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.
What exactly did Merkel do that was good in the first wave? I saw nothing.
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?
It was debated early on whether viral dose mattered. I think it does, indeed masks may well mitigate severity as well as risk of infection by this means.
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.
I think we can all agree teachers should be vaccinated in the future when there's unlimited supply and the vulnerable have been done. Everyone should be.
The question being discussed is whether teachers should be vaccinated *now* as called for ludicrously by Keir Starmer and the Daily Mirror poll, but wisely rejected by the teachers unions.
The high risk won't be done until all 9 priority groups have been done. Making key workers priority group 10 may be reasonable - putting teachers before priority groups 5-9 is not.
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.
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.
What exactly did Merkel do that was good in the first wave? I saw nothing.
Nor I , I think they were just one of the lucky countries - and no one could begrudge them that.
It seems some people think that a 30 year old teacher should not be vaccinated before a 45 year old project manager at all costs.
My argument is that once the very high risk have been vaccinated, teachers should absolutely be prioritised along with police and bus drivers and supermarket workers etc. To get the best bang for our buck when it comes to herd immunity.
Oh dear: “...Peter Wilke, Bild’s UK reporter, exclaiming that whilst he had not received a vaccination appointment in his home town of Mühlheim, he was shocked to get an SMS text from the NHS, “Suddenly I got a vaccination appointment in England!” ”
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.
I think we can all agree teachers should be vaccinated in the future when there's unlimited supply and the vulnerable have been done. Everyone should be.
The question being discussed is whether teachers should be vaccinated *now* as called for ludicrously by Keir Starmer and the Daily Mirror poll, but wisely rejected by the teachers unions.
The high risk won't be done until all 9 priority groups have been done. Making key workers priority group 10 may be reasonable - putting teachers before priority groups 5-9 is not.
My compromise is that some teachers, with vulnerable families or personal conditions should be vaccinated before they return to the classroom.
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.
What exactly did Merkel do that was good in the first wave? I saw nothing.
Nor I , I think they were just one of the lucky countries - and no one could begrudge them that.
"Lucky" in the sense that they had a big testing capacity already in January, so were able to keep the first outbreaks under control. But Merkel can't claim any credit for that.
Beginning to see the issue here (h/t David Allen Green, obvs).
The issue is that as far as can be assumed, the agreement with the EU did have that best efforts clause but that related to manufacturing capacity. It likely made no mention of prioritisation of the product. It seems that AZN does have sufficient manufacturing capacity for the EU order in isolation.
Hence, the EU is behaving as though its agreement is the only one on the planet. AZN, meanwhile, probably realising that they didn't explicitly set out the allocation schedule, has said that the UK ordered first (which it did) and therefore the obligation is to the UK.
But the EU seemingly doesn't care about other contracts it cares about its own contract. AZN has the manufacturing ability hence the EU believes that as that is the only best efforts constraint, the EU should receive its full allocation.
I expect to repost this several times today so I shall label this v1.0.
It seems some people think that a 30 year old teacher should not be vaccinated before a 45 year old project manager at all costs.
My argument is that once the very high risk have been vaccinated, teachers should absolutely be prioritised along with police and bus drivers and supermarket workers etc. To get the best bang for our buck when it comes to herd immunity.
Now you're being silly, 45 year olds aren't on the priority list.
But earlier you were saying "old" people should make way for teachers, 45 year olds is a weird definition of "old" in this context.
If you're saying the priority list should be followed and then do teachers etc, I doubt anyone disagrees with that.
It seems some people think that a 30 year old teacher should not be vaccinated before a 45 year old project manager at all costs.
My argument is that once the very high risk have been vaccinated, teachers should absolutely be prioritised along with police and bus drivers and supermarket workers etc. To get the best bang for our buck when it comes to herd immunity.
I don’t think by the time we get to that stage that’s going to be the issue. Once they start on the under 50s, it will probably be by health status, not age.
For example, I am 37 and have no underlying health conditions. OK, so I teach in a school and that’s a high risk environment. But should I therefore be vaccinated ahead of my sister, aged 39 and with two school age children, who is an asthmatic as well as obese from the side effects of various drugs she has to take for a mobility issue?
I know who I think is more at risk in the event of schools going back. And it isn’t me.
It seems some people think that a 30 year old teacher should not be vaccinated before a 45 year old project manager at all costs.
My argument is that once the very high risk have been vaccinated, teachers should absolutely be prioritised along with police and bus drivers and supermarket workers etc. To get the best bang for our buck when it comes to herd immunity.
I'd be happier if shop staff were vaccinated, they're not always the best at mask wearing tbh. Not sure Chinese takeaway staff will be on the prio list though FFP3 mask when I collect from there.
Beginning to see the issue here (h/t David Allen Green, obvs).
The issue is that as far as can be assumed, the agreement with the EU did have that best efforts clause but that related to manufacturing capacity. It likely made no mention of prioritisation of the product. It seems that AZN does have sufficient manufacturing capacity for the EU order in isolation.
Hence, the EU is behaving as though its agreement is the only one on the planet. AZN, meanwhile, probably realising that they didn't explicitly set out the allocation schedule, has said that the UK ordered first (which it did) and therefore the obligation is to the UK.
But the EU seemingly doesn't care about other contracts it cares about its own contract. AZN has the manufacturing ability hence the EU believes that as that is the only best efforts constraint, the EU should receive its full allocation.
I expect to repost this several times today so I shall label this v1.0.
But the best efforts definition used (according to DAG, in the other contract, so probably in this one too) explicitly did refer to commitments to others.
AZN's commitments to earlier contracts falls under that surely?
Oh dear: “...Peter Wilke, Bild’s UK reporter, exclaiming that whilst he had not received a vaccination appointment in his home town of Mühlheim, he was shocked to get an SMS text from the NHS, “Suddenly I got a vaccination appointment in England!” ”
It seems some people think that a 30 year old teacher should not be vaccinated before a 45 year old project manager at all costs.
My argument is that once the very high risk have been vaccinated, teachers should absolutely be prioritised along with police and bus drivers and supermarket workers etc. To get the best bang for our buck when it comes to herd immunity.
I agree. Once you get past the extreme cases such as the over 70s and the co-morbid vulnerability should not be the only criteria. There is also risk of exposure and those you have mentioned are all good examples of those who are exposing themselves to risk for the public good. Not only is this morally right, it will also reduce the incidence of the disease faster because these are the most obvious vectors for further infection within the community.
It seems some people think that a 30 year old teacher should not be vaccinated before a 45 year old project manager at all costs.
My argument is that once the very high risk have been vaccinated, teachers should absolutely be prioritised along with police and bus drivers and supermarket workers etc. To get the best bang for our buck when it comes to herd immunity.
Now you're being silly, 45 year olds aren't on the priority list.
But earlier you were saying "old" people should make way for teachers, 45 year olds is a weird definition of "old" in this context.
If you're saying the priority list should be followed and then do teachers etc, I doubt anyone disagrees with that.
It seems some people think that a 30 year old teacher should not be vaccinated before a 45 year old project manager at all costs.
My argument is that once the very high risk have been vaccinated, teachers should absolutely be prioritised along with police and bus drivers and supermarket workers etc. To get the best bang for our buck when it comes to herd immunity.
I don’t think by the time we get to that stage that’s going to be the issue. Once they start on the under 50s, it will probably be by health status, not age.
For example, I am 37 and have no underlying health conditions. OK, so I teach in a school and that’s a high risk environment. But should I therefore be vaccinated ahead of my sister, aged 39 and with two school age children, who is an asthmatic as well as obese from the side effects of various drugs she has to take for a mobility issue?
I know who I think is more at risk in the event of schools going back. And it isn’t me.
Should you have to go back? I am slightly uncomfortable that office workers get greater protection.
It seems some people think that a 30 year old teacher should not be vaccinated before a 45 year old project manager at all costs.
My argument is that once the very high risk have been vaccinated, teachers should absolutely be prioritised along with police and bus drivers and supermarket workers etc. To get the best bang for our buck when it comes to herd immunity.
I don’t think by the time we get to that stage that’s going to be the issue. Once they start on the under 50s, it will probably be by health status, not age.
