I do rather worry that this is going to start off with the EU blaming AstraZeneca, but end up with the EU scapegoating the UK.
The path between the two scenarios is very short. AZ digs its heels in, EU goes direct to UK Government and demands diversion of production, Johnson refuses, EU condemns UK for being selfish and blames us for their suffering (along with using this as an excuse to confiscate our Pfizer orders and use them itself to plug the gaps that its own lethargy has created.)
I'm not sure how far we can trust the Commission but I do think that they must be desperate. A serious confrontation cannot, presumably, be ruled out.
Dunno. A lot of European anger on Twitter is already directed at Brussels (from the Dutch, Italians, Germans, etc). They can all read the same reports we do: they know the EU screwed up.
The EU Commission would only take the desperate measure of a "serious confrontation" with the UK if they were sure that had European public opinion behind them. That is most uncertain.
Also, what is a serious confrontation?! Guns?
Genuine Q. This is so unprecedented it is hard to know how bad it COULD get
... This whole thing was so predictable when the commission took everything over, the lack of production subsidies is really what the issue is in the EU. Both the UK and US took a proactive approach and subsidised it's industries to ensure domestic supply and eventually oversupply. The EU relied on the free market, it was the wrong approach and instead of fixing the original problem they are making threats.
Yes, I think that is the crucial point. The UK (and I think also the US with Operation Warp Speed) took a gamble early on by putting money into production capacity without knowing whether the vaccines would actually work and be safe. It was a well-judged gamble (thanks, Kate Bingham) which has been spectacularly successful. At worst, we might have wasted a few hundred million quid, but that's nothing in the context of this pandemic, and as it has turned out, we've gained months. The EU was very late to that game, and is now unfortunately left behind.
Months? AIUI, the EU is three weeks behind as of the most recent data. 2% as of 24th January, versus the UK's 2% as of 3rd January.
Yes, but the running rate in the UK is now miles faster, and will stay that way for some time.
What matters in terms of how far behind is the UK's current rate versus the EU's rate in 3 weeks. If the EU curve has the same shape as the UK's it will remain 3 weeks behind. Steeper, it will be less behind, and shallower, further. I don't know what the coming weeks will hold for vaccination rates, but the fairest metric today is 3 weeks.
Obviously the EU's not going to overtake the UK's vaccinations (by proportion of population vaccinated) anytime soon, probably ever. But "months behind" is probably an exaggeration right now.
No, months is accurate.
The question to ask is at what point they will reach the stage where we are today. 3 weeks ago they were 3 weeks behind, as they've only just caught up with where we were 3 weeks ago. But that doesn't mean they're still 3 weeks behind now. Unless something dramatically changes they're going to take months now to catch up to >10 doses per 100 people.
Two trains set off from the same location, one travelling at 60 miles per hour, one travelling at 30 miles an hour. After an hour train one has travelled 60 miles. By the time train 2 has travelled 60 miles, train 1 has now travelled 120 miles; train 2 is now 60 miles behind car, which is 2 hours behind - not half an hour or one hour.
No, you're wrong, sorry. If a train leaves half an hour after another one and follows the same acceleration curve, it will always be half an hour behind. The distance will keep getting larger, but the lag remains constant.
To put it another way, if you drop two tennis balls off a cliff a second apart, they will land a second apart. The gap in height will continue to get larger until the first one bounces, but the lag is the same.
Now, to be clear, I'm not saying the acceleration curves will remain the same.. I'm not projecting forwards. I'm just saying that IF the rates track the same, then the lag stays the same. If the UK or the EU runs into stronger supply, delivery, or demand headwinds, the lag will definitely change. But on banked data so far, it looks the same.
Except they're not following the same acceleration curve so that's not relevant.
They're already significantly behind our curve, from where we were at the same point, and the gap is accelerating. If they were keeping track with us but offset you'd have a point but they're not. On banked data they're not following our path.
December 20th - January 3rd (2 weeks) UK went from 1% to 2% January 11th - January 25th (2 weeks) EU went from (just under) 1% to 2%.
Same delta time, slightly higher delta N for the EU So the EU is increasing its coverage by 0.5 percentage points per week. Three weeks ago, the UK was doing the exactly the same.
No you can't just shift the EU line left by 3 weeks. You're making the mistake of eyeballing the data, which is scaled, rather than actually doing it. Actually do it and the EU is clearly not following the same path.
You can't uses doses per capita by country graphs like that to talk about the overall EU rate because the populations of those countries are so different. For example, Ireland descending and France ascending on roughly opposite slopes represents an increase overall, because the population of France is so much larger.
To go back to the tennis ball analogy, if you spin a tennis ball as you drop it, part of the tennis ball's surface might actually be rising, even as the ball en masse is falling. If you want to compare EU and UK rates, you first have to aggregate both internally, then compare them.
Surely with France, Spain, Germany and Italy included you can make a pretty decent educated guess about the overall trajectory? This is in casual analogy territory.
We don't need to... the graph on the previous thread showed exactly what we're talking about, which is that the past two weeks EU coverage and slope match the UK's coverage and slope over the two weeks to the 3rd January. What I'm saying is indisputable. Quite a few people have argued against things I am not saying which is a nuisance, but easily answered.
But you are seeming to suggest there is an equal chance that the slope will or will not remain the same from now on as if there is no way to predict if that will be the case, when there does appear to be reason to think will not is a higher probability than will.
If that is not what you are suggesting then why are so you focusing, HYUFD like, on a single sapect and not the wider situation?
Since others are talking about the future, and you are only talking about the past, that would mean you are also arguing against things people are not arguing.
I have specifically and repeatedly said that I am not projecting or predicting. My entire argument has been that the data that is in so far shows a three week lag. Nothing more.
What on earth is the point of saying that as though people were disagreeing unless you also believe there will continue to be a lag?
If only they could add a different font to 'Europe' just to emphasise the amount of spit that they mean to be associated with the word. Capital letters are just not sufficient...
In two months we are going to be drowning in vaccines. I don't see it being a problem if an additional booster is required.
A response which misses the point.
We don't know how effective a single vaccination is after 40, 50 or 60 days. It may be it continues to provide strong immunity which would be fine but if it doesn't, we'll be back to square one having to re-vaccinate everyone.
We don't even know how long immunity exists for those who have received two vaccinations in all honesty.
I am convinced vaccines will rapidly evolve and improve so that, probably this year, we'll get a vaccine which provides 12 months or more of immunity with a single dose but we aren't there yet or rather we can't evidence we are there yet.
Whilst technically true that we don't know that - we do know how vaccines against viruses work in general, and have some idea how the body processes / generates a response. It would be astonishing, and astonishingly unlikely as I see it, if these vaccines were unique and immunity in the body fell off a cliff at some point 'X' in the future for an X as small as you are talking about. [The flu vaccine is an annual jab not because the vaccine loses effectiveness in the body over time, but because the flu virus mutates quickly and it is therefore not effective against the next years strain. We already have evidence of the mutation rate of this virus and whilst significantly faster than (eg) measles, it is significantly slower than flu]
BEcause it takes a long time to (1) prepare the testing regime they want and (2) we will need to replan all our lessons while still teaching remotely, which isn't easy. I've only just finished for today.
Ah I see so they are expecting you to test?
IT would appear so. In fact, we are meant to be testing all those in school at this moment.
