Quite surprised that abuse is being heaped (not reference to UD).
The same happened to Samantha Cameron the other day.
Both exceedingly wealthy moms with an entourage of nannies and helpers. They're hardly able to speak for ordinary parents.
Best the royals keep their mouths shut.
Oh I'm a republican & abolitionist by the way, for the person who suggested I was really a tory. Lol. The monarchy was something for a bygone era. We need to move on from the nonsense of it.
Wow. Just wow. They’re quadrupling down. How long before AZ simply stops the supply to the EU and says we’ll see you in court? It’s hardly as if not supplying the EU leaves them with unsold stock.
Before the past year, do we know how many contracts for purchase of pharmaceuticals the EU has negotiated directly? In constrast to AstraZenica’s contracts department, who we know have a very expensive team of lawyers doing just that, every day.
I think that we can be confident that AZN will never cut off supplies to a country just because someone is mouthing off. That would change the whole dynamic and would, I believe, give the moral high ground back to the EU - although that high ground might consist of nothing more than a small mole hill in this particular fight.
I would hope all the drugs companies would follow the same policy of continuing to honour their deals as legally committed and let the EU make itself look foolish with threats and inflammatory speeches.
The only way that should change is if the EU does actually start to block exports or take physical action against AZN in which case they really have jumped the shark and I suspect we will then see drug companies refusing to cooperate with them.
But as I said yesterday I simply don't think that will happen. Saner heads will prevail within the EU.
Who are these "saner heads within the EU" of which you speak? The head of the Commission is clearly in a complete tizz. Who is going to stand up to her and say "Leave it - it's not working..."?
The EU modus operandi is to keep asking until you get the right answer. They might as well have Yosser Hughes going in to AZ.
Either the President of the Commission, a body which of course always acts with impeccable integrity and would never, say, impose an illegal ban on British beef exports to deflect attention from a vast outbreak of BSE in France, or the CEO of AstraZeneca, a pharmaceutical company who as we know are always models of charity and honesty.
Whichever one of them is lying, however, the losers are the citizens of the EU who have found their health and economic resilience turned into a political football over greater EU integration.
Which is really quite astonishingly unedifying.
Why don't they take the risk of unilaterally publishing the contract if they are so sure?
Because that would no doubt breach the confidentiality provisions in that contract.
Well yes of course - but if they are right AZN would be unable to do anything realistically about it wihtout looking pretty dire. I think they daren't publish it simply because it would lay bare the weakness of their position.
My sister is a School Business Manager. When her school received a supply of LFD tests, the Head decided to experiment with these on herself, and my sister, who both tested negative and the Secretary, who tested positive, but had no symptoms. They all immediately went home.
12 hours later my sister was awakened by a headache from hell, and within 24 hours a PCR test confirmed that she had Covid. Her daughter, who has been nursing Covid patients from the outset succumbed the following day, and her husband and another daughter fell victim the day after that.
During this time, another 11 members of the school staff had acquired Covid and the Secretary had developed symptoms. Many of those affected went on to infect their family and cohabitees. The Head continues to test negative.
Interestingly, whilst this outbreak took out all of the admin staff, only 1 teacher and 2 teaching assistants were affected, and no other teaching staff have succumbed since. The degree of infectivity possibly related to the fact that the admin staff worked in very close proximity to each other and the (primary) school had no mask policies in place.
The Secretary who seemingly introduced it to the school, believes she was infected by her grandchild, who she collects from another school each day, and who she recalls being “out of sorts”.
Either the President of the Commission, a body which of course always acts with impeccable integrity and would never, say, impose an illegal ban on British beef exports to deflect attention from a vast outbreak of BSE in France, or the CEO of AstraZeneca, a pharmaceutical company who as we know are always models of charity and honesty.
Whichever one of them is lying, however, the losers are the citizens of the EU who have found their health and economic resilience turned into a political football over greater EU integration.
Which is really quite astonishingly unedifying.
The thing is that it won't be AZN as no lawyer would let a contract out with binding delivery dates on a new product where delivery is being outsourced.
And even if it is, AZN can't magic up something that doesn't exist.
The EU is doing itself zero favours here having f***ed up the most important project in decades.
I agree. With a new product to be scaled up fast in new facilities that I don't think the EMA has even approved for use yet (Germany did yesterday and there may be other breaking of the ranks) it is utterly inconceivable that Astra Zeneca committed themselves to a fixed delivery schedule with liability if they failed. So there is either a "best efforts" clause or an exclusion from any liability or damages which makes the contractual obligations meaningless and unenforceable. If it is the latter than van der Leyen might technically be telling the truth but very far from the whole truth.
Either the President of the Commission, a body which of course always acts with impeccable integrity and would never, say, impose an illegal ban on British beef exports to deflect attention from a vast outbreak of BSE in France, or the CEO of AstraZeneca, a pharmaceutical company who as we know are always models of charity and honesty.
Whichever one of them is lying, however, the losers are the citizens of the EU who have found their health and economic resilience turned into a political football over greater EU integration.
Which is really quite astonishingly unedifying.
The thing is that it won't be AZN as no lawyer would let a contract out with binding delivery dates on a new product where delivery is being outsourced.
And even if it is, AZN can't magic up something that doesn't exist.
The EU is doing itself zero favours here having f***ed up the most important project in decades.
I agree. With a new product to be scaled up fast in new facilities that I don't think the EMA has even approved for use yet (Germany did yesterday and there may be other breaking of the ranks) it is utterly inconceivable that Astra Zeneca committed themselves to a fixed delivery schedule with liability if they failed. So there is either a "best efforts" clause or an exclusion from any liability or damages which makes the contractual obligations meaningless and unenforceable. If it is the latter than van der Leyen might technically be telling the truth but very far from the whole truth.
So far the only thing we can be sure about is that the phrase "Best Effort" isn't in the document. But some similar clauses will be.
The one EU agreement that we have published includes "reasonable best efforts" as a defined term, which is used in a couple of specific instances:
Either the President of the Commission, a body which of course always acts with impeccable integrity and would never, say, impose an illegal ban on British beef exports to deflect attention from a vast outbreak of BSE in France, or the CEO of AstraZeneca, a pharmaceutical company who as we know are always models of charity and honesty.
Whichever one of them is lying, however, the losers are the citizens of the EU who have found their health and economic resilience turned into a political football over greater EU integration.
Which is really quite astonishingly unedifying.
The thing is that it won't be AZN as no lawyer would let a contract out with binding delivery dates on a new product where delivery is being outsourced.
And even if it is, AZN can't magic up something that doesn't exist.
The EU is doing itself zero favours here having f***ed up the most important project in decades.
I agree. With a new product to be scaled up fast in new facilities that I don't think the EMA has even approved for use yet (Germany did yesterday and there may be other breaking of the ranks) it is utterly inconceivable that Astra Zeneca committed themselves to a fixed delivery schedule with liability if they failed. So there is either a "best efforts" clause or an exclusion from any liability or damages which makes the contractual obligations meaningless and unenforceable. If it is the latter than van der Leyen might technically be telling the truth but very far from the whole truth.
Either the President of the Commission, a body which of course always acts with impeccable integrity and would never, say, impose an illegal ban on British beef exports to deflect attention from a vast outbreak of BSE in France, or the CEO of AstraZeneca, a pharmaceutical company who as we know are always models of charity and honesty.
Whichever one of them is lying, however, the losers are the citizens of the EU who have found their health and economic resilience turned into a political football over greater EU integration.
Which is really quite astonishingly unedifying.
The thing is that it won't be AZN as no lawyer would let a contract out with binding delivery dates on a new product where delivery is being outsourced.
And even if it is, AZN can't magic up something that doesn't exist.
The EU is doing itself zero favours here having f***ed up the most important project in decades.
I agree. With a new product to be scaled up fast in new facilities that I don't think the EMA has even approved for use yet (Germany did yesterday and there may be other breaking of the ranks) it is utterly inconceivable that Astra Zeneca committed themselves to a fixed delivery schedule with liability if they failed. So there is either a "best efforts" clause or an exclusion from any liability or damages which makes the contractual obligations meaningless and unenforceable. If it is the latter than van der Leyen might technically be telling the truth but very far from the whole truth.
So far the only thing we can be sure about is that the phrase "Best Effort" isn't in the document. But some similar clauses will be.
Well either that or their extremely well paid and experienced lawyers are spending their time with their professional indemnity insurers. I know what my money is on.
I recall at the beginning we were told how dicey this vaccine development business can be, and warned to expect lots of failed attempts. Yet, if there have been any, they've been kept very quiet.
I recall at the beginning we were told how dicey this vaccine development business can be, and warned to expect lots of failed attempts. Yet, if there have been any, they've been kept very quiet.
I disagree with the header. We need to get away from this obsession with perfect queuing and maximise efficiency.
When we vaccinated care homes, we didn’t just vaccinate staff over 60, we vaccinated all staff because it made sense to do everyone. The same is true in hospitals.
It makes sense to grab 100 or so vaccines, visit a school, and vaccinate everyone rather than pick out certain people above certain ages and arrange appointments, especially if they’re all going to be there anyway.
Either the President of the Commission, a body which of course always acts with impeccable integrity and would never, say, impose an illegal ban on British beef exports to deflect attention from a vast outbreak of BSE in France, or the CEO of AstraZeneca, a pharmaceutical company who as we know are always models of charity and honesty.
Whichever one of them is lying, however, the losers are the citizens of the EU who have found their health and economic resilience turned into a political football over greater EU integration.
Which is really quite astonishingly unedifying.
The thing is that it won't be AZN as no lawyer would let a contract out with binding delivery dates on a new product where delivery is being outsourced.
And even if it is, AZN can't magic up something that doesn't exist.
The EU is doing itself zero favours here having f***ed up the most important project in decades.
I agree. With a new product to be scaled up fast in new facilities that I don't think the EMA has even approved for use yet (Germany did yesterday and there may be other breaking of the ranks) it is utterly inconceivable that Astra Zeneca committed themselves to a fixed delivery schedule with liability if they failed. So there is either a "best efforts" clause or an exclusion from any liability or damages which makes the contractual obligations meaningless and unenforceable. If it is the latter than van der Leyen might technically be telling the truth but very far from the whole truth.
Either the President of the Commission, a body which of course always acts with impeccable integrity and would never, say, impose an illegal ban on British beef exports to deflect attention from a vast outbreak of BSE in France, or the CEO of AstraZeneca, a pharmaceutical company who as we know are always models of charity and honesty.
Whichever one of them is lying, however, the losers are the citizens of the EU who have found their health and economic resilience turned into a political football over greater EU integration.
Which is really quite astonishingly unedifying.
The thing is that it won't be AZN as no lawyer would let a contract out with binding delivery dates on a new product where delivery is being outsourced.
And even if it is, AZN can't magic up something that doesn't exist.
The EU is doing itself zero favours here having f***ed up the most important project in decades.
I agree. With a new product to be scaled up fast in new facilities that I don't think the EMA has even approved for use yet (Germany did yesterday and there may be other breaking of the ranks) it is utterly inconceivable that Astra Zeneca committed themselves to a fixed delivery schedule with liability if they failed. So there is either a "best efforts" clause or an exclusion from any liability or damages which makes the contractual obligations meaningless and unenforceable. If it is the latter than van der Leyen might technically be telling the truth but very far from the whole truth.
So far the only thing we can be sure about is that the phrase "Best Effort" isn't in the document. But some similar clauses will be.
I don't think we can be sure of that. The published contract with another supplier (won't be the same as AZN's but will be similar) explicitly uses the phrase - and the CEO of AZN said he was quoting from the contract when he used the phrase too.
I expect VDL has scored a spectacular own goal in denying the phrase exists when it in fact does.
Makes sense to vaccinate teachers/key workers ahead of others in same risk category who can work from home.
But vaccinating all teachers - as I understand Keir is calling for - is unjustified and Mike is right that it would likely lead to further unnecessary deaths. Disastrous idea from Starmer.
Maybe it's popular, but it would be the wrong thing to do.
Let the Daily Mail do some polling.
"Would you support Labours policy to vaccinate teachers if it led to 100 extra unneccesary deaths in the elderly each day?"
Makes sense to vaccinate teachers/key workers ahead of others in same risk category who can work from home.
But vaccinating all teachers - as I understand Keir is calling for - is unjustified and Mike is right that it would likely lead to further unnecessary deaths. Disastrous idea from Starmer.
Maybe it's popular, but it would be the wrong thing to do.
The only thing vaccinating teachers does is ensure they stay in school while the pupils spread it amongst themselves and potentially to their families.
It's a plan but it will be trading some teaching for some deaths.
Worse the teaching will be as stop start as it was last term as cohorts of children are forced to isolate and classes are 50% in school and 50% remote.
The whole point about those facilities, which the British taxpayer paid for, is that they will assist the EU *after* they have produced enough vaccine to fulfil their contract with the UK government.
She’s clearly under enormous pressure from somewhere. This is flailing on speed.
Not least as the EU strategy appears to be:
“We will ban exports from the EU” and “We will force you to export to the EU”
Let alone the issue of countries stopping supplies to the EU if they do ban exports...
I doubt suppliers would explicitly stop supplies, they just won't be rushing to send them while other customers are available. Best to ensure your other customers have 6 months supplies ASAP before the EU cuts them off.
It really is a mess of the EUs making where they continually double down with a hand that makes the Brexit one we used to laugh at look good.
Makes sense to vaccinate teachers/key workers ahead of others in same risk category who can work from home.
But vaccinating all teachers - as I understand Keir is calling for - is unjustified and Mike is right that it would likely lead to further unnecessary deaths. Disastrous idea from Starmer.
Maybe it's popular, but it would be the wrong thing to do.
Let the Daily Mail do some polling.
"Would you support Labours policy to vaccinate teachers if it led to 100 extra unneccesary deaths in the elderly each day?"
I don't think we can be sure of that. The published contract with another supplier (won't be the same as AZN's but will be similar) explicitly uses the phrase - and the CEO of AZN said he was quoting from the contract when he used the phrase too.
I expect VDL has scored a spectacular own goal in denying the phrase exists when it in fact does.
Lawyers are involved - they won't use simple words like effort, when endeavours is available.
Makes sense to vaccinate teachers/key workers ahead of others in same risk category who can work from home.
But vaccinating all teachers - as I understand Keir is calling for - is unjustified and Mike is right that it would likely lead to further unnecessary deaths. Disastrous idea from Starmer.
Maybe it's popular, but it would be the wrong thing to do.
The only thing vaccinating teachers does is ensure they stay in school while the pupils spread it amongst themselves and potentially to their families.
It's a plan but it will be trading some teaching for some deaths.
Worse the teaching will be as stop start as it was last term as cohorts of children are forced to isolate and classes are 50% in school and 50% remote.
Then why have we vaccinated young nurses, doctors, care home staff etc?
There has been no bleating about them taking away jabs from the vulnerable, which is exactly what they have done?
I recall at the beginning we were told how dicey this vaccine development business can be, and warned to expect lots of failed attempts. Yet, if there have been any, they've been kept very quiet.
There have been some failures, such as the Australian one (I think it looked like it would work, but caused false positive HIV tests), but fortunately most seem to work reasonably effectively. This is a very nasty bug, but a fairly simple one, it seems.
I think what we do when we are into a prospect of a serious surplus of availability in UK vaccines is an interesting one.
My suggestion would be as some others have been discussing - use it where it can make a big difference. I would love to be able to horse trade for eg Market Equivalence, but I do not think that can be justified.
My suggested priorities would be towards countries with links, developing countries esp Commonwealth, smaller countries where a big difference can be made, to mitigate impact of any EU export-intervention, and perhaps hotspots.
It's a devil of a thing to order, though - needs clear principles as we have for vaccine priority, and a small amount of pragmatism.
Perhaps Overseas Territories, ROI / Portugal, small Commonwealth countries and developing. Malta and Cyprus?
Use the economic development scale - rich countries first need to put a big chunk of money into the COVAX international aid basket. Poorer countries just get the vaccine.
Either the President of the Commission, a body which of course always acts with impeccable integrity and would never, say, impose an illegal ban on British beef exports to deflect attention from a vast outbreak of BSE in France, or the CEO of AstraZeneca, a pharmaceutical company who as we know are always models of charity and honesty.
Whichever one of them is lying, however, the losers are the citizens of the EU who have found their health and economic resilience turned into a political football over greater EU integration.
