So how do we increase vacc. supply so there is genuinely more now (or soon) rather than arguing over the same pie?
One possibility I can spot is for Sanofi to abandon their vaccine attempt (which I assume they are keeping manufacturing capacity aside for) and turn their manufacturing over to one of the other vaccines - Valneva looks the likeliest, as the French will never agree to AZN, and Pfizer has big issues concerning usability.
Last thing Sturgeon needs now is a narrative about her doing worse than Boris in the rollout. It won't take much swing to prevent her gaining an SNP majority and then all the constitutional arguments vanish.
SNP plus Greens, remember.
Well, true, but it was SNP maj in 2011 which triggered the ref in 2014. I think it was John Curtice who recently said it would be a prerequisite for any future ref.
Whatever, Boris will say no, anyway. Plan B is a dead duck as pointed out by Alex Bell here:
I'm finding this thread boringly one sided and partisan - is there anyone out there to help Kinabalu and None of the Above - what's happened to you. These people need help! Now! We have a serious Remain shortage. Paging! Paging! They can't all have urgent vaccine appointments surely.
Ha ha, thanks - I am not arguing from a remain side, more a keep calm British side, which unusually is perfectly in line with the UK governments and PMs excellent response so far. Will be intriguing to see if that holds out over the weekend or if he goes for some cheap popularity wins at home at the risk of escalation. On this I think he will do the right thing and keep calm as long as deliveries come through.
For clarity the EU have behaved poorly as well as cocking up their vaccine programmes and this does show some of the weaknesses of the EU structures.
Just an FYI, I don't expect an AZ claim would necessarily take months if it is in London.
I would expect the High Court to hear it in 2-3 weeks, plus the hearing and time for judgment. however that timeline of course starts with the claim being brought, which might take some time in itself.
The AZN / EU contract isn't subject to UK law - it's Belgian from memory
I wonder when the penny will drop in Berlaymont that all this will look even more stupid in a few weeks' time when the UK has continued to roll out the jabs and the EU's programme has gone backwards?
Especially given that we've got Novavax coming and the EU can't block Moderna as it's made in Switzerland.
I don't understand what the hell is going on in Brussels. They've all taken leave of their senses.
Novavax being one that the EU are only now in the process of negotiating contracts for.
We should just go in and gazzump them. For shits and giggles.
The tragic thing is that the people the EU have done most damage to in this affair is their own citizens, and God knows they don't deserve to be in this mess without enough vaccine.
The desperate want to gloat uncontrollably at the EU completely screwing this up and going mad about it, is only tempered by the fact that there’s several thousand Europeans dying of this terrible virus every day.
In any other circumstance, I’d be rolling on the floor laughing, but would instead rather my parents get their full vaccines.
No matter how badly this damages the EU or helps the Leave argument I would still be happier if it hadn't happened. A bit of political one up man ship is not worth all those unnecessary deaths.
I quite like the look of the fall-off in the 85+ Admissions line. It looks encouragingly steep in the last week or so, suggesting the effect of the jabs is beginning to come through.
Jesus Christ! Are they mad?!!! What’s happened to them?
Hopefully that's just the nuance getting lost in translation and not the product of a fit of pique over the demise of the French vaccine projects.
All this dicking about plus France's very high rates of vaccine hesitancy could land it in really serious and prolonged trouble. Firstly, that's also very bad news for us (not just because they're an important trading partner, but also because they could act as a reservoir for reimportation of the disease through the cross-Channel trade routes.) And Secondly, because every day France is stuck in lockdown cycles after other countries start to come out of them, the prospect of President le Pen increases.
Just an FYI, I don't expect an AZ claim would necessarily take months if it is in London.
I would expect the High Court to hear it in 2-3 weeks, plus the hearing and time for judgment. however that timeline of course starts with the claim being brought, which might take some time in itself.
First step would theoretically be an injunction to preserve the status quo and avoid harm wouldn’t it? Not sure who that would favour here.
I'm finding this thread boringly one sided and partisan - is there anyone out there to help Kinabalu and None of the Above - what's happened to you. These people need help! Now! We have a serious Remain shortage. Paging! Paging! They can't all have urgent vaccine appointments surely.
Have you ever tried to join a daisy chain in mid engagement?
So how do we increase vacc. supply so there is genuinely more now (or soon) rather than arguing over the same pie?
One possibility I can spot is for Sanofi to abandon their vaccine attempt (which I assume they are keeping manufacturing capacity aside for) and turn their manufacturing over to one of the other vaccines - Valneva looks the likeliest, as the French will never agree to AZN, and Pfizer has big issues concerning usability.
Sanofi have already agreed to produce the Pfizer jab under license I believe.
Doesn't Scotland have an older, fatter, unhealthier population than England, too? So it's even more serious for them than it looks that they're lagging so far behind.
Case rates in Scotland are currently about half those in England, on the figures from PCR testing, and I think the difference is a bit larger in the ONS survey, so you would expect that the NHS is not so close to breaking point in Scotland, and the urgency to vaccinate to head off an imminent collapse of the NHS is also less.
I'd much rather that Scotland kept up with the vaccination rates seen elsewhere in the UK though.
Are they really suggesting that the UK not export vaccines to Northern Ireland? I'm not sure I understand it properly.
No, they are saying that they are excluding NI from the normal rule that NI/EU trade is not restricted (presumably because they think perfidious Albion would try to smuggle vaccines pinched from the EU allocation through NI). Bonkers again, and a very bad precedent for the NI protocol. It was supposed to be Boris who'd try to wriggle out of it, not the EU.
I think it's terrible that the EU is jeopardising the Good Friday Agreement by setting up a hard border on the island of Ireland.
Of course you'll hear nothing from Dublin or Biden about this.
I await with bated breath sir abstain a lots hot take
I wonder when the penny will drop in Berlaymont that all this will look even more stupid in a few weeks' time when the UK has continued to roll out the jabs and the EU's programme has gone backwards?
Especially given that we've got Novavax coming and the EU can't block Moderna as it's made in Switzerland.
I don't understand what the hell is going on in Brussels. They've all taken leave of their senses.
Novavax being one that the EU are only now in the process of negotiating contracts for.
We should just go in and gazzump them. For shits and giggles.
The tragic thing is that the people the EU have done most damage to in this affair is their own citizens, and God knows they don't deserve to be in this mess without enough vaccine.
The desperate want to gloat uncontrollably at the EU completely screwing this up and going mad about it, is only tempered by the fact that there’s several thousand Europeans dying of this terrible virus every day.
In any other circumstance, I’d be rolling on the floor laughing, but would instead rather my parents get their full vaccines.
That is good to hear, Sandpit. Off all the reactions available, it would not speak well of someone if they opted for rolling on the floor laughing.
On polling, at the moment, I don't think most people are taking much notice beyond Europe are demanding their vaccine shipments of AZN.
We haven't got to a stage of your Gran / Mum can't have their vaccine because the EU have stopped deliveries out of EU factories or have had UK made ones exported.
I'd also suggest the fieldwork was 26th and 27th January. It wasn't till yesterday did this story really start to break, and break big.