However, as the only thing that has been provided so far are gazillions of testing kits, no instructions, support, staff or extra space, without dramatic changes it will take time to have it ready for full schools.
Incidentally, I think that is probably what switched them in the end to closing schools - it finally dawned on them that their testing system was going to fail spectacularly and cause an utter catastrophe.
It probably still will do the former, but if we have a strong vaccination programme by the time schools start reopening the latter will be less of an issue.
When do you think schools should open?
Impossible to say, if you're asking for a date. It also depends on whether the idea is to 'fully reopen' in which case we're talking about when the majority of adults over 40 have been vaccinated, or 'reopening with restrictions and rotas' in which case, when ICUs are not operating over capacity.
Personally, I think they will find it hard to reopen them fully before all teachers over 60 or with health conditions *and all parents of school age children in the same category* have been vaccinated - but God knows when that will be.
If I had to guess, I would guess they will be reopened for a token week before Easter, but that's a guess.
I'm hugely pissed off with Scottish politics at the moment. But that aside I quite like both Sturgeon and Salmond. I was shocked that the BBC allowed Kirsty Wark free reign to mount a televised assassination of the latter.
My guess is that Salmond has just proved himself to be 'of the last century' and that Sturgeon has proved herself to be complacent. Flag Quote · Off Topic Like
Yes it looks like a cesspit. Looks like those running the SNP and Civil Service in their desperation to join the METO# brigade , rigged their new procedure to specifically catch one person who was going to make a political comeback. They had a crowd of pals big up a few snogs , compliments , etc, even making some up etc to get him but made a mess and Salmond slaughtered them , so they thought they would get police charges to stop him and messed it up even more as he was cleared. Now fighting rearguard to hide all the evidence and using tame crown etc to have all hidden. You could not make it up , they are nearly as bent as the Tories. Unless they can whitewash the inquiry and brass it out then heads will fall. More and more leaking out so can only be a matter of time, so unless they can hold on , win election and have a referendum in short order , then Murrell towers will be bulldozed. Hardly a squeak from unionist press on it either. As you say Salmond may have been a man of the 70's and Sturgeon has made a real mess with all the feminist crap and Meto stuff , is just crazy. Too many professional agitators in SNP at the top , interested in their hobby horses and big salaries rather than independence. Must be a clear out soon , May is last chance saloon.
For god's sake Malc one of my lockdown reading tasks is to make progress in Finnegan's Wake. I come on here for a bit of light relief not the appendix.
Ignore him Malcolm.
He must be some peasant wearing a big hat. (Topping!)
I asked a question, and you replied fully and well. I'm more informed and wiser from that. Topping should go and hang his hat.
I have read Finnegan's wake - not sure I finished it.
BEcause it takes a long time to (1) prepare the testing regime they want and (2) we will need to replan all our lessons while still teaching remotely, which isn't easy. I've only just finished for today.
Ah I see so they are expecting you to test?
IT would appear so. In fact, we are meant to be testing all those in school at this moment.
However, as the only thing that has been provided so far are gazillions of testing kits, no instructions, support, staff or extra space, without dramatic changes it will take time to have it ready for full schools.
Incidentally, I think that is probably what switched them in the end to closing schools - it finally dawned on them that their testing system was going to fail spectacularly and cause an utter catastrophe.
It probably still will do the former, but if we have a strong vaccination programme by the time schools start reopening the latter will be less of an issue.
When do you think schools should open?
Impossible to say, if you're asking for a date. It also depends on whether the idea is to 'fully reopen' in which case we're talking about when the majority of adults over 40 have been vaccinated, or 'reopening with restrictions and rotas' in which case, when ICUs are not operating over capacity.
Personally, I think they will find it hard to reopen them fully before all teachers over 60 or with health conditions *and all parents of school age children in the same category* have been vaccinated - but God knows when that will be.
If I had to guess, I would guess they will be reopened for a token week before Easter, but that's a guess.
who gets moved down? why should people in their 50's give way to a 25 year old with no underlying conditions?
Why shouldn't they? People in their 20s have had to endure far greater sacrifice than those in their 50s. Stop being so bloody selfish.
But they also have a virtually nil risk of death, unlike those in their 50s.
So what? They can wait longer in their homes.
I'm not saying that those in their 20s should be vaccinated before those in their 50s generally, but so what if a few 25 year old teachers are vaccinated first?
When a party to a dispute starts talking about "societal and moral" obligations, it's a fair bet that its legal claims under the contract don't add up to much.
We should quadruple our International Aid budget and vaccinate the third world.
Morally and PR wise it would be the right thing to do.
Brexiteers you can back this as it would annoy the EU so much.
I stand by my suggestion from earlier in the week that, one we are done in the UK, we should start sending spare vaccines to the EU in clearly marked boxes - “🇬🇧UK Aid 🇬🇧 Vaccinating the Developing World 🇬🇧”
But yes we should certainly help out Ireland first, then anyone else who needs them. It’s in everyone’s interest for this damn thing to disappear as quickly as possible.
As I have proposed earlier, we should also offer 1m doses to vaccinate 500,000 athletes and officials for the Olympics. In “🇬🇧UK Aid 🇬🇧 Vaccinating the Olympics 🇬🇧” boxes.
who gets moved down? why should people in their 50's give way to a 25 year old with no underlying conditions?
Why shouldn't they? People in their 20s have had to endure far greater sacrifice than those in their 50s. Stop being so bloody selfish.
But they also have a virtually nil risk of death, unlike those in their 50s.
So what? They can wait longer in their homes.
I'm not saying that those in their 20s should be vaccinated before those in their 50s generally, but so what if a few 25 year old teachers are vaccinated first?
Isn't the plan for several million to get it ahead of schedule, not just a few? If there is evidence suggesting that would help lower the death rate faster, sure.
IIRC Ydoethur pointed out a fallacy in the "no greater risk of infection" metric some time back. I forget the details, and don't want to risk recalling them, though ...
who gets moved down? why should people in their 50's give way to a 25 year old with no underlying conditions?
Why shouldn't they? People in their 20s have had to endure far greater sacrifice than those in their 50s. Stop being so bloody selfish.
But they also have a virtually nil risk of death, unlike those in their 50s.
So what? They can wait longer in their homes.
I'm not saying that those in their 20s should be vaccinated before those in their 50s generally, but so what if a few 25 year old teachers are vaccinated first?
Isn't the plan for several million to get it ahead of schedule, not just a few? If there is evidence suggesting that would help lower the death rate faster, sure.
Nobody seems to have any problem with 25 year old nurses and doctors getting the vaccine. Why is it different with teachers?
BEcause it takes a long time to (1) prepare the testing regime they want and (2) we will need to replan all our lessons while still teaching remotely, which isn't easy. I've only just finished for today.
Ah I see so they are expecting you to test?
IT would appear so. In fact, we are meant to be testing all those in school at this moment.
However, as the only thing that has been provided so far are gazillions of testing kits, no instructions, support, staff or extra space, without dramatic changes it will take time to have it ready for full schools.
Incidentally, I think that is probably what switched them in the end to closing schools - it finally dawned on them that their testing system was going to fail spectacularly and cause an utter catastrophe.
It probably still will do the former, but if we have a strong vaccination programme by the time schools start reopening the latter will be less of an issue.