Which is really quite astonishingly unedifying.
The thing is that it won't be AZN as no lawyer would let a contract out with binding delivery dates on a new product where delivery is being outsourced.
And even if it is, AZN can't magic up something that doesn't exist.
The EU is doing itself zero favours here having f***ed up the most important project in decades.
I agree. With a new product to be scaled up fast in new facilities that I don't think the EMA has even approved for use yet (Germany did yesterday and there may be other breaking of the ranks) it is utterly inconceivable that Astra Zeneca committed themselves to a fixed delivery schedule with liability if they failed. So there is either a "best efforts" clause or an exclusion from any liability or damages which makes the contractual obligations meaningless and unenforceable. If it is the latter than van der Leyen might technically be telling the truth but very far from the whole truth.
So far the only thing we can be sure about is that the phrase "Best Effort" isn't in the document. But some similar clauses will be.
I don't think we can be sure of that. The published contract with another supplier (won't be the same as AZN's but will be similar) explicitly uses the phrase - and the CEO of AZN said he was quoting from the contract when he used the phrase too.
I expect VDL has scored a spectacular own goal in denying the phrase exists when it in fact does.
Lawyers are involved - they won't use simple words like effort, when endeavours is available.
He quoted effort - and the other contract that has already been published uses effort.
Either the CEO of Astrazeneca was mistaken to say he was quoting that (or its been mistranslated into English) and the contract is very different to the published contract . . . or VDL has screwed up.
It's hard to see schools opening until after Easter, at least in England, and by then supplies should be plentiful. Capacity to give the vaccines doesnt seem too much of a limitation. The problem becomes one of giving the second doses, and prioritisation between groups, and hence one of administration of bookings.
It is best to keep it simple, and age works for that, as well as being clinically effective, but after the 60+ are done, there is perhaps a case for just letting anyone book in. That would build herd immunity fairly quickly. I suspect there would be continuing ethnic and socio-economic gaps, but campaigns could continue for these.
One great strength of the NHS primary care system is vaccinations. Less systematic healthcare models have their advantages, in consumerist terms, but are far behind in systematic coverage.
When the schools reopen is the key decision. We know that schools were a major source of transmission, so early reopening to release kids to spread the pox openly to each other and their families is a stupid idea. With all that kids have had to miss what difference does an extra month or two matter now. Extend until Easter, then come back, and its less of an argument then about vaccinating teachers as so many people would already have had it and we'll be awash with vials.
What surprises me a little about Mike's piece is the tone - that Teachers are a special interest group. They are - key workers in the front line. Remember the "Let our Teachers be Heroes" front page of the Mail - imploring teachers to take the clear risk of teaching our kids in classrooms where social distancing and other mandatory precautions are simply impossible.
Once all this is over, I do expect some Health and Safety at Work actions, and telling teachers that their legal H&S can be ignored is a risky line to take for an employer...
Makes sense to vaccinate teachers/key workers ahead of others in same risk category who can work from home.
But vaccinating all teachers - as I understand Keir is calling for - is unjustified and Mike is right that it would likely lead to further unnecessary deaths. Disastrous idea from Starmer.
Maybe it's popular, but it would be the wrong thing to do.
The only thing vaccinating teachers does is ensure they stay in school while the pupils spread it amongst themselves and potentially to their families.
It's a plan but it will be trading some teaching for some deaths.
Worse the teaching will be as stop start as it was last term as cohorts of children are forced to isolate and classes are 50% in school and 50% remote.
Then why have we vaccinated young nurses, doctors, care home staff etc?
There has been no bleating about them taking away jabs from the vulnerable, which is exactly what they have done?
Why is it different for teachers?
Because it is prioritised by risk. And medics and care home staff work in environments where we know that risk of mortality amongst those around them are high.
We know that such is not the case in schools.
If schools were full of frail 80 year olds it would be different. They aren't, so it isn't.
I think what we do when we are into a prospect of a serious surplus of availability in UK vaccines is an interesting one.
My suggestion would be as some others have been discussing - use it where it can make a big difference. I would love to be able to horse trade for eg Market Equivalence, but I do not think that can be justified.
My suggested priorities would be towards countries with links, developing countries esp Commonwealth, smaller countries where a big difference can be made, to mitigate impact of any EU export-intervention, and perhaps hotspots.
It's a devil of a thing to order, though - needs clear principles as we have for vaccine priority, and a small amount of pragmatism.
Perhaps Overseas Territories, ROI / Portugal, small Commonwealth countries and developing. Malta and Cyprus?
The actual vaccine should be provided free.
And it's worth bearing in mind that AstraZeneca's contract with the EU is to provide the vaccines at cost price. They hold the moral high ground here.
I don't think we can be sure of that. The published contract with another supplier (won't be the same as AZN's but will be similar) explicitly uses the phrase - and the CEO of AZN said he was quoting from the contract when he used the phrase too.
I expect VDL has scored a spectacular own goal in denying the phrase exists when it in fact does.
Lawyers are involved - they won't use simple words like effort, when endeavours is available.
If "Best efforts" is in contract they are stuffed , hard to believe their lawyers would be that stupid, it will be "reasonable endeavours" at best.
Either the President of the Commission, a body which of course always acts with impeccable integrity and would never, say, impose an illegal ban on British beef exports to deflect attention from a vast outbreak of BSE in France, or the CEO of AstraZeneca, a pharmaceutical company who as we know are always models of charity and honesty.
Whichever one of them is lying, however, the losers are the citizens of the EU who have found their health and economic resilience turned into a political football over greater EU integration.
Which is really quite astonishingly unedifying.
Why don't they take the risk of unilaterally publishing the contract if they are so sure?
Because that would no doubt breach the confidentiality provisions in that contract.
Confidentiality provisions can outlive their usefulness, and it can be problematic to see what damages flow from breaching them. I certainly don't buy the claim that future contracts with different parties will be prejudiced because you are a known pariah confidentiality breacher. Anyway there's nothing wrong with a public challenge on the lines of I am prepared to waive my right to confidentiality because I am confident of my claim, how about you?
Drakeford holding the line on teachers “we follow the JCVI”.
Drakeford more of a leader for the Labour Party than Keir Starmer.
What a joke.
Keir Starmer has one over-riding objective and that is to get into power. Without power he can do nothing.
To get into power Starmer needs to be popular so he picks up popular causes (teacher jabs) and promotes flag and family. He promotes the popular things rather than the right things. He can't actually DO anything as he is not in power.
I don't like it but I understand why he is doing it.
Kate Bingham on R4 “work to scale up OxfordAZ started in February 2020” - so 3 months before the May agreement- and 6 months before the EU signed an agreement. Doesn’t believe the EU will ban anything.
It makes sense to grab 100 or so vaccines, visit a school, and vaccinate everyone r.
Classic of the sort of rubbish old new Labour are spouting.
Just 'grabbing a few vaccines' is diverting them, stealing them, from people who might die as a result.
We have already done that. We’ve taken jabs away from vulnerable old people and given them to young doctors, nurses, and care home staff? Where was your bleating then?
This has nothing to do with labour. I’m not interested in what Labour are saying on the matter, I’m giving my own opinion.
I think the Daily Mirror Poll is well worth following .... with respect to journalists.
At 1% and 1 % in the two columns, they are actually behind convicted prisoners & bankers.
Sounds good.
Once everyone else in the UK has been jabbed, we ask Pesto, JHB, Tobes, Polly, anyone working for the Daily Merkle, etc ... to line up nicely for their vaccine.
Because the media performance has been truly disgraceful.
Makes sense to vaccinate teachers/key workers ahead of others in same risk category who can work from home.
But vaccinating all teachers - as I understand Keir is calling for - is unjustified and Mike is right that it would likely lead to further unnecessary deaths. Disastrous idea from Starmer.
Maybe it's popular, but it would be the wrong thing to do.
The only thing vaccinating teachers does is ensure they stay in school while the pupils spread it amongst themselves and potentially to their families.
It's a plan but it will be trading some teaching for some deaths.
Worse the teaching will be as stop start as it was last term as cohorts of children are forced to isolate and classes are 50% in school and 50% remote.
Then why have we vaccinated young nurses, doctors, care home staff etc?
Because if they die or even fall ill and have to take time off from their work then the UK death rate would soar. Without nurses to look after the sick more people die.
Is your 5 yr old running your account this morning?
I recall at the beginning we were told how dicey this vaccine development business can be, and warned to expect lots of failed attempts. Yet, if there have been any, they've been kept very quiet.
Biotech has undergone a revolution, which is connected with the computer and materials revolutions.
We are on a massively accelerating curve on this stuff. What was close to impossible a few years ago, is now a couple of days in the lab.
On topic Dundee have just confirmed that approximately 13% of children are attending school as the children of "essential workers". This is massively more than was the case under the first lockdown. My son's school, where half the kids have doctors as parents, shows a similar trend.
It does seem to me that those teachers who are being exposed in this way to a large number of children who are potential carriers for the public good should indeed get priority. They are taking a very considerable risk for us. It is unfair to make that risk any greater than it needs to be.
Makes sense to vaccinate teachers/key workers ahead of others in same risk category who can work from home.
But vaccinating all teachers - as I understand Keir is calling for - is unjustified and Mike is right that it would likely lead to further unnecessary deaths. Disastrous idea from Starmer.
Maybe it's popular, but it would be the wrong thing to do.
The only thing vaccinating teachers does is ensure they stay in school while the pupils spread it amongst themselves and potentially to their families.
It's a plan but it will be trading some teaching for some deaths.
Worse the teaching will be as stop start as it was last term as cohorts of children are forced to isolate and classes are 50% in school and 50% remote.
Then why have we vaccinated young nurses, doctors, care home staff etc?
There has been no bleating about them taking away jabs from the vulnerable, which is exactly what they have done?
Why is it different for teachers?
Because they're superspreaders to the extremely vulnerable patients that they work with. A fifth of all deaths and hospitalisations come from care homes. Hospital acquired infections are mammoth too. Plus its going from patient to staff to patient - not direct patient to patient mixing.
Completely different from schools where there are compared to care homes next to no direct deaths and infections coming from schools, the issue with schools is that they are spreading it within the community as kids pass it to each other asymptomatically before bringing it home to their families.
Makes sense to vaccinate teachers/key workers ahead of others in same risk category who can work from home.
But vaccinating all teachers - as I understand Keir is calling for - is unjustified and Mike is right that it would likely lead to further unnecessary deaths. Disastrous idea from Starmer.
Maybe it's popular, but it would be the wrong thing to do.
The only thing vaccinating teachers does is ensure they stay in school while the pupils spread it amongst themselves and potentially to their families.
It's a plan but it will be trading some teaching for some deaths.
Worse the teaching will be as stop start as it was last term as cohorts of children are forced to isolate and classes are 50% in school and 50% remote.
Then why have we vaccinated young nurses, doctors, care home staff etc?
There has been no bleating about them taking away jabs from the vulnerable, which is exactly what they have done?
Why is it different for teachers?
Because the only people visiting people in care homes or being cared for at home are the now vaccinated workers. Vaccinate those workers and both reduce those workers spreading the disease and decrease the likelihood that they need time off work.
For schools the issue really isn't the teachers - it's pupils intermingling so transporting Covid from bubble 1 to bubble 2. Vaccinating the teachers will ensure they keep on working but that's all it does - it doesn't stop Covid spreading from familiy 1 to family 2 due to John giving it to has mate James.
And from my childrens school there has been a lot of infections. Even if the year group hasn't got it, multiple infections on bus routes have then added another 50+ children to each isolation request.
One further difference between the EU and UK approach is that EU insisted on risk exposure for vaccine failure in rollouts (eg complications) to lie far more heavily with the Pharma Co, whilst UK Govt has accepted.
That would perhaps make suppliers far more cautious about the vaccine they supply.
Drakeford holding the line on teachers “we follow the JCVI”.
Drakeford more of a leader for the Labour Party than Keir Starmer.
What a joke.
Keir Starmer has one over-riding objective and that is to get into power. Without power he can do nothing.
To get into power Starmer needs to be popular so he picks up popular causes (teacher jabs) and promotes flag and family. He promotes the popular things rather than the right things. He can't actually DO anything as he is not in power.
I don't like it but I understand why he is doing it.
Labour are in power.
Labour are in power in Wales.
They can carry out this policy right now, if they want.
It's hard to see schools opening until after Easter, at least in England, and by then supplies should be plentiful. Capacity to give the vaccines doesnt seem too much of a limitation. The problem becomes one of giving the second doses, and prioritisation between groups, and hence one of administration of bookings.
It is best to keep it simple, and age works for that, as well as being clinically effective, but after the 60+ are done, there is perhaps a case for just letting anyone book in. That would build herd immunity fairly quickly. I suspect there would be continuing ethnic and socio-economic gaps, but campaigns could continue for these.
One great strength of the NHS primary care system is vaccinations. Less systematic healthcare models have their advantages, in consumerist terms, but are far behind in systematic coverage.
When the schools reopen is the key decision. We know that schools were a major source of transmission, so early reopening to release kids to spread the pox openly to each other and their families is a stupid idea. With all that kids have had to miss what difference does an extra month or two matter now. Extend until Easter, then come back, and its less of an argument then about vaccinating teachers as so many people would already have had it and we'll be awash with vials.
What surprises me a little about Mike's piece is the tone - that Teachers are a special interest group. They are - key workers in the front line. Remember the "Let our Teachers be Heroes" front page of the Mail - imploring teachers to take the clear risk of teaching our kids in classrooms where social distancing and other mandatory precautions are simply impossible.
Once all this is over, I do expect some Health and Safety at Work actions, and telling teachers that their legal H&S can be ignored is a risky line to take for an employer...
Yes, teachers are occupationally exposed (as are some others, such as police) in ways that are difficult to mitigate by other means such as social distancing, ventilation, masks etc.
Makes sense to vaccinate teachers/key workers ahead of others in same risk category who can work from home.
But vaccinating all teachers - as I understand Keir is calling for - is unjustified and Mike is right that it would likely lead to further unnecessary deaths. Disastrous idea from Starmer.
Maybe it's popular, but it would be the wrong thing to do.
The only thing vaccinating teachers does is ensure they stay in school while the pupils spread it amongst themselves and potentially to their families.
It's a plan but it will be trading some teaching for some deaths.
Worse the teaching will be as stop start as it was last term as cohorts of children are forced to isolate and classes are 50% in school and 50% remote.
Then why have we vaccinated young nurses, doctors, care home staff etc?
There has been no bleating about them taking away jabs from the vulnerable, which is exactly what they have done?
Why is it different for teachers?
Because they're superspreaders to the extremely vulnerable patients that they work with. A fifth of all deaths and hospitalisations come from care homes. Hospital acquired infections are mammoth too. Plus its going from patient to staff to patient - not direct patient to patient mixing.
Completely different from schools where there are compared to care homes next to no direct deaths and infections coming from schools, the issue with schools is that they are spreading it within the community as kids pass it to each other asymptomatically.
We don’t know what effect the vaccines have on transmission so that doesn’t hold water I’m afraid.
And if the vaccine does prevent transmission, then the priority is getting it into as many arms as possible as quickly as possible without these stupid arguments. If it’s more efficient to take a few vaccines to one place, like a school (which it is) and vaccinate everyone, we should do that.
Instead we have selfish older people demanding their vaccines first above all else.
It makes sense to grab 100 or so vaccines, visit a school, and vaccinate everyone r.
Classic of the sort of rubbish old new Labour are spouting.
Just 'grabbing a few vaccines' is diverting them, stealing them, from people who might die as a result.
We have already done that. We’ve taken jabs away from vulnerable old people and given them to young doctors, nurses, and care home staff? Where was your bleating then?
This has nothing to do with labour. I’m not interested in what Labour are saying on the matter, I’m giving my own opinion.
Yes but your 'grab a spare bundle of vaccines' is precisely the sort of rubbish old Labour used to spout on public spending. There are no spare bundles of vaccines lying around, just as there was never spare bundles of cash to throw at this or that white elephant. You 'grab a spare bundle of vaccines' and you're pushing a vulnerable group of people further down the waiting list.
Your point about doctors, nurses and care home staff honestly makes me wonder if someone else (your 5 yr old) is running your account this morning. You do realise that those people are keeping the sick from dying? You do understand what medical staff do? Have you ever been inside a hospital?
For every nurse or doctor who falls ill with covid another sick patient becomes more vulnerable, more at risk of dying, fewer people are vaccinated etc.