For example, I am 37 and have no underlying health conditions. OK, so I teach in a school and that’s a high risk environment. But should I therefore be vaccinated ahead of my sister, aged 39 and with two school age children, who is an asthmatic as well as obese from the side effects of various drugs she has to take for a mobility issue?
I know who I think is more at risk in the event of schools going back. And it isn’t 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?
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.
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.
What group are you in ? Here in Essex my son (late 20') with health issues (including Kidney problems and therefore in group 4 has already had first dose.
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".
I'm not a Labour supporter
I wasn't being rude about Wales. It genuinely doesn't interest me. The same with the Sturgeon/Salmond spat. I don't know what it is about and don't want to know. Same with stuff about Yorkshire or cricket. I skip over posts about these subjects.
I am interested in politics and betting on the UK/EU/USA/France/Ireland, Covid-19, China, Russia, climate change, economics, philosophy, learning Spanish, - but not Wales - sorry.
Beginning to see the issue here (h/t David Allen Green, obvs).
The issue is that as far as can be assumed, the agreement with the EU did have that best efforts clause but that related to manufacturing capacity. It likely made no mention of prioritisation of the product. It seems that AZN does have sufficient manufacturing capacity for the EU order in isolation.
Hence, the EU is behaving as though its agreement is the only one on the planet. AZN, meanwhile, probably realising that they didn't explicitly set out the allocation schedule, has said that the UK ordered first (which it did) and therefore the obligation is to the UK.
But the EU seemingly doesn't care about other contracts it cares about its own contract. AZN has the manufacturing ability hence the EU believes that as that is the only best efforts constraint, the EU should receive its full allocation.
I expect to repost this several times today so I shall label this v1.0.
But the best efforts definition used (according to DAG, in the other contract, so probably in this one too) explicitly did refer to commitments to others.
AZN's commitments to earlier contracts falls under that surely?
Well IANAL, obvs, but according to DAG that is the general description and then it is applied, specifically, to two scenarios which creates the actual obligation.
‘(i) to obtain EU marketing authorisation for the Product and (ii) to establish sufficient manufacturing capacities to enable the manufacturing and supply of the contractually agreed volumes of the Product to the participating Member States in accordance with the estimated delivery schedule set out below in Article I.11 once at least a conditional EU marketing authorisation has been granted.’
It is DAG's contention that the general description is without meaning or force unless it is further refined, as it is in 1.3 (i).
It seems some people think that a 30 year old teacher should not be vaccinated before a 45 year old project manager at all costs.
My argument is that once the very high risk have been vaccinated, teachers should absolutely be prioritised along with police and bus drivers and supermarket workers etc. To get the best bang for our buck when it comes to herd immunity.
I don’t think by the time we get to that stage that’s going to be the issue. Once they start on the under 50s, it will probably be by health status, not age.
For example, I am 37 and have no underlying health conditions. OK, so I teach in a school and that’s a high risk environment. But should I therefore be vaccinated ahead of my sister, aged 39 and with two school age children, who is an asthmatic as well as obese from the side effects of various drugs she has to take for a mobility issue?
I know who I think is more at risk in the event of schools going back. And it isn’t me.
Beginning to see the issue here (h/t David Allen Green, obvs).
The issue is that as far as can be assumed, the agreement with the EU did have that best efforts clause but that related to manufacturing capacity. It likely made no mention of prioritisation of the product. It seems that AZN does have sufficient manufacturing capacity for the EU order in isolation.
Hence, the EU is behaving as though its agreement is the only one on the planet. AZN, meanwhile, probably realising that they didn't explicitly set out the allocation schedule, has said that the UK ordered first (which it did) and therefore the obligation is to the UK.
But the EU seemingly doesn't care about other contracts it cares about its own contract. AZN has the manufacturing ability hence the EU believes that as that is the only best efforts constraint, the EU should receive its full allocation.
I expect to repost this several times today so I shall label this v1.0.
But the best efforts definition used (according to DAG, in the other contract, so probably in this one too) explicitly did refer to commitments to others.
AZN's commitments to earlier contracts falls under that surely?
Even if it isn't expressed, if it says "reasonable" it isn't reasonable to expect breaches of existing contracts with other parties. And if it doesn't say reasonable, a court is not going to construe a contract as obliging a party to breach a contract with another party unless it absolutely has to.
I think we're all actually agreeing, as we're not complete narcissists! that public facing (Including teachers) should probably get some degree of priority. The question is where. Ahead of groups 1 - 4 is right out. So are they 4.5, 5.5, 6.5, 7.5, 8.5 or group 10 ? That's the real question. Continually putting myself back in the queue here
It seems some people think that a 30 year old teacher should not be vaccinated before a 45 year old project manager at all costs.
My argument is that once the very high risk have been vaccinated, teachers should absolutely be prioritised along with police and bus drivers and supermarket workers etc. To get the best bang for our buck when it comes to herd immunity.
I don’t think by the time we get to that stage that’s going to be the issue. Once they start on the under 50s, it will probably be by health status, not age.
For example, I am 37 and have no underlying health conditions. OK, so I teach in a school and that’s a high risk environment. But should I therefore be vaccinated ahead of my sister, aged 39 and with two school age children, who is an asthmatic as well as obese from the side effects of various drugs she has to take for a mobility issue?
I know who I think is more at risk in the event of schools going back. And it isn’t me.
37. So wise, for one so young.
That popping noise you heard was my head swelling.
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.
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.
What group are you in ? Here in Essex my son (late 20') with health issues (including Kidney problems and therefore in group 4 has already had first dose.
Absolutely no idea. I've not been told anything. 🤷♂️
I'm not that concerned though. I've never "felt" at risk and haven't been shielding.
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.
I think we can all agree teachers should be vaccinated in the future when there's unlimited supply and the vulnerable have been done. Everyone should be.
The question being discussed is whether teachers should be vaccinated *now* as called for ludicrously by Keir Starmer and the Daily Mirror poll, but wisely rejected by the teachers unions.
The high risk won't be done until all 9 priority groups have been done. Making key workers priority group 10 may be reasonable - putting teachers before priority groups 5-9 is not.
My compromise is that some teachers, with vulnerable families or personal conditions should be vaccinated before they return to the classroom.
The problem with that is that it requires investigation and that slows everything down.
It's quicker to simply blanket vaccinate, assuming there's adequate supply, which in 3-4 months I'd hope supply was less constrained.
Beginning to see the issue here (h/t David Allen Green, obvs).
The issue is that as far as can be assumed, the agreement with the EU did have that best efforts clause but that related to manufacturing capacity. It likely made no mention of prioritisation of the product. It seems that AZN does have sufficient manufacturing capacity for the EU order in isolation.
Hence, the EU is behaving as though its agreement is the only one on the planet. AZN, meanwhile, probably realising that they didn't explicitly set out the allocation schedule, has said that the UK ordered first (which it did) and therefore the obligation is to the UK.
But the EU seemingly doesn't care about other contracts it cares about its own contract. AZN has the manufacturing ability hence the EU believes that as that is the only best efforts constraint, the EU should receive its full allocation.
I expect to repost this several times today so I shall label this v1.0.
But the best efforts definition used (according to DAG, in the other contract, so probably in this one too) explicitly did refer to commitments to others.
AZN's commitments to earlier contracts falls under that surely?
Even if it isn't expressed, if it says "reasonable" it isn't reasonable to expect breaches of existing contracts with other parties. And if it doesn't say reasonable, a court is not going to construe a contract as obliging a party to breach a contract with another party unless it absolutely has to.
Indeed.
The EU side didn’t know (and wouldn’t have expected to know at the time) the nature of the contracts AZ has with other countries.
As far as AZ are concerned, the EU were more interested in price than delivery date, they have priority contracts with early investors such as the UK and India, and are trying to increase capacity as quickly as possible.
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.
I think we can all agree teachers should be vaccinated in the future when there's unlimited supply and the vulnerable have been done. Everyone should be.
The question being discussed is whether teachers should be vaccinated *now* as called for ludicrously by Keir Starmer and the Daily Mirror poll, but wisely rejected by the teachers unions.
The high risk won't be done until all 9 priority groups have been done. Making key workers priority group 10 may be reasonable - putting teachers before priority groups 5-9 is not.
My compromise is that some teachers, with vulnerable families or personal conditions should be vaccinated before they return to the classroom.
The problem with that is that it requires investigation and that slows everything down.