When do you think schools should open?
Impossible to say, if you're asking for a date. It also depends on whether the idea is to 'fully reopen' in which case we're talking about when the majority of adults over 40 have been vaccinated, or 'reopening with restrictions and rotas' in which case, when ICUs are not operating over capacity.
Personally, I think they will find it hard to reopen them fully before all teachers over 60 or with health conditions *and all parents of school age children in the same category* have been vaccinated - but God knows when that will be.
If I had to guess, I would guess they will be reopened for a token week before Easter, but that's a guess.
Its suspect its going to be after Easter because kids in schools have been a notable vector and they cant make that balls up twice by insisting schools above most other things.
If anyone knows someone in Betfair there is an exchange market there.
When a party to a dispute starts talking about "societal and moral" obligations, it's a fair bet that its legal claims under the contract don't add up to much.
If only they could add a different font to 'Europe' just to emphasise the amount of spit that they mean to be associated with the word. Capital letters are just not sufficient...
Not content with taking our fish they are now seeking to take our jabs. They they they. Take take take. Our our our.
who gets moved down? why should people in their 50's give way to a 25 year old with no underlying conditions?
Why shouldn't they? People in their 20s have had to endure far greater sacrifice than those in their 50s. Stop being so bloody selfish.
But they also have a virtually nil risk of death, unlike those in their 50s.
So what? They can wait longer in their homes.
I'm not saying that those in their 20s should be vaccinated before those in their 50s generally, but so what if a few 25 year old teachers are vaccinated first?
Isn't the plan for several million to get it ahead of schedule, not just a few? If there is evidence suggesting that would help lower the death rate faster, sure.
Nobody seems to have any problem with 25 year old nurses and doctors getting the vaccine. Why is it different with teachers?
But that was laid out in the JCVI order for vaccination. Why aren't they being listened to now?
IIRC Ydoethur pointed out a fallacy in the "no greater risk of infection" metric some time back. I forget the details, and don't want to risk recalling them, though ...
They exclude teachers over 65 in the numbers, I believe.
... This whole thing was so predictable when the commission took everything over, the lack of production subsidies is really what the issue is in the EU. Both the UK and US took a proactive approach and subsidised it's industries to ensure domestic supply and eventually oversupply. The EU relied on the free market, it was the wrong approach and instead of fixing the original problem they are making threats.
Yes, I think that is the crucial point. The UK (and I think also the US with Operation Warp Speed) took a gamble early on by putting money into production capacity without knowing whether the vaccines would actually work and be safe. It was a well-judged gamble (thanks, Kate Bingham) which has been spectacularly successful. At worst, we might have wasted a few hundred million quid, but that's nothing in the context of this pandemic, and as it has turned out, we've gained months. The EU was very late to that game, and is now unfortunately left behind.
Months? AIUI, the EU is three weeks behind as of the most recent data. 2% as of 24th January, versus the UK's 2% as of 3rd January.
Yes, but the running rate in the UK is now miles faster, and will stay that way for some time.
What matters in terms of how far behind is the UK's current rate versus the EU's rate in 3 weeks. If the EU curve has the same shape as the UK's it will remain 3 weeks behind. Steeper, it will be less behind, and shallower, further. I don't know what the coming weeks will hold for vaccination rates, but the fairest metric today is 3 weeks.
Obviously the EU's not going to overtake the UK's vaccinations (by proportion of population vaccinated) anytime soon, probably ever. But "months behind" is probably an exaggeration right now.
No, months is accurate.
The question to ask is at what point they will reach the stage where we are today. 3 weeks ago they were 3 weeks behind, as they've only just caught up with where we were 3 weeks ago. But that doesn't mean they're still 3 weeks behind now. Unless something dramatically changes they're going to take months now to catch up to >10 doses per 100 people.
Two trains set off from the same location, one travelling at 60 miles per hour, one travelling at 30 miles an hour. After an hour train one has travelled 60 miles. By the time train 2 has travelled 60 miles, train 1 has now travelled 120 miles; train 2 is now 60 miles behind car, which is 2 hours behind - not half an hour or one hour.
No, you're wrong, sorry. If a train leaves half an hour after another one and follows the same acceleration curve, it will always be half an hour behind. The distance will keep getting larger, but the lag remains constant.
To put it another way, if you drop two tennis balls off a cliff a second apart, they will land a second apart. The gap in height will continue to get larger until the first one bounces, but the lag is the same.
Now, to be clear, I'm not saying the acceleration curves will remain the same.. I'm not projecting forwards. I'm just saying that IF the rates track the same, then the lag stays the same. If the UK or the EU runs into stronger supply, delivery, or demand headwinds, the lag will definitely change. But on banked data so far, it looks the same.
Except they're not following the same acceleration curve so that's not relevant.
They're already significantly behind our curve, from where we were at the same point, and the gap is accelerating. If they were keeping track with us but offset you'd have a point but they're not. On banked data they're not following our path.
December 20th - January 3rd (2 weeks) UK went from 1% to 2% January 11th - January 25th (2 weeks) EU went from (just under) 1% to 2%.
Same delta time, slightly higher delta N for the EU So the EU is increasing its coverage by 0.5 percentage points per week. Three weeks ago, the UK was doing the exactly the same.
No you can't just shift the EU line left by 3 weeks. You're making the mistake of eyeballing the data, which is scaled, rather than actually doing it. Actually do it and the EU is clearly not following the same path.
You can't uses doses per capita by country graphs like that to talk about the overall EU rate because the populations of those countries are so different. For example, Ireland descending and France ascending on roughly opposite slopes represents an increase overall, because the population of France is so much larger.
To go back to the tennis ball analogy, if you spin a tennis ball as you drop it, part of the tennis ball's surface might actually be rising, even as the ball en masse is falling. If you want to compare EU and UK rates, you first have to aggregate both internally, then compare them.
Surely with France, Spain, Germany and Italy included you can make a pretty decent educated guess about the overall trajectory? This is in casual analogy territory.
We don't need to... the graph on the previous thread showed exactly what we're talking about, which is that the past two weeks EU coverage and slope match the UK's coverage and slope over the two weeks to the 3rd January. What I'm saying is indisputable. Quite a few people have argued against things I am not saying which is a nuisance, but easily answered.
But you are seeming to suggest there is an equal chance that the slope will or will not remain the same from now on as if there is no way to predict if that will be the case, when there does appear to be reason to think will not is a higher probability than will.
If that is not what you are suggesting then why are so you focusing, HYUFD like, on a single sapect and not the wider situation?
Since others are talking about the future, and you are only talking about the past, that would mean you are also arguing against things people are not arguing.
I have specifically and repeatedly said that I am not projecting or predicting. My entire argument has been that the data that is in so far shows a three week lag. Nothing more.
What on earth is the point of saying that as though people were disagreeing unless you also believe there will continue to be a lag?
The motivation was simply that somebody (and it feels a long time ago now, since I've been mostly correcting attacks on straw men since) said that the EU is "months behind" the UK in terms of vaccine rollout. I thought I would get a rough quantity for that and I was surprised to see that in terms of what's happened so far, it's a three week lag. It felt.. shorter than I was expecting so I shared it.