Teachers don't keep people alive. Medical staff do.
Either the President of the Commission, a body which of course always acts with impeccable integrity and would never, say, impose an illegal ban on British beef exports to deflect attention from a vast outbreak of BSE in France, or the CEO of AstraZeneca, a pharmaceutical company who as we know are always models of charity and honesty.
Whichever one of them is lying, however, the losers are the citizens of the EU who have found their health and economic resilience turned into a political football over greater EU integration.
Which is really quite astonishingly unedifying.
The thing is that it won't be AZN as no lawyer would let a contract out with binding delivery dates on a new product where delivery is being outsourced.
And even if it is, AZN can't magic up something that doesn't exist.
The EU is doing itself zero favours here having f***ed up the most important project in decades.
I agree. With a new product to be scaled up fast in new facilities that I don't think the EMA has even approved for use yet (Germany did yesterday and there may be other breaking of the ranks) it is utterly inconceivable that Astra Zeneca committed themselves to a fixed delivery schedule with liability if they failed. So there is either a "best efforts" clause or an exclusion from any liability or damages which makes the contractual obligations meaningless and unenforceable. If it is the latter than van der Leyen might technically be telling the truth but very far from the whole truth.
Either the President of the Commission, a body which of course always acts with impeccable integrity and would never, say, impose an illegal ban on British beef exports to deflect attention from a vast outbreak of BSE in France, or the CEO of AstraZeneca, a pharmaceutical company who as we know are always models of charity and honesty.
Whichever one of them is lying, however, the losers are the citizens of the EU who have found their health and economic resilience turned into a political football over greater EU integration.
Which is really quite astonishingly unedifying.
The thing is that it won't be AZN as no lawyer would let a contract out with binding delivery dates on a new product where delivery is being outsourced.
And even if it is, AZN can't magic up something that doesn't exist.
The EU is doing itself zero favours here having f***ed up the most important project in decades.
I agree. With a new product to be scaled up fast in new facilities that I don't think the EMA has even approved for use yet (Germany did yesterday and there may be other breaking of the ranks) it is utterly inconceivable that Astra Zeneca committed themselves to a fixed delivery schedule with liability if they failed. So there is either a "best efforts" clause or an exclusion from any liability or damages which makes the contractual obligations meaningless and unenforceable. If it is the latter than van der Leyen might technically be telling the truth but very far from the whole truth.
So far the only thing we can be sure about is that the phrase "Best Effort" isn't in the document. But some similar clauses will be.
Well either that or their extremely well paid and experienced lawyers are spending their time with their professional indemnity insurers. I know what my money is on.
The odds
8% on the reports on the contract in the German press 92% on the reports in the press for AZN
Drug companies are good at writing contracts.
The EU President has a (personal) track record of screwing up contracts, trying to sue world leading companies for breach of contract and losing in court. And briefing to the press things about said contracts that turned out to be simply not true.
Makes sense to vaccinate teachers/key workers ahead of others in same risk category who can work from home.
But vaccinating all teachers - as I understand Keir is calling for - is unjustified and Mike is right that it would likely lead to further unnecessary deaths. Disastrous idea from Starmer.
Maybe it's popular, but it would be the wrong thing to do.
The only thing vaccinating teachers does is ensure they stay in school while the pupils spread it amongst themselves and potentially to their families.
It's a plan but it will be trading some teaching for some deaths.
Worse the teaching will be as stop start as it was last term as cohorts of children are forced to isolate and classes are 50% in school and 50% remote.
Then why have we vaccinated young nurses, doctors, care home staff etc?
There has been no bleating about them taking away jabs from the vulnerable, which is exactly what they have done?
Why is it different for teachers?
Because they're superspreaders to the extremely vulnerable patients that they work with. A fifth of all deaths and hospitalisations come from care homes. Hospital acquired infections are mammoth too. Plus its going from patient to staff to patient - not direct patient to patient mixing.
Completely different from schools where there are compared to care homes next to no direct deaths and infections coming from schools, the issue with schools is that they are spreading it within the community as kids pass it to each other asymptomatically.
We don’t know what effect the vaccines have on transmission so that doesn’t hold water I’m afraid.
And if the vaccine does prevent transmission, then the priority is getting it into as many arms as possible as quickly as possible without these stupid arguments. If it’s more efficient to take a few vaccines to one place, like a school (which it is) and vaccinate everyone, we should do that.
Instead we have selfish older people demanding their vaccines first above all else.
It does hold water as we do have reason to believe the vaccines have an effect on transmission. Your argument that "we don't know" is as puerile and ignorant as the argument that "we don't know" if the vaccine works 4 weeks after the first dose.
As for your second paragraph, no you are categorically wrong. The priority is not getting it into as many arms as possible efficiently because the limiting factor is supply not effort getting it into arms. If we had unlimited supply then just jab anyone, who cares the priority list just get it done. That's not the case.
We don't have "selfish older people" we have clinical need recommended by doctors and scientists. Are you seriously saying the NHS should stop operating on the basis of clinical need? 🤔
Drakeford holding the line on teachers “we follow the JCVI”.
Drakeford more of a leader for the Labour Party than Keir Starmer.
What a joke.
Keir Starmer has one over-riding objective and that is to get into power. Without power he can do nothing.
To get into power Starmer needs to be popular so he picks up popular causes (teacher jabs) and promotes flag and family. He promotes the popular things rather than the right things. He can't actually DO anything as he is not in power.
I don't like it but I understand why he is doing it.
Labour are in power.
Labour are in power in Wales.
They can carry out this policy right now, if they want.
They can DO things right now.
I'm talking about Keir Starmer and the UK government.
I don't know anything about Wales. It just doesn't interest me. Sorry.
It's hard to see schools opening until after Easter, at least in England, and by then supplies should be plentiful. Capacity to give the vaccines doesnt seem too much of a limitation. The problem becomes one of giving the second doses, and prioritisation between groups, and hence one of administration of bookings.
It is best to keep it simple, and age works for that, as well as being clinically effective, but after the 60+ are done, there is perhaps a case for just letting anyone book in. That would build herd immunity fairly quickly. I suspect there would be continuing ethnic and socio-economic gaps, but campaigns could continue for these.
One great strength of the NHS primary care system is vaccinations. Less systematic healthcare models have their advantages, in consumerist terms, but are far behind in systematic coverage.
When the schools reopen is the key decision. We know that schools were a major source of transmission, so early reopening to release kids to spread the pox openly to each other and their families is a stupid idea. With all that kids have had to miss what difference does an extra month or two matter now. Extend until Easter, then come back, and its less of an argument then about vaccinating teachers as so many people would already have had it and we'll be awash with vials.
What surprises me a little about Mike's piece is the tone - that Teachers are a special interest group. They are - key workers in the front line. Remember the "Let our Teachers be Heroes" front page of the Mail - imploring teachers to take the clear risk of teaching our kids in classrooms where social distancing and other mandatory precautions are simply impossible.
Once all this is over, I do expect some Health and Safety at Work actions, and telling teachers that their legal H&S can be ignored is a risky line to take for an employer...
Yes, teachers are occupationally exposed (as are some others, such as police) in ways that are difficult to mitigate by other means such as social distancing, ventilation, masks etc.
So are shelf stackers, cashiers, bus drivers etc
Do we totally scrap clinical need and clinical advice and just do whoever is popular?
It makes sense to grab 100 or so vaccines, visit a school, and vaccinate everyone r.
Classic of the sort of rubbish old new Labour are spouting.
Just 'grabbing a few vaccines' is diverting them, stealing them, from people who might die as a result.
We have already done that. We’ve taken jabs away from vulnerable old people and given them to young doctors, nurses, and care home staff? Where was your bleating then?
This has nothing to do with labour. I’m not interested in what Labour are saying on the matter, I’m giving my own opinion.
Yes but your 'grab a spare bundle of vaccines' is precisely the sort of rubbish old Labour used to spout on public spending. There are no spare bundles of vaccines lying around, just as there was never spare bundles of cash to throw at this or that white elephant.
Your point about doctors, nurses and care home staff honestly makes me wonder if someone else (your 5 yr old) is running your account this morning. You do realise that those people are keeping the sick from dying? You do understand what medical staff do? Have you ever been inside a hospital?
For every nurse or doctor who falls ill with covid another sick patient becomes more vulnerable, more at risk of dying, fewer people are vaccinated etc.
Teachers don't keep people alive. Medical staff do.
Wow. What a pathetic post.
We have nearly finished vaccinating the very vulnerable. What we are discussing is what happens next.
This is not a discussion about the very vulnerable vs teachers, its a discussion about about the mildly more vulnerable vs teachers. In a time with greater vaccine availability.
If the vaccines work as we think the death rate is going to plummet shortly and we will need to prioritise numbers rather than a perfect queuing system. Its more efficient to bring vaccines to a large number of people than it is to arrange appointments and bring people to the vaccine one at a time.
Now enough of your condescending and arrogant crap please.
Either the President of the Commission, a body which of course always acts with impeccable integrity and would never, say, impose an illegal ban on British beef exports to deflect attention from a vast outbreak of BSE in France, or the CEO of AstraZeneca, a pharmaceutical company who as we know are always models of charity and honesty.
Whichever one of them is lying, however, the losers are the citizens of the EU who have found their health and economic resilience turned into a political football over greater EU integration.
Which is really quite astonishingly unedifying.
The thing is that it won't be AZN as no lawyer would let a contract out with binding delivery dates on a new product where delivery is being outsourced.
And even if it is, AZN can't magic up something that doesn't exist.
The EU is doing itself zero favours here having f***ed up the most important project in decades.
I agree. With a new product to be scaled up fast in new facilities that I don't think the EMA has even approved for use yet (Germany did yesterday and there may be other breaking of the ranks) it is utterly inconceivable that Astra Zeneca committed themselves to a fixed delivery schedule with liability if they failed. So there is either a "best efforts" clause or an exclusion from any liability or damages which makes the contractual obligations meaningless and unenforceable. If it is the latter than van der Leyen might technically be telling the truth but very far from the whole truth.
Either the President of the Commission, a body which of course always acts with impeccable integrity and would never, say, impose an illegal ban on British beef exports to deflect attention from a vast outbreak of BSE in France, or the CEO of AstraZeneca, a pharmaceutical company who as we know are always models of charity and honesty.
Whichever one of them is lying, however, the losers are the citizens of the EU who have found their health and economic resilience turned into a political football over greater EU integration.
Which is really quite astonishingly unedifying.
The thing is that it won't be AZN as no lawyer would let a contract out with binding delivery dates on a new product where delivery is being outsourced.
And even if it is, AZN can't magic up something that doesn't exist.
The EU is doing itself zero favours here having f***ed up the most important project in decades.
I agree. With a new product to be scaled up fast in new facilities that I don't think the EMA has even approved for use yet (Germany did yesterday and there may be other breaking of the ranks) it is utterly inconceivable that Astra Zeneca committed themselves to a fixed delivery schedule with liability if they failed. So there is either a "best efforts" clause or an exclusion from any liability or damages which makes the contractual obligations meaningless and unenforceable. If it is the latter than van der Leyen might technically be telling the truth but very far from the whole truth.
So far the only thing we can be sure about is that the phrase "Best Effort" isn't in the document. But some similar clauses will be.
Well either that or their extremely well paid and experienced lawyers are spending their time with their professional indemnity insurers. I know what my money is on.
The odds
8% on the reports on the contract in the German press 92% on the reports in the press for AZN
Drug companies are good at writing contracts.
The EU President has a (personal) track record of screwing up contracts, trying to sue world leading companies for breach of contract and losing in court. And briefing to the press things about said contracts that turned out to be simply not true.
8% seems massively generous to me. Are you really offering to bet at 12.5/1 on VDL being right? I'd lay plenty of that.
Makes sense to vaccinate teachers/key workers ahead of others in same risk category who can work from home.
But vaccinating all teachers - as I understand Keir is calling for - is unjustified and Mike is right that it would likely lead to further unnecessary deaths. Disastrous idea from Starmer.
Maybe it's popular, but it would be the wrong thing to do.
The only thing vaccinating teachers does is ensure they stay in school while the pupils spread it amongst themselves and potentially to their families.
It's a plan but it will be trading some teaching for some deaths.
Worse the teaching will be as stop start as it was last term as cohorts of children are forced to isolate and classes are 50% in school and 50% remote.
Then why have we vaccinated young nurses, doctors, care home staff etc?
There has been no bleating about them taking away jabs from the vulnerable, which is exactly what they have done?
Why is it different for teachers?
I don’t have to touch lots of people infected with Covid.
I don’t have to look into the mouths of people infected from Covid.
If I go off sick, the Vice Principal swears and picks up the phone to a supply agency who teaches work I set. If doctors and nurses go off sick, people die.
I’ve been very outspoken about all the issues in education, and I have considerable personal respect for you, but I am afraid you have drawn a false equivalence there.
Incidentally, and while we’re on this subject, on a hasty glance at a couple of threads I saw Foxy taking a bit of flak. Can I politely suggest we don’t pile in on him? None of us are having fun right now, but he’s got it far worse than the lot of us put together. He’s watching people die, including colleagues, is working huge numbers of extra hours, and is having to walk around like a refugee from a SciFi set.
If he needs to come on and randomly vent to a lot of strangers, can I suggest we extend some sympathy to him and cheer him up with some awesome puns and cricket commentary rather than slagging him of? Lots of people did that for me when I was a bit low before Christmas and I deeply appreciated it. How about a ‘be nice to Foxy day?’
(My autocorrect made that ‘nice beer for Foxy’ day, which may work too!)
It makes sense to grab 100 or so vaccines, visit a school, and vaccinate everyone r.
Classic of the sort of rubbish old new Labour are spouting.
Just 'grabbing a few vaccines' is diverting them, stealing them, from people who might die as a result.
We have already done that. We’ve taken jabs away from vulnerable old people and given them to young doctors, nurses, and care home staff? Where was your bleating then?
This has nothing to do with labour. I’m not interested in what Labour are saying on the matter, I’m giving my own opinion.
Yes but your 'grab a spare bundle of vaccines' is precisely the sort of rubbish old Labour used to spout on public spending. There are no spare bundles of vaccines lying around, just as there was never spare bundles of cash to throw at this or that white elephant.
Your point about doctors, nurses and care home staff honestly makes me wonder if someone else (your 5 yr old) is running your account this morning. You do realise that those people are keeping the sick from dying? You do understand what medical staff do? Have you ever been inside a hospital?
For every nurse or doctor who falls ill with covid another sick patient becomes more vulnerable, more at risk of dying, fewer people are vaccinated etc.
Teachers don't keep people alive. Medical staff do.
Wow. What a pathetic post.
We have nearly finished vaccinating the very vulnerable. What we are discussing is what happens next.
This is not a discussion about the very vulnerable vs teachers, its a discussion about about the mildly more vulnerable vs teachers. In a time with greater vaccine availability.
If the vaccines work as we think the death rate is going to plummet shortly and we will need to prioritise numbers rather than a perfect queuing system. Its more efficient to bring vaccines to a large number of people than it is to arrange appointments and bring people to the vaccine one at a time.
Now enough of your condescending and arrogant crap please.
We're nowhere near finished vaccinating the vulnerable. There are 9 priority groups of vulnerable people, we're nearly done with group 4 of 9.
You're still pretending distribution is the issue instead of supply. Why?
This petty bickering can be dropped if we don't force schools to reopen early. Unlike last time they are better organised. Vulnerable children and those with no access to IT are actually going in. Those at home are getting a decent standard of teaching. So there is no need to do a Williamson and insist everyone goes back then scratch our heads wondering where that new big infection spike has come from.
As for the "selfish teachers" arguments, aren't they being made by people comfortably far away from the front line? There are people - teachers, shop workers, police, bus and taxi drivers etc - who aren't NHS staff but have to deal with the public for their job.
It isn't "these selfish interest groups will kill people", its these people risk infection and death every day at work and how do we protect them and the essential service they carry out. And the best way to protect teachers is not to reopen schools fully until at least Easter.
Makes sense to vaccinate teachers/key workers ahead of others in same risk category who can work from home.
But vaccinating all teachers - as I understand Keir is calling for - is unjustified and Mike is right that it would likely lead to further unnecessary deaths. Disastrous idea from Starmer.
Maybe it's popular, but it would be the wrong thing to do.
