Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The extraordinary battle the AstraZeneca vaccine has in being accepted across Europe – politicalbett

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited March 23 in General
The extraordinary battle the AstraZeneca vaccine has in being accepted across Europe – politicalbetting.com

!function(){"use strict";window.addEventListener("message",(function(a){if(void 0!==a.data["datawrapper-height"])for(var e in a.data["datawrapper-height"]){var t=document.getElementById("datawrapper-chart-"+e)||document.querySelector("iframe[src*='"+e+"']");t&&(t.style.height=a.data["datawrapper-height"][e]+"px")}}))}();

Read the full story here

«13456789

Comments

  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 6,556
    Test
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 1,231
    edited March 23
    “Ok prisoner, we’re playing a game. Here’s a machine gun with a belt of 995 blanks and 5 live bullets. Go and stand against that wall with everyone else and I’ll fire it at you all for a while.”

    “That game sucks! I don’t want to play.”

    “Well you can stay a prisoner if you want. But I’ll still make some of you play the game every day.

    Or.... well I must be feeling generous today. If you don’t like that, I suppose I could give you this ticket. It gets you a place in the queue to stand over there and have that nice English-Swedish guard pinch you on the arm instead. When we’ve pinched every prisoner in the arm, you can all go”.

    “Hmmm... your guards are quite strong. Has anyone ever died from him pinching them?”.

    “No”.

    “Or needed hospital?”

    “No”.

    “Does it hurt?”

    “Maybe a bit. Stay in bed a day or two if so. Fill in the blanks in your Netflix education”.

    “Can’t I just transfer to another prison instead?”

    “No. Every prison is now playing this game”.

    “And if I let you pinch me in the arm, I won’t have to stand in front of the machine gun again?”

    “No. Well not this one and not today”.

    “Meh. Take me to the wall please.”
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 36,437
    Despite the Professor having a French name, it *is* a highly unusual statement by the US NIAID.

    There is a campaign against AZ. And it is an orchestrated one.
  • gealbhangealbhan Posts: 1,034
    rcs1000 said:

    Despite the Professor having a French name, it *is* a highly unusual statement by the US NIAID.

    There is a campaign against AZ. And it is an orchestrated one.
    Why? 😕
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 1,231
    rcs1000 said:

    Despite the Professor having a French name, it *is* a highly unusual statement by the US NIAID.

    There is a campaign against AZ. And it is an orchestrated one.
    You mean a big pharma conspiracy to knock out the non profit competitor? Or some other actor for another reason?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 30,244
    They apparently keep their record for making a muddle of each vaccine clinical trial they run...

    I would not rush to judgment, thought. This could be a minor issue - and the real word data outside of the trials, from millions rather than tens of thousands, suggests the vaccine is effective - but it doesn’t help things.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 1,231
    Nigelb said:

    They apparently keep their record for making a muddle of each vaccine clinical trial they run...

    I would not rush to judgment, thought. This could be a minor issue - and the real word data outside of the trials, from millions rather than tens of thousands, suggests the vaccine is effective - but it doesn’t help things.
    It could be knocked on the head by announcing how many people in the real world acquired covid one month after the first jab and went onto die within 28 days.
  • gealbhangealbhan Posts: 1,034
    edited March 23
    moonshine said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Despite the Professor having a French name, it *is* a highly unusual statement by the US NIAID.

    There is a campaign against AZ. And it is an orchestrated one.
    You mean a big pharma conspiracy to knock out the non profit competitor? Or some other actor for another reason?
    I see like bad reviews by rivals on TripAdvisor?

    Are those governments we presumed were playing vaccine nationalism against one with Oxford in title in fact dumb pawns in the hands of Big Pharma?

    Is it a form of Gaslighting?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 47,560
    Nigelb said:

    They apparently keep their record for making a muddle of each vaccine clinical trial they run...

    I would not rush to judgment, thought. This could be a minor issue - and the real word data outside of the trials, from millions rather than tens of thousands, suggests the vaccine is effective - but it doesn’t help things.
    Yes - the Phase 3+ trial currently underway in the U.K. rather suggests it’s pretty effective.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 47,560
    rcs1000 said:

    Despite the Professor having a French name, it *is* a highly unusual statement by the US NIAID.

    There is a campaign against AZ. And it is an orchestrated one.
    As ever, Cui Bono?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 30,244
    With the benefit of hindsight, it’s perhaps a shame AZN did not arrange help from Glaxo (who have far more expertise in vaccines) in structuring and reporting its clinical trials.
    It’s not an easy process, and in normal times such trials and their reporting happen over a much longer period of time, under far less pressure.

    AZN have had a tough few days - their director of oncology just died tragically, reportedly of CJD.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 30,244

    rcs1000 said:

    Despite the Professor having a French name, it *is* a highly unusual statement by the US NIAID.