It's quicker to simply blanket vaccinate, assuming there's adequate supply, which in 3-4 months I'd hope supply was less constrained.
I don't think it needs to. Teachers apply to the head, who then recommends them / sends them to the quack.
Are these campaigns just as dangerous as anti-vaxxers are? If the scientific evidence that doing it by age is safer, then these campaigns will cost lives.
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".
I'm not a Labour supporter
I wasn't being rude about Wales. It genuinely doesn't interest me. The same with the Sturgeon/Salmond spat. I don't know what it is about and don't want to know. Same with stuff about Yorkshire or cricket. I skip over posts about these subjects.
I am interested in politics and betting on the UK/EU/USA/France/Ireland, Covid-19, China, Russia, climate change, economics, philosophy, learning Spanish, - but not Wales - sorry.
Of course, I know you are not a Labour party member or voter.
But, you support SKS in a forced choice with the Shagster.
Beginning to see the issue here (h/t David Allen Green, obvs).
The issue is that as far as can be assumed, the agreement with the EU did have that best efforts clause but that related to manufacturing capacity. It likely made no mention of prioritisation of the product. It seems that AZN does have sufficient manufacturing capacity for the EU order in isolation.
Hence, the EU is behaving as though its agreement is the only one on the planet. AZN, meanwhile, probably realising that they didn't explicitly set out the allocation schedule, has said that the UK ordered first (which it did) and therefore the obligation is to the UK.
But the EU seemingly doesn't care about other contracts it cares about its own contract. AZN has the manufacturing ability hence the EU believes that as that is the only best efforts constraint, the EU should receive its full allocation.
I expect to repost this several times today so I shall label this v1.0.
But the best efforts definition used (according to DAG, in the other contract, so probably in this one too) explicitly did refer to commitments to others.
AZN's commitments to earlier contracts falls under that surely?
Well IANAL, obvs, but according to DAG that is the general description and then it is applied, specifically, to two scenarios which creates the actual obligation.
‘(i) to obtain EU marketing authorisation for the Product and (ii) to establish sufficient manufacturing capacities to enable the manufacturing and supply of the contractually agreed volumes of the Product to the participating Member States in accordance with the estimated delivery schedule set out below in Article I.11 once at least a conditional EU marketing authorisation has been granted.’
It is DAG's contention that the general description is without meaning or force unless it is further refined, as it is in 1.3 (i).
"sufficient" = "sufficient taking our other obligations into account."
DAG did a tweet in 2016 saying the NEC was going to win the challenge over eligibility to vote in the leadership elections, and (I paraphrase) "I know this because I am a Big Important Lawyer and the rest of you look like little ants to me." The NEC lost, the tweet got deleted. Ignore.
You can't rule out her and her task force being just a little bit lucky but wow, she really is the star of all of our Covid efforts to date.
In the interview she made the key point that our principal advantage arises from the measures the UK pharma industry put in place early in 2020 to create new UK production capacity - nothing (at that point) to do with either government or Brexit.
Beginning to see the issue here (h/t David Allen Green, obvs).
The issue is that as far as can be assumed, the agreement with the EU did have that best efforts clause but that related to manufacturing capacity. It likely made no mention of prioritisation of the product. It seems that AZN does have sufficient manufacturing capacity for the EU order in isolation.
Hence, the EU is behaving as though its agreement is the only one on the planet. AZN, meanwhile, probably realising that they didn't explicitly set out the allocation schedule, has said that the UK ordered first (which it did) and therefore the obligation is to the UK.
But the EU seemingly doesn't care about other contracts it cares about its own contract. AZN has the manufacturing ability hence the EU believes that as that is the only best efforts constraint, the EU should receive its full allocation.
I expect to repost this several times today so I shall label this v1.0.
But the best efforts definition used (according to DAG, in the other contract, so probably in this one too) explicitly did refer to commitments to others.
AZN's commitments to earlier contracts falls under that surely?
Even if it isn't expressed, if it says "reasonable" it isn't reasonable to expect breaches of existing contracts with other parties. And if it doesn't say reasonable, a court is not going to construe a contract as obliging a party to breach a contract with another party unless it absolutely has to.
Indeed.
The EU side didn’t know (and wouldn’t have expected to know at the time) the nature of the contracts AZ has with other countries.
As far as AZ are concerned, the EU were more interested in price than delivery date, they have priority contracts with early investors such as the UK and India, and are trying to increase capacity as quickly as possible.
Where do you get that AZN thought that the EU were more interested in price than delivery date?
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.
I think we can all agree teachers should be vaccinated in the future when there's unlimited supply and the vulnerable have been done. Everyone should be.
The question being discussed is whether teachers should be vaccinated *now* as called for ludicrously by Keir Starmer and the Daily Mirror poll, but wisely rejected by the teachers unions.
The high risk won't be done until all 9 priority groups have been done. Making key workers priority group 10 may be reasonable - putting teachers before priority groups 5-9 is not.
My compromise is that some teachers, with vulnerable families or personal conditions should be vaccinated before they return to the classroom.
The issue with that is how to identify those people. For example a teacher which is obese might be in a danger group more, but do you send out a questionnaire asking if teachers are fat or not?
One reason why broad blocks work rather then tailoring to an individuals.
I don't think it's helpful to see this as Labour plan versus a Tory plan.
I'm well aware few teachers vote Conservative, are enthusiastic union members and many are proselytisers of Woke. But, that's not the point.
It is inevitable that vaccinations hinge on party politics. The Conservative Government bet the house on vaccinations, and won. The Labour opposition did (could) not (and probably wouldn't have anyway) and lost.
I have no time for Young but that's not a fair point; he doesn't (or at least didn't, in the debate) deny the problem. The debate yesterday was about whether the short and longterm costs of lockdown outweigh the benefits. That's a fair question to ask - and it was a good and balanced discussion.
It seems some people think that a 30 year old teacher should not be vaccinated before a 45 year old project manager at all costs.
My argument is that once the very high risk have been vaccinated, teachers should absolutely be prioritised along with police and bus drivers and supermarket workers etc. To get the best bang for our buck when it comes to herd immunity.
We're having arguments over nothing as Robert pointed out last night, by mid April we're going to be swimming in vaccines. Does it matter whether teachers get it during the first week or second week? We'll be doing 5-6m jabs per week.
Beginning to see the issue here (h/t David Allen Green, obvs).
The issue is that as far as can be assumed, the agreement with the EU did have that best efforts clause but that related to manufacturing capacity. It likely made no mention of prioritisation of the product. It seems that AZN does have sufficient manufacturing capacity for the EU order in isolation.
Hence, the EU is behaving as though its agreement is the only one on the planet. AZN, meanwhile, probably realising that they didn't explicitly set out the allocation schedule, has said that the UK ordered first (which it did) and therefore the obligation is to the UK.
But the EU seemingly doesn't care about other contracts it cares about its own contract. AZN has the manufacturing ability hence the EU believes that as that is the only best efforts constraint, the EU should receive its full allocation.
I expect to repost this several times today so I shall label this v1.0.
But the best efforts definition used (according to DAG, in the other contract, so probably in this one too) explicitly did refer to commitments to others.
AZN's commitments to earlier contracts falls under that surely?
Even if it isn't expressed, if it says "reasonable" it isn't reasonable to expect breaches of existing contracts with other parties. And if it doesn't say reasonable, a court is not going to construe a contract as obliging a party to breach a contract with another party unless it absolutely has to.
Indeed.
The EU side didn’t know (and wouldn’t have expected to know at the time) the nature of the contracts AZ has with other countries.
As far as AZ are concerned, the EU were more interested in price than delivery date, they have priority contracts with early investors such as the UK and India, and are trying to increase capacity as quickly as possible.
Where do you get that AZN thought that the EU were more interested in price than delivery date?
The EU ‘leaked’ price list from a while ago, where they were subtly boasting about prices paid for the various vaccines.
While other countries were subtly boasting about their delivery schedules.
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.
I think we can all agree teachers should be vaccinated in the future when there's unlimited supply and the vulnerable have been done. Everyone should be.
The question being discussed is whether teachers should be vaccinated *now* as called for ludicrously by Keir Starmer and the Daily Mirror poll, but wisely rejected by the teachers unions.