I haven't suggested anything about what will happen in the future, I haven't suggested that this is the only aspect that's worth talking about. I've just been answering people who have mistaken what I said. See the previous thread for my responses to the likes of Malmesbury who made tangential points to which I have deferred, and other people who have said my prediction is wrong when I'm not predicting anything at all. It's ok for me to tell people they've misunderstood my point, it really is.
IIRC Ydoethur pointed out a fallacy in the "no greater risk of infection" metric some time back. I forget the details, and don't want to risk recalling them, though ...
They exclude teachers over 65 in the numbers, I believe.
Further problems have been emerging with the supposed mortality data as well - in particular, it covers the period from March to December, for five months of which teachers were mostly not in schools. Until we know the comparison rates for September and October (bearing in mind during the November lockdown infections and death rates would inevitably be higher as we were in work and most others in white collar work weren't) it is not possible to say with confidence that mortality rates are lower. There is also every reason to think infection rates are considerably higher.
So JVT, whoever that is, is either lying or unaware of the problems.
When a party to a dispute starts talking about "societal and moral" obligations, it's a fair bet that its legal claims under the contract don't add up to much.
And that's trading being halted in gamestop and other short squeezed stocks.
Gotta protect the playas player.
That’s not on, the trades are all legitimate. It’s not the fault of those piling in, that there’s a bunch of hedgie shorters about to have their arses handed to them.
I do rather worry that this is going to start off with the EU blaming AstraZeneca, but end up with the EU scapegoating the UK.
The path between the two scenarios is very short. AZ digs its heels in, EU goes direct to UK Government and demands diversion of production, Johnson refuses, EU condemns UK for being selfish and blames us for their suffering (along with using this as an excuse to confiscate our Pfizer orders and use them itself to plug the gaps that its own lethargy has created.)
I'm not sure how far we can trust the Commission but I do think that they must be desperate. A serious confrontation cannot, presumably, be ruled out.
Depending on how the UK roll-out is going, Johnson might name a price.....?
... This whole thing was so predictable when the commission took everything over, the lack of production subsidies is really what the issue is in the EU. Both the UK and US took a proactive approach and subsidised it's industries to ensure domestic supply and eventually oversupply. The EU relied on the free market, it was the wrong approach and instead of fixing the original problem they are making threats.
Yes, I think that is the crucial point. The UK (and I think also the US with Operation Warp Speed) took a gamble early on by putting money into production capacity without knowing whether the vaccines would actually work and be safe. It was a well-judged gamble (thanks, Kate Bingham) which has been spectacularly successful. At worst, we might have wasted a few hundred million quid, but that's nothing in the context of this pandemic, and as it has turned out, we've gained months. The EU was very late to that game, and is now unfortunately left behind.
Months? AIUI, the EU is three weeks behind as of the most recent data. 2% as of 24th January, versus the UK's 2% as of 3rd January.
Yes, but the running rate in the UK is now miles faster, and will stay that way for some time.
What matters in terms of how far behind is the UK's current rate versus the EU's rate in 3 weeks. If the EU curve has the same shape as the UK's it will remain 3 weeks behind. Steeper, it will be less behind, and shallower, further. I don't know what the coming weeks will hold for vaccination rates, but the fairest metric today is 3 weeks.
Obviously the EU's not going to overtake the UK's vaccinations (by proportion of population vaccinated) anytime soon, probably ever. But "months behind" is probably an exaggeration right now.
No, months is accurate.
The question to ask is at what point they will reach the stage where we are today. 3 weeks ago they were 3 weeks behind, as they've only just caught up with where we were 3 weeks ago. But that doesn't mean they're still 3 weeks behind now. Unless something dramatically changes they're going to take months now to catch up to >10 doses per 100 people.
Two trains set off from the same location, one travelling at 60 miles per hour, one travelling at 30 miles an hour. After an hour train one has travelled 60 miles. By the time train 2 has travelled 60 miles, train 1 has now travelled 120 miles; train 2 is now 60 miles behind car, which is 2 hours behind - not half an hour or one hour.
No, you're wrong, sorry. If a train leaves half an hour after another one and follows the same acceleration curve, it will always be half an hour behind. The distance will keep getting larger, but the lag remains constant.
To put it another way, if you drop two tennis balls off a cliff a second apart, they will land a second apart. The gap in height will continue to get larger until the first one bounces, but the lag is the same.
Now, to be clear, I'm not saying the acceleration curves will remain the same.. I'm not projecting forwards. I'm just saying that IF the rates track the same, then the lag stays the same. If the UK or the EU runs into stronger supply, delivery, or demand headwinds, the lag will definitely change. But on banked data so far, it looks the same.
Except they're not following the same acceleration curve so that's not relevant.
They're already significantly behind our curve, from where we were at the same point, and the gap is accelerating. If they were keeping track with us but offset you'd have a point but they're not. On banked data they're not following our path.
December 20th - January 3rd (2 weeks) UK went from 1% to 2% January 11th - January 25th (2 weeks) EU went from (just under) 1% to 2%.
Same delta time, slightly higher delta N for the EU So the EU is increasing its coverage by 0.5 percentage points per week. Three weeks ago, the UK was doing the exactly the same.
No you can't just shift the EU line left by 3 weeks. You're making the mistake of eyeballing the data, which is scaled, rather than actually doing it. Actually do it and the EU is clearly not following the same path.
You can't uses doses per capita by country graphs like that to talk about the overall EU rate because the populations of those countries are so different. For example, Ireland descending and France ascending on roughly opposite slopes represents an increase overall, because the population of France is so much larger.
To go back to the tennis ball analogy, if you spin a tennis ball as you drop it, part of the tennis ball's surface might actually be rising, even as the ball en masse is falling. If you want to compare EU and UK rates, you first have to aggregate both internally, then compare them.
When every EU country is below the time-shifted UK line then it doesn't matter if you use a mean, median or modal average the EU line is below the UKs too.
The case numbers are encouraging though the extent to which this is related to vaccination or to the restrictions of lockdown is unclear.
Another thing which, to this observer, remains far from clear is the efficacy of the vaccination with the passage of time. If you had the first vaccination immediately after New Year it's roughly the three week point at which Pfizer recommended the second vaccination.
The question is how will the efficacy of the first vaccination look, not just after 20 days but after 40 days, 60 days or 80 days? Do we know the level of immunity or protection the initial vaccination will provide at that time scale? If you have had a vaccination and are following lockdown restrictions that's all well and good but the test will come when vaccinated people start moving around more freely or restrictions are lifted.
My presumption is if we are going to provide the second vaccination three months after the first - so around 85 days after the initial vaccination, there must be some level of confidence the level of immunity at that point will still be high and shortly after the second vaccination will reach the levels of 90% or greater suggested by Pfizer.
I don't know from where that confidence derives but that's the risk on which we are embarking - if we find that, 60 days after the first vaccination, the level of immunity has fallen away significantly, what then?
For now, let's hope the immunity level holds and those receiving the second vaccination from early April onwards will move quickly to near full immunity which would enable restrictions to be eased from Easter (which I suspect is the plan).
An earlier easing of restrictions, with significant numbers unvaccinated and most reliant on a single vaccination which might have limited immunity with the passage of time, looks risky but if the data suggests high levels of immunity remain 60-80 days after the initial vaccination, such a risk could be justified but I think we need to see the evidence.
We don’t know because it wasn’t tested in the trial.
But based on the SARS vaccines and other in vitro analysis it’s a reasonable supposition.