My wife, who is more Remain than Alistair Meeks (she cried on the morning of the 24th June 2016) and who has said for years its the biggest mistake the UK has ever engaged in, this morning said to me.... "The EU is trying to stop me getting my vaccine!" (She's scheduled in for tomorrow) and expressed a very slight disapproval of their actions yesterday.
Poll her on Tuesday, the sun shines out the EUs arse still. Poll her TODAY.... less so.
It only covers exports of vaccines procured by the EU, not vaccines procured by the UK manufactured in the EU.
Who decides what vaccines are procured by the EU? That's the central issue here.
Initially Pfizer (or the other drug companies), but ultimately it could be the courts.
And now those authorising exports too.
The UK govt doesnt seem particularly concerned. Pfizer will continue to export here.
Not unless some pen-pusher in Brussels says so.
The vaccines will still arrive. Its an annoying, rubbish and counter productive decision from the EU but its not a ban and wont escalate into a vaccine trade war. In a 2-3 months time there will be enough vaccines available that all wealthy countries can show good progress and their electorates will be happy.
It's an instrument that gives them the power to restrict vaccine exports. Why would they pass such legislation if they weren't seriously considering using it?
It explicitly does not give them the power to stop vaccines procured by the UK being exported, it simply requires notification. To stop it being exported they would have to show in a court that the vaccine was procured by the EU not the UK, which if its anything like the AZ contract, they wont be able to do.
Their FAQ says they have the power to grant or refuse an export authorisation.
In deciding whether to grant an export authorisation under this Regulation, Member States, together with the Commission, shall assess whether the volume of exports is not such that it poses a threat to the execution of the Advance Purchase Agreements the EU has concluded with vaccine manufacturers. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/qanda_21_308
Sure, but the decision isnt just a preference of some bureaucrat, procedures that stand up to the lawyers of Pfizer and AZ need to be applied.
"This is not an export ban. This measure would specifically target exports of COVID-19 vaccines covered by an Advance Purchase Agreement (APA) with the EU."
If its vaccines covered by an APA with the UK rather than the EU it will be allowed to be exported.
No, it's not an export ban. But it could turn into one if the authorisation is not granted.
Agreed!
You earlier said that it explicitly did not give them the power to stop vaccines procured by the UK? It does, because they can just claim it was for the EU as per the current row with AZN.
OK - I thought you meant the data and structures around notification could easily be expanded to a ban if they so wished.
Look at it this way, if they wanted to ban Pfizer deliveries in February say, why on earth would they have written the policy in this way? Why not just ban all exports? Why only give themselves a tenuous interpretation to take on Pfizers lawyers with?
Just an FYI, I don't expect an AZ claim would necessarily take months if it is in London.
I would expect the High Court to hear it in 2-3 weeks, plus the hearing and time for judgment. however that timeline of course starts with the claim being brought, which might take some time in itself.
The AZN / EU contract isn't subject to UK law - it's Belgian from memory
Yes sorry eek, I realise people don't actually track my posts and therefore be able to work out what I meant. Obviously I don't know Belgian court timescales.
Makes sense that smaller, more nimble countries are doing better.
What about Scotland ? *innocent face***
To be fair, I think that was the decision to really focus on care homes, above the general population. I can see advantages and disadvantages to that approach.
So how do we increase vacc. supply so there is genuinely more now (or soon) rather than arguing over the same pie?
One possibility I can spot is for Sanofi to abandon their vaccine attempt (which I assume they are keeping manufacturing capacity aside for) and turn their manufacturing over to one of the other vaccines - Valneva looks the likeliest, as the French will never agree to AZN, and Pfizer has big issues concerning usability.
Sanofi have already agreed to produce the Pfizer jab under license I believe.
It won't be coming off their production line tomorrow as it takes time to set up the production line for these vaccines and then additional time to manufacture it and during all that lead time things can go wrong resulting in the lead time being extended.
And it's the lead time and the risks and delays that occur within that lead time which has bitten the EU.
It only covers exports of vaccines procured by the EU, not vaccines procured by the UK manufactured in the EU.
Who decides what vaccines are procured by the EU? That's the central issue here.
Initially Pfizer (or the other drug companies), but ultimately it could be the courts.
And now those authorising exports too.
The UK govt doesnt seem particularly concerned. Pfizer will continue to export here.
Not unless some pen-pusher in Brussels says so.
The vaccines will still arrive. Its an annoying, rubbish and counter productive decision from the EU but its not a ban and wont escalate into a vaccine trade war. In a 2-3 months time there will be enough vaccines available that all wealthy countries can show good progress and their electorates will be happy.
It's an instrument that gives them the power to restrict vaccine exports. Why would they pass such legislation if they weren't seriously considering using it?
It explicitly does not give them the power to stop vaccines procured by the UK being exported, it simply requires notification. To stop it being exported they would have to show in a court that the vaccine was procured by the EU not the UK, which if its anything like the AZ contract, they wont be able to do.
Their FAQ says they have the power to grant or refuse an export authorisation.
In deciding whether to grant an export authorisation under this Regulation, Member States, together with the Commission, shall assess whether the volume of exports is not such that it poses a threat to the execution of the Advance Purchase Agreements the EU has concluded with vaccine manufacturers. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/qanda_21_308
Sure, but the decision isnt just a preference of some bureaucrat, procedures that stand up to the lawyers of Pfizer and AZ need to be applied.
"This is not an export ban. This measure would specifically target exports of COVID-19 vaccines covered by an Advance Purchase Agreement (APA) with the EU."
If its vaccines covered by an APA with the UK rather than the EU it will be allowed to be exported.
No, it's not an export ban. But it could turn into one if the authorisation is not granted.
Agreed!
You earlier said that it explicitly did not give them the power to stop vaccines procured by the UK? It does, because they can just claim it was for the EU as per the current row with AZN.
OK - I thought you meant the data and structures around notification could easily be expanded to a ban if they so wished.
Look at it this way, if they wanted to ban Pfizer deliveries in February say, why on earth would they have written the policy in this way? Why not just ban all exports? Why only give themselves a tenuous interpretation to take on Pfizers lawyers with?
But they can ban all exports, they just refuse authorisation. It has the same effect.
So how do we increase vacc. supply so there is genuinely more now (or soon) rather than arguing over the same pie?
One possibility I can spot is for Sanofi to abandon their vaccine attempt (which I assume they are keeping manufacturing capacity aside for) and turn their manufacturing over to one of the other vaccines - Valneva looks the likeliest, as the French will never agree to AZN, and Pfizer has big issues concerning usability.
Sanofi have already agreed to produce the Pfizer jab under license I believe.
Just an FYI, I don't expect an AZ claim would necessarily take months if it is in London.
I would expect the High Court to hear it in 2-3 weeks, plus the hearing and time for judgment. however that timeline of course starts with the claim being brought, which might take some time in itself.
The AZN / EU contract isn't subject to UK law - it's Belgian from memory
Yes it is - scroll down thread to where I posted a Belgium contract lawyers view
Spoiler - he thinks the EU have not a leg to stand on.
I'm finding this thread boringly one sided and partisan - is there anyone out there to help Kinabalu and None of the Above - what's happened to you. These people need help! Now! We have a serious Remain shortage. Paging! Paging! They can't all have urgent vaccine appointments surely.
This isn't about Leave or Remain. It is about an organisation behaving like an arse. It could just as easily be a single country. That is why so many Remain supporters are amongst the most critical.