The high risk won't be done until all 9 priority groups have been done. Making key workers priority group 10 may be reasonable - putting teachers before priority groups 5-9 is not.
My compromise is that some teachers, with vulnerable families or personal conditions should be vaccinated before they return to the classroom.
The issue with that is how to identify those people. For example a teacher which is obese might be in a danger group more, but do you send out a questionnaire asking if teachers are fat or not?
One reason why broad blocks work rather then tailoring to an individuals.
The teacher applies to the head, who then refers the person to the quack.
As I said upthread, I am mindful of my teacher friend in Aus who's son has cystic fibrosis. He should get a jab before being asked to teach face to face. There will be other teachers in a similar position or have personal health issues that tip the risk balance. If the head supports the request, that should be enough IMO.
It's a hellish decision. It is in everyone's interest for the virus to be snubbed out and if schools do spread it (no one seems to know conclusively) and they are closed, then we get nearer to that point.
On the other hand, the vast potential damage to childrens' mental health is something that is surely weighing on the government's mind, especially if schools might not help to spread the virus.
The argument is that if the virus is not contained then the damage will be done anyway to children. That is certainly valid. But as people have noted, as the vulnerable categories become vaccinated that idea decreases every day.
As to the exact practicality - there are around half a million teachers and we are vaccinating around a half a million people a day (or hope to soon). Who would object to a one day delay to get all the teachers done?
It seems some people think that a 30 year old teacher should not be vaccinated before a 45 year old project manager at all costs.
My argument is that once the very high risk have been vaccinated, teachers should absolutely be prioritised along with police and bus drivers and supermarket workers etc. To get the best bang for our buck when it comes to herd immunity.
We're having arguments over nothing as Robert pointed out last night, by mid April we're going to be swimming in vaccines. Does it matter whether teachers get it during the first week or second week? We'll be doing 5-6m jabs per week.
If we get to that point, then it's a moot point as we'll all be done pretty quick. A week or so wouldn't make a difference to the general population. A month or two would.
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.
I think we can all agree teachers should be vaccinated in the future when there's unlimited supply and the vulnerable have been done. Everyone should be.
The question being discussed is whether teachers should be vaccinated *now* as called for ludicrously by Keir Starmer and the Daily Mirror poll, but wisely rejected by the teachers unions.
The high risk won't be done until all 9 priority groups have been done. Making key workers priority group 10 may be reasonable - putting teachers before priority groups 5-9 is not.
My compromise is that some teachers, with vulnerable families or personal conditions should be vaccinated before they return to the classroom.
The problem with that is that it requires investigation and that slows everything down.
It's quicker to simply blanket vaccinate, assuming there's adequate supply, which in 3-4 months I'd hope supply was less constrained.
3 to 4 months - schools are supposed to be back on March 8th.
If you are talking about vaccinating teachers in May it's a bit late.
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".
I'm not a Labour supporter
I wasn't being rude about Wales. It genuinely doesn't interest me. The same with the Sturgeon/Salmond spat. I don't know what it is about and don't want to know. Same with stuff about Yorkshire or cricket. I skip over posts about these subjects.
I am interested in politics and betting on the UK/EU/USA/France/Ireland, Covid-19, China, Russia, climate change, economics, philosophy, learning Spanish, - but not Wales - sorry.
Of course, I know you are not a Labour party member or voter.
But, you support SKS in a forced choice with the Shagster.
A little decorum please.
Can we please stop calling the Prime Minister, "Shagster" or "Shagger". "Boris", "Mr Johnson", "Johnson" or "The Churchillian Boris Johnson" would be more appropriate.
It seems some people think that a 30 year old teacher should not be vaccinated before a 45 year old project manager at all costs.
My argument is that once the very high risk have been vaccinated, teachers should absolutely be prioritised along with police and bus drivers and supermarket workers etc. To get the best bang for our buck when it comes to herd immunity.
I agree. Once you get past the extreme cases such as the over 70s and the co-morbid vulnerability should not be the only criteria. There is also risk of exposure and those you have mentioned are all good examples of those who are exposing themselves to risk for the public good. Not only is this morally right, it will also reduce the incidence of the disease faster because these are the most obvious vectors for further infection within the community.
It's an attractive argument - and I admit I had the same thoughts when the priority list was first published. But they claim to have done the analysis and established that you save more lives by focusing on the vulnerable, rather than the potential spreaders.
Health and care workers are given priority because they are mixing with the vulnerable. Teachers aren't.
It seems some people think that a 30 year old teacher should not be vaccinated before a 45 year old project manager at all costs.
My argument is that once the very high risk have been vaccinated, teachers should absolutely be prioritised along with police and bus drivers and supermarket workers etc. To get the best bang for our buck when it comes to herd immunity.
We're having arguments over nothing as Robert pointed out last night, by mid April we're going to be swimming in vaccines. Does it matter whether teachers get it during the first week or second week? We'll be doing 5-6m jabs per week.
It only matters if we do a Williamson and send the schools back too early. If we hang on until Easter then there's nothing to argue about.
Teachers aren't the enemy. Covid is. Some of the comments on here this morning are just sad.
Beginning to see the issue here (h/t David Allen Green, obvs).
The issue is that as far as can be assumed, the agreement with the EU did have that best efforts clause but that related to manufacturing capacity. It likely made no mention of prioritisation of the product. It seems that AZN does have sufficient manufacturing capacity for the EU order in isolation.
Hence, the EU is behaving as though its agreement is the only one on the planet. AZN, meanwhile, probably realising that they didn't explicitly set out the allocation schedule, has said that the UK ordered first (which it did) and therefore the obligation is to the UK.
But the EU seemingly doesn't care about other contracts it cares about its own contract. AZN has the manufacturing ability hence the EU believes that as that is the only best efforts constraint, the EU should receive its full allocation.
I expect to repost this several times today so I shall label this v1.0.
But the best efforts definition used (according to DAG, in the other contract, so probably in this one too) explicitly did refer to commitments to others.
AZN's commitments to earlier contracts falls under that surely?
Well IANAL, obvs, but according to DAG that is the general description and then it is applied, specifically, to two scenarios which creates the actual obligation.
‘(i) to obtain EU marketing authorisation for the Product and (ii) to establish sufficient manufacturing capacities to enable the manufacturing and supply of the contractually agreed volumes of the Product to the participating Member States in accordance with the estimated delivery schedule set out below in Article I.11 once at least a conditional EU marketing authorisation has been granted.’
It is DAG's contention that the general description is without meaning or force unless it is further refined, as it is in 1.3 (i).
"sufficient" = "sufficient taking our other obligations into account."
DAG did a tweet in 2016 saying the NEC was going to win the challenge over eligibility to vote in the leadership elections, and (I paraphrase) "I know this because I am a Big Important Lawyer and the rest of you look like little ants to me." The NEC lost, the tweet got deleted. Ignore.
Well that is a bold claim to ignore his point. IANAL but do you/they really add phantom phrases to explicit contracts to suit their (client's) needs?
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.
I think we can all agree teachers should be vaccinated in the future when there's unlimited supply and the vulnerable have been done. Everyone should be.
The question being discussed is whether teachers should be vaccinated *now* as called for ludicrously by Keir Starmer and the Daily Mirror poll, but wisely rejected by the teachers unions.
The high risk won't be done until all 9 priority groups have been done. Making key workers priority group 10 may be reasonable - putting teachers before priority groups 5-9 is not.
My compromise is that some teachers, with vulnerable families or personal conditions should be vaccinated before they return to the classroom.
The issue with that is how to identify those people. For example a teacher which is obese might be in a danger group more, but do you send out a questionnaire asking if teachers are fat or not?
One reason why broad blocks work rather then tailoring to an individuals.
Surely people with conditions would be vaccinated in the priority groups?
An interesting question would be whether it is a good idea to prioritise (down the line) family of those who are vulnerable. Carers of elderly people have been prioritised - on the basis of trying to build a barrier of vaccinated people around them.
So - family radiating out from the elderly and vulnerable...... ??
Beginning to see the issue here (h/t David Allen Green, obvs).
The issue is that as far as can be assumed, the agreement with the EU did have that best efforts clause but that related to manufacturing capacity. It likely made no mention of prioritisation of the product. It seems that AZN does have sufficient manufacturing capacity for the EU order in isolation.