The only thing vaccinating teachers does is ensure they stay in school while the pupils spread it amongst themselves and potentially to their families.
It's a plan but it will be trading some teaching for some deaths.
Worse the teaching will be as stop start as it was last term as cohorts of children are forced to isolate and classes are 50% in school and 50% remote.
Then why have we vaccinated young nurses, doctors, care home staff etc?
There has been no bleating about them taking away jabs from the vulnerable, which is exactly what they have done?
Why is it different for teachers?
Because they're superspreaders to the extremely vulnerable patients that they work with. A fifth of all deaths and hospitalisations come from care homes. Hospital acquired infections are mammoth too. Plus its going from patient to staff to patient - not direct patient to patient mixing.
Completely different from schools where there are compared to care homes next to no direct deaths and infections coming from schools, the issue with schools is that they are spreading it within the community as kids pass it to each other asymptomatically.
We don’t know what effect the vaccines have on transmission so that doesn’t hold water I’m afraid.
And if the vaccine does prevent transmission, then the priority is getting it into as many arms as possible as quickly as possible without these stupid arguments. If it’s more efficient to take a few vaccines to one place, like a school (which it is) and vaccinate everyone, we should do that.
Instead we have selfish older people demanding their vaccines first above all else.
I think it is OK to do it by age ... because it gives another argument that, when the bill comes in, old people are expected to make sacrifices for the young.
We did the vaccines so that the old were prioritised, now it is the older generations turn to give back.
The problem with promoting the teachers is obvious from the Mirror's table. Why not promote "Other staff working in emergency services" or "Police officers"? Once the teachers have advanced their case and won it, there will many more special interest groups who need priority. It will become a squabbling, complicated mess.
I think it really is best to just keep it simple and get it done really quickly, as OGH suggests.
Either the President of the Commission, a body which of course always acts with impeccable integrity and would never, say, impose an illegal ban on British beef exports to deflect attention from a vast outbreak of BSE in France, or the CEO of AstraZeneca, a pharmaceutical company who as we know are always models of charity and honesty.
Whichever one of them is lying, however, the losers are the citizens of the EU who have found their health and economic resilience turned into a political football over greater EU integration.
Which is really quite astonishingly unedifying.
The thing is that it won't be AZN as no lawyer would let a contract out with binding delivery dates on a new product where delivery is being outsourced.
And even if it is, AZN can't magic up something that doesn't exist.
The EU is doing itself zero favours here having f***ed up the most important project in decades.
I agree. With a new product to be scaled up fast in new facilities that I don't think the EMA has even approved for use yet (Germany did yesterday and there may be other breaking of the ranks) it is utterly inconceivable that Astra Zeneca committed themselves to a fixed delivery schedule with liability if they failed. So there is either a "best efforts" clause or an exclusion from any liability or damages which makes the contractual obligations meaningless and unenforceable. If it is the latter than van der Leyen might technically be telling the truth but very far from the whole truth.
Either the President of the Commission, a body which of course always acts with impeccable integrity and would never, say, impose an illegal ban on British beef exports to deflect attention from a vast outbreak of BSE in France, or the CEO of AstraZeneca, a pharmaceutical company who as we know are always models of charity and honesty.
Whichever one of them is lying, however, the losers are the citizens of the EU who have found their health and economic resilience turned into a political football over greater EU integration.
Which is really quite astonishingly unedifying.
The thing is that it won't be AZN as no lawyer would let a contract out with binding delivery dates on a new product where delivery is being outsourced.
And even if it is, AZN can't magic up something that doesn't exist.
The EU is doing itself zero favours here having f***ed up the most important project in decades.
I agree. With a new product to be scaled up fast in new facilities that I don't think the EMA has even approved for use yet (Germany did yesterday and there may be other breaking of the ranks) it is utterly inconceivable that Astra Zeneca committed themselves to a fixed delivery schedule with liability if they failed. So there is either a "best efforts" clause or an exclusion from any liability or damages which makes the contractual obligations meaningless and unenforceable. If it is the latter than van der Leyen might technically be telling the truth but very far from the whole truth.
So far the only thing we can be sure about is that the phrase "Best Effort" isn't in the document. But some similar clauses will be.
Well either that or their extremely well paid and experienced lawyers are spending their time with their professional indemnity insurers. I know what my money is on.
The odds
8% on the reports on the contract in the German press 92% on the reports in the press for AZN
Drug companies are good at writing contracts.
The EU President has a (personal) track record of screwing up contracts, trying to sue world leading companies for breach of contract and losing in court. And briefing to the press things about said contracts that turned out to be simply not true.
8% seems massively generous to me. Are you really offering to bet at 12.5/1 on VDL being right? I'd lay plenty of that.
It makes sense to grab 100 or so vaccines, visit a school, and vaccinate everyone r.
Classic of the sort of rubbish old new Labour are spouting.
Just 'grabbing a few vaccines' is diverting them, stealing them, from people who might die as a result.
We have already done that. We’ve taken jabs away from vulnerable old people and given them to young doctors, nurses, and care home staff? Where was your bleating then?
This has nothing to do with labour. I’m not interested in what Labour are saying on the matter, I’m giving my own opinion.
Yes but your 'grab a spare bundle of vaccines' is precisely the sort of rubbish old Labour used to spout on public spending. There are no spare bundles of vaccines lying around, just as there was never spare bundles of cash to throw at this or that white elephant.
Your point about doctors, nurses and care home staff honestly makes me wonder if someone else (your 5 yr old) is running your account this morning. You do realise that those people are keeping the sick from dying? You do understand what medical staff do? Have you ever been inside a hospital?
For every nurse or doctor who falls ill with covid another sick patient becomes more vulnerable, more at risk of dying, fewer people are vaccinated etc.
Teachers don't keep people alive. Medical staff do.
Wow. What a pathetic post.
We have nearly finished vaccinating the very vulnerable. What we are discussing is what happens next.
This is not a discussion about the very vulnerable vs teachers, its a discussion about about the mildly more vulnerable vs teachers. In a time with greater vaccine availability.
If the vaccines work as we think the death rate is going to plummet shortly and we will need to prioritise numbers rather than a perfect queuing system. Its more efficient to bring vaccines to a large number of people than it is to arrange appointments and bring people to the vaccine one at a time.
Now enough of your condescending and arrogant crap please.
We're nowhere near finished vaccinating the vulnerable. There are 9 priority groups of vulnerable people, we're nearly done with group 4 of 9.
You're still pretending distribution is the issue instead of supply. Why?
I’m talking about the future where supply is greater. I’m not advocating that teachers should be given jabs now.
It makes sense to grab 100 or so vaccines, visit a school, and vaccinate everyone r.
Classic of the sort of rubbish old new Labour are spouting.
Just 'grabbing a few vaccines' is diverting them, stealing them, from people who might die as a result.
We have already done that. We’ve taken jabs away from vulnerable old people and given them to young doctors, nurses, and care home staff? Where was your bleating then?
This has nothing to do with labour. I’m not interested in what Labour are saying on the matter, I’m giving my own opinion.
Yes but your 'grab a spare bundle of vaccines' is precisely the sort of rubbish old Labour used to spout on public spending. There are no spare bundles of vaccines lying around, just as there was never spare bundles of cash to throw at this or that white elephant. You 'grab a spare bundle of vaccines' and you're pushing a vulnerable group of people further down the waiting list.
Your point about doctors, nurses and care home staff honestly makes me wonder if someone else (your 5 yr old) is running your account this morning. You do realise that those people are keeping the sick from dying? You do understand what medical staff do? Have you ever been inside a hospital?
For every nurse or doctor who falls ill with covid another sick patient becomes more vulnerable, more at risk of dying, fewer people are vaccinated etc.
Teachers don't keep people alive. Medical staff do.
Currently 12% of our hospital staff are off sick or isolating, three times the usual level of sickness. 10% of those in our ICU are healthcare workers, the oldest of these is 10 years younger than me.
I wonder if it is a heightened dosage of virus at initial exposure, as also in bus drivers etc.
Drakeford holding the line on teachers “we follow the JCVI”.
Drakeford more of a leader for the Labour Party than Keir Starmer.
What a joke.
Keir Starmer has one over-riding objective and that is to get into power. Without power he can do nothing.
To get into power Starmer needs to be popular so he picks up popular causes (teacher jabs) and promotes flag and family. He promotes the popular things rather than the right things. He can't actually DO anything as he is not in power.
I don't like it but I understand why he is doing it.
Labour are in power.
Labour are in power in Wales.
They can carry out this policy right now, if they want.
They can DO things right now.
Only until May!
On the back of the whirlwind of Welsh Labour Government incompetence over pro-rata deaths, closed businesses, empty shelves and pathetic vaccine provision. Incompetence viewed through the prism of an inch-perfect vaccine provision performance in England under a Conservative administration.
I am open-minded on this and willing to be convinced either way.
Basically, reopening schools should be the number one national priority - above every else. Missing a couple of lessons can throw a kid off course, and make it hard to catch-up, and we've lost at least two terms in the last year. It's going to affect these kids for life.
We've already made healthcare and social workers top priority in recognition they work in hospitals and carehomes. Depending on the transmission vector I could see a similar case for schools.
There are c.450k teachers in England. Let's say (conservatively) 600k in the UK. Vaccinating them ahead would probably take 2-3 weeks. Let's say that doing that over and above the over 60s cost an extra 80 deaths a day in that period, so a maximum of an extra 1,700 deaths - with some lag effect. Would I take that choice?
Yes, I might - if it would make a decisive difference to the education of 10 million schoolchildren (our future) and got them all back on track, whilst also allowing their parents to return to work.
That might sound callous but Governments make such calculations all the time and we shouldn't be shy of doing the same if and when the evidence changes.
One thing about teachers, schools shouldn't be opened till they're two weeks past a first vaccine. It might not be a sufficient measure to reopen (Spread amongst children), but it is a neccessary one.
Makes sense to vaccinate teachers/key workers ahead of others in same risk category who can work from home.
But vaccinating all teachers - as I understand Keir is calling for - is unjustified and Mike is right that it would likely lead to further unnecessary deaths. Disastrous idea from Starmer.
Maybe it's popular, but it would be the wrong thing to do.
The only thing vaccinating teachers does is ensure they stay in school while the pupils spread it amongst themselves and potentially to their families.
It's a plan but it will be trading some teaching for some deaths.
Worse the teaching will be as stop start as it was last term as cohorts of children are forced to isolate and classes are 50% in school and 50% remote.
Then why have we vaccinated young nurses, doctors, care home staff etc?
There has been no bleating about them taking away jabs from the vulnerable, which is exactly what they have done?
Why is it different for teachers?
I don’t have to touch lots of people infected with Covid.
I don’t have to look into the mouths of people infected from Covid.
If I go off sick, the Vice Principal swears and picks up the phone to a supply agency who teaches work I set. If doctors and nurses go off sick, people die.
I’ve been very outspoken about all the issues in education, and I have considerable personal respect for you, but I am afraid you have drawn a false equivalence there.
Incidentally, and while we’re on this subject, on a hasty glance at a couple of threads I saw Foxy taking a bit of flak. Can I politely suggest we don’t pile in on him? None of us are having fun right now, but he’s got it far worse than the lot of us put together. He’s watching people die, including colleagues, is working huge numbers of extra hours, and is having to walk around like a refugee from a SciFi set.
If he needs to come on and randomly vent to a lot of strangers, can I suggest we extend some sympathy to him and cheer him up with some awesome puns and cricket commentary rather than slagging him of? Lots of people did that for me when I was a bit low before Christmas and I deeply appreciated it. How about a ‘be nice to Foxy day?’
(My autocorrect made that ‘nice beer for Foxy’ day, which may work too!)
Excellent post. I really couldn't agree more but I do think teachers dealing with kids face to face need protection. As you have pointed out before several have died already.
This petty bickering can be dropped if we don't force schools to reopen early. Unlike last time they are better organised. Vulnerable children and those with no access to IT are actually going in. Those at home are getting a decent standard of teaching. So there is no need to do a Williamson and insist everyone goes back then scratch our heads wondering where that new big infection spike has come from.
As for the "selfish teachers" arguments, aren't they being made by people comfortably far away from the front line? There are people - teachers, shop workers, police, bus and taxi drivers etc - who aren't NHS staff but have to deal with the public for their job.
It isn't "these selfish interest groups will kill people", its these people risk infection and death every day at work and how do we protect them and the essential service they carry out. And the best way to protect teachers is not to reopen schools fully until at least Easter.
Teachers aren't being selfish.
Other people are doing the worst kind of populist signalling by pretending they can "be kind to teachers" by giving them the vaccine without taking doses away from the vulnerable.
It is noteworthy that a spokesperson for a teacher's union was on Sky yesterday saying that they do not believe teachers should come before those who clinically need the vaccine first and the clinical priority list should be followed.
When even Teacher's Unions are saying follow the clinical order, there is no excuse for saying not to follow it. It is dangerous populism of the worst sort that would lead to people dying if followed.
Young nurses, carehome workers etc are getting vaccinated to protect others. The campaign to vaccinate teachers is predicated on protecting teachers.
Assuming something not dodgy in the poll, public support for vaccinating teachers is probably driven by 1) media and Labour party campaigning 2) a mistaken belief that vaccinating teachers will accelerate school reopening (which it will only do to the extent that schools opening might be jeopardised by teachers striking).
I think the Daily Mirror Poll is well worth following .... with respect to journalists.
At 1% and 1 % in the two columns, they are actually behind convicted prisoners & bankers.
Sounds good.
Once everyone else in the UK has been jabbed, we ask Pesto, JHB, Tobes, Polly, anyone working for the Daily Merkle, etc ... to line up nicely for their vaccine.
Because the media performance has been truly disgraceful.
Makes sense to vaccinate teachers/key workers ahead of others in same risk category who can work from home.
But vaccinating all teachers - as I understand Keir is calling for - is unjustified and Mike is right that it would likely lead to further unnecessary deaths. Disastrous idea from Starmer.
Maybe it's popular, but it would be the wrong thing to do.
The only thing vaccinating teachers does is ensure they stay in school while the pupils spread it amongst themselves and potentially to their families.
It's a plan but it will be trading some teaching for some deaths.
Worse the teaching will be as stop start as it was last term as cohorts of children are forced to isolate and classes are 50% in school and 50% remote.
Then why have we vaccinated young nurses, doctors, care home staff etc?
There has been no bleating about them taking away jabs from the vulnerable, which is exactly what they have done?
Why is it different for teachers?
Because they're superspreaders to the extremely vulnerable patients that they work with. A fifth of all deaths and hospitalisations come from care homes. Hospital acquired infections are mammoth too. Plus its going from patient to staff to patient - not direct patient to patient mixing.
Completely different from schools where there are compared to care homes next to no direct deaths and infections coming from schools, the issue with schools is that they are spreading it within the community as kids pass it to each other asymptomatically.
We don’t know what effect the vaccines have on transmission so that doesn’t hold water I’m afraid.
And if the vaccine does prevent transmission, then the priority is getting it into as many arms as possible as quickly as possible without these stupid arguments. If it’s more efficient to take a few vaccines to one place, like a school (which it is) and vaccinate everyone, we should do that.
Instead we have selfish older people demanding their vaccines first above all else.
I think it is OK to do it by age ... because it gives another argument that, when the bill comes in, old people are expected to make sacrifices for the young.
We did the vaccines so that the old were prioritised, now it is the older generations turn to give back.
The problem with promoting the teachers is obvious from the Mirror's table. Why not promote "Other staff working in emergency services" or "Police officers"? Once the teachers have advanced their case and won it, there will many more special interest groups who need priority. It will become a squabbling, complicated mess.
I think it really is best to just keep it simple and get it done really quickly, as OGH suggests.
I also think it would make sense to take the vaccine to police stations, fire stations, supermarkets, etc to get as many people vaccinated as quickly as possible. If the vaccine does stop transmission then herd immunity protects everyone, and herd immunity relies on numbers, and especially those in public facing positions.
I say this as someone who is higher risk, I’m immune suppressed, despite being young-ish.
Either the President of the Commission, a body which of course always acts with impeccable integrity and would never, say, impose an illegal ban on British beef exports to deflect attention from a vast outbreak of BSE in France, or the CEO of AstraZeneca, a pharmaceutical company who as we know are always models of charity and honesty.
Whichever one of them is lying, however, the losers are the citizens of the EU who have found their health and economic resilience turned into a political football over greater EU integration.