BEcause it takes a long time to (1) prepare the testing regime they want and (2) we will need to replan all our lessons while still teaching remotely, which isn't easy. I've only just finished for today.
Ah I see so they are expecting you to test?
IT would appear so. In fact, we are meant to be testing all those in school at this moment.
However, as the only thing that has been provided so far are gazillions of testing kits, no instructions, support, staff or extra space, without dramatic changes it will take time to have it ready for full schools.
Incidentally, I think that is probably what switched them in the end to closing schools - it finally dawned on them that their testing system was going to fail spectacularly and cause an utter catastrophe.
It probably still will do the former, but if we have a strong vaccination programme by the time schools start reopening the latter will be less of an issue.
When do you think schools should open?
Impossible to say, if you're asking for a date. It also depends on whether the idea is to 'fully reopen' in which case we're talking about when the majority of adults over 40 have been vaccinated, or 'reopening with restrictions and rotas' in which case, when ICUs are not operating over capacity.
Personally, I think they will find it hard to reopen them fully before all teachers over 60 or with health conditions *and all parents of school age children in the same category* have been vaccinated - but God knows when that will be.
If I had to guess, I would guess they will be reopened for a token week before Easter, but that's a guess.
Its suspect its going to be after Easter because kids in schools have been a notable vector and they cant make that balls up twice by insisting schools above most other things.
If anyone knows someone in Betfair there is an exchange market there.
But it appears they either genuinely believe they're not, on account of being thick, or genuinely don't care, on account of being stubborn.
One thing we can be 100% confident of is that nobody in government gives a shit about children or teachers. They will reopen schools when it is in their political interests to do so, and when they can reopen them without the risk of strikes.
On a tangent, are there any figures of vaccination take up among the age groups?
Anecdotal evidence is the vaccination programme is heading more quickly into the younger age groups in some areas because some older people have refused the vaccine.
There are 24 million over 50 in this country - if the take up is 75% for example, that would reduce by 6 million the numbers to be vaccinated which at 400,000 per day accelerates the process by 15 days so not insignificant.
My wife, a teacher, is very keen on teachers being vaccinated next. However I asked her if she think a 25yo teacher should get vaccinated before a 65yo non-teacher and the answer was "no".
I would support teachers over 40 going in with the next batch to get schools up and running. A teacher under 40 is at very low risk and should not get the vaccine before those at much higher risk.
This is the crux of it, the EU cheaped out on funding it's pharma industry to a level where they could be certain of some level of supply and eventual oversupply. The UK and US have gone in the other direction because the worse thing that can happen is we lose a bit of money, and given the £400bn cost of this pandemic it's chump change.
I think that's spot on, and I think is a clear demonstration of the dangers of "managerialism" (and which is a consequence of a distant bloc, lacking decent democratic oversight.)
The issue is probably exacerbated because the EU has historically been buffeted with accusations of not being very good at controlling their spending, and that has probably caused institutional desires not to be seen to overpay for things.
In this particular case, this has led to them being desperately short of vaccines early in the process.
But I'm less pessimistic about how they will do from here than most: not because their performance is going to turn around, but simply because the world is going to have lots of vaccines sooner rather than later. Yes, they'll be two or three months behind us (and that's pretty horrendous), but once availability is there, they'll ramp pretty quickly.
When a party to a dispute starts talking about "societal and moral" obligations, it's a fair bet that its legal claims under the contract don't add up to much.
And that's trading being halted in gamestop and other short squeezed stocks.
Gotta protect the playas player.
That’s not on, the trades are all legitimate. It’s not the fault of those piling in, that there’s a bunch of hedgie shorters about to have their arses handed to them.
I was expecting it to happen earlier. The history of the markets is little guys being crushed when they successfully make plays against the big guys.
We should quadruple our International Aid budget and vaccinate the third world.
Morally and PR wise it would be the right thing to do.
Brexiteers you can back this as it would annoy the EU so much.
I stand by my suggestion from earlier in the week that, one we are done in the UK, we should start sending spare vaccines to the EU in clearly marked boxes - “🇬🇧UK Aid 🇬🇧 Vaccinating the Developing World 🇬🇧”
But yes we should certainly help out Ireland first, then anyone else who needs them. It’s in everyone’s interest for this damn thing to disappear as quickly as possible.
I'm not sure sending vaccines marked “🇬🇧UK Aid 🇬🇧 Vaccinating the Developing World 🇬🇧” to Ireland would be politic (or effective). Maybe the Shankhill Rd might be more the thing?
My wife, a teacher, is very keen on teachers being vaccinated next. However I asked her if she think a 25yo teacher should get vaccinated before a 65yo non-teacher and the answer was "no".
I would support teachers over 40 going in with the next batch to get schools up and running. A teacher under 40 is at very low risk and should not get the vaccine before those at much higher risk.
Ridiculous. If we're vaccinating teachers, they should just turn up at a school one day and vaccinate everyone. It's stupidly inefficient to vaccinate only those of a certain age.
They didn't turn up at care homes and only vaccinate staff above 40 years old.
My wife, a teacher, is very keen on teachers being vaccinated next. However I asked her if she think a 25yo teacher should get vaccinated before a 65yo non-teacher and the answer was "no".
I would support teachers over 40 going in with the next batch to get schools up and running. A teacher under 40 is at very low risk and should not get the vaccine before those at much higher risk.
Speaking as a teacher aged 37, I agree, with the caveat that diabetics and asthmatics under the age of 40 should be included.
But that still doesn't solve the vexed question of parents, many of whom are themselves over 40.
My wife, a teacher, is very keen on teachers being vaccinated next. However I asked her if she think a 25yo teacher should get vaccinated before a 65yo non-teacher and the answer was "no".
I would support teachers over 40 going in with the next batch to get schools up and running. A teacher under 40 is at very low risk and should not get the vaccine before those at much higher risk.
Ridiculous. If we're vaccinating teachers, they should just turn up at a school one day and vaccinate everyone. It's stupidly inefficient to vaccinate only those of a certain age.
They didn't turn up at care homes and only vaccinate staff above 40 years old.
OF course, the other solution is to vaccinate teenagers, if the vaccine is (A) safe for them and (b) stops them spreading the disease as well as getting it.
I never laugh when I see the name Hoey. I picture a woman in the arms of Nigel Farage impersonating Kate Winslet and Leonardo Di Caprio on the bow of the Titanic and thinking if only.....
My wife, a teacher, is very keen on teachers being vaccinated next. However I asked her if she think a 25yo teacher should get vaccinated before a 65yo non-teacher and the answer was "no".
I would support teachers over 40 going in with the next batch to get schools up and running. A teacher under 40 is at very low risk and should not get the vaccine before those at much higher risk.
Ridiculous. If we're vaccinating teachers, they should just turn up at a school one day and vaccinate everyone. It's stupidly inefficient to vaccinate only those of a certain age.
They didn't turn up at care homes and only vaccinate staff above 40 years old.
My wife, a teacher, is very keen on teachers being vaccinated next. However I asked her if she think a 25yo teacher should get vaccinated before a 65yo non-teacher and the answer was "no".
I would support teachers over 40 going in with the next batch to get schools up and running. A teacher under 40 is at very low risk and should not get the vaccine before those at much higher risk.