Hence, the EU is behaving as though its agreement is the only one on the planet. AZN, meanwhile, probably realising that they didn't explicitly set out the allocation schedule, has said that the UK ordered first (which it did) and therefore the obligation is to the UK.
But the EU seemingly doesn't care about other contracts it cares about its own contract. AZN has the manufacturing ability hence the EU believes that as that is the only best efforts constraint, the EU should receive its full allocation.
I expect to repost this several times today so I shall label this v1.0.
But the best efforts definition used (according to DAG, in the other contract, so probably in this one too) explicitly did refer to commitments to others.
AZN's commitments to earlier contracts falls under that surely?
Even if it isn't expressed, if it says "reasonable" it isn't reasonable to expect breaches of existing contracts with other parties. And if it doesn't say reasonable, a court is not going to construe a contract as obliging a party to breach a contract with another party unless it absolutely has to.
Indeed.
The EU side didn’t know (and wouldn’t have expected to know at the time) the nature of the contracts AZ has with other countries.
As far as AZ are concerned, the EU were more interested in price than delivery date, they have priority contracts with early investors such as the UK and India, and are trying to increase capacity as quickly as possible.
Where do you get that AZN thought that the EU were more interested in price than delivery date?
The EU ‘leaked’ price list from a while ago, where they were subtly boasting about prices paid for the various vaccines.
While other countries were subtly boasting about their delivery schedules.
BioNtech has criticised the EU’s failure to order more doses of its coronavirus vaccine, saying it is now racing with its US partner, Pfizer, to boost production amid fears of a European “gap” left by the lack of other approved vaccines.
The Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine was the first to be approved by the bloc late last month, after being accepted by the UK, Canada and the US. They and other countries have also since approved the Moderna or Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine, leaving the EU trailing behind.
With criticism growing of the slow pace of the EU’s vaccine programme, Uğur Şahin, thehead of the German biotech firm, told Der Spiegel that the order process in Europe “certainly did not go as fast and smooth as it did with other countries”.
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.
I think we can all agree teachers should be vaccinated in the future when there's unlimited supply and the vulnerable have been done. Everyone should be.
The question being discussed is whether teachers should be vaccinated *now* as called for ludicrously by Keir Starmer and the Daily Mirror poll, but wisely rejected by the teachers unions.
The high risk won't be done until all 9 priority groups have been done. Making key workers priority group 10 may be reasonable - putting teachers before priority groups 5-9 is not.
My compromise is that some teachers, with vulnerable families or personal conditions should be vaccinated before they return to the classroom.
The issue with that is how to identify those people. For example a teacher which is obese might be in a danger group more, but do you send out a questionnaire asking if teachers are fat or not?
One reason why broad blocks work rather then tailoring to an individuals.
The teacher applies to the head, who then refers the person to the quack.
As I said upthread, I am mindful of my teacher friend in Aus who's son has cystic fibrosis. He should get a jab before being asked to teach face to face. There will be other teachers in a similar position or have personal health issues that tip the risk balance. If the head supports the request, that should be enough IMO.
I would say if that was the option, it would be frankly easier and quicker to just do them all en-masse. The less form filling and simpler the better.
Also, I expect many teachers would not be comfortable sharing their personal medical issues or issues in the family with other members of staff, even if the head-teacher.
Its interesting that the EU officials still keep saying they haven't had a 'plausible explanation' for problems with vaccine delivery.
The 'plausible explanation' is easy - the vaccines haven't been made yet and no matter what threats and tantrums are made will not magic them into existence.
We all know how EU discussion proceed - endless bickering, extended deadlines and then the triumphant agreement at the last minute.
But a new and complex production process in the real world doesn't work like that.
My understanding is that the JCVI is advising the government on vaccination priorities, and that the government has said it will accept whatever the JCVI recommends. I also understand that the JCVI will continually review priorities once the first 4 priority groups have been vaccinated.
So I don't see any harm in Labour, the government, or anybody else, making suggestions. Presumably the JCVI will arrive at an independent decision, taking into account current progress, data on infection case rates (overall and by groups), hospitalisations, etc, and vaccine supply. The government will thus follow the scientific advice.
I don't really see what all the fuss is about. Leave it to the JCVI, and trust them to be objective.
It seems some people think that a 30 year old teacher should not be vaccinated before a 45 year old project manager at all costs.
My argument is that once the very high risk have been vaccinated, teachers should absolutely be prioritised along with police and bus drivers and supermarket workers etc. To get the best bang for our buck when it comes to herd immunity.
I don’t think by the time we get to that stage that’s going to be the issue. Once they start on the under 50s, it will probably be by health status, not age.
For example, I am 37 and have no underlying health conditions. OK, so I teach in a school and that’s a high risk environment. But should I therefore be vaccinated ahead of my sister, aged 39 and with two school age children, who is an asthmatic as well as obese from the side effects of various drugs she has to take for a mobility issue?
I know who I think is more at risk in the event of schools going back. And it isn’t me.
37. So wise, for one so young.
That popping noise you heard was my head swelling.
I'd also thought you were older, but maybe that's just because my history teachers at school were generally old enough to be primary sources for the material they taught!
Its interesting that the EU officials still keep saying they haven't had a 'plausible explanation' for problems with vaccine delivery.
The 'plausible explanation' is easy - the vaccines haven't been made yet and no matter what threats and tantrums are made will not magic them into existence.
We all know how EU discussion proceed - endless bickering, extended deadlines and then the triumphant agreement at the last minute.
But a new and complex production process in the real world doesn't work like that.
Bear in mind the EU still hasn't even approved the bloody thing yet.
They're muppets, and their muppetry is costing Europeans.
Ironic that our own imbecile has done so much better, his vice of spending for headlines actually proving quite the virtue when it comes to a once in a century (one hopes) pandemic.
It's a hellish decision. It is in everyone's interest for the virus to be snubbed out and if schools do spread it (no one seems to know conclusively) and they are closed, then we get nearer to that point.
Given the enormous misinformation campaign they’ve put out I’m confident the government know schools spread it.
They just don’t want to admit (a) their strategy has failed and (b) they’ve lied to everyone at every turn.
It seems some people think that a 30 year old teacher should not be vaccinated before a 45 year old project manager at all costs.
My argument is that once the very high risk have been vaccinated, teachers should absolutely be prioritised along with police and bus drivers and supermarket workers etc. To get the best bang for our buck when it comes to herd immunity.
I don’t think by the time we get to that stage that’s going to be the issue. Once they start on the under 50s, it will probably be by health status, not age.
For example, I am 37 and have no underlying health conditions. OK, so I teach in a school and that’s a high risk environment. But should I therefore be vaccinated ahead of my sister, aged 39 and with two school age children, who is an asthmatic as well as obese from the side effects of various drugs she has to take for a mobility issue?
I know who I think is more at risk in the event of schools going back. And it isn’t me.
37. So wise, for one so young.
That popping noise you heard was my head swelling.
I'd also thought you were older, but maybe that's just because my history teachers at school were generally old enough to be primary sources for the material they taught!
One of the surprising realisations of growing up is that many of the 'mature adult' figures you looked up to (or otherwise) when at school turn out to have been people in their 20s.
It seems some people think that a 30 year old teacher should not be vaccinated before a 45 year old project manager at all costs.
My argument is that once the very high risk have been vaccinated, teachers should absolutely be prioritised along with police and bus drivers and supermarket workers etc. To get the best bang for our buck when it comes to herd immunity.
I don’t think by the time we get to that stage that’s going to be the issue. Once they start on the under 50s, it will probably be by health status, not age.
For example, I am 37 and have no underlying health conditions. OK, so I teach in a school and that’s a high risk environment. But should I therefore be vaccinated ahead of my sister, aged 39 and with two school age children, who is an asthmatic as well as obese from the side effects of various drugs she has to take for a mobility issue?
I know who I think is more at risk in the event of schools going back. And it isn’t me.
37. So wise, for one so young.
That popping noise you heard was my head swelling.
I'd also thought you were older, but maybe that's just because my history teachers at school were generally old enough to be primary sources for the material they taught!
Isn't it that when we were at school teachers seemed ancient?