Which is really quite astonishingly unedifying.
The thing is that it won't be AZN as no lawyer would let a contract out with binding delivery dates on a new product where delivery is being outsourced.
And even if it is, AZN can't magic up something that doesn't exist.
The EU is doing itself zero favours here having f***ed up the most important project in decades.
I agree. With a new product to be scaled up fast in new facilities that I don't think the EMA has even approved for use yet (Germany did yesterday and there may be other breaking of the ranks) it is utterly inconceivable that Astra Zeneca committed themselves to a fixed delivery schedule with liability if they failed. So there is either a "best efforts" clause or an exclusion from any liability or damages which makes the contractual obligations meaningless and unenforceable. If it is the latter than van der Leyen might technically be telling the truth but very far from the whole truth.
Either the President of the Commission, a body which of course always acts with impeccable integrity and would never, say, impose an illegal ban on British beef exports to deflect attention from a vast outbreak of BSE in France, or the CEO of AstraZeneca, a pharmaceutical company who as we know are always models of charity and honesty.
Whichever one of them is lying, however, the losers are the citizens of the EU who have found their health and economic resilience turned into a political football over greater EU integration.
Which is really quite astonishingly unedifying.
The thing is that it won't be AZN as no lawyer would let a contract out with binding delivery dates on a new product where delivery is being outsourced.
And even if it is, AZN can't magic up something that doesn't exist.
The EU is doing itself zero favours here having f***ed up the most important project in decades.
I agree. With a new product to be scaled up fast in new facilities that I don't think the EMA has even approved for use yet (Germany did yesterday and there may be other breaking of the ranks) it is utterly inconceivable that Astra Zeneca committed themselves to a fixed delivery schedule with liability if they failed. So there is either a "best efforts" clause or an exclusion from any liability or damages which makes the contractual obligations meaningless and unenforceable. If it is the latter than van der Leyen might technically be telling the truth but very far from the whole truth.
So far the only thing we can be sure about is that the phrase "Best Effort" isn't in the document. But some similar clauses will be.
Well either that or their extremely well paid and experienced lawyers are spending their time with their professional indemnity insurers. I know what my money is on.
The odds
8% on the reports on the contract in the German press 92% on the reports in the press for AZN
Drug companies are good at writing contracts.
The EU President has a (personal) track record of screwing up contracts, trying to sue world leading companies for breach of contract and losing in court. And briefing to the press things about said contracts that turned out to be simply not true.
8% seems massively generous to me. Are you really offering to bet at 12.5/1 on VDL being right? I'd lay plenty of that.
I was being sarcastic. "8%" in the context of a German press story on vaccines.... last time that turned out to be er.... horse manure.
0.8% maybe.
The strong rumour from my German friends is that VDL is currently being made to walk the plank. The exact point where she falls into the sea is not determined yet...
Makes sense to vaccinate teachers/key workers ahead of others in same risk category who can work from home.
But vaccinating all teachers - as I understand Keir is calling for - is unjustified and Mike is right that it would likely lead to further unnecessary deaths. Disastrous idea from Starmer.
Maybe it's popular, but it would be the wrong thing to do.
The only thing vaccinating teachers does is ensure they stay in school while the pupils spread it amongst themselves and potentially to their families.
It's a plan but it will be trading some teaching for some deaths.
Worse the teaching will be as stop start as it was last term as cohorts of children are forced to isolate and classes are 50% in school and 50% remote.
Then why have we vaccinated young nurses, doctors, care home staff etc?
Because if they die or even fall ill and have to take time off from their work then the UK death rate would soar. Without nurses to look after the sick more people die.
Is your 5 yr old running your account this morning?
Makes sense to vaccinate teachers/key workers ahead of others in same risk category who can work from home.
But vaccinating all teachers - as I understand Keir is calling for - is unjustified and Mike is right that it would likely lead to further unnecessary deaths. Disastrous idea from Starmer.
Maybe it's popular, but it would be the wrong thing to do.
The only thing vaccinating teachers does is ensure they stay in school while the pupils spread it amongst themselves and potentially to their families.
It's a plan but it will be trading some teaching for some deaths.
Worse the teaching will be as stop start as it was last term as cohorts of children are forced to isolate and classes are 50% in school and 50% remote.
Then why have we vaccinated young nurses, doctors, care home staff etc?
There has been no bleating about them taking away jabs from the vulnerable, which is exactly what they have done?
Why is it different for teachers?
I don’t have to touch lots of people infected with Covid.
I don’t have to look into the mouths of people infected from Covid.
If I go off sick, the Vice Principal swears and picks up the phone to a supply agency who teaches work I set. If doctors and nurses go off sick, people die.
I’ve been very outspoken about all the issues in education, and I have considerable personal respect for you, but I am afraid you have drawn a false equivalence there.
Incidentally, and while we’re on this subject, on a hasty glance at a couple of threads I saw Foxy taking a bit of flak. Can I politely suggest we don’t pile in on him? None of us are having fun right now, but he’s got it far worse than the lot of us put together. He’s watching people die, including colleagues, is working huge numbers of extra hours, and is having to walk around like a refugee from a SciFi set.
If he needs to come on and randomly vent to a lot of strangers, can I suggest we extend some sympathy to him and cheer him up with some awesome puns and cricket commentary rather than slagging him of? Lots of people did that for me when I was a bit low before Christmas and I deeply appreciated it. How about a ‘be nice to Foxy day?’
(My autocorrect made that ‘nice beer for Foxy’ day, which may work too!)
Excellent post. I really couldn't agree more but I do think teachers dealing with kids face to face need protection. As you have pointed out before several have died already.
I want teachers protected as much as the next person (because that’s another teacher)
But it’s feck all use protecting teachers to reopen schools if the price is dead parents through in school transmission. And I have been consistent in saying that.
Another point she made was using the NHS to run trials quickly and efficiently - an advantage we have over countries with fragmented health systems. If you want to get your drug on the market - come to the UK!
Makes sense to vaccinate teachers/key workers ahead of others in same risk category who can work from home.
But vaccinating all teachers - as I understand Keir is calling for - is unjustified and Mike is right that it would likely lead to further unnecessary deaths. Disastrous idea from Starmer.
Maybe it's popular, but it would be the wrong thing to do.
The only thing vaccinating teachers does is ensure they stay in school while the pupils spread it amongst themselves and potentially to their families.
It's a plan but it will be trading some teaching for some deaths.
Worse the teaching will be as stop start as it was last term as cohorts of children are forced to isolate and classes are 50% in school and 50% remote.
Then why have we vaccinated young nurses, doctors, care home staff etc?
There has been no bleating about them taking away jabs from the vulnerable, which is exactly what they have done?
Why is it different for teachers?
Because they're superspreaders to the extremely vulnerable patients that they work with. A fifth of all deaths and hospitalisations come from care homes. Hospital acquired infections are mammoth too. Plus its going from patient to staff to patient - not direct patient to patient mixing.
Completely different from schools where there are compared to care homes next to no direct deaths and infections coming from schools, the issue with schools is that they are spreading it within the community as kids pass it to each other asymptomatically.
We don’t know what effect the vaccines have on transmission so that doesn’t hold water I’m afraid.
And if the vaccine does prevent transmission, then the priority is getting it into as many arms as possible as quickly as possible without these stupid arguments. If it’s more efficient to take a few vaccines to one place, like a school (which it is) and vaccinate everyone, we should do that.
Instead we have selfish older people demanding their vaccines first above all else.
I think it is OK to do it by age ... because it gives another argument that, when the bill comes in, old people are expected to make sacrifices for the young.
We did the vaccines so that the old were prioritised, now it is the older generations turn to give back.
The problem with promoting the teachers is obvious from the Mirror's table. Why not promote "Other staff working in emergency services" or "Police officers"? Once the teachers have advanced their case and won it, there will many more special interest groups who need priority. It will become a squabbling, complicated mess.
I think it really is best to just keep it simple and get it done really quickly, as OGH suggests.
I also think it would make sense to take the vaccine to police stations, fire stations, supermarkets, etc to get as many people vaccinated as quickly as possible. If the vaccine does stop transmission then herd immunity protects everyone, and herd immunity relies on numbers, and especially those in public facing positions.
I say this as someone who is higher risk, I’m immune suppressed, despite being young-ish.
But distribution is not the issue. Supply is.
If distribution ever becomes the issue then absolutely other stuff will be done.
If you're immuno-suppresed then surely you should be on the priority list. If not in Group 4, then Group 6. Diverting supplies now from continuing with the priority list means delaying when people in Group 6 get their vaccine.
It makes sense to grab 100 or so vaccines, visit a school, and vaccinate everyone r.
Classic of the sort of rubbish old new Labour are spouting.
Just 'grabbing a few vaccines' is diverting them, stealing them, from people who might die as a result.
We have already done that. We’ve taken jabs away from vulnerable old people and given them to young doctors, nurses, and care home staff? Where was your bleating then?
This has nothing to do with labour. I’m not interested in what Labour are saying on the matter, I’m giving my own opinion.
Yes but your 'grab a spare bundle of vaccines' is precisely the sort of rubbish old Labour used to spout on public spending. There are no spare bundles of vaccines lying around, just as there was never spare bundles of cash to throw at this or that white elephant. You 'grab a spare bundle of vaccines' and you're pushing a vulnerable group of people further down the waiting list.
Your point about doctors, nurses and care home staff honestly makes me wonder if someone else (your 5 yr old) is running your account this morning. You do realise that those people are keeping the sick from dying? You do understand what medical staff do? Have you ever been inside a hospital?
For every nurse or doctor who falls ill with covid another sick patient becomes more vulnerable, more at risk of dying, fewer people are vaccinated etc.
Teachers don't keep people alive. Medical staff do.
Currently 12% of our hospital staff are off sick or isolating, three times the usual level of sickness. 10% of those in our ICU are healthcare workers, the oldest of these is 10 years younger than me.
I wonder if it is a heightened dosage of virus at initial exposure, as also in bus drivers etc.
Isn't heightened dosage of virus at initial exposure to be a key indicator just what you'd expect from the biology?
Either the President of the Commission, a body which of course always acts with impeccable integrity and would never, say, impose an illegal ban on British beef exports to deflect attention from a vast outbreak of BSE in France, or the CEO of AstraZeneca, a pharmaceutical company who as we know are always models of charity and honesty.
Whichever one of them is lying, however, the losers are the citizens of the EU who have found their health and economic resilience turned into a political football over greater EU integration.
Which is really quite astonishingly unedifying.
The thing is that it won't be AZN as no lawyer would let a contract out with binding delivery dates on a new product where delivery is being outsourced.
And even if it is, AZN can't magic up something that doesn't exist.
The EU is doing itself zero favours here having f***ed up the most important project in decades.
I agree. With a new product to be scaled up fast in new facilities that I don't think the EMA has even approved for use yet (Germany did yesterday and there may be other breaking of the ranks) it is utterly inconceivable that Astra Zeneca committed themselves to a fixed delivery schedule with liability if they failed. So there is either a "best efforts" clause or an exclusion from any liability or damages which makes the contractual obligations meaningless and unenforceable. If it is the latter than van der Leyen might technically be telling the truth but very far from the whole truth.
Either the President of the Commission, a body which of course always acts with impeccable integrity and would never, say, impose an illegal ban on British beef exports to deflect attention from a vast outbreak of BSE in France, or the CEO of AstraZeneca, a pharmaceutical company who as we know are always models of charity and honesty.
Whichever one of them is lying, however, the losers are the citizens of the EU who have found their health and economic resilience turned into a political football over greater EU integration.
Which is really quite astonishingly unedifying.
The thing is that it won't be AZN as no lawyer would let a contract out with binding delivery dates on a new product where delivery is being outsourced.
And even if it is, AZN can't magic up something that doesn't exist.
The EU is doing itself zero favours here having f***ed up the most important project in decades.
I agree. With a new product to be scaled up fast in new facilities that I don't think the EMA has even approved for use yet (Germany did yesterday and there may be other breaking of the ranks) it is utterly inconceivable that Astra Zeneca committed themselves to a fixed delivery schedule with liability if they failed. So there is either a "best efforts" clause or an exclusion from any liability or damages which makes the contractual obligations meaningless and unenforceable. If it is the latter than van der Leyen might technically be telling the truth but very far from the whole truth.
So far the only thing we can be sure about is that the phrase "Best Effort" isn't in the document. But some similar clauses will be.
Well either that or their extremely well paid and experienced lawyers are spending their time with their professional indemnity insurers. I know what my money is on.
The odds
8% on the reports on the contract in the German press 92% on the reports in the press for AZN
Drug companies are good at writing contracts.
The EU President has a (personal) track record of screwing up contracts, trying to sue world leading companies for breach of contract and losing in court. And briefing to the press things about said contracts that turned out to be simply not true.
8% seems massively generous to me. Are you really offering to bet at 12.5/1 on VDL being right? I'd lay plenty of that.
I was being sarcastic. "8%" in the context of a German press story on vaccines.... last time that turned out to be er.... horse manure.
0.8% maybe.
The strong rumour from my German friends is that VDL is currently being made to walk the plank. The exact point where she falls into the sea is not determined yet...
Sorry, I am even slower than usual this morning. Need more coffee.
Makes sense to vaccinate teachers/key workers ahead of others in same risk category who can work from home.
But vaccinating all teachers - as I understand Keir is calling for - is unjustified and Mike is right that it would likely lead to further unnecessary deaths. Disastrous idea from Starmer.
Maybe it's popular, but it would be the wrong thing to do.
The only thing vaccinating teachers does is ensure they stay in school while the pupils spread it amongst themselves and potentially to their families.
It's a plan but it will be trading some teaching for some deaths.
Worse the teaching will be as stop start as it was last term as cohorts of children are forced to isolate and classes are 50% in school and 50% remote.
Then why have we vaccinated young nurses, doctors, care home staff etc?
There has been no bleating about them taking away jabs from the vulnerable, which is exactly what they have done?
Why is it different for teachers?
I don’t have to touch lots of people infected with Covid.
I don’t have to look into the mouths of people infected from Covid.
If I go off sick, the Vice Principal swears and picks up the phone to a supply agency who teaches work I set. If doctors and nurses go off sick, people die.
I’ve been very outspoken about all the issues in education, and I have considerable personal respect for you, but I am afraid you have drawn a false equivalence there.
Incidentally, and while we’re on this subject, on a hasty glance at a couple of threads I saw Foxy taking a bit of flak. Can I politely suggest we don’t pile in on him? None of us are having fun right now, but he’s got it far worse than the lot of us put together. He’s watching people die, including colleagues, is working huge numbers of extra hours, and is having to walk around like a refugee from a SciFi set.
If he needs to come on and randomly vent to a lot of strangers, can I suggest we extend some sympathy to him and cheer him up with some awesome puns and cricket commentary rather than slagging him of? Lots of people did that for me when I was a bit low before Christmas and I deeply appreciated it. How about a ‘be nice to Foxy day?’
(My autocorrect made that ‘nice beer for Foxy’ day, which may work too!)
Excellent post. I really couldn't agree more but I do think teachers dealing with kids face to face need protection. As you have pointed out before several have died already.
"Teachers dealing with kids face to face need protection" is a meaningless statement. We all need protection. The only question is who needs it most, and first. So if you're going to make a statement like that, tell us who in the current priority list they should jump over, and how many extra deaths you might be prepared to see if that is the case.
Makes sense to vaccinate teachers/key workers ahead of others in same risk category who can work from home.
But vaccinating all teachers - as I understand Keir is calling for - is unjustified and Mike is right that it would likely lead to further unnecessary deaths. Disastrous idea from Starmer.
Maybe it's popular, but it would be the wrong thing to do.
The only thing vaccinating teachers does is ensure they stay in school while the pupils spread it amongst themselves and potentially to their families.
It's a plan but it will be trading some teaching for some deaths.
Worse the teaching will be as stop start as it was last term as cohorts of children are forced to isolate and classes are 50% in school and 50% remote.
Then why have we vaccinated young nurses, doctors, care home staff etc?
There has been no bleating about them taking away jabs from the vulnerable, which is exactly what they have done?
Why is it different for teachers?
I don’t have to touch lots of people infected with Covid.
I don’t have to look into the mouths of people infected from Covid.
If I go off sick, the Vice Principal swears and picks up the phone to a supply agency who teaches work I set. If doctors and nurses go off sick, people die.