It only covers exports of vaccines procured by the EU, not vaccines procured by the UK manufactured in the EU.
Who decides what vaccines are procured by the EU? That's the central issue here.
Initially Pfizer (or the other drug companies), but ultimately it could be the courts.
And now those authorising exports too.
The UK govt doesnt seem particularly concerned. Pfizer will continue to export here.
Not unless some pen-pusher in Brussels says so.
The vaccines will still arrive. Its an annoying, rubbish and counter productive decision from the EU but its not a ban and wont escalate into a vaccine trade war. In a 2-3 months time there will be enough vaccines available that all wealthy countries can show good progress and their electorates will be happy.
It's an instrument that gives them the power to restrict vaccine exports. Why would they pass such legislation if they weren't seriously considering using it?
It explicitly does not give them the power to stop vaccines procured by the UK being exported, it simply requires notification. To stop it being exported they would have to show in a court that the vaccine was procured by the EU not the UK, which if its anything like the AZ contract, they wont be able to do.
Their FAQ says they have the power to grant or refuse an export authorisation.
In deciding whether to grant an export authorisation under this Regulation, Member States, together with the Commission, shall assess whether the volume of exports is not such that it poses a threat to the execution of the Advance Purchase Agreements the EU has concluded with vaccine manufacturers. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/qanda_21_308
Sure, but the decision isnt just a preference of some bureaucrat, procedures that stand up to the lawyers of Pfizer and AZ need to be applied.
"This is not an export ban. This measure would specifically target exports of COVID-19 vaccines covered by an Advance Purchase Agreement (APA) with the EU."
If its vaccines covered by an APA with the UK rather than the EU it will be allowed to be exported.
No, it's not an export ban. But it could turn into one if the authorisation is not granted.
Agreed!
You earlier said that it explicitly did not give them the power to stop vaccines procured by the UK? It does, because they can just claim it was for the EU as per the current row with AZN.
OK - I thought you meant the data and structures around notification could easily be expanded to a ban if they so wished.
Look at it this way, if they wanted to ban Pfizer deliveries in February say, why on earth would they have written the policy in this way? Why not just ban all exports? Why only give themselves a tenuous interpretation to take on Pfizers lawyers with?
Last thing Sturgeon needs now is a narrative about her doing worse than Boris in the rollout. It won't take much swing to prevent her gaining an SNP majority and then all the constitutional arguments vanish.
SNP plus Greens, remember.
Well, true, but it was SNP maj in 2011 which triggered the ref in 2014. I think it was John Curtice who recently said it would be a prerequisite for any future ref.
Whatever, Boris will say no, anyway. Plan B is a dead duck as pointed out by Alex Bell here:
I don't rate Bell much. To me he seems too kmuch of a professional anti-SNP writer for the Unionist press.
Actually I was just reading the Staggers> it's got quite a range of recvent pieces on Scots politics at present, and even the Scotsman is running a piece showing how a Plan B could well work (edit: sorted).
Makes sense that smaller, more nimble countries are doing better.
What about Scotland ? *innocent face***
To be fair, I think that was the decision to really focus on care homes, above the general population. I can see advantages and disadvantages to that approach.
That's not to say England aren't focusing also on that population, just not to the same extent. I've not read any stats on the relative vaccination rates in care homes.
It only covers exports of vaccines procured by the EU, not vaccines procured by the UK manufactured in the EU.
Who decides what vaccines are procured by the EU? That's the central issue here.
Initially Pfizer (or the other drug companies), but ultimately it could be the courts.
And now those authorising exports too.
The UK govt doesnt seem particularly concerned. Pfizer will continue to export here.
Not unless some pen-pusher in Brussels says so.
The vaccines will still arrive. Its an annoying, rubbish and counter productive decision from the EU but its not a ban and wont escalate into a vaccine trade war. In a 2-3 months time there will be enough vaccines available that all wealthy countries can show good progress and their electorates will be happy.
It's an instrument that gives them the power to restrict vaccine exports. Why would they pass such legislation if they weren't seriously considering using it?
It explicitly does not give them the power to stop vaccines procured by the UK being exported, it simply requires notification. To stop it being exported they would have to show in a court that the vaccine was procured by the EU not the UK, which if its anything like the AZ contract, they wont be able to do.
Their FAQ says they have the power to grant or refuse an export authorisation.
In deciding whether to grant an export authorisation under this Regulation, Member States, together with the Commission, shall assess whether the volume of exports is not such that it poses a threat to the execution of the Advance Purchase Agreements the EU has concluded with vaccine manufacturers. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/qanda_21_308
Sure, but the decision isnt just a preference of some bureaucrat, procedures that stand up to the lawyers of Pfizer and AZ need to be applied.
"This is not an export ban. This measure would specifically target exports of COVID-19 vaccines covered by an Advance Purchase Agreement (APA) with the EU."
If its vaccines covered by an APA with the UK rather than the EU it will be allowed to be exported.
No, it's not an export ban. But it could turn into one if the authorisation is not granted.
Agreed!
You earlier said that it explicitly did not give them the power to stop vaccines procured by the UK? It does, because they can just claim it was for the EU as per the current row with AZN.
OK - I thought you meant the data and structures around notification could easily be expanded to a ban if they so wished.
Look at it this way, if they wanted to ban Pfizer deliveries in February say, why on earth would they have written the policy in this way? Why not just ban all exports? Why only give themselves a tenuous interpretation to take on Pfizers lawyers with?
Because an outright ban is obvious.
If they ban exports to the UK it will all escalate very quickly, they know that is not in their interests. File under wont happen. Anyway work to do.
Massive differential in the rate at which the 85+ group admissions are coming down, vs other groups...
Crikey. When I first saw that, I assumed it was an Excel fail.
You sure that's right?
Very big news if you are correct!
Well, the zero at the end is an Excel snafu. lol
Artefact of the way the data is presented by the PHE database - they sometimes present day-of data with all zero values. I could remove it, but that would require effort. And I very, very lazy.
What will be interesting is seeing if/when this feeds in to the next category down - the 65-84 group.
It only covers exports of vaccines procured by the EU, not vaccines procured by the UK manufactured in the EU.
Who decides what vaccines are procured by the EU? That's the central issue here.
Initially Pfizer (or the other drug companies), but ultimately it could be the courts.
And now those authorising exports too.
The UK govt doesnt seem particularly concerned. Pfizer will continue to export here.
Not unless some pen-pusher in Brussels says so.
The vaccines will still arrive. Its an annoying, rubbish and counter productive decision from the EU but its not a ban and wont escalate into a vaccine trade war. In a 2-3 months time there will be enough vaccines available that all wealthy countries can show good progress and their electorates will be happy.
It's an instrument that gives them the power to restrict vaccine exports. Why would they pass such legislation if they weren't seriously considering using it?
It explicitly does not give them the power to stop vaccines procured by the UK being exported, it simply requires notification. To stop it being exported they would have to show in a court that the vaccine was procured by the EU not the UK, which if its anything like the AZ contract, they wont be able to do.
Their FAQ says they have the power to grant or refuse an export authorisation.