I think we're all actually agreeing, as we're not complete narcissists! that public facing (Including teachers) should probably get some degree of priority. The question is where. Ahead of groups 1 - 4 is right out. So are they 4.5, 5.5, 6.5, 7.5, 8.5 or group 10 ? That's the real question. Continually putting myself back in the queue here
Suggestion:
55 year old teacher gets the vaccine at the same time as a 65 year old non teacher. 45 year old teacher gets the vaccine at the same time as a 55 year old non teacher. 35 year old teacher gets the vaccine at the same time as a 45 year old non teacher. 25 year old teacher gets the vaccine at the same time as a 35 year old non teacher.
My understanding is that the JCVI is advising the government on vaccination priorities, and that the government has said it will accept whatever the JCVI recommends. I also understand that the JCVI will continually review priorities once the first 4 priority groups have been vaccinated.
So I don't see any harm in Labour, the government, or anybody else, making suggestions. Presumably the JCVI will arrive at an independent decision, taking into account current progress, data on infection case rates (overall and by groups), hospitalisations, etc, and vaccine supply. The government will thus follow the scientific advice.
I don't really see what all the fuss is about. Leave it to the JCVI, and trust them to be objective.
That doesn't wash, you can't say 'follow the science' but then also say 'but the science should be this'.
It's a hellish decision. It is in everyone's interest for the virus to be snubbed out and if schools do spread it (no one seems to know conclusively) and they are closed, then we get nearer to that point.
Given the enormous misinformation campaign they’ve put out I’m confident the government know schools spread it.
They just don’t want to admit (a) their strategy has failed and (b) they’ve lied to everyone at every turn.
Well that is a leap. It may well be but there is no basis for thinking that.
It seems some people think that a 30 year old teacher should not be vaccinated before a 45 year old project manager at all costs.
My argument is that once the very high risk have been vaccinated, teachers should absolutely be prioritised along with police and bus drivers and supermarket workers etc. To get the best bang for our buck when it comes to herd immunity.
I don’t think by the time we get to that stage that’s going to be the issue. Once they start on the under 50s, it will probably be by health status, not age.
For example, I am 37 and have no underlying health conditions. OK, so I teach in a school and that’s a high risk environment. But should I therefore be vaccinated ahead of my sister, aged 39 and with two school age children, who is an asthmatic as well as obese from the side effects of various drugs she has to take for a mobility issue?
I know who I think is more at risk in the event of schools going back. And it isn’t me.
37. So wise, for one so young.
That popping noise you heard was my head swelling.
I'd also thought you were older, but maybe that's just because my history teachers at school were generally old enough to be primary sources for the material they taught!
Isn't it that when we were at school teachers seemed ancient?
It isn't a coincidence that that announcement has come only 48 hours before BNO passport holders gain the right to come to the UK.
HK citizens who want to leave are probably going to have to leave on a HK passport to Singapore or Vietnam first, and smuggle the BNO passport out in their suitcase.
Can we please stop calling the Prime Minister, "Shagster" or "Shagger". "Boris", "Mr Johnson", "Johnson" or "The Churchillian Boris Johnson" would be more appropriate.
I think we're all actually agreeing, as we're not complete narcissists! that public facing (Including teachers) should probably get some degree of priority. The question is where. Ahead of groups 1 - 4 is right out. So are they 4.5, 5.5, 6.5, 7.5, 8.5 or group 10 ? That's the real question. Continually putting myself back in the queue here
Suggestion:
55 year old teacher gets the vaccine at the same time as a 65 year old non teacher. 45 year old teacher gets the vaccine at the same time as a 55 year old non teacher. 35 year old teacher gets the vaccine at the same time as a 45 year old non teacher. 25 year old teacher gets the vaccine at the same time as a 35 year old non teacher.
Why? If (as above) the evidence is that there is greater medical benefit in focusing on the more vulnerable.
Once you start picking and choosing between professions, you're on a slippery slope, and soon need to start considering lifestyle factors, and then we'll all be forced to disclose information we don't need to, and you've created a monster.
It seems some people think that a 30 year old teacher should not be vaccinated before a 45 year old project manager at all costs.
My argument is that once the very high risk have been vaccinated, teachers should absolutely be prioritised along with police and bus drivers and supermarket workers etc. To get the best bang for our buck when it comes to herd immunity.
We're having arguments over nothing as Robert pointed out last night, by mid April we're going to be swimming in vaccines. Does it matter whether teachers get it during the first week or second week? We'll be doing 5-6m jabs per week.
It only matters if we do a Williamson and send the schools back too early. If we hang on until Easter then there's nothing to argue about.
Teachers aren't the enemy. Covid is. Some of the comments on here this morning are just sad.
I don't disagree, just pointing out that this is a pointless argument. Teachers won't get it before the top 9 groups and after that we could have everyone booked in and done in 4-6 weeks. Prioritising them would be easy within the available capacity.
Its interesting that the EU officials still keep saying they haven't had a 'plausible explanation' for problems with vaccine delivery.
The 'plausible explanation' is easy - the vaccines haven't been made yet and no matter what threats and tantrums are made will not magic them into existence.
We all know how EU discussion proceed - endless bickering, extended deadlines and then the triumphant agreement at the last minute.
But a new and complex production process in the real world doesn't work like that.
The Commissioner is busy taking "solidarity to new heights".
Offices have had more clusters of cases of Covid-19 than other workplaces, a BBC investigation has found.
Public Health England figures, obtained via a Freedom of Information request, reveal there were more than 60 suspected clusters of cases in offices in the first two weeks of the current lockdown in England.
The government has urged firms to help employees work from home.
The data also shows there were more than 500 outbreaks, or suspected outbreaks, in offices in the second half of 2020 - more than in supermarkets, construction sites, warehouses, restaurants and cafes combined.
Perhaps office workers should be given priority as well.
I have no time for Young but that's not a fair point; he doesn't (or at least didn't, in the debate) deny the problem. The debate yesterday was about whether the short and longterm costs of lockdown outweigh the benefits. That's a fair question to ask - and it was a good and balanced discussion.
I didn’t say it wasn’t but Young has been a repeated denier of the seriousness of the virus, the benefits of lockdown and the efficacy of face masks (wasn’t he an early adopter of the term face nappies?). Of course Young’s main form of denial currently is of much of the dumb shit he’s said about Covid. He’s dangerous.
I think we're all actually agreeing, as we're not complete narcissists! that public facing (Including teachers) should probably get some degree of priority. The question is where. Ahead of groups 1 - 4 is right out. So are they 4.5, 5.5, 6.5, 7.5, 8.5 or group 10 ? That's the real question. Continually putting myself back in the queue here
Suggestion:
55 year old teacher gets the vaccine at the same time as a 65 year old non teacher. 45 year old teacher gets the vaccine at the same time as a 55 year old non teacher. 35 year old teacher gets the vaccine at the same time as a 45 year old non teacher. 25 year old teacher gets the vaccine at the same time as a 35 year old non teacher.
That's needlessly complicated and bureaucratic. How many teachers are there under 50? We could probably get them all done with two days worth of capacity. It's a really nothing argument.
Beginning to see the issue here (h/t David Allen Green, obvs).
The issue is that as far as can be assumed, the agreement with the EU did have that best efforts clause but that related to manufacturing capacity. It likely made no mention of prioritisation of the product. It seems that AZN does have sufficient manufacturing capacity for the EU order in isolation.
Hence, the EU is behaving as though its agreement is the only one on the planet. AZN, meanwhile, probably realising that they didn't explicitly set out the allocation schedule, has said that the UK ordered first (which it did) and therefore the obligation is to the UK.
But the EU seemingly doesn't care about other contracts it cares about its own contract. AZN has the manufacturing ability hence the EU believes that as that is the only best efforts constraint, the EU should receive its full allocation.
I expect to repost this several times today so I shall label this v1.0.
But the best efforts definition used (according to DAG, in the other contract, so probably in this one too) explicitly did refer to commitments to others.
AZN's commitments to earlier contracts falls under that surely?
Even if it isn't expressed, if it says "reasonable" it isn't reasonable to expect breaches of existing contracts with other parties. And if it doesn't say reasonable, a court is not going to construe a contract as obliging a party to breach a contract with another party unless it absolutely has to.
Indeed.
The EU side didn’t know (and wouldn’t have expected to know at the time) the nature of the contracts AZ has with other countries.