Ridiculous. If we're vaccinating teachers, they should just turn up at a school one day and vaccinate everyone. It's stupidly inefficient to vaccinate only those of a certain age.
They didn't turn up at care homes and only vaccinate staff above 40 years old.
If they're doing it, it needs to be first injections now, as the second lot won't be for another 12 weeks. I agree, get them all into their schools, jab them, and do the same thing again when appropriate. Dinner ladies, caretakers etc. too.
My wife, a teacher, is very keen on teachers being vaccinated next. However I asked her if she think a 25yo teacher should get vaccinated before a 65yo non-teacher and the answer was "no".
I would support teachers over 40 going in with the next batch to get schools up and running. A teacher under 40 is at very low risk and should not get the vaccine before those at much higher risk.
Ridiculous. If we're vaccinating teachers, they should just turn up at a school one day and vaccinate everyone. It's stupidly inefficient to vaccinate only those of a certain age.
They didn't turn up at care homes and only vaccinate staff above 40 years old.
So someone is making these decisions. The right thing to do is just go along with it. It won't be perfect.
My wife, a teacher, is very keen on teachers being vaccinated next. However I asked her if she think a 25yo teacher should get vaccinated before a 65yo non-teacher and the answer was "no".
I would support teachers over 40 going in with the next batch to get schools up and running. A teacher under 40 is at very low risk and should not get the vaccine before those at much higher risk.
That starts to complicate matters. The beauty of the current successful vaccination scheme, to date, is that it has been simple.
If only they could add a different font to 'Europe' just to emphasise the amount of spit that they mean to be associated with the word. Capital letters are just not sufficient...
Not content with taking our fish they are now seeking to take our jabs. They they they. Take take take. Our our our.
Yes, I think the Europhobes are in danger of overplaying it a touch here. I was shocked and appalled by the mysterious German politician with his 8% efficacy rate, but trying to turn it into another UK-EU culture war just smacks of reliving the Brexit campaign again, probably out of boredom. There are no domestic political advantages to secure anymore so what, really, is the point? We should be rising above it.
I do rather worry that this is going to start off with the EU blaming AstraZeneca, but end up with the EU scapegoating the UK.
The path between the two scenarios is very short. AZ digs its heels in, EU goes direct to UK Government and demands diversion of production, Johnson refuses, EU condemns UK for being selfish and blames us for their suffering (along with using this as an excuse to confiscate our Pfizer orders and use them itself to plug the gaps that its own lethargy has created.)
I'm not sure how far we can trust the Commission but I do think that they must be desperate. A serious confrontation cannot, presumably, be ruled out.
Depending on how the UK roll-out is going, Johnson might name a price.....?
That is the obvious thing to do . Ask the EU what they are prepared to offer Britain in return. Equivalence for financial services, for instance.....
But honestly this is childish by the EU - it is in all our interests that we all get vaccinated. Rather than harrumph and talk about export bans and seizing product contractually owed to other parties etc, the EU should be working with AZ. They might also have a word with the Germans about the spread of alarmist false nonsense about the vaccine.
On a tangent, are there any figures of vaccination take up among the age groups?
Anecdotal evidence is the vaccination programme is heading more quickly into the younger age groups in some areas because some older people have refused the vaccine.
There are 24 million over 50 in this country - if the take up is 75% for example, that would reduce by 6 million the numbers to be vaccinated which at 400,000 per day accelerates the process by 15 days so not insignificant.
Localised report from part of NI is that older people vaccinated through GPs, so far really high take up.
I never laugh when I see the name Hoey. I picture a woman in the arms of Nigel Farage impersonating Kate Winslet and Leonardo Di Caprio on the bow of the Titanic and thinking if only.....
Wow. That's certainly an unusual celeb crush! Whatever tickles your pickle I suppose.
We should quadruple our International Aid budget and vaccinate the third world.
Morally and PR wise it would be the right thing to do.
Brexiteers you can back this as it would annoy the EU so much.
More than happy to do that, I think the global economi benefits would be worth whatever few billion we spend. I've said it here before, I think after we build a strategic reserve our doses should go the the developing world and COVAX, we should also continue to pump out vaccine doses here and deliver them to aid schemes around the world for vaccinating the world's poor. Helping the EU, as some have suggested, shouldn't be considered, they are a huge and wealthy bloc of countries that can fend for themselves.
This is the crux of it, the EU cheaped out on funding it's pharma industry to a level where they could be certain of some level of supply and eventual oversupply. The UK and US have gone in the other direction because the worse thing that can happen is we lose a bit of money, and given the £400bn cost of this pandemic it's chump change.
I think that's spot on, and I think is a clear demonstration of the dangers of "managerialism" (and which is a consequence of a distant bloc, lacking decent democratic oversight.)
The issue is probably exacerbated because the EU has historically been buffeted with accusations of not being very good at controlling their spending, and that has probably caused institutional desires not to be seen to overpay for things.
In this particular case, this has led to them being desperately short of vaccines early in the process.
But I'm less pessimistic about how they will do from here than most: not because their performance is going to turn around, but simply because the world is going to have lots of vaccines sooner rather than later. Yes, they'll be two or three months behind us (and that's pretty horrendous), but once availability is there, they'll ramp pretty quickly.
Which is why they'd have been better advised to grit their teeth, not make a meal of it, whilst quietly learning the lessons and trying to mitigate the effects behind the scenes.
Instead they've created a massive high-profile political issue out of it that has undermined confidence in the European Commission, and they've just kept on digging.
I do rather worry that this is going to start off with the EU blaming AstraZeneca, but end up with the EU scapegoating the UK.
The path between the two scenarios is very short. AZ digs its heels in, EU goes direct to UK Government and demands diversion of production, Johnson refuses, EU condemns UK for being selfish and blames us for their suffering (along with using this as an excuse to confiscate our Pfizer orders and use them itself to plug the gaps that its own lethargy has created.)
I'm not sure how far we can trust the Commission but I do think that they must be desperate. A serious confrontation cannot, presumably, be ruled out.
They can't stop our Pfizer deliveries without expecting a huge amount of fall out. UK suppliers have a massive part in the Pfizer supply chain for the vaccine, a lot of it critical. The government blocks deliveries of that overnight if the EU blocks exports of it. For that reason the EU won't be able to block exports to the UK.
They might also have a word with the Germans about the spread of alarmist false nonsense about the vaccine.
Don't you mean 'another word?'
Possibly.
Were I AZ I'd be livid about those reports. Not just damaging to the vaccine and the company and the integrity of its scientists but to the cause of vaccination.
I am sure the high rate of those wanting to have teachers vaccinated is driven by thr belief that will mean schools will reopen quickly and they don't have to home school anymore.
The problem is obviously kids being a transmission vector doesn't go away.
BBC on AZ: The fact that the UK ordered its 100 million doses months ago and approved it weeks ago meant AstraZeneca was able to organise that supply chain.
Late ordering and the fact the EU is still yet to approve the drug means that supply chain is at a much earlier stage.
Given there is a biological process to go through - in other words, there are some parts of production you can't hurry, nature has to do its thing - supply contracts would always include "wiggle room" and be on a "best efforts basis".
AstraZeneca seems confident they are not in legal breach of any contract.
They might also have a word with the Germans about the spread of alarmist false nonsense about the vaccine.
Don't you mean 'another word?'