In deciding whether to grant an export authorisation under this Regulation, Member States, together with the Commission, shall assess whether the volume of exports is not such that it poses a threat to the execution of the Advance Purchase Agreements the EU has concluded with vaccine manufacturers. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/qanda_21_308
Sure, but the decision isnt just a preference of some bureaucrat, procedures that stand up to the lawyers of Pfizer and AZ need to be applied.
"This is not an export ban. This measure would specifically target exports of COVID-19 vaccines covered by an Advance Purchase Agreement (APA) with the EU."
If its vaccines covered by an APA with the UK rather than the EU it will be allowed to be exported.
No, it's not an export ban. But it could turn into one if the authorisation is not granted.
Agreed!
You earlier said that it explicitly did not give them the power to stop vaccines procured by the UK? It does, because they can just claim it was for the EU as per the current row with AZN.
OK - I thought you meant the data and structures around notification could easily be expanded to a ban if they so wished.
Look at it this way, if they wanted to ban Pfizer deliveries in February say, why on earth would they have written the policy in this way? Why not just ban all exports? Why only give themselves a tenuous interpretation to take on Pfizers lawyers with?
Because an outright ban is obvious.
If they ban exports to the UK it will all escalate very quickly, they know that is not in their interests. File under wont happen. Anyway work to do.
They are 95% of the way there. People were suggesting it would never get this far in the first place.
So how do we increase vacc. supply so there is genuinely more now (or soon) rather than arguing over the same pie?
One possibility I can spot is for Sanofi to abandon their vaccine attempt (which I assume they are keeping manufacturing capacity aside for) and turn their manufacturing over to one of the other vaccines - Valneva looks the likeliest, as the French will never agree to AZN, and Pfizer has big issues concerning usability.
The Novavax vaccine is probably the most similar to the GSK/Sanofi effort. And has reported successful PIII results, which Valneva hasn't yet.
Valneva is inactivated virus, which is a very different manufacturing process.
It only covers exports of vaccines procured by the EU, not vaccines procured by the UK manufactured in the EU.
Who decides what vaccines are procured by the EU? That's the central issue here.
Initially Pfizer (or the other drug companies), but ultimately it could be the courts.
And now those authorising exports too.
The UK govt doesnt seem particularly concerned. Pfizer will continue to export here.
Not unless some pen-pusher in Brussels says so.
The vaccines will still arrive. Its an annoying, rubbish and counter productive decision from the EU but its not a ban and wont escalate into a vaccine trade war. In a 2-3 months time there will be enough vaccines available that all wealthy countries can show good progress and their electorates will be happy.
It's an instrument that gives them the power to restrict vaccine exports. Why would they pass such legislation if they weren't seriously considering using it?
It explicitly does not give them the power to stop vaccines procured by the UK being exported, it simply requires notification. To stop it being exported they would have to show in a court that the vaccine was procured by the EU not the UK, which if its anything like the AZ contract, they wont be able to do.
Their FAQ says they have the power to grant or refuse an export authorisation.
In deciding whether to grant an export authorisation under this Regulation, Member States, together with the Commission, shall assess whether the volume of exports is not such that it poses a threat to the execution of the Advance Purchase Agreements the EU has concluded with vaccine manufacturers. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/qanda_21_308
Sure, but the decision isnt just a preference of some bureaucrat, procedures that stand up to the lawyers of Pfizer and AZ need to be applied.
"This is not an export ban. This measure would specifically target exports of COVID-19 vaccines covered by an Advance Purchase Agreement (APA) with the EU."
If its vaccines covered by an APA with the UK rather than the EU it will be allowed to be exported.
No, it's not an export ban. But it could turn into one if the authorisation is not granted.
Agreed!
You earlier said that it explicitly did not give them the power to stop vaccines procured by the UK? It does, because they can just claim it was for the EU as per the current row with AZN.
OK - I thought you meant the data and structures around notification could easily be expanded to a ban if they so wished.
Look at it this way, if they wanted to ban Pfizer deliveries in February say, why on earth would they have written the policy in this way? Why not just ban all exports? Why only give themselves a tenuous interpretation to take on Pfizers lawyers with?
Because an outright ban is obvious.
If they ban exports to the UK it will all escalate very quickly, they know that is not in their interests. File under wont happen. Anyway work to do.
They are 95% of the way there. People were suggesting it would never get this far in the first place.
Yes that was me, and I can't believe it has. I'm very disappointed.
Doesn't Scotland have an older, fatter, unhealthier population than England, too? So it's even more serious for them than it looks that they're lagging so far behind.
Case rates in Scotland are currently about half those in England, on the figures from PCR testing, and I think the difference is a bit larger in the ONS survey, so you would expect that the NHS is not so close to breaking point in Scotland, and the urgency to vaccinate to head off an imminent collapse of the NHS is also less.
I'd much rather that Scotland kept up with the vaccination rates seen elsewhere in the UK though.
Different approach - focussing on care homes and housebound, so slower to begin with.
It only covers exports of vaccines procured by the EU, not vaccines procured by the UK manufactured in the EU.
Who decides what vaccines are procured by the EU? That's the central issue here.
Initially Pfizer (or the other drug companies), but ultimately it could be the courts.
And now those authorising exports too.
The UK govt doesnt seem particularly concerned. Pfizer will continue to export here.
Not unless some pen-pusher in Brussels says so.
The vaccines will still arrive. Its an annoying, rubbish and counter productive decision from the EU but its not a ban and wont escalate into a vaccine trade war. In a 2-3 months time there will be enough vaccines available that all wealthy countries can show good progress and their electorates will be happy.
It's an instrument that gives them the power to restrict vaccine exports. Why would they pass such legislation if they weren't seriously considering using it?
It explicitly does not give them the power to stop vaccines procured by the UK being exported, it simply requires notification. To stop it being exported they would have to show in a court that the vaccine was procured by the EU not the UK, which if its anything like the AZ contract, they wont be able to do.
Their FAQ says they have the power to grant or refuse an export authorisation.
In deciding whether to grant an export authorisation under this Regulation, Member States, together with the Commission, shall assess whether the volume of exports is not such that it poses a threat to the execution of the Advance Purchase Agreements the EU has concluded with vaccine manufacturers. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/qanda_21_308
Sure, but the decision isnt just a preference of some bureaucrat, procedures that stand up to the lawyers of Pfizer and AZ need to be applied.
"This is not an export ban. This measure would specifically target exports of COVID-19 vaccines covered by an Advance Purchase Agreement (APA) with the EU."
If its vaccines covered by an APA with the UK rather than the EU it will be allowed to be exported.
No, it's not an export ban. But it could turn into one if the authorisation is not granted.
Agreed!
You earlier said that it explicitly did not give them the power to stop vaccines procured by the UK? It does, because they can just claim it was for the EU as per the current row with AZN.
OK - I thought you meant the data and structures around notification could easily be expanded to a ban if they so wished.
Look at it this way, if they wanted to ban Pfizer deliveries in February say, why on earth would they have written the policy in this way? Why not just ban all exports? Why only give themselves a tenuous interpretation to take on Pfizers lawyers with?
Because an outright ban is obvious.
If they ban exports to the UK it will all escalate very quickly, they know that is not in their interests. File under wont happen. Anyway work to do.
They are 95% of the way there. People were suggesting it would never get this far in the first place.