I’ve been very outspoken about all the issues in education, and I have considerable personal respect for you, but I am afraid you have drawn a false equivalence there.
Incidentally, and while we’re on this subject, on a hasty glance at a couple of threads I saw Foxy taking a bit of flak. Can I politely suggest we don’t pile in on him? None of us are having fun right now, but he’s got it far worse than the lot of us put together. He’s watching people die, including colleagues, is working huge numbers of extra hours, and is having to walk around like a refugee from a SciFi set.
If he needs to come on and randomly vent to a lot of strangers, can I suggest we extend some sympathy to him and cheer him up with some awesome puns and cricket commentary rather than slagging him of? Lots of people did that for me when I was a bit low before Christmas and I deeply appreciated it. How about a ‘be nice to Foxy day?’
(My autocorrect made that ‘nice beer for Foxy’ day, which may work too!)
Excellent post. I really couldn't agree more but I do think teachers dealing with kids face to face need protection. As you have pointed out before several have died already.
I want teachers protected as much as the next person (because that’s another teacher)
But it’s feck all use protecting teachers to reopen schools if the price is dead parents through in school transmission. And I have been consistent in saying that.
And Teacher's Unions are saying that. They've impressed me on that, well done. 👍🏻
One thing about teachers, schools shouldn't be opened till they're two weeks past a first vaccine. It might not be a sufficient measure to reopen (Spread amongst children), but it is a neccessary one.
That only works if teachers are vaccinated together. Otherwise you’ll have older teachers already vaccinated, and younger teachers either not vaccinated or perhaps only just been vaccinated.
Realistically schools are probably not going to reopen this school year are they? I doubt my university will.
Either the President of the Commission, a body which of course always acts with impeccable integrity and would never, say, impose an illegal ban on British beef exports to deflect attention from a vast outbreak of BSE in France, or the CEO of AstraZeneca, a pharmaceutical company who as we know are always models of charity and honesty.
Whichever one of them is lying, however, the losers are the citizens of the EU who have found their health and economic resilience turned into a political football over greater EU integration.
Which is really quite astonishingly unedifying.
The thing is that it won't be AZN as no lawyer would let a contract out with binding delivery dates on a new product where delivery is being outsourced.
And even if it is, AZN can't magic up something that doesn't exist.
The EU is doing itself zero favours here having f***ed up the most important project in decades.
I agree. With a new product to be scaled up fast in new facilities that I don't think the EMA has even approved for use yet (Germany did yesterday and there may be other breaking of the ranks) it is utterly inconceivable that Astra Zeneca committed themselves to a fixed delivery schedule with liability if they failed. So there is either a "best efforts" clause or an exclusion from any liability or damages which makes the contractual obligations meaningless and unenforceable. If it is the latter than van der Leyen might technically be telling the truth but very far from the whole truth.
Either the President of the Commission, a body which of course always acts with impeccable integrity and would never, say, impose an illegal ban on British beef exports to deflect attention from a vast outbreak of BSE in France, or the CEO of AstraZeneca, a pharmaceutical company who as we know are always models of charity and honesty.
Whichever one of them is lying, however, the losers are the citizens of the EU who have found their health and economic resilience turned into a political football over greater EU integration.
Which is really quite astonishingly unedifying.
The thing is that it won't be AZN as no lawyer would let a contract out with binding delivery dates on a new product where delivery is being outsourced.
And even if it is, AZN can't magic up something that doesn't exist.
The EU is doing itself zero favours here having f***ed up the most important project in decades.
I agree. With a new product to be scaled up fast in new facilities that I don't think the EMA has even approved for use yet (Germany did yesterday and there may be other breaking of the ranks) it is utterly inconceivable that Astra Zeneca committed themselves to a fixed delivery schedule with liability if they failed. So there is either a "best efforts" clause or an exclusion from any liability or damages which makes the contractual obligations meaningless and unenforceable. If it is the latter than van der Leyen might technically be telling the truth but very far from the whole truth.
So far the only thing we can be sure about is that the phrase "Best Effort" isn't in the document. But some similar clauses will be.
I don't think we can be sure of that. The published contract with another supplier (won't be the same as AZN's but will be similar) explicitly uses the phrase - and the CEO of AZN said he was quoting from the contract when he used the phrase too.
I expect VDL has scored a spectacular own goal in denying the phrase exists when it in fact does.
Probably, although it wouldn't surprise me (if we ever find out the details) that it will turn out that AZN haven't covered themselves in glory in this affair either. I'm also uncomfortable with confidential contracts in the case of these vaccines. Publish the contracts, then we can all see what is going on. The public interest surely overrides commercial confidentiality during a global pandemic.
AZN did manage to make several unforced errors with the trials, so maybe they are just continuing to screw things up.
Either the President of the Commission, a body which of course always acts with impeccable integrity and would never, say, impose an illegal ban on British beef exports to deflect attention from a vast outbreak of BSE in France, or the CEO of AstraZeneca, a pharmaceutical company who as we know are always models of charity and honesty.
Whichever one of them is lying, however, the losers are the citizens of the EU who have found their health and economic resilience turned into a political football over greater EU integration.
Which is really quite astonishingly unedifying.
The thing is that it won't be AZN as no lawyer would let a contract out with binding delivery dates on a new product where delivery is being outsourced.
And even if it is, AZN can't magic up something that doesn't exist.
The EU is doing itself zero favours here having f***ed up the most important project in decades.
I agree. With a new product to be scaled up fast in new facilities that I don't think the EMA has even approved for use yet (Germany did yesterday and there may be other breaking of the ranks) it is utterly inconceivable that Astra Zeneca committed themselves to a fixed delivery schedule with liability if they failed. So there is either a "best efforts" clause or an exclusion from any liability or damages which makes the contractual obligations meaningless and unenforceable. If it is the latter than van der Leyen might technically be telling the truth but very far from the whole truth.
Either the President of the Commission, a body which of course always acts with impeccable integrity and would never, say, impose an illegal ban on British beef exports to deflect attention from a vast outbreak of BSE in France, or the CEO of AstraZeneca, a pharmaceutical company who as we know are always models of charity and honesty.
Whichever one of them is lying, however, the losers are the citizens of the EU who have found their health and economic resilience turned into a political football over greater EU integration.
Which is really quite astonishingly unedifying.
The thing is that it won't be AZN as no lawyer would let a contract out with binding delivery dates on a new product where delivery is being outsourced.
And even if it is, AZN can't magic up something that doesn't exist.
The EU is doing itself zero favours here having f***ed up the most important project in decades.
I agree. With a new product to be scaled up fast in new facilities that I don't think the EMA has even approved for use yet (Germany did yesterday and there may be other breaking of the ranks) it is utterly inconceivable that Astra Zeneca committed themselves to a fixed delivery schedule with liability if they failed. So there is either a "best efforts" clause or an exclusion from any liability or damages which makes the contractual obligations meaningless and unenforceable. If it is the latter than van der Leyen might technically be telling the truth but very far from the whole truth.
So far the only thing we can be sure about is that the phrase "Best Effort" isn't in the document. But some similar clauses will be.
Well either that or their extremely well paid and experienced lawyers are spending their time with their professional indemnity insurers. I know what my money is on.
The odds
8% on the reports on the contract in the German press 92% on the reports in the press for AZN
Drug companies are good at writing contracts.
The EU President has a (personal) track record of screwing up contracts, trying to sue world leading companies for breach of contract and losing in court. And briefing to the press things about said contracts that turned out to be simply not true.
8% seems massively generous to me. Are you really offering to bet at 12.5/1 on VDL being right? I'd lay plenty of that.
The strong rumour from my German friends is that VDL is currently being made to walk the plank. The exact point where she falls into the sea is not determined yet...
But it was actually at Merkel's insistence that the 4 country AZ deal was turned into an EU catastroshambles, wasn't it?
Makes sense to vaccinate teachers/key workers ahead of others in same risk category who can work from home.
But vaccinating all teachers - as I understand Keir is calling for - is unjustified and Mike is right that it would likely lead to further unnecessary deaths. Disastrous idea from Starmer.
Maybe it's popular, but it would be the wrong thing to do.
The only thing vaccinating teachers does is ensure they stay in school while the pupils spread it amongst themselves and potentially to their families.
It's a plan but it will be trading some teaching for some deaths.
Worse the teaching will be as stop start as it was last term as cohorts of children are forced to isolate and classes are 50% in school and 50% remote.
Then why have we vaccinated young nurses, doctors, care home staff etc?
There has been no bleating about them taking away jabs from the vulnerable, which is exactly what they have done?
Why is it different for teachers?
I don’t have to touch lots of people infected with Covid.
I don’t have to look into the mouths of people infected from Covid.
If I go off sick, the Vice Principal swears and picks up the phone to a supply agency who teaches work I set. If doctors and nurses go off sick, people die.
I’ve been very outspoken about all the issues in education, and I have considerable personal respect for you, but I am afraid you have drawn a false equivalence there.
Incidentally, and while we’re on this subject, on a hasty glance at a couple of threads I saw Foxy taking a bit of flak. Can I politely suggest we don’t pile in on him? None of us are having fun right now, but he’s got it far worse than the lot of us put together. He’s watching people die, including colleagues, is working huge numbers of extra hours, and is having to walk around like a refugee from a SciFi set.
If he needs to come on and randomly vent to a lot of strangers, can I suggest we extend some sympathy to him and cheer him up with some awesome puns and cricket commentary rather than slagging him of? Lots of people did that for me when I was a bit low before Christmas and I deeply appreciated it. How about a ‘be nice to Foxy day?’
(My autocorrect made that ‘nice beer for Foxy’ day, which may work too!)
Excellent post. I really couldn't agree more but I do think teachers dealing with kids face to face need protection. As you have pointed out before several have died already.
I want teachers protected as much as the next person (because that’s another teacher)
But it’s feck all use protecting teachers to reopen schools if the price is dead parents through in school transmission. And I have been consistent in saying that.
The Guernsey outbreak appears to have gone pub>parents>children>schools>more children>more parents
Either the President of the Commission, a body which of course always acts with impeccable integrity and would never, say, impose an illegal ban on British beef exports to deflect attention from a vast outbreak of BSE in France, or the CEO of AstraZeneca, a pharmaceutical company who as we know are always models of charity and honesty.
Whichever one of them is lying, however, the losers are the citizens of the EU who have found their health and economic resilience turned into a political football over greater EU integration.
Which is really quite astonishingly unedifying.
The thing is that it won't be AZN as no lawyer would let a contract out with binding delivery dates on a new product where delivery is being outsourced.
And even if it is, AZN can't magic up something that doesn't exist.
The EU is doing itself zero favours here having f***ed up the most important project in decades.
I agree. With a new product to be scaled up fast in new facilities that I don't think the EMA has even approved for use yet (Germany did yesterday and there may be other breaking of the ranks) it is utterly inconceivable that Astra Zeneca committed themselves to a fixed delivery schedule with liability if they failed. So there is either a "best efforts" clause or an exclusion from any liability or damages which makes the contractual obligations meaningless and unenforceable. If it is the latter than van der Leyen might technically be telling the truth but very far from the whole truth.
Either the President of the Commission, a body which of course always acts with impeccable integrity and would never, say, impose an illegal ban on British beef exports to deflect attention from a vast outbreak of BSE in France, or the CEO of AstraZeneca, a pharmaceutical company who as we know are always models of charity and honesty.
Whichever one of them is lying, however, the losers are the citizens of the EU who have found their health and economic resilience turned into a political football over greater EU integration.
Which is really quite astonishingly unedifying.
The thing is that it won't be AZN as no lawyer would let a contract out with binding delivery dates on a new product where delivery is being outsourced.
And even if it is, AZN can't magic up something that doesn't exist.
The EU is doing itself zero favours here having f***ed up the most important project in decades.
I agree. With a new product to be scaled up fast in new facilities that I don't think the EMA has even approved for use yet (Germany did yesterday and there may be other breaking of the ranks) it is utterly inconceivable that Astra Zeneca committed themselves to a fixed delivery schedule with liability if they failed. So there is either a "best efforts" clause or an exclusion from any liability or damages which makes the contractual obligations meaningless and unenforceable. If it is the latter than van der Leyen might technically be telling the truth but very far from the whole truth.
So far the only thing we can be sure about is that the phrase "Best Effort" isn't in the document. But some similar clauses will be.
Well either that or their extremely well paid and experienced lawyers are spending their time with their professional indemnity insurers. I know what my money is on.
The odds
8% on the reports on the contract in the German press 92% on the reports in the press for AZN
Drug companies are good at writing contracts.
The EU President has a (personal) track record of screwing up contracts, trying to sue world leading companies for breach of contract and losing in court. And briefing to the press things about said contracts that turned out to be simply not true.
8% seems massively generous to me. Are you really offering to bet at 12.5/1 on VDL being right? I'd lay plenty of that.
The strong rumour from my German friends is that VDL is currently being made to walk the plank. The exact point where she falls into the sea is not determined yet...
But it was actually at Merkel's insistence that the 4 country AZ deal was turned into an EU catastroshambles, wasn't it?
Merkel has been absolutely useless from the start in this pandemic. It is a mystery to me why she remains so popular in Germany.
One thing about teachers, schools shouldn't be opened till they're two weeks past a first vaccine. It might not be a sufficient measure to reopen (Spread amongst children), but it is a neccessary one.
That only works if teachers are vaccinated together. Otherwise you’ll have older teachers already vaccinated, and younger teachers either not vaccinated or perhaps only just been vaccinated.
Realistically schools are probably not going to reopen this school year are they? I doubt my university will.
Your university won’t (sorry) but as soon as everyone at high risk of dying is vaccinated schools will reopen, if only because we can’t reopen the economy without them.
The question is which side of Easter it will fall.
And that’s about reasonable risk. We’ll go back once we’re confident we’re not going to kill lots of people by doing so, which is where November was a fail. We want to be back in classrooms.
Makes sense to vaccinate teachers/key workers ahead of others in same risk category who can work from home.
But vaccinating all teachers - as I understand Keir is calling for - is unjustified and Mike is right that it would likely lead to further unnecessary deaths. Disastrous idea from Starmer.
Maybe it's popular, but it would be the wrong thing to do.
The only thing vaccinating teachers does is ensure they stay in school while the pupils spread it amongst themselves and potentially to their families.
It's a plan but it will be trading some teaching for some deaths.
Worse the teaching will be as stop start as it was last term as cohorts of children are forced to isolate and classes are 50% in school and 50% remote.
Then why have we vaccinated young nurses, doctors, care home staff etc?
There has been no bleating about them taking away jabs from the vulnerable, which is exactly what they have done?
Why is it different for teachers?
I don’t have to touch lots of people infected with Covid.
I don’t have to look into the mouths of people infected from Covid.
If I go off sick, the Vice Principal swears and picks up the phone to a supply agency who teaches work I set. If doctors and nurses go off sick, people die.
I’ve been very outspoken about all the issues in education, and I have considerable personal respect for you, but I am afraid you have drawn a false equivalence there.
Incidentally, and while we’re on this subject, on a hasty glance at a couple of threads I saw Foxy taking a bit of flak. Can I politely suggest we don’t pile in on him? None of us are having fun right now, but he’s got it far worse than the lot of us put together. He’s watching people die, including colleagues, is working huge numbers of extra hours, and is having to walk around like a refugee from a SciFi set.
If he needs to come on and randomly vent to a lot of strangers, can I suggest we extend some sympathy to him and cheer him up with some awesome puns and cricket commentary rather than slagging him of? Lots of people did that for me when I was a bit low before Christmas and I deeply appreciated it. How about a ‘be nice to Foxy day?’
(My autocorrect made that ‘nice beer for Foxy’ day, which may work too!)
Excellent post. I really couldn't agree more but I do think teachers dealing with kids face to face need protection. As you have pointed out before several have died already.
I want teachers protected as much as the next person (because that’s another teacher)
But it’s feck all use protecting teachers to reopen schools if the price is dead parents through in school transmission. And I have been consistent in saying that.
Schools are going to open from 8th March, vaccine or no vaccine for teachers.
It will likely become another of Mr Johnson's guaranteed pledges. And fair play to him, since Cummings's defenestration, Johnson's word has become his bond.
So pack that document case with exercise books and head for the school gates.
Makes sense to vaccinate teachers/key workers ahead of others in same risk category who can work from home.