Possibly.
Were I AZ I'd be livid about those reports. Not just damaging to the vaccine and the company and the integrity of its scientists but to the cause of vaccination.
What do you reckon, 10% of their $130bn market cap as the AZ legal team’s first settlement offer to the EU?
We should quadruple our International Aid budget and vaccinate the third world.
Morally and PR wise it would be the right thing to do.
Brexiteers you can back this as it would annoy the EU so much.
Before you make some cheap point have a look at the facts
We already ARE doing that. Part of the deal with India was at the U.K. govt insistence
As of 13th January the UK had donated £548 million to the COVAX project. More, as it happens, than the whole of the rest of the EU combined. We did this, in part, by making a pledge to match £1 for every £4 donated by other countries whilst donating almost £300 million in addition outside of that pledge.
Edit - but in answer to TSE's point I agree entirely. We should be spending as much as we can spare to get vaccines for the third world. It is the right thing to do for a whole host of reasons.
We could even include the EU in that if we were feeling generous
My wife, a teacher, is very keen on teachers being vaccinated next. However I asked her if she think a 25yo teacher should get vaccinated before a 65yo non-teacher and the answer was "no".
I would support teachers over 40 going in with the next batch to get schools up and running. A teacher under 40 is at very low risk and should not get the vaccine before those at much higher risk.
Ridiculous. If we're vaccinating teachers, they should just turn up at a school one day and vaccinate everyone. It's stupidly inefficient to vaccinate only those of a certain age.
They didn't turn up at care homes and only vaccinate staff above 40 years old.
OF course, the other solution is to vaccinate teenagers, if the vaccine is (A) safe for them and (b) stops them spreading the disease as well as getting it.
But there are rather more of them.
This is pretty much what they're doing in Indonesia, although it's young adults rather than teenagers AFAIK.
Using aid budget for vaccines... isn't that exactly what it should be for, not some of the most ridiculous things that have been funded in the recent past.
We should quadruple our International Aid budget and vaccinate the third world.
Morally and PR wise it would be the right thing to do.
Brexiteers you can back this as it would annoy the EU so much.
Before you make some cheap point have a look at the facts
We already ARE doing that. Part of the deal with India was at the U.K. govt insistence
As of 13th January the UK had donated £548 million to the COVAX project. More, as it happens, than the whole of the rest of the EU combined. We did this, in part, by making a pledge to match £1 for every £4 donated by other countries whilst donating almost £300 million in addition outside of that pledge.
The EU are a bunch of tight-fisted gits, aren't they?
who gets moved down? why should people in their 50's give way to a 25 year old with no underlying conditions?
Why shouldn't they? People in their 20s have had to endure far greater sacrifice than those in their 50s. Stop being so bloody selfish.
Speaking as a 30-something as opposed to a 20-something, we've had to sacrifice a lot - but its not been to save ourselves, its been to save the vulnerable.
The way to end our sacrifices is to vaccinate the vulnerable and then let us get more back to normal. Given that someone in their 50s is far more likely to end in ICU than someone in their 20s or 30s I don't mind waiting my turn based upon clinical need. Do you - seriously?
We should quadruple our International Aid budget and vaccinate the third world.
Morally and PR wise it would be the right thing to do.
Brexiteers you can back this as it would annoy the EU so much.
More than happy to do that, I think the global economic benefits would be worth whatever few billion we spend. I've said it here before, I think after we build a strategic reserve our doses should go the the developing world and COVAX, we should also continue to pump out vaccine doses here and deliver them to aid schemes around the world for vaccinating the world's poor. Helping the EU, as some have suggested, shouldn't be considered, they are a huge and wealthy bloc of countries that can fend for themselves.
I'm very sympathetic to the idea of bailing out the Irish. Both parties can justify the favouritism to the rest of the 27, on the grounds that the UK is more-or-less forced to keep an open land border in Ireland, and the EU itself has negotiated agreements designed to allow it to remain so.
Apart from that we're in agreement. Apart from anything else, those controversial AstraZeneca plants in Britain will be supplying EU countries with as much vaccine as they can at a very reasonable price - once the UK Government's cut has been accounted for, of course.
Anecdotal, my mother (mid-60s, shielding list) has her first vaccine booked in for this Friday. Impressed, was expecting March at the earliest.
In Leicester we are doing anyone over 70 or on the shielding list at any age.
My wife who is shielding got offer today , but had to go immediately and I was away getting car serviced so she missed it. I also got appointment for 14th Feb for mine, not close to 70 yet either. Assume she will get called again on next batch.
We should quadruple our International Aid budget and vaccinate the third world.
Morally and PR wise it would be the right thing to do.
Brexiteers you can back this as it would annoy the EU so much.
Before you make some cheap point have a look at the facts
We already ARE doing that. Part of the deal with India was at the U.K. govt insistence
As of 13th January the UK had donated £548 million to the COVAX project. More, as it happens, than the whole of the rest of the EU combined. We did this, in part, by making a pledge to match £1 for every £4 donated by other countries whilst donating almost £300 million in addition outside of that pledge.
The EU are a bunch of tight-fisted gits, aren't they?
Its like all the screeching about the reduction in UK aid budget, which will still be more than basically every other country and has been for a long time. The way some reacted it was like the UK is incredibly mean by international standards and always has been.
We should quadruple our International Aid budget and vaccinate the third world.
Morally and PR wise it would be the right thing to do.
Brexiteers you can back this as it would annoy the EU so much.
Before you make some cheap point have a look at the facts
We already ARE doing that. Part of the deal with India was at the U.K. govt insistence
As of 13th January the UK had donated £548 million to the COVAX project. More, as it happens, than the whole of the rest of the EU combined. We did this, in part, by making a pledge to match £1 for every £4 donated by other countries whilst donating almost £300 million in addition outside of that pledge.
The EU are a bunch of tight-fisted gits, aren't they?
To be fair, they've had to cope with a sudden gap in their income stream recently...
BBC World News reporting on the EU -AZ arguments was really, really bad. Extremely one sided. Twice repeated the EU claims that they had spent billions on vaccine development and so should be given priority whilst making no mention at all of the AZ rebuttals and the actual facts of the case. Apparently this is all AZs fault. Impression given also that AZ were making money out of this.
Anecdotal, my mother (mid-60s, shielding list) has her first vaccine booked in for this Friday. Impressed, was expecting March at the earliest.
In Leicester we are doing anyone over 70 or on the shielding list at any age.
My wife who is shielding got offer today , but had to go immediately and I was away getting car serviced so she missed it. I also got appointment for 14th Feb for mine, not close to 70 yet either. Assume she will get called again on next batch.
My wife was was also shielding got vaccinated today.
Apparently the 2k planned vaccinations at the local surgery this weekend will be 70s and medically vulnerable.
BBC World News reporting on the EU -AZ arguments was really, really bad. Extremely one sided. Twice repeated the EU claims that they had spent billions on vaccine development and so should be given priority whilst making no mention at all of the AZ rebuttals and the actual facts of the case. Apparently this is all AZs fault. Impression given also that AZ were making money out of this.
This is the crux of it, the EU cheaped out on funding it's pharma industry to a level where they could be certain of some level of supply and eventual oversupply. The UK and US have gone in the other direction because the worse thing that can happen is we lose a bit of money, and given the £400bn cost of this pandemic it's chump change.