As far as AZ are concerned, the EU were more interested in price than delivery date, they have priority contracts with early investors such as the UK and India, and are trying to increase capacity as quickly as possible.
Where do you get that AZN thought that the EU were more interested in price than delivery date?
The EU ‘leaked’ price list from a while ago, where they were subtly boasting about prices paid for the various vaccines.
While other countries were subtly boasting about their delivery schedules.
I'm not sure that is relevant.
When negotiating, it is usually very obvious if the other party is prioritising early delivery or low cost.
Beginning to see the issue here (h/t David Allen Green, obvs).
The issue is that as far as can be assumed, the agreement with the EU did have that best efforts clause but that related to manufacturing capacity. It likely made no mention of prioritisation of the product. It seems that AZN does have sufficient manufacturing capacity for the EU order in isolation.
Hence, the EU is behaving as though its agreement is the only one on the planet. AZN, meanwhile, probably realising that they didn't explicitly set out the allocation schedule, has said that the UK ordered first (which it did) and therefore the obligation is to the UK.
But the EU seemingly doesn't care about other contracts it cares about its own contract. AZN has the manufacturing ability hence the EU believes that as that is the only best efforts constraint, the EU should receive its full allocation.
I expect to repost this several times today so I shall label this v1.0.
But the best efforts definition used (according to DAG, in the other contract, so probably in this one too) explicitly did refer to commitments to others.
AZN's commitments to earlier contracts falls under that surely?
Even if it isn't expressed, if it says "reasonable" it isn't reasonable to expect breaches of existing contracts with other parties. And if it doesn't say reasonable, a court is not going to construe a contract as obliging a party to breach a contract with another party unless it absolutely has to.
Indeed.
The EU side didn’t know (and wouldn’t have expected to know at the time) the nature of the contracts AZ has with other countries.
As far as AZ are concerned, the EU were more interested in price than delivery date, they have priority contracts with early investors such as the UK and India, and are trying to increase capacity as quickly as possible.
Where do you get that AZN thought that the EU were more interested in price than delivery date?
The EU ‘leaked’ price list from a while ago, where they were subtly boasting about prices paid for the various vaccines.
While other countries were subtly boasting about their delivery schedules.
I'm not sure that is relevant.
I’m pretty sure it’s incredibly relevant.
UK priorities appear to have been factories, speed of approval and fast delivery. EU priorities appear to be been price and liability.
Whatever wasn’t the priority hasn’t happened - so the UK has had to eat price and liability, whereas the EU has had to eat timescale and production capability.
It's a hellish decision. It is in everyone's interest for the virus to be snubbed out and if schools do spread it (no one seems to know conclusively) and they are closed, then we get nearer to that point.
On the other hand, the vast potential damage to childrens' mental health is something that is surely weighing on the government's mind, especially if schools might not help to spread the virus.
The argument is that if the virus is not contained then the damage will be done anyway to children. That is certainly valid. But as people have noted, as the vulnerable categories become vaccinated that idea decreases every day.
As to the exact practicality - there are around half a million teachers and we are vaccinating around a half a million people a day (or hope to soon). Who would object to a one day delay to get all the teachers done?
Like our resident teacher, I feel it is pretty likely schools are a principal route of transmission. That early research that looked at the effectiveness of various lockdown measures suggests such. And from a local perspective, the island is (or was a week or two back) at an infection rate as bad as the worst parts of London, having remained relatively virus-free for a long time. It spread across the island very fast, and with so little social and economic activity going on, spreading via schools is a credible explanation.
But the key point is that it is closing the school that (possibly, depending on what the pupils get up to during) that makes the difference. Vaccinating the teacher is pretty marginal.
It seems some people think that a 30 year old teacher should not be vaccinated before a 45 year old project manager at all costs.
My argument is that once the very high risk have been vaccinated, teachers should absolutely be prioritised along with police and bus drivers and supermarket workers etc. To get the best bang for our buck when it comes to herd immunity.
I don’t think by the time we get to that stage that’s going to be the issue. Once they start on the under 50s, it will probably be by health status, not age.
For example, I am 37 and have no underlying health conditions. OK, so I teach in a school and that’s a high risk environment. But should I therefore be vaccinated ahead of my sister, aged 39 and with two school age children, who is an asthmatic as well as obese from the side effects of various drugs she has to take for a mobility issue?
I know who I think is more at risk in the event of schools going back. And it isn’t me.
37. So wise, for one so young.
That popping noise you heard was my head swelling.
I'd also thought you were older, but maybe that's just because my history teachers at school were generally old enough to be primary sources for the material they taught!
Isn't it that when we were at school teachers seemed ancient?
And why does everyone hate teachers?
Because we hated them when we were at school.
Too many socialists in teaching, not enough balance imho
I think we're all actually agreeing, as we're not complete narcissists! that public facing (Including teachers) should probably get some degree of priority. The question is where. Ahead of groups 1 - 4 is right out. So are they 4.5, 5.5, 6.5, 7.5, 8.5 or group 10 ? That's the real question. Continually putting myself back in the queue here
Suggestion:
55 year old teacher gets the vaccine at the same time as a 65 year old non teacher. 45 year old teacher gets the vaccine at the same time as a 55 year old non teacher. 35 year old teacher gets the vaccine at the same time as a 45 year old non teacher. 25 year old teacher gets the vaccine at the same time as a 35 year old non teacher.
Why? If (as above) the evidence is that there is greater medical benefit in focusing on the more vulnerable.
Once you start picking and choosing between professions, you're on a slippery slope, and soon need to start considering lifestyle factors, and then we'll all be forced to disclose information we don't need to, and you've created a monster.
Presumably the argument has already been made that it might make sense to prioritise the vaccination of those whose job involves contact with many people (such as teachers) in order to slow the spread of the virus and protect the population in general, rather than particularly to protect those who are vaccinated?
To our SNP friends, can you explain just what the 'Vietnam' whats app group is, how close is it to Nicola, and what was their activities v Alex Salmond
Mind you Malc may be able to elucidate the controversy
I have no time for Young but that's not a fair point; he doesn't (or at least didn't, in the debate) deny the problem. The debate yesterday was about whether the short and longterm costs of lockdown outweigh the benefits. That's a fair question to ask - and it was a good and balanced discussion.
I didn’t say it wasn’t but Young has been a repeated denier of the seriousness of the virus, the benefits of lockdown and the efficacy of face masks (wasn’t he an early adopter of the term face nappies?). Of course Young’s main form of denial currently is of much of the dumb shit he’s said about Covid. He’s dangerous.
He has certainly come across as an ill-informed idiot previously and, like our resident writer, has taken pleasure in making stupid comments just to get some attention.
But last night he was on best behaviour - and it isn't yet clear that the verdict of history won't see the lockdown response rather differently from how we do now, once both the short and long-term pain as a consequence becomes clear.
Comments
The question being discussed is whether teachers should be vaccinated *now* as called for ludicrously by Keir Starmer and the Daily Mirror poll, but wisely rejected by the teachers unions.
The high risk won't be done until all 9 priority groups have been done. Making key workers priority group 10 may be reasonable - putting teachers before priority groups 5-9 is not.
My argument is that once the very high risk have been vaccinated, teachers should absolutely be prioritised along with police and bus drivers and supermarket workers etc. To get the best bang for our buck when it comes to herd immunity.
“...Peter Wilke, Bild’s UK reporter, exclaiming that whilst he had not received a vaccination appointment in his home town of Mühlheim, he was shocked to get an SMS text from the NHS, “Suddenly I got a vaccination appointment in England!” ”
The issue is that as far as can be assumed, the agreement with the EU did have that best efforts clause but that related to manufacturing capacity. It likely made no mention of prioritisation of the product. It seems that AZN does have sufficient manufacturing capacity for the EU order in isolation.
Hence, the EU is behaving as though its agreement is the only one on the planet. AZN, meanwhile, probably realising that they didn't explicitly set out the allocation schedule, has said that the UK ordered first (which it did) and therefore the obligation is to the UK.
But the EU seemingly doesn't care about other contracts it cares about its own contract. AZN has the manufacturing ability hence the EU believes that as that is the only best efforts constraint, the EU should receive its full allocation.
I expect to repost this several times today so I shall label this v1.0.
But earlier you were saying "old" people should make way for teachers, 45 year olds is a weird definition of "old" in this context.