Yes that was me, and I can't believe it has. I'm very disappointed.
Sorry, wasn't moaning about anyone in particular, was using "people" in the vaguest sense possible.
"Arrivals into Birmingham Airport included 21-year-old student Emma Rhodes, who had been on a two-week holiday and was due to arrive back on Friday.
Asked about criticism of those who had chosen to travel abroad for non-business trips, she said: "I had personal reasons why I went, I needed some 'me' time."
So how do we increase vacc. supply so there is genuinely more now (or soon) rather than arguing over the same pie?
One possibility I can spot is for Sanofi to abandon their vaccine attempt (which I assume they are keeping manufacturing capacity aside for) and turn their manufacturing over to one of the other vaccines - Valneva looks the likeliest, as the French will never agree to AZN, and Pfizer has big issues concerning usability.
The Novavax vaccine is probably the most similar to the GSK/Sanofi effort.
As Gallowgate has shown, it seems they've partnered with Pfizer - I am not entirely sure it was the best partner vaccine-wise, but as Pfizer are doing this as a profit making exercise, it was possibly the most attractive partner commercially.
It only covers exports of vaccines procured by the EU, not vaccines procured by the UK manufactured in the EU.
Who decides what vaccines are procured by the EU? That's the central issue here.
Initially Pfizer (or the other drug companies), but ultimately it could be the courts.
And now those authorising exports too.
The UK govt doesnt seem particularly concerned. Pfizer will continue to export here.
Not unless some pen-pusher in Brussels says so.
The vaccines will still arrive. Its an annoying, rubbish and counter productive decision from the EU but its not a ban and wont escalate into a vaccine trade war. In a 2-3 months time there will be enough vaccines available that all wealthy countries can show good progress and their electorates will be happy.
It's an instrument that gives them the power to restrict vaccine exports. Why would they pass such legislation if they weren't seriously considering using it?
It explicitly does not give them the power to stop vaccines procured by the UK being exported, it simply requires notification. To stop it being exported they would have to show in a court that the vaccine was procured by the EU not the UK, which if its anything like the AZ contract, they wont be able to do.
Their FAQ says they have the power to grant or refuse an export authorisation.
In deciding whether to grant an export authorisation under this Regulation, Member States, together with the Commission, shall assess whether the volume of exports is not such that it poses a threat to the execution of the Advance Purchase Agreements the EU has concluded with vaccine manufacturers. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/qanda_21_308
Sure, but the decision isnt just a preference of some bureaucrat, procedures that stand up to the lawyers of Pfizer and AZ need to be applied.
"This is not an export ban. This measure would specifically target exports of COVID-19 vaccines covered by an Advance Purchase Agreement (APA) with the EU."
If its vaccines covered by an APA with the UK rather than the EU it will be allowed to be exported.
No, it's not an export ban. But it could turn into one if the authorisation is not granted.
Agreed!
You earlier said that it explicitly did not give them the power to stop vaccines procured by the UK? It does, because they can just claim it was for the EU as per the current row with AZN.
OK - I thought you meant the data and structures around notification could easily be expanded to a ban if they so wished.
Look at it this way, if they wanted to ban Pfizer deliveries in February say, why on earth would they have written the policy in this way? Why not just ban all exports? Why only give themselves a tenuous interpretation to take on Pfizers lawyers with?
Because an outright ban is obvious.
If they ban exports to the UK it will all escalate very quickly, they know that is not in their interests. File under wont happen. Anyway work to do.
They are 95% of the way there. People were suggesting it would never get this far in the first place.
Yes that was me, and I can't believe it has. I'm very disappointed.
Got to admit I was also one of those saying the EU would never consider doing this. It does seem wildly self defeating. My overwhelming feelings today are of sadness and anger at what this means for people in the EU.
Jesus Christ! Are they mad?!!! What’s happened to them?
Will their electors not think it rather strange that they are at one and the same time throwing a tantrum over restricted supplies of AZ and coming out with speculative amateur opinions like this about its ineffectiveness - to say nothing of undermining their own vaccination programmes? It is quite bizarre.
Honest question - how much of this is spite because we left?
It's spite because we're visibly doing something better than them, and when the Commission made a song and dance about taking over vaccine procurement from the member states, the optics of that are terrible for them.
Who are you, and how have you managed to get William's login details?
It only covers exports of vaccines procured by the EU, not vaccines procured by the UK manufactured in the EU.
Who decides what vaccines are procured by the EU? That's the central issue here.
Initially Pfizer (or the other drug companies), but ultimately it could be the courts.
And now those authorising exports too.
The UK govt doesnt seem particularly concerned. Pfizer will continue to export here.
Not unless some pen-pusher in Brussels says so.
The vaccines will still arrive. Its an annoying, rubbish and counter productive decision from the EU but its not a ban and wont escalate into a vaccine trade war. In a 2-3 months time there will be enough vaccines available that all wealthy countries can show good progress and their electorates will be happy.
It's an instrument that gives them the power to restrict vaccine exports. Why would they pass such legislation if they weren't seriously considering using it?
It explicitly does not give them the power to stop vaccines procured by the UK being exported, it simply requires notification. To stop it being exported they would have to show in a court that the vaccine was procured by the EU not the UK, which if its anything like the AZ contract, they wont be able to do.
Their FAQ says they have the power to grant or refuse an export authorisation.
In deciding whether to grant an export authorisation under this Regulation, Member States, together with the Commission, shall assess whether the volume of exports is not such that it poses a threat to the execution of the Advance Purchase Agreements the EU has concluded with vaccine manufacturers. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/qanda_21_308
Sure, but the decision isnt just a preference of some bureaucrat, procedures that stand up to the lawyers of Pfizer and AZ need to be applied.
"This is not an export ban. This measure would specifically target exports of COVID-19 vaccines covered by an Advance Purchase Agreement (APA) with the EU."
If its vaccines covered by an APA with the UK rather than the EU it will be allowed to be exported.
No, it's not an export ban. But it could turn into one if the authorisation is not granted.
Agreed!
You earlier said that it explicitly did not give them the power to stop vaccines procured by the UK? It does, because they can just claim it was for the EU as per the current row with AZN.
OK - I thought you meant the data and structures around notification could easily be expanded to a ban if they so wished.
Look at it this way, if they wanted to ban Pfizer deliveries in February say, why on earth would they have written the policy in this way? Why not just ban all exports? Why only give themselves a tenuous interpretation to take on Pfizers lawyers with?
Because an outright ban is obvious.
If they ban exports to the UK it will all escalate very quickly, they know that is not in their interests. File under wont happen. Anyway work to do.
They are 95% of the way there. People were suggesting it would never get this far in the first place.
Yes that was me, and I can't believe it has. I'm very disappointed.
I think most people thought sanity would prevail - it still might, but looking less likely by the hour
Doesn't Scotland have an older, fatter, unhealthier population than England, too? So it's even more serious for them than it looks that they're lagging so far behind.
Case rates in Scotland are currently about half those in England, on the figures from PCR testing, and I think the difference is a bit larger in the ONS survey, so you would expect that the NHS is not so close to breaking point in Scotland, and the urgency to vaccinate to head off an imminent collapse of the NHS is also less.
I'd much rather that Scotland kept up with the vaccination rates seen elsewhere in the UK though.