But vaccinating all teachers - as I understand Keir is calling for - is unjustified and Mike is right that it would likely lead to further unnecessary deaths. Disastrous idea from Starmer.
Maybe it's popular, but it would be the wrong thing to do.
The only thing vaccinating teachers does is ensure they stay in school while the pupils spread it amongst themselves and potentially to their families.
It's a plan but it will be trading some teaching for some deaths.
Worse the teaching will be as stop start as it was last term as cohorts of children are forced to isolate and classes are 50% in school and 50% remote.
Then why have we vaccinated young nurses, doctors, care home staff etc?
There has been no bleating about them taking away jabs from the vulnerable, which is exactly what they have done?
Why is it different for teachers?
Because they're superspreaders to the extremely vulnerable patients that they work with. A fifth of all deaths and hospitalisations come from care homes. Hospital acquired infections are mammoth too. Plus its going from patient to staff to patient - not direct patient to patient mixing.
Completely different from schools where there are compared to care homes next to no direct deaths and infections coming from schools, the issue with schools is that they are spreading it within the community as kids pass it to each other asymptomatically.
We don’t know what effect the vaccines have on transmission so that doesn’t hold water I’m afraid.
And if the vaccine does prevent transmission, then the priority is getting it into as many arms as possible as quickly as possible without these stupid arguments. If it’s more efficient to take a few vaccines to one place, like a school (which it is) and vaccinate everyone, we should do that.
Instead we have selfish older people demanding their vaccines first above all else.
I think it is OK to do it by age ... because it gives another argument that, when the bill comes in, old people are expected to make sacrifices for the young.
We did the vaccines so that the old were prioritised, now it is the older generations turn to give back.
The problem with promoting the teachers is obvious from the Mirror's table. Why not promote "Other staff working in emergency services" or "Police officers"? Once the teachers have advanced their case and won it, there will many more special interest groups who need priority. It will become a squabbling, complicated mess.
I think it really is best to just keep it simple and get it done really quickly, as OGH suggests.
I also think it would make sense to take the vaccine to police stations, fire stations, supermarkets, etc to get as many people vaccinated as quickly as possible. If the vaccine does stop transmission then herd immunity protects everyone, and herd immunity relies on numbers, and especially those in public facing positions.
I say this as someone who is higher risk, I’m immune suppressed, despite being young-ish.
But distribution is not the issue. Supply is.
If distribution ever becomes the issue then absolutely other stuff will be done.
If you're immuno-suppresed then surely you should be on the priority list. If not in Group 4, then Group 6. Diverting supplies now from continuing with the priority list means delaying when people in Group 6 get their vaccine.
You’re all missing the point. I’m not advocating for teachers to be vaccinated *now*, I’m talking about the next stage when deaths are right down as the very high risk have already been vaccinated and deaths should start to plummet.
We will then be discussing the vaccination strategy of those of low risk and those with slightly higher risk.
@ydoethur all the high risk parents will have already been vaccinated.
Either the President of the Commission, a body which of course always acts with impeccable integrity and would never, say, impose an illegal ban on British beef exports to deflect attention from a vast outbreak of BSE in France, or the CEO of AstraZeneca, a pharmaceutical company who as we know are always models of charity and honesty.
Whichever one of them is lying, however, the losers are the citizens of the EU who have found their health and economic resilience turned into a political football over greater EU integration.
Which is really quite astonishingly unedifying.
Why don't they take the risk of unilaterally publishing the contract if they are so sure?
Because that would no doubt breach the confidentiality provisions in that contract.
Confidentiality provisions can outlive their usefulness, and it can be problematic to see what damages flow from breaching them. I certainly don't buy the claim that future contracts with different parties will be prejudiced because you are a known pariah confidentiality breacher. Anyway there's nothing wrong with a public challenge on the lines of I am prepared to waive my right to confidentiality because I am confident of my claim, how about you?
And anyway that ship has sailed. If you are under a duty not to disclose the terms of a contract, in saying "it does not say 'best effort'" you are in breach of that duty.
Drakeford holding the line on teachers “we follow the JCVI”.
Drakeford more of a leader for the Labour Party than Keir Starmer.
What a joke.
Keir Starmer has one over-riding objective and that is to get into power. Without power he can do nothing.
To get into power Starmer needs to be popular so he picks up popular causes (teacher jabs) and promotes flag and family. He promotes the popular things rather than the right things. He can't actually DO anything as he is not in power.
I don't like it but I understand why he is doing it.
Labour are in power.
Labour are in power in Wales.
They can carry out this policy right now, if they want.
They can DO things right now.
I'm talking about Keir Starmer and the UK government.
I don't know anything about Wales. It just doesn't interest me. Sorry.
Your views are very typical of Labour supporters in England.
I think that attitude has consequences for the UK. For example, many commentators have pointed out that Wales benefitted massively from EU funding, yet voted for Brexit. Why should a country do that?
The sad truth is most of the EU funding that came to Wales was not wisely used by the (Welsh) Labour Government. It was squandered and mismanaged. So, Welsh voters did not see much benefit.
So, Wales voted for Brexit.
There are direct consequences for the whole of the UK in just saying "I don't know anything about Wales. It doesn't interest me".
Makes sense to vaccinate teachers/key workers ahead of others in same risk category who can work from home.
But vaccinating all teachers - as I understand Keir is calling for - is unjustified and Mike is right that it would likely lead to further unnecessary deaths. Disastrous idea from Starmer.
Maybe it's popular, but it would be the wrong thing to do.
The only thing vaccinating teachers does is ensure they stay in school while the pupils spread it amongst themselves and potentially to their families.
It's a plan but it will be trading some teaching for some deaths.
Worse the teaching will be as stop start as it was last term as cohorts of children are forced to isolate and classes are 50% in school and 50% remote.
Then why have we vaccinated young nurses, doctors, care home staff etc?
There has been no bleating about them taking away jabs from the vulnerable, which is exactly what they have done?
Why is it different for teachers?
I don’t have to touch lots of people infected with Covid.
I don’t have to look into the mouths of people infected from Covid.
If I go off sick, the Vice Principal swears and picks up the phone to a supply agency who teaches work I set. If doctors and nurses go off sick, people die.
I’ve been very outspoken about all the issues in education, and I have considerable personal respect for you, but I am afraid you have drawn a false equivalence there.
Incidentally, and while we’re on this subject, on a hasty glance at a couple of threads I saw Foxy taking a bit of flak. Can I politely suggest we don’t pile in on him? None of us are having fun right now, but he’s got it far worse than the lot of us put together. He’s watching people die, including colleagues, is working huge numbers of extra hours, and is having to walk around like a refugee from a SciFi set.
If he needs to come on and randomly vent to a lot of strangers, can I suggest we extend some sympathy to him and cheer him up with some awesome puns and cricket commentary rather than slagging him of? Lots of people did that for me when I was a bit low before Christmas and I deeply appreciated it. How about a ‘be nice to Foxy day?’
(My autocorrect made that ‘nice beer for Foxy’ day, which may work too!)
Thanks for the thoughts, and yes it is a strain. More than I thought, as I have always felt myself a fairly robust character.
I don't particularly want to re-open the delayed second jab argument, but there are clearly two sides to the scientific debate. We have chosen one, other countries have chosen the other. Within months we will know if it was a good decision or not.
Certainly ordering vast quantities af vaccines early on was a good decision, but I have never worried about the roll out. The NHS has always been better than most systems at vaccinating.
Incidentally, the problem in developing countries, such as Africa, is that their vaccination programmes are heavily orientated to children. In Sub-Saharan Africa that is not the population for this vaccine. In particular there, I would worry about adults with underlying health conditions. Mortality rates from diabetes are awful there, and covid won't help.
Makes sense to vaccinate teachers/key workers ahead of others in same risk category who can work from home.
But vaccinating all teachers - as I understand Keir is calling for - is unjustified and Mike is right that it would likely lead to further unnecessary deaths. Disastrous idea from Starmer.
Maybe it's popular, but it would be the wrong thing to do.
The only thing vaccinating teachers does is ensure they stay in school while the pupils spread it amongst themselves and potentially to their families.
It's a plan but it will be trading some teaching for some deaths.
Worse the teaching will be as stop start as it was last term as cohorts of children are forced to isolate and classes are 50% in school and 50% remote.
Then why have we vaccinated young nurses, doctors, care home staff etc?
There has been no bleating about them taking away jabs from the vulnerable, which is exactly what they have done?
Why is it different for teachers?
I don’t have to touch lots of people infected with Covid.
I don’t have to look into the mouths of people infected from Covid.
If I go off sick, the Vice Principal swears and picks up the phone to a supply agency who teaches work I set. If doctors and nurses go off sick, people die.
I’ve been very outspoken about all the issues in education, and I have considerable personal respect for you, but I am afraid you have drawn a false equivalence there.
Incidentally, and while we’re on this subject, on a hasty glance at a couple of threads I saw Foxy taking a bit of flak. Can I politely suggest we don’t pile in on him? None of us are having fun right now, but he’s got it far worse than the lot of us put together. He’s watching people die, including colleagues, is working huge numbers of extra hours, and is having to walk around like a refugee from a SciFi set.
If he needs to come on and randomly vent to a lot of strangers, can I suggest we extend some sympathy to him and cheer him up with some awesome puns and cricket commentary rather than slagging him of? Lots of people did that for me when I was a bit low before Christmas and I deeply appreciated it. How about a ‘be nice to Foxy day?’
(My autocorrect made that ‘nice beer for Foxy’ day, which may work too!)
Excellent post. I really couldn't agree more but I do think teachers dealing with kids face to face need protection. As you have pointed out before several have died already.
I want teachers protected as much as the next person (because that’s another teacher)
But it’s feck all use protecting teachers to reopen schools if the price is dead parents through in school transmission. And I have been consistent in saying that.
Education and teachers have had a rough ride through the pandemic. Quite frankly I thinks it’s fair enough to offer them a jab to standup in front of 30 snotty kids, breathing in a miasma of COVID farts.
I am conscious of my Australian teacher friend who has a son with cystic fibrosis.
Anyone vaccinated in mid-February won't acquire full immunity until some time afterwards. Hopefully by then the infection rate in the community will be much, much lower than at present - at which point the order of vaccination becomes a lot less important.
So I just don't care that much about the order, as long as there isn't so much complexity that it slows down the overall rate, or leads to wasted doses.
Quite surprised that abuse is being heaped (not reference to UD).
The same happened to Samantha Cameron the other day.
Both exceedingly wealthy moms with an entourage of nannies and helpers. They're hardly able to speak for ordinary parents.
Best the royals keep their mouths shut.
Oh I'm a republican & abolitionist by the way, for the person who suggested I was really a tory. Lol. The monarchy was something for a bygone era. We need to move on from the nonsense of it.
If you are not a royalist you are obviously not a Tory on any definition.
How on earth anyone could suggest you were a Tory is beyond me?
Either the President of the Commission, a body which of course always acts with impeccable integrity and would never, say, impose an illegal ban on British beef exports to deflect attention from a vast outbreak of BSE in France, or the CEO of AstraZeneca, a pharmaceutical company who as we know are always models of charity and honesty.
Whichever one of them is lying, however, the losers are the citizens of the EU who have found their health and economic resilience turned into a political football over greater EU integration.
Which is really quite astonishingly unedifying.
The thing is that it won't be AZN as no lawyer would let a contract out with binding delivery dates on a new product where delivery is being outsourced.
And even if it is, AZN can't magic up something that doesn't exist.
The EU is doing itself zero favours here having f***ed up the most important project in decades.
I agree. With a new product to be scaled up fast in new facilities that I don't think the EMA has even approved for use yet (Germany did yesterday and there may be other breaking of the ranks) it is utterly inconceivable that Astra Zeneca committed themselves to a fixed delivery schedule with liability if they failed. So there is either a "best efforts" clause or an exclusion from any liability or damages which makes the contractual obligations meaningless and unenforceable. If it is the latter than van der Leyen might technically be telling the truth but very far from the whole truth.
Either the President of the Commission, a body which of course always acts with impeccable integrity and would never, say, impose an illegal ban on British beef exports to deflect attention from a vast outbreak of BSE in France, or the CEO of AstraZeneca, a pharmaceutical company who as we know are always models of charity and honesty.
Whichever one of them is lying, however, the losers are the citizens of the EU who have found their health and economic resilience turned into a political football over greater EU integration.
Which is really quite astonishingly unedifying.
The thing is that it won't be AZN as no lawyer would let a contract out with binding delivery dates on a new product where delivery is being outsourced.
And even if it is, AZN can't magic up something that doesn't exist.
The EU is doing itself zero favours here having f***ed up the most important project in decades.
I agree. With a new product to be scaled up fast in new facilities that I don't think the EMA has even approved for use yet (Germany did yesterday and there may be other breaking of the ranks) it is utterly inconceivable that Astra Zeneca committed themselves to a fixed delivery schedule with liability if they failed. So there is either a "best efforts" clause or an exclusion from any liability or damages which makes the contractual obligations meaningless and unenforceable. If it is the latter than van der Leyen might technically be telling the truth but very far from the whole truth.
So far the only thing we can be sure about is that the phrase "Best Effort" isn't in the document. But some similar clauses will be.
Well either that or their extremely well paid and experienced lawyers are spending their time with their professional indemnity insurers. I know what my money is on.
The odds
8% on the reports on the contract in the German press 92% on the reports in the press for AZN
Drug companies are good at writing contracts.
The EU President has a (personal) track record of screwing up contracts, trying to sue world leading companies for breach of contract and losing in court. And briefing to the press things about said contracts that turned out to be simply not true.
8% seems massively generous to me. Are you really offering to bet at 12.5/1 on VDL being right? I'd lay plenty of that.
The strong rumour from my German friends is that VDL is currently being made to walk the plank. The exact point where she falls into the sea is not determined yet...
But it was actually at Merkel's insistence that the 4 country AZ deal was turned into an EU catastroshambles, wasn't it?
Merkel has been absolutely useless from the start in this pandemic. It is a mystery to me why she remains so popular in Germany.
To be fair she had a good first wave - after that not so much.
What's interesting though is how what's going right now for the UK, the foundations for that were being laid during the first wave - before it even.
In other news, is anyone else keeping an eye on the ECMWF forecasts? The surface influence of the SSW has finally arrived, if this forecast is correct, which would make for the coldest weather of the winter.
Either the President of the Commission, a body which of course always acts with impeccable integrity and would never, say, impose an illegal ban on British beef exports to deflect attention from a vast outbreak of BSE in France, or the CEO of AstraZeneca, a pharmaceutical company who as we know are always models of charity and honesty.
Whichever one of them is lying, however, the losers are the citizens of the EU who have found their health and economic resilience turned into a political football over greater EU integration.
Which is really quite astonishingly unedifying.
The thing is that it won't be AZN as no lawyer would let a contract out with binding delivery dates on a new product where delivery is being outsourced.
And even if it is, AZN can't magic up something that doesn't exist.
The EU is doing itself zero favours here having f***ed up the most important project in decades.
I agree. With a new product to be scaled up fast in new facilities that I don't think the EMA has even approved for use yet (Germany did yesterday and there may be other breaking of the ranks) it is utterly inconceivable that Astra Zeneca committed themselves to a fixed delivery schedule with liability if they failed. So there is either a "best efforts" clause or an exclusion from any liability or damages which makes the contractual obligations meaningless and unenforceable. If it is the latter than van der Leyen might technically be telling the truth but very far from the whole truth.
Either the President of the Commission, a body which of course always acts with impeccable integrity and would never, say, impose an illegal ban on British beef exports to deflect attention from a vast outbreak of BSE in France, or the CEO of AstraZeneca, a pharmaceutical company who as we know are always models of charity and honesty.
Whichever one of them is lying, however, the losers are the citizens of the EU who have found their health and economic resilience turned into a political football over greater EU integration.
Which is really quite astonishingly unedifying.
The thing is that it won't be AZN as no lawyer would let a contract out with binding delivery dates on a new product where delivery is being outsourced.
And even if it is, AZN can't magic up something that doesn't exist.
The EU is doing itself zero favours here having f***ed up the most important project in decades.
I agree. With a new product to be scaled up fast in new facilities that I don't think the EMA has even approved for use yet (Germany did yesterday and there may be other breaking of the ranks) it is utterly inconceivable that Astra Zeneca committed themselves to a fixed delivery schedule with liability if they failed. So there is either a "best efforts" clause or an exclusion from any liability or damages which makes the contractual obligations meaningless and unenforceable. If it is the latter than van der Leyen might technically be telling the truth but very far from the whole truth.