If you're saying the priority list should be followed and then do teachers etc, I doubt anyone disagrees with that.
For example, I am 37 and have no underlying health conditions. OK, so I teach in a school and that’s a high risk environment. But should I therefore be vaccinated ahead of my sister, aged 39 and with two school age children, who is an asthmatic as well as obese from the side effects of various drugs she has to take for a mobility issue?
I know who I think is more at risk in the event of schools going back. And it isn’t me.
Not sure Chinese takeaway staff will be on the prio list though
AZN's commitments to earlier contracts falls under that surely?
Whatever the cause, I’ll take it.
I'm well aware few teachers vote Conservative, are enthusiastic union members and many are proselytisers of Woke. But, that's not the point.
I wasn't being rude about Wales. It genuinely doesn't interest me. The same with the Sturgeon/Salmond spat. I don't know what it is about and don't want to know. Same with stuff about Yorkshire or cricket. I skip over posts about these subjects.
I am interested in politics and betting on the UK/EU/USA/France/Ireland, Covid-19, China, Russia, climate change, economics, philosophy, learning Spanish, - but not Wales - sorry.
‘(i) to obtain EU marketing authorisation for the Product and (ii) to establish sufficient manufacturing capacities to enable the manufacturing and supply of the contractually agreed volumes of the Product to the participating Member States in accordance with the estimated delivery schedule set out below in Article I.11 once at least a conditional EU marketing authorisation has been granted.’
It is DAG's contention that the general description is without meaning or force unless it is further refined, as it is in 1.3 (i).
https://twitter.com/jameskmcauley/status/1346470268605059078
If I misunderstood I apologise
That's the real question.
Continually putting myself back in the queue here
I'm not that concerned though. I've never "felt" at risk and haven't been shielding.
It's quicker to simply blanket vaccinate, assuming there's adequate supply, which in 3-4 months I'd hope supply was less constrained.
The EU side didn’t know (and wouldn’t have expected to know at the time) the nature of the contracts AZ has with other countries.
As far as AZ are concerned, the EU were more interested in price than delivery date, they have priority contracts with early investors such as the UK and India, and are trying to increase capacity as quickly as possible.
Not so sure that will be so widely appreciated when the bill has to be paid.
https://twitter.com/mrjamesob/status/1355078911277858816?s=21
https://twitter.com/BBCkatyaadler/status/1355075910001713152
You can't just 'follow the science' in part.
But, you support SKS in a forced choice with the Shagster.
DAG did a tweet in 2016 saying the NEC was going to win the challenge over eligibility to vote in the leadership elections, and (I paraphrase) "I know this because I am a Big Important Lawyer and the rest of you look like little ants to me." The NEC lost, the tweet got deleted. Ignore.
One reason why broad blocks work rather then tailoring to an individuals.
https://twitter.com/RishiSunak/status/1355077003041509376?s=20
While other countries were subtly boasting about their delivery schedules.
As I said upthread, I am mindful of my teacher friend in Aus who's son has cystic fibrosis. He should get a jab before being asked to teach face to face. There will be other teachers in a similar position or have personal health issues that tip the risk balance. If the head supports the request, that should be enough IMO.
It's a hellish decision. It is in everyone's interest for the virus to be snubbed out and if schools do spread it (no one seems to know conclusively) and they are closed, then we get nearer to that point.
On the other hand, the vast potential damage to childrens' mental health is something that is surely weighing on the government's mind, especially if schools might not help to spread the virus.
The argument is that if the virus is not contained then the damage will be done anyway to children. That is certainly valid. But as people have noted, as the vulnerable categories become vaccinated that idea decreases every day.
As to the exact practicality - there are around half a million teachers and we are vaccinating around a half a million people a day (or hope to soon). Who would object to a one day delay to get all the teachers done?
If you are talking about vaccinating teachers in May it's a bit late.
Can we please stop calling the Prime Minister, "Shagster" or "Shagger". "Boris", "Mr Johnson", "Johnson" or "The Churchillian Boris Johnson" would be more appropriate.
Health and care workers are given priority because they are mixing with the vulnerable. Teachers aren't.
Teachers aren't the enemy. Covid is. Some of the comments on here this morning are just sad.
An interesting question would be whether it is a good idea to prioritise (down the line) family of those who are vulnerable. Carers of elderly people have been prioritised - on the basis of trying to build a barrier of vaccinated people around them.
So - family radiating out from the elderly and vulnerable...... ??
BioNtech has criticised the EU’s failure to order more doses of its coronavirus vaccine, saying it is now racing with its US partner, Pfizer, to boost production amid fears of a European “gap” left by the lack of other approved vaccines.
The Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine was the first to be approved by the bloc late last month, after being accepted by the UK, Canada and the US. They and other countries have also since approved the Moderna or Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine, leaving the EU trailing behind.
With criticism growing of the slow pace of the EU’s vaccine programme, Uğur Şahin, thehead of the German biotech firm, told Der Spiegel that the order process in Europe “certainly did not go as fast and smooth as it did with other countries”.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/01/france-to-step-up-covid-jabs-after-claims-of-bowing-to-anti-vaxxers
Also, I expect many teachers would not be comfortable sharing their personal medical issues or issues in the family with other members of staff, even if the head-teacher.
The 'plausible explanation' is easy - the vaccines haven't been made yet and no matter what threats and tantrums are made will not magic them into existence.
We all know how EU discussion proceed - endless bickering, extended deadlines and then the triumphant agreement at the last minute.
But a new and complex production process in the real world doesn't work like that.
So I don't see any harm in Labour, the government, or anybody else, making suggestions. Presumably the JCVI will arrive at an independent decision, taking into account current progress, data on infection case rates (overall and by groups), hospitalisations, etc, and vaccine supply. The government will thus follow the scientific advice.
I don't really see what all the fuss is about. Leave it to the JCVI, and trust them to be objective.
They're muppets, and their muppetry is costing Europeans.
Ironic that our own imbecile has done so much better, his vice of spending for headlines actually proving quite the virtue when it comes to a once in a century (one hopes) pandemic.
They just don’t want to admit (a) their strategy has failed and (b) they’ve lied to everyone at every turn.
55 year old teacher gets the vaccine at the same time as a 65 year old non teacher.
45 year old teacher gets the vaccine at the same time as a 55 year old non teacher.
35 year old teacher gets the vaccine at the same time as a 45 year old non teacher.
25 year old teacher gets the vaccine at the same time as a 35 year old non teacher.
Because we hated them when we were at school.
HK citizens who want to leave are probably going to have to leave on a HK passport to Singapore or Vietnam first, and smuggle the BNO passport out in their suitcase.
Once you start picking and choosing between professions, you're on a slippery slope, and soon need to start considering lifestyle factors, and then we'll all be forced to disclose information we don't need to, and you've created a monster.
https://twitter.com/SKyriakidesEU/status/1355085356945829888
Offices have had more clusters of cases of Covid-19 than other workplaces, a BBC investigation has found.
Public Health England figures, obtained via a Freedom of Information request, reveal there were more than 60 suspected clusters of cases in offices in the first two weeks of the current lockdown in England.
The government has urged firms to help employees work from home.
The data also shows there were more than 500 outbreaks, or suspected outbreaks, in offices in the second half of 2020 - more than in supermarkets, construction sites, warehouses, restaurants and cafes combined.
Perhaps office workers should be given priority as well.
https://twitter.com/emcat1/status/1354915961523097616?s=20
And a "Scottish variant" which died out over lockdown 1, then re-emerged elsewhere.....
UK priorities appear to have been factories, speed of approval and fast delivery.
EU priorities appear to be been price and liability.
Whatever wasn’t the priority hasn’t happened - so the UK has had to eat price and liability, whereas the EU has had to eat timescale and production capability.
But the key point is that it is closing the school that (possibly, depending on what the pupils get up to during) that makes the difference. Vaccinating the teacher is pretty marginal.
"Why didn't you follow the scientific advice?"
"Why didn't you follow the scientific advice?"
"Why are you following the scientific advice?"
Mind you Malc may be able to elucidate the controversy
But last night he was on best behaviour - and it isn't yet clear that the verdict of history won't see the lockdown response rather differently from how we do now, once both the short and long-term pain as a consequence becomes clear.