Different approach - focussing on care homes and housebound, so slower to begin with.
It only covers exports of vaccines procured by the EU, not vaccines procured by the UK manufactured in the EU.
Who decides what vaccines are procured by the EU? That's the central issue here.
Initially Pfizer (or the other drug companies), but ultimately it could be the courts.
And now those authorising exports too.
The UK govt doesnt seem particularly concerned. Pfizer will continue to export here.
Not unless some pen-pusher in Brussels says so.
The vaccines will still arrive. Its an annoying, rubbish and counter productive decision from the EU but its not a ban and wont escalate into a vaccine trade war. In a 2-3 months time there will be enough vaccines available that all wealthy countries can show good progress and their electorates will be happy.
It's an instrument that gives them the power to restrict vaccine exports. Why would they pass such legislation if they weren't seriously considering using it?
It explicitly does not give them the power to stop vaccines procured by the UK being exported, it simply requires notification. To stop it being exported they would have to show in a court that the vaccine was procured by the EU not the UK, which if its anything like the AZ contract, they wont be able to do.
Their FAQ says they have the power to grant or refuse an export authorisation.
In deciding whether to grant an export authorisation under this Regulation, Member States, together with the Commission, shall assess whether the volume of exports is not such that it poses a threat to the execution of the Advance Purchase Agreements the EU has concluded with vaccine manufacturers. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/qanda_21_308
Sure, but the decision isnt just a preference of some bureaucrat, procedures that stand up to the lawyers of Pfizer and AZ need to be applied.
"This is not an export ban. This measure would specifically target exports of COVID-19 vaccines covered by an Advance Purchase Agreement (APA) with the EU."
If its vaccines covered by an APA with the UK rather than the EU it will be allowed to be exported.
No, it's not an export ban. But it could turn into one if the authorisation is not granted.
Agreed!
You earlier said that it explicitly did not give them the power to stop vaccines procured by the UK? It does, because they can just claim it was for the EU as per the current row with AZN.
OK - I thought you meant the data and structures around notification could easily be expanded to a ban if they so wished.
Look at it this way, if they wanted to ban Pfizer deliveries in February say, why on earth would they have written the policy in this way? Why not just ban all exports? Why only give themselves a tenuous interpretation to take on Pfizers lawyers with?
Jesus Christ! Are they mad?!!! What’s happened to them?
It does lead one to ask, if they think the vaccine is ineffective (it isn't, of course), why are they so desperate to get hold if it ?
It's completely maddening. They're undermining the global vaccination effort and muddying the waters for the vaccine that is going to be most used in the developing world.
"Today everything suggests that it is almost ineffective for those over 65 and some say over 60."
If this is an accurate translation of what President Macron said today about the AZ vaccine, I'm afraid it pushes him in my book towards the vicinity of another President, one we have just gotten rid of, who specialized in toxic bullshit. And I never thought I would say that.
Tha UK R rate for case data does look to have been stubbornly flat-lining for 10 days or so.
As it should - it only reflects the current restrictions/behaviour. Nothing has changed (too early for real vaccination effect) so it should stay the same.
I'm finding this thread boringly one sided and partisan - is there anyone out there to help Kinabalu and None of the Above - what's happened to you. These people need help! Now! We have a serious Remain shortage. Paging! Paging! They can't all have urgent vaccine appointments surely.
Have you ever tried to join a daisy chain in mid engagement?
So how do we increase vacc. supply so there is genuinely more now (or soon) rather than arguing over the same pie?
One possibility I can spot is for Sanofi to abandon their vaccine attempt (which I assume they are keeping manufacturing capacity aside for) and turn their manufacturing over to one of the other vaccines - Valneva looks the likeliest, as the French will never agree to AZN, and Pfizer has big issues concerning usability.
Sanofi have already agreed to produce the Pfizer jab under license I believe.
There's actually a lot of this going on right now, and this is another reason to get increasingly comfortable about vaccine supply going forward.
So: Bayer has already started manufacturing on behalf of CureVac, and both Novartis and Sanofi will be making the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine. The Serum Institute of India is making both the AZN and Novavax vaccines.
I haven't yet seen any announcements from other people producing Moderna. But I presume they're in negotiations with people.
Jesus Christ! Are they mad?!!! What’s happened to them?
It does lead one to ask, if they think the vaccine is ineffective (it isn't, of course), why are they so desperate to get hold if it ?
That's easy to answer. They're not trying to save lives of EU citizens, they're trying to stop the UK looking miles better than they are looking. If they were trying to save lives, they'd be working with Pfizer and AZ to help overcome the problems, not attacking them on Twitter, threatening legal action, sending in inspectors, and now threatening to interfere with their deliveries.
What is the difference between Trump's America First and the EU's vaccine policy
Trump's America First makes more sense.
Yes, Trump's America first didn't institute export bans to countries it relied on for imports to make those products!
It's literally the most stupid plan.
The EU has picked up the gun, put it against its own head and said "give us what we want or we'll pull this trigger". I don't know what they are trying to achieve.
They say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery
What the hell is Macron doing? I always thought the French were a nation of hypochondriacs, who were always at the Doctors getting pills for imaginary fits of the vapours. When did they become tin foil hatted conspiracy theorists?
Tha UK R rate for case data does look to have been stubbornly flat-lining for 10 days or so.
As it should - it only reflects the current restrictions/behaviour. Nothing has changed (too early for real vaccination effect) so it should stay the same.
It's not going to show in case numbers immediately anyway which is how the headline figure is derived. The hospital R might tell a different story in a couple of weeks as symptomatic COVID starts to drop a bit.
"Today everything suggests that it is almost ineffective for those over 65 and some say over 60."
If this is an accurate translation of what President Macron said today about the AZ vaccine, I'm afraid it pushes him in my book towards the vicinity of another President, one we have just gotten rid of, who specialized in toxic bullshit. And I never thought I would say that.
Should we still be trying to vax all the EU's oldsters before we finish the job in the UK?
Doesn't Scotland have an older, fatter, unhealthier population than England, too? So it's even more serious for them than it looks that they're lagging so far behind.
Case rates in Scotland are currently about half those in England, on the figures from PCR testing, and I think the difference is a bit larger in the ONS survey, so you would expect that the NHS is not so close to breaking point in Scotland, and the urgency to vaccinate to head off an imminent collapse of the NHS is also less.
I'd much rather that Scotland kept up with the vaccination rates seen elsewhere in the UK though.
Different approach - focussing on care homes and housebound, so slower to begin with.
I'm actually relieved if they don't go in for a few mass centres yet but rely more on GPs, certainly for the old - I have real concerns about public transport/taxis, and my GP was very efficient with the flu a couple of months back.
Jesus Christ! Are they mad?!!! What’s happened to them?
It does lead one to ask, if they think the vaccine is ineffective (it isn't, of course), why are they so desperate to get hold if it ?
It's completely maddening. They're undermining the global vaccination effort and muddying the waters for the vaccine that is going to be most used in the developing world.
I don't think it will have that much effect for very long. We'll have real world figures for its effectiveness in mass use very soon, and they will be rather more credible than anything Macron might have to say about it.
Jesus Christ! Are they mad?!!! What’s happened to them?
