean the remaining UK. I know that's not the original etymology, but blame centuries of common usage rather than me, please.
You don't need the contract, unless you're a bottom-feeding shit stirrer looking for mud to sling rather than acknowledging reality here.
A best endeavours contract means something. Its not a commitment, and he explained why they wouldn't commit in the extract I gave you earlier - because the EU f***ed up and signed the deal late. Though he was a bit more diplomatic than that.
The facts are all there in black and white.
It is still absolutely lol-tastic though. "Short selling helps price discovery" - apparently the price is on the moon.
https://www.hsj.co.uk/coronavirus/north-wests-vaccine-supply-cut-by-a-third/7029383.article
Now the government have been a bit contradictory about if you do redirect and if so how much. Lets say some of that is due to redirection to other regions, but this does give a rough feel that there is significant reduction in the amount of new deliveries next week and the week after.
I wish those piping up in favour of bumping public sector workers up the list, or giving double-doses to the same people, were open and honest about who they would bump down the list to compensate.
Which seven million people from the 14 million highest priority would you choose to leave 100% unvaccinated in order to give double-doses to the first 7 million instead?
And "bottom-feeding shit stirrer" to look at the terms of a contract. LOL
Please let me sell you a house or indeed anything at all in the near future!