So far the only thing we can be sure about is that the phrase "Best Effort" isn't in the document. But some similar clauses will be.
I don't think we can be sure of that. The published contract with another supplier (won't be the same as AZN's but will be similar) explicitly uses the phrase - and the CEO of AZN said he was quoting from the contract when he used the phrase too.
I expect VDL has scored a spectacular own goal in denying the phrase exists when it in fact does.
Probably, although it wouldn't surprise me (if we ever find out the details) that it will turn out that AZN haven't covered themselves in glory in this affair either. I'm also uncomfortable with confidential contracts in the case of these vaccines. Publish the contracts, then we can all see what is going on. The public interest surely overrides commercial confidentiality during a global pandemic.
AZN did manage to make several unforced errors with the trials, so maybe they are just continuing to screw things up.
If VDL is going....
How about we offer 10 million doses of AZN (free), in return for Gavin Williamson being the EU President. For life.
This would
- Raise the competency of the EU presidency. - Raise moral in the teaching profession. - Humiliate the idiots in the EU, without actually hurting real people - Continue the tradition of promoting the incompetent out of harms way.
A minor change in the role to remove any involvement in contracts would obviously be required.
Anyone vaccinated in mid-February won't acquire full immunity until some time afterwards. Hopefully by then the infection rate in the community will be much, much lower than at present - at which point the order of vaccination becomes a lot less important.
So I just don't care that much about the order, as long as there isn't so much complexity that it slows down the overall rate, or leads to wasted doses.
Yes the key is the ensure the over 70s and those with pre existing conditions all have had their full jabs by mid February so by March we see significant fall in case and death rates.
Those are the most at risk groups, the precise order of vaccination beyond that is less important
Comments
Best the royals keep their mouths shut.
Oh I'm a republican & abolitionist by the way, for the person who suggested I was really a tory. Lol. The monarchy was something for a bygone era. We need to move on from the nonsense of it.
The EU modus operandi is to keep asking until you get the right answer. They might as well have Yosser Hughes going in to AZ.
"Give us the vaccine"
"No."
"Go on - give us the vaccine"
"No"
"Go on"
"Nope"
"Give us the vaccine."
"Not happening"
"Go on"
"No"
(But watch out for that head-butt, AZ...)
12 hours later my sister was awakened by a headache from hell, and within 24 hours a PCR test confirmed that she had Covid. Her daughter, who has been nursing Covid patients from the outset succumbed the following day, and her husband and another daughter fell victim the day after that.
During this time, another 11 members of the school staff had acquired Covid and the Secretary had developed symptoms. Many of those affected went on to infect their family and cohabitees. The Head continues to test negative.
Interestingly, whilst this outbreak took out all of the admin staff, only 1 teacher and 2 teaching assistants were affected, and no other teaching staff have succumbed since. The degree of infectivity possibly related to the fact that the admin staff worked in very close proximity to each other and the (primary) school had no mask policies in place.
The Secretary who seemingly introduced it to the school, believes she was infected by her grandchild, who she collects from another school each day, and who she recalls being “out of sorts”.
https://davidallengreen.com/2021/01/what-can-be-worked-out-about-the-best-efforts-clause-in-the-astrazeneca-vaccine-supply-agreement/
I recall at the beginning we were told how dicey this vaccine development business can be, and warned to expect lots of failed attempts. Yet, if there have been any, they've been kept very quiet.
French one: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/26/french-self-esteem-hit-after-pasteur-institute-abandons-covid-vaccine
When we vaccinated care homes, we didn’t just vaccinate staff over 60, we vaccinated all staff because it made sense to do everyone. The same is true in hospitals.
It makes sense to grab 100 or so vaccines, visit a school, and vaccinate everyone rather than pick out certain people above certain ages and arrange appointments, especially if they’re all going to be there anyway.
I expect VDL has scored a spectacular own goal in denying the phrase exists when it in fact does.
"Would you support Labours policy to vaccinate teachers if it led to 100 extra unneccesary deaths in the elderly each day?"
It's a plan but it will be trading some teaching for some deaths.
Worse the teaching will be as stop start as it was last term as cohorts of children are forced to isolate and classes are 50% in school and 50% remote.
It really is a mess of the EUs making where they continually double down with a hand that makes the Brexit one we used to laugh at look good.
They'd leak it.
There has been no bleating about them taking away jabs from the vulnerable, which is exactly what they have done?
Why is it different for teachers?
https://twitter.com/alexsalvinews/status/1354856043692482560
The actual vaccine should be provided free.
Just 'grabbing a few vaccines' is diverting them, stealing them, from people who might die as a result.
He quoted effort - and the other contract that has already been published uses effort.
Either the CEO of Astrazeneca was mistaken to say he was quoting that (or its been mistranslated into English) and the contract is very different to the published contract . . . or VDL has screwed up.
I know which my money would be on.
What surprises me a little about Mike's piece is the tone - that Teachers are a special interest group. They are - key workers in the front line. Remember the "Let our Teachers be Heroes" front page of the Mail - imploring teachers to take the clear risk of teaching our kids in classrooms where social distancing and other mandatory precautions are simply impossible.
Once all this is over, I do expect some Health and Safety at Work actions, and telling teachers that their legal H&S can be ignored is a risky line to take for an employer...
We know that such is not the case in schools.
If schools were full of frail 80 year olds it would be different. They aren't, so it isn't.
To get into power Starmer needs to be popular so he picks up popular causes (teacher jabs) and promotes flag and family. He promotes the popular things rather than the right things. He can't actually DO anything as he is not in power.
I don't like it but I understand why he is doing it.
This has nothing to do with labour. I’m not interested in what Labour are saying on the matter, I’m giving my own opinion.
https://twitter.com/thattimwalker/status/1354933941707399174?s=21
At 1% and 1 % in the two columns, they are actually behind convicted prisoners & bankers.
Sounds good.
Once everyone else in the UK has been jabbed, we ask Pesto, JHB, Tobes, Polly, anyone working for the Daily Merkle, etc ... to line up nicely for their vaccine.
Because the media performance has been truly disgraceful.
Is your 5 yr old running your account this morning?
We are on a massively accelerating curve on this stuff. What was close to impossible a few years ago, is now a couple of days in the lab.
It does seem to me that those teachers who are being exposed in this way to a large number of children who are potential carriers for the public good should indeed get priority. They are taking a very considerable risk for us. It is unfair to make that risk any greater than it needs to be.
Completely different from schools where there are compared to care homes next to no direct deaths and infections coming from schools, the issue with schools is that they are spreading it within the community as kids pass it to each other asymptomatically before bringing it home to their families.
For schools the issue really isn't the teachers - it's pupils intermingling so transporting Covid from bubble 1 to bubble 2. Vaccinating the teachers will ensure they keep on working but that's all it does - it doesn't stop Covid spreading from familiy 1 to family 2 due to John giving it to has mate James.
And from my childrens school there has been a lot of infections. Even if the year group hasn't got it, multiple infections on bus routes have then added another 50+ children to each isolation request.
That would perhaps make suppliers far more cautious about the vaccine they supply.
Labour are in power in Wales.
They can carry out this policy right now, if they want.
They can DO things right now.
And if the vaccine does prevent transmission, then the priority is getting it into as many arms as possible as quickly as possible without these stupid arguments. If it’s more efficient to take a few vaccines to one place, like a school (which it is) and vaccinate everyone, we should do that.
Instead we have selfish older people demanding their vaccines first above all else.
https://fullfact.org/health/german-astrazeneca-8-percent-handelsblatt/
Your point about doctors, nurses and care home staff honestly makes me wonder if someone else (your 5 yr old) is running your account this morning. You do realise that those people are keeping the sick from dying? You do understand what medical staff do? Have you ever been inside a hospital?
For every nurse or doctor who falls ill with covid another sick patient becomes more vulnerable, more at risk of dying, fewer people are vaccinated etc.
Teachers don't keep people alive. Medical staff do.
8% on the reports on the contract in the German press
92% on the reports in the press for AZN
Drug companies are good at writing contracts.
The EU President has a (personal) track record of screwing up contracts, trying to sue world leading companies for breach of contract and losing in court. And briefing to the press things about said contracts that turned out to be simply not true.
As for your second paragraph, no you are categorically wrong. The priority is not getting it into as many arms as possible efficiently because the limiting factor is supply not effort getting it into arms. If we had unlimited supply then just jab anyone, who cares the priority list just get it done. That's not the case.
We don't have "selfish older people" we have clinical need recommended by doctors and scientists. Are you seriously saying the NHS should stop operating on the basis of clinical need? 🤔
I don't know anything about Wales. It just doesn't interest me. Sorry.
Do we totally scrap clinical need and clinical advice and just do whoever is popular?
We have nearly finished vaccinating the very vulnerable. What we are discussing is what happens next.
This is not a discussion about the very vulnerable vs teachers, its a discussion about about the mildly more vulnerable vs teachers. In a time with greater vaccine availability.
If the vaccines work as we think the death rate is going to plummet shortly and we will need to prioritise numbers rather than a perfect queuing system. Its more efficient to bring vaccines to a large number of people than it is to arrange appointments and bring people to the vaccine one at a time.
Now enough of your condescending and arrogant crap please.
I don’t have to look into the mouths of people infected from Covid.
If I go off sick, the Vice Principal swears and picks up the phone to a supply agency who teaches work I set. If doctors and nurses go off sick, people die.
I’ve been very outspoken about all the issues in education, and I have considerable personal respect for you, but I am afraid you have drawn a false equivalence there.
Incidentally, and while we’re on this subject, on a hasty glance at a couple of threads I saw Foxy taking a bit of flak. Can I politely suggest we don’t pile in on him? None of us are having fun right now, but he’s got it far worse than the lot of us put together. He’s watching people die, including colleagues, is working huge numbers of extra hours, and is having to walk around like a refugee from a SciFi set.
If he needs to come on and randomly vent to a lot of strangers, can I suggest we extend some sympathy to him and cheer him up with some awesome puns and cricket commentary rather than slagging him of? Lots of people did that for me when I was a bit low before Christmas and I deeply appreciated it. How about a ‘be nice to Foxy day?’
(My autocorrect made that ‘nice beer for Foxy’ day, which may work too!)
You're still pretending distribution is the issue instead of supply. Why?
As for the "selfish teachers" arguments, aren't they being made by people comfortably far away from the front line? There are people - teachers, shop workers, police, bus and taxi drivers etc - who aren't NHS staff but have to deal with the public for their job.
It isn't "these selfish interest groups will kill people", its these people risk infection and death every day at work and how do we protect them and the essential service they carry out. And the best way to protect teachers is not to reopen schools fully until at least Easter.
We did the vaccines so that the old were prioritised, now it is the older generations turn to give back.
The problem with promoting the teachers is obvious from the Mirror's table. Why not promote "Other staff working in emergency services" or "Police officers"? Once the teachers have advanced their case and won it, there will many more special interest groups who need priority. It will become a squabbling, complicated mess.
I think it really is best to just keep it simple and get it done really quickly, as OGH suggests.
I wonder if it is a heightened dosage of virus at initial exposure, as also in bus drivers etc.
On the back of the whirlwind of Welsh Labour Government incompetence over pro-rata deaths, closed businesses, empty shelves and pathetic vaccine provision. Incompetence viewed through the prism of an inch-perfect vaccine provision performance in England under a Conservative administration.
Basically, reopening schools should be the number one national priority - above every else. Missing a couple of lessons can throw a kid off course, and make it hard to catch-up, and we've lost at least two terms in the last year. It's going to affect these kids for life.
We've already made healthcare and social workers top priority in recognition they work in hospitals and carehomes. Depending on the transmission vector I could see a similar case for schools.
There are c.450k teachers in England. Let's say (conservatively) 600k in the UK. Vaccinating them ahead would probably take 2-3 weeks. Let's say that doing that over and above the over 60s cost an extra 80 deaths a day in that period, so a maximum of an extra 1,700 deaths - with some lag effect. Would I take that choice?
Yes, I might - if it would make a decisive difference to the education of 10 million schoolchildren (our future) and got them all back on track, whilst also allowing their parents to return to work.
That might sound callous but Governments make such calculations all the time and we shouldn't be shy of doing the same if and when the evidence changes.
It might not be a sufficient measure to reopen (Spread amongst children), but it is a neccessary one.
Other people are doing the worst kind of populist signalling by pretending they can "be kind to teachers" by giving them the vaccine without taking doses away from the vulnerable.
It is noteworthy that a spokesperson for a teacher's union was on Sky yesterday saying that they do not believe teachers should come before those who clinically need the vaccine first and the clinical priority list should be followed.
When even Teacher's Unions are saying follow the clinical order, there is no excuse for saying not to follow it. It is dangerous populism of the worst sort that would lead to people dying if followed.
Assuming something not dodgy in the poll, public support for vaccinating teachers is probably driven by 1) media and Labour party campaigning 2) a mistaken belief that vaccinating teachers will accelerate school reopening (which it will only do to the extent that schools opening might be jeopardised by teachers striking).
I say this as someone who is higher risk, I’m immune suppressed, despite being young-ish.
0.8% maybe.
The strong rumour from my German friends is that VDL is currently being made to walk the plank. The exact point where she falls into the sea is not determined yet...
But it’s feck all use protecting teachers to reopen schools if the price is dead parents through in school transmission. And I have been consistent in saying that.
https://twitter.com/HugoGye/status/1355066311231979520?s=20
Another point she made was using the NHS to run trials quickly and efficiently - an advantage we have over countries with fragmented health systems. If you want to get your drug on the market - come to the UK!
If distribution ever becomes the issue then absolutely other stuff will be done.
If you're immuno-suppresed then surely you should be on the priority list. If not in Group 4, then Group 6. Diverting supplies now from continuing with the priority list means delaying when people in Group 6 get their vaccine.
Realistically schools are probably not going to reopen this school year are they? I doubt my university will.
AZN did manage to make several unforced errors with the trials, so maybe they are just continuing to screw things up.
The question is which side of Easter it will fall.
And that’s about reasonable risk. We’ll go back once we’re confident we’re not going to kill lots of people by doing so, which is where November was a fail. We want to be back in classrooms.
It will likely become another of Mr Johnson's guaranteed pledges. And fair play to him, since Cummings's defenestration, Johnson's word has become his bond.
So pack that document case with exercise books and head for the school gates.
We will then be discussing the vaccination strategy of those of low risk and those with slightly higher risk.
@ydoethur all the high risk parents will have already been vaccinated.
I think that attitude has consequences for the UK. For example, many commentators have pointed out that Wales benefitted massively from EU funding, yet voted for Brexit. Why should a country do that?
The sad truth is most of the EU funding that came to Wales was not wisely used by the (Welsh) Labour Government. It was squandered and mismanaged. So, Welsh voters did not see much benefit.
So, Wales voted for Brexit.
There are direct consequences for the whole of the UK in just saying "I don't know anything about Wales. It doesn't interest me".
I don't particularly want to re-open the delayed second jab argument, but there are clearly two sides to the scientific debate. We have chosen one, other countries have chosen the other. Within months we will know if it was a good decision or not.
Certainly ordering vast quantities af vaccines early on was a good decision, but I have never worried about the roll out. The NHS has always been better than most systems at vaccinating.
Incidentally, the problem in developing countries, such as Africa, is that their vaccination programmes are heavily orientated to children. In Sub-Saharan Africa that is not the population for this vaccine. In particular there, I would worry about adults with underlying health conditions. Mortality rates from diabetes are awful there, and covid won't help.
I am conscious of my Australian teacher friend who has a son with cystic fibrosis.
So I just don't care that much about the order, as long as there isn't so much complexity that it slows down the overall rate, or leads to wasted doses.
How on earth anyone could suggest you were a Tory is beyond me?
What's interesting though is how what's going right now for the UK, the foundations for that were being laid during the first wave - before it even.
How about we offer 10 million doses of AZN (free), in return for Gavin Williamson being the EU President. For life.
This would
- Raise the competency of the EU presidency.
- Raise moral in the teaching profession.
- Humiliate the idiots in the EU, without actually hurting real people
- Continue the tradition of promoting the incompetent out of harms way.
A minor change in the role to remove any involvement in contracts would obviously be required.
Those are the most at risk groups, the precise order of vaccination beyond that is less important