It does lead one to ask, if they think the vaccine is ineffective (it isn't, of course), why are they so desperate to get hold if it ?
It's completely maddening. They're undermining the global vaccination effort and muddying the waters for the vaccine that is going to be most used in the developing world.
I don't think it will have that much effect for very long. We'll have real world figures for its effectiveness in mass use very soon, and they will be rather more credible than anything Macron might have to say about it.
Yeah I know, but they're just giving ammunition to meme makers in Russia.
Edit: and to say it just after their own bloody regulator approved it for all ages will just drive the conspiracy nuts.
"Arrivals into Birmingham Airport included 21-year-old student Emma Rhodes, who had been on a two-week holiday and was due to arrive back on Friday.
Asked about criticism of those who had chosen to travel abroad for non-business trips, she said: "I had personal reasons why I went, I needed some 'me' time."
Lock her up. Numpty.
I would guess her 'me' time generally accounts for somewhere close to 24 hours of every day.
So how do we increase vacc. supply so there is genuinely more now (or soon) rather than arguing over the same pie?
One possibility I can spot is for Sanofi to abandon their vaccine attempt (which I assume they are keeping manufacturing capacity aside for) and turn their manufacturing over to one of the other vaccines - Valneva looks the likeliest, as the French will never agree to AZN, and Pfizer has big issues concerning usability.
Sanofi have already agreed to produce the Pfizer jab under license I believe.
There's actually a lot of this going on right now, and this is another reason to get increasingly comfortable about vaccine supply going forward.
So: Bayer has already started manufacturing on behalf of CureVac, and both Novartis and Sanofi will be making the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine. The Serum Institute of India is making both the AZN and Novavax vaccines.
I haven't yet seen any announcements from other people producing Moderna. But I presume they're in negotiations with people.
Maybe - but I suspect that will be quite difficult. Moderna has what is for them seriously valuable IP in terms of formulating the mRNA in lipid nanoparticles for delivery, and some of that is likely to be commercial secrets rather than patentable processes. Getting them to share might take some effort.
What the hell is Macron doing? I always thought the French were a nation of hypochondriacs, who were always at the Doctors getting pills for imaginary fits of the vapours. When did they become tin foil hatted conspiracy theorists?
They are not keen on actual medicine though: most pharmacies in France stock a wide range of what they call homéopathie, though many of them are in fact herbal remedies.
Doesn't Scotland have an older, fatter, unhealthier population than England, too? So it's even more serious for them than it looks that they're lagging so far behind.
Case rates in Scotland are currently about half those in England, on the figures from PCR testing, and I think the difference is a bit larger in the ONS survey, so you would expect that the NHS is not so close to breaking point in Scotland, and the urgency to vaccinate to head off an imminent collapse of the NHS is also less.
I'd much rather that Scotland kept up with the vaccination rates seen elsewhere in the UK though.
Different approach - focussing on care homes and housebound, so slower to begin with.
So how do we increase vacc. supply so there is genuinely more now (or soon) rather than arguing over the same pie?
One possibility I can spot is for Sanofi to abandon their vaccine attempt (which I assume they are keeping manufacturing capacity aside for) and turn their manufacturing over to one of the other vaccines - Valneva looks the likeliest, as the French will never agree to AZN, and Pfizer has big issues concerning usability.
The Novavax vaccine is probably the most similar to the GSK/Sanofi effort.
As Gallowgate has shown, it seems they've partnered with Pfizer - I am not entirely sure it was the best partner vaccine-wise, but as Pfizer are doing this as a profit making exercise, it was possibly the most attractive partner commercially.
They are a big vaccines company - they might do both now the Novavax results are out. It's clearly possible, as the Serum Institute are producing it.
When i said earlier I thought it was interesting that Macron hadn't said anything about this dispute, then he opens his mouth and it is the equivalent of doing a maasive dump on the table.
"Arrivals into Birmingham Airport included 21-year-old student Emma Rhodes, who had been on a two-week holiday and was due to arrive back on Friday.
Asked about criticism of those who had chosen to travel abroad for non-business trips, she said: "I had personal reasons why I went, I needed some 'me' time."
Doesn't Scotland have an older, fatter, unhealthier population than England, too? So it's even more serious for them than it looks that they're lagging so far behind.
Case rates in Scotland are currently about half those in England, on the figures from PCR testing, and I think the difference is a bit larger in the ONS survey, so you would expect that the NHS is not so close to breaking point in Scotland, and the urgency to vaccinate to head off an imminent collapse of the NHS is also less.
I'd much rather that Scotland kept up with the vaccination rates seen elsewhere in the UK though.
Different approach - focussing on care homes and housebound, so slower to begin with.
In other vaccine news, a Russian friend of my told me today that he was vaccinated this week in Moscow: they have big vaccination centres that you can just walk in to and get vaccinated as they are pretty empty. It seems the Russians are generally very sceptical of the vaccine they have. Oh and the friend is in his early thirties.
I'm finding this thread boringly one sided and partisan - is there anyone out there to help Kinabalu and None of the Above - what's happened to you. These people need help! Now! We have a serious Remain shortage. Paging! Paging! They can't all have urgent vaccine appointments surely.
This isn't about Leave or Remain. It is about an organisation behaving like an arse. It could just as easily be a single country. That is why so many Remain supporters are amongst the most critical.
I agree that it isn't. Remainer does not = blind support for the EU. That's a smear.
"Arrivals into Birmingham Airport included 21-year-old student Emma Rhodes, who had been on a two-week holiday and was due to arrive back on Friday.
Asked about criticism of those who had chosen to travel abroad for non-business trips, she said: "I had personal reasons why I went, I needed some 'me' time."
Lock her up. Numpty.
I would guess her 'me' time generally accounts for somewhere close to 24 hours of every day.
Doesn't Scotland have an older, fatter, unhealthier population than England, too? So it's even more serious for them than it looks that they're lagging so far behind.
Case rates in Scotland are currently about half those in England, on the figures from PCR testing, and I think the difference is a bit larger in the ONS survey, so you would expect that the NHS is not so close to breaking point in Scotland, and the urgency to vaccinate to head off an imminent collapse of the NHS is also less.
I'd much rather that Scotland kept up with the vaccination rates seen elsewhere in the UK though.
Different approach - focussing on care homes and housebound, so slower to begin with.
I'm actually relieved if they don't go in for a few mass centres yet but rely more on GPs, certainly for the old - I have real concerns about public transport/taxis, and my GP was very efficient with the flu a couple of months back.
Fair point. Mass centres not much use to rural Scotland. All the same, not much sign of a pick-up up here so far, from what I can see.
And the optics over the release of data surprisingly maladroit.
Doesn't Scotland have an older, fatter, unhealthier population than England, too? So it's even more serious for them than it looks that they're lagging so far behind.
Case rates in Scotland are currently about half those in England, on the figures from PCR testing, and I think the difference is a bit larger in the ONS survey, so you would expect that the NHS is not so close to breaking point in Scotland, and the urgency to vaccinate to head off an imminent collapse of the NHS is also less.
I'd much rather that Scotland kept up with the vaccination rates seen elsewhere in the UK though.
Different approach - focussing on care homes and housebound, so slower to begin with.
I fear this will be the same excuse in 2 weeks time - when they’re still behind.