I think that's spot on, and I think is a clear demonstration of the dangers of "managerialism" (and which is a consequence of a distant bloc, lacking decent democratic oversight.)
The issue is probably exacerbated because the EU has historically been buffeted with accusations of not being very good at controlling their spending, and that has probably caused institutional desires not to be seen to overpay for things.
In this particular case, this has led to them being desperately short of vaccines early in the process.
But I'm less pessimistic about how they will do from here than most: not because their performance is going to turn around, but simply because the world is going to have lots of vaccines sooner rather than later. Yes, they'll be two or three months behind us (and that's pretty horrendous), but once availability is there, they'll ramp pretty quickly.
Which is why they'd have been better advised to grit their teeth, not make a meal of it, whilst quietly learning the lessons and trying to mitigate the effects behind the scenes.
Instead they've created a massive high-profile political issue out of it that has undermined confidence in the European Commission, and they've just kept on digging.
Of course they would: but the (belated) political pressure to know why they fucked up must be enormous.
The EU *really* needs J&J results out this week, because they are much, much more dependent on it than we are.
On a tangent, are there any figures of vaccination take up among the age groups?
Anecdotal evidence is the vaccination programme is heading more quickly into the younger age groups in some areas because some older people have refused the vaccine.
There are 24 million over 50 in this country - if the take up is 75% for example, that would reduce by 6 million the numbers to be vaccinated which at 400,000 per day accelerates the process by 15 days so not insignificant.
Localised report from part of NI is that older people vaccinated through GPs, so far really high take up.
I'm concerned about take up in the BAME community especially in parts of London. I live in an area with a high Tamil population from southern India and Sri Lanka and I'm concerned as to the strength of any take up based on mask wearing which doesn't seem that strong either.
Comments
https://twitter.com/AVFCOfficial/status/1354495482597400584
The EU Commission would only take the desperate measure of a "serious confrontation" with the UK if they were sure that had European public opinion behind them. That is most uncertain.
Also, what is a serious confrontation?! Guns?
Genuine Q. This is so unprecedented it is hard to know how bad it COULD get
(Usual caveat, IANAE etc)
Personally, I think they will find it hard to reopen them fully before all teachers over 60 or with health conditions *and all parents of school age children in the same category* have been vaccinated - but God knows when that will be.
If I had to guess, I would guess they will be reopened for a token week before Easter, but that's a guess.
He must be some peasant wearing a big hat. (Topping!)
I asked a question, and you replied fully and well. I'm more informed and wiser from that. Topping should go and hang his hat.
I have read Finnegan's wake - not sure I finished it.
I'm not saying that those in their 20s should be vaccinated before those in their 50s generally, but so what if a few 25 year old teachers are vaccinated first?
Gotta protect the playas player.
If anyone knows someone in Betfair there is an exchange market there.
If this allows schools to reopen quicker because the teachers are protected then let us do it.
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1354472440643125249
I mean, the PM is barely getting the backing of half of Tory voters.
I haven't suggested anything about what will happen in the future, I haven't suggested that this is the only aspect that's worth talking about. I've just been answering people who have mistaken what I said. See the previous thread for my responses to the likes of Malmesbury who made tangential points to which I have deferred, and other people who have said my prediction is wrong when I'm not predicting anything at all.
It's ok for me to tell people they've misunderstood my point, it really is.
So JVT, whoever that is, is either lying or unaware of the problems.
Edit: more here, for those interested.
https://www.tes.com/news/teacher-covid-death-data-only-half-picture
When the law is against you pound the facts.
When the facts are against you pound the law.
When both are against you....pound the table!
But based on the SARS vaccines and other in vitro analysis it’s a reasonable supposition.
One thing we can be 100% confident of is that nobody in government gives a shit about children or teachers. They will reopen schools when it is in their political interests to do so, and when they can reopen them without the risk of strikes.
https://twitter.com/EricLesser/status/1354493272140476421
Anecdotal evidence is the vaccination programme is heading more quickly into the younger age groups in some areas because some older people have refused the vaccine.
There are 24 million over 50 in this country - if the take up is 75% for example, that would reduce by 6 million the numbers to be vaccinated which at 400,000 per day accelerates the process by 15 days so not insignificant.
I would support teachers over 40 going in with the next batch to get schools up and running. A teacher under 40 is at very low risk and should not get the vaccine before those at much higher risk.
The issue is probably exacerbated because the EU has historically been buffeted with accusations of not being very good at controlling their spending, and that has probably caused institutional desires not to be seen to overpay for things.
In this particular case, this has led to them being desperately short of vaccines early in the process.
But I'm less pessimistic about how they will do from here than most: not because their performance is going to turn around, but simply because the world is going to have lots of vaccines sooner rather than later. Yes, they'll be two or three months behind us (and that's pretty horrendous), but once availability is there, they'll ramp pretty quickly.
They didn't turn up at care homes and only vaccinate staff above 40 years old.
But that still doesn't solve the vexed question of parents, many of whom are themselves over 40.
We already ARE doing that. Part of the deal with India was at the U.K. govt insistence
But there are rather more of them.
So long as the jabs are getting into arms.
But honestly this is childish by the EU - it is in all our interests that we all get vaccinated. Rather than harrumph and talk about export bans and seizing product contractually owed to other parties etc, the EU should be working with AZ. They might also have a word with the Germans about the spread of alarmist false nonsense about the vaccine.
Instead they've created a massive high-profile political issue out of it that has undermined confidence in the European Commission, and they've just kept on digging.
Were I AZ I'd be livid about those reports. Not just damaging to the vaccine and the company and the integrity of its scientists but to the cause of vaccination.
The problem is obviously kids being a transmission vector doesn't go away.
would mark almost exactly a year since they were shut (20th March).
I wonder if they will go for it for the pure symbolism?
Wouldn't put it past them.
https://twitter.com/brianlilley/status/1354509680060604418
The fact that the UK ordered its 100 million doses months ago and approved it weeks ago meant AstraZeneca was able to organise that supply chain.
Late ordering and the fact the EU is still yet to approve the drug means that supply chain is at a much earlier stage.
Given there is a biological process to go through - in other words, there are some parts of production you can't hurry, nature has to do its thing - supply contracts would always include "wiggle room" and be on a "best efforts basis".
AstraZeneca seems confident they are not in legal breach of any contract.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-55834210
Coincidence?
Edit - but in answer to TSE's point I agree entirely. We should be spending as much as we can spare to get vaccines for the third world. It is the right thing to do for a whole host of reasons.
We could even include the EU in that if we were feeling generous
The way to end our sacrifices is to vaccinate the vulnerable and then let us get more back to normal. Given that someone in their 50s is far more likely to end in ICU than someone in their 20s or 30s I don't mind waiting my turn based upon clinical need. Do you - seriously?
Apart from that we're in agreement. Apart from anything else, those controversial AstraZeneca plants in Britain will be supplying EU countries with as much vaccine as they can at a very reasonable price - once the UK Government's cut has been accounted for, of course.
Apparently the 2k planned vaccinations at the local surgery this weekend will be 70s and medically vulnerable.
God loves to troll us with stats
https://twitter.com/PopulismUpdates/status/1354501306056990721?s=20
The EU *really* needs J&J results out this week, because they are much, much more dependent on it than we are.