Haven't they found a way to blame Westminster yet? Most unlike them.
Anyway, if Scotland can now vaccinate the wider population at about the same rate as the rest of the UK then, yes, they would still end up being a bit behind, but in proportionate terms the difference will become progressively less acute in proportionate terms, and less relevant. If you're well adrift on lancing people in their seventies, that's a bit of a headache. At the other end of the program, when we're all dealing with low risk under 40s, not so much.
Build a wall around France....they are going to have this plague forever with that sort of attitude from their leader...
If he really said that the guy is a fucking muppet. He's got enough issues with vaccine sceptism as it is. The worry is that there are so many anti-vaxxers in France that Macron might go completely mental to try and outflank the Front National. Might be good for his re-election chances but terrible for the French people.
Guido always had an ugly design (it was kind of their trademark to look like an early 2000's blogspot I thought), but their new design is still ugly, but now also bland and confusing. I presume this horrorshow is designed to maximise clicks to commercial sponsors, but surely of all sites Guido could commercialise something with a bit more panache.
"Arrivals into Birmingham Airport included 21-year-old student Emma Rhodes, who had been on a two-week holiday and was due to arrive back on Friday.
Asked about criticism of those who had chosen to travel abroad for non-business trips, she said: "I had personal reasons why I went, I needed some 'me' time."
Lock her up. Numpty.
I would guess her 'me' time generally accounts for somewhere close to 24 hours of every day.
All that is missing from the EU commissions response it to blame the fact the EU isn't integrated enough and there must be a review to form closer bond between the nations....overseen by a new EU wide bidy.
I'm finding this thread boringly one sided and partisan - is there anyone out there to help Kinabalu and None of the Above - what's happened to you. These people need help! Now! We have a serious Remain shortage. Paging! Paging! They can't all have urgent vaccine appointments surely.
YOU are a Remainer, Felix. A soft one like me. You voted Remain but wanted Leave implemented with no second referendum nonsense. You and Eye are, in this regard, la meme chose.
Comments
One possibility I can spot is for Sanofi to abandon their vaccine attempt (which I assume they are keeping manufacturing capacity aside for) and turn their manufacturing over to one of the other vaccines - Valneva looks the likeliest, as the French will never agree to AZN, and Pfizer has big issues concerning usability.
Whatever, Boris will say no, anyway. Plan B is a dead duck as pointed out by Alex Bell here:
https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/opinion/alex-bell/1926334/team-sturgeon-switches-indy-policy-as-salmond-smells-a-political-comeback/
For clarity the EU have behaved poorly as well as cocking up their vaccine programmes and this does show some of the weaknesses of the EU structures.
All this dicking about plus France's very high rates of vaccine hesitancy could land it in really serious and prolonged trouble. Firstly, that's also very bad news for us (not just because they're an important trading partner, but also because they could act as a reservoir for reimportation of the disease through the cross-Channel trade routes.) And Secondly, because every day France is stuck in lockdown cycles after other countries start to come out of them, the prospect of President le Pen increases.
EDIT: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-27/sanofi-to-make-millions-of-biontech-pfizer-s-covid-vaccine-doses
I'd much rather that Scotland kept up with the vaccination rates seen elsewhere in the UK though.
Massive differential in the rate at which the 85+ group admissions are coming down, vs other groups...
It wasn't till yesterday did this story really start to break, and break big.
My wife, who is more Remain than Alistair Meeks (she cried on the morning of the 24th June 2016) and who has said for years its the biggest mistake the UK has ever engaged in, this morning said to me.... "The EU is trying to stop me getting my vaccine!" (She's scheduled in for tomorrow) and expressed a very slight disapproval of their actions yesterday.
Poll her on Tuesday, the sun shines out the EUs arse still.
Poll her TODAY.... less so.
Look at it this way, if they wanted to ban Pfizer deliveries in February say, why on earth would they have written the policy in this way? Why not just ban all exports? Why only give themselves a tenuous interpretation to take on Pfizers lawyers with?
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1354939266158260224?s=21
It won't be coming off their production line tomorrow as it takes time to set up the production line for these vaccines and then additional time to manufacture it and during all that lead time things can go wrong resulting in the lead time being extended.
And it's the lead time and the risks and delays that occur within that lead time which has bitten the EU.
Spoiler - he thinks the EU have not a leg to stand on.
You sure that's right?
Very big news if you are correct!
Actually I was just reading the Staggers> it's got quite a range of recvent pieces on Scots politics at present, and even the Scotsman is running a piece showing how a Plan B could well work (edit: sorted).
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/scotland/2021/01/why-english-left-should-not-stand-way-scottish-independence
https://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/columnists/could-scotland-stage-independence-referendum-without-uk-approval-what-law-says-3111687
What will be interesting is seeing if/when this feeds in to the next category down - the 65-84 group.
And has reported successful PIII results, which Valneva hasn't yet.
Valneva is inactivated virus, which is a very different manufacturing process.
"Arrivals into Birmingham Airport included 21-year-old student Emma Rhodes, who had been on a two-week holiday and was due to arrive back on Friday.
Asked about criticism of those who had chosen to travel abroad for non-business trips, she said: "I had personal reasons why I went, I needed some 'me' time."
Lock her up. Numpty.
https://twitter.com/MacaesBruno/status/1355199710726860800
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19050497.number-scottish-mass-vaccination-centres-halved-amid-confusion/
If this is an accurate translation of what President Macron said today about the AZ vaccine, I'm afraid it pushes him in my book towards the vicinity of another President, one we have just gotten rid of, who specialized in toxic bullshit. And I never thought I would say that.
343,193 20,847 53,763 26,182
https://twitter.com/AFP/status/1355200521674522625
So: Bayer has already started manufacturing on behalf of CureVac, and both Novartis and Sanofi will be making the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine. The Serum Institute of India is making both the AZN and Novavax vaccines.
I haven't yet seen any announcements from other people producing Moderna. But I presume they're in negotiations with people.
What the hell is Macron doing? I always thought the French were a nation of hypochondriacs, who were always at the Doctors getting pills for imaginary fits of the vapours. When did they become tin foil hatted conspiracy theorists?
We'll have real world figures for its effectiveness in mass use very soon, and they will be rather more credible than anything Macron might have to say about it.
Edit: and to say it just after their own bloody regulator approved it for all ages will just drive the conspiracy nuts.
Vaccine manufacturer AstraZeneca is due to hold a press conference at 17:15 GMT.
Moderna has what is for them seriously valuable IP in terms of formulating the mRNA in lipid nanoparticles for delivery, and some of that is likely to be commercial secrets rather than patentable processes. Getting them to share might take some effort.
It's clearly possible, as the Serum Institute are producing it.
So the spread of when they arrive at the same level of vaccination is just a few days.
Oh and the friend is in his early thirties.
Remainer does not = blind support for the EU.
That's a smear.
And the optics over the release of data surprisingly maladroit.
Anyway, if Scotland can now vaccinate the wider population at about the same rate as the rest of the UK then, yes, they would still end up being a bit behind, but in proportionate terms the difference will become progressively less acute in proportionate terms, and less relevant. If you're well adrift on lancing people in their seventies, that's a bit of a headache. At the other end of the program, when we're all dealing with low risk under 40s, not so much.