    There is a campaign against AZ. And it is an orchestrated one.
    As ever, Cui Bono?
    Pfizer predicts $15bn in revenue from their vaccine this year; Moderna over $18bn. Their profit margins will be somewhere between 25 and 50%.
    The Sinovac vaccine is reportedly selling for a higher price than either. Sputnik will no doubt be a profitable exercise, too.

    To give some context, I think AZN’s total revenues last year were around $25bn.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 30,244
    rcs1000 said:

    There is a massive anti AstraZeneca vaccine campaign that goes way, way beyond the EU and Brexit....
    There’s a huge antivax / conspiracy theory culture out there already, so I think it’s wrong to assume it’s necessarily a massive orchestrated campaign.
    It could have happened all on its own, and a few nudges (of the kind we’ve seen in US political campaigns from foreign actors) would be all that was needed.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 30,244
    Would you want to lick a Covid stamp .... ?

    https://twitter.com/thelonevirologi/status/1374126375628636160
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 7,798
    On unlocking:

    It soon became clear that the ‘optimistic’ assumptions in the models were rather pessimistic. The lockdown worked better than predicted and both the uptake and efficacy of the vaccine exceeded expectations. So far, there is no sign of opening schools leading to a rise in infections. When a peer-reviewed version of the Warwick model was published last week, it forecast very few deaths if lockdown was eased in April so long as the vaccines are at least 60% effective. Like the other models, it made the dubious assumption that neither warmer weather nor vaccinations would reduce levels of transmission, but even so, there seems to be no realistic prospect of the NHS being overwhelmed – and that, let us never forget, is the sole justification for lockdown.

    Although Boris Johnson promised to base policy on data rather than dates, SAGE turned this into a one-way ratchet by concocting a rule that says it takes four weeks to evaluate the data and another week to act upon it. This concept was notable by its absence last year, when restrictions were being introduced on an almost weekly basis and it seems to have been invented for the sole purpose of keeping the roadmap to a snail’s pace.


    https://capx.co/the-data-is-clear-the-government-must-move-the-lockdown-roadmap-forward/

    Worth a read, whether you're part of the cautious tendency or not. I am, and it's probably a good idea for us to be regularly reminded just how very destructive lockdown itself is.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 39,695
    AZ does seem a little naive, paddling in the piranha pool as it is.

    Selling its vaccine at cost price to developing countries - in perpetuity no less - was always going to be seen as a declaration of war by the rest of Big Pharma. The very idea of "doing our bit to help out in a global pandemic" runs entirely counter to the notion that the industry will milk the ailments of mankind, whatever, wherever. I mean, where does it stop? It wont do...won't do at all.

    The alternative view is that AZ knew exactly what it was doing - and was trying to drive a stake through the heart of competitors in Big Pharma with its faux "benevolence".
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 47,560
    “China Virus”

    “We are now basically in a new pandemic. The British mutation has become dominant,” Merkel told a news conference.

    “Fundamentally, we face a new virus of the same kind but with very different characteristics. More deadly, more infectious, and infectious for longer.”


    https://www.reuters.com/article/reutersComService_2_MOLT/idUSKBN2BF05L
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 39,695

    “China Virus”

    “We are now basically in a new pandemic. The British mutation has become dominant,” Merkel told a news conference.

    “Fundamentally, we face a new virus of the same kind but with very different characteristics. More deadly, more infectious, and infectious for longer.”


    https://www.reuters.com/article/reutersComService_2_MOLT/idUSKBN2BF05L

    Duh....... This was news in, what - November?
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 9,422
    You have to hand it to the evil EU. I had no idea that they ran the US government as well.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 21,925
    edited March 23

    AZ does seem a little naive, paddling in the piranha pool as it is.

    Selling its vaccine at cost price to developing countries - in perpetuity no less - was always going to be seen as a declaration of war by the rest of Big Pharma. The very idea of "doing our bit to help out in a global pandemic" runs entirely counter to the notion that the industry will milk the ailments of mankind, whatever, wherever. I mean, where does it stop? It wont do...won't do at all.

    The alternative view is that AZ knew exactly what it was doing - and was trying to drive a stake through the heart of competitors in Big Pharma with its faux "benevolence".

    Good morning everybody!
    I posted a couple of weeks or so ago that there was something going on under the (political) surface. That something was poisoning AstraZeneca's PR well, and that it seemed nothing whatsoever to do with the efficacy or otherwise of the vaccine.
    I don't think it's that it's a ganging up against UK either.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 55,280
    Good morning, everyone.

    Mr. Pioneers, no, but they certainly got the ball rolling.

    King Cole, indeed. We're lucky there are millions (tens of millions?) of real world examples in the UK to counteract some of the more outlandish claims of the AZN vaccine infecting people with the T-virus.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 37,376
    Sandpit said:

    Test

    Good luck Mike, hope it comes back negative. ;)
    I thought he’d been jabbed?
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 1,231
    Nigelb said:

    rcs1000 said:

    There is a massive anti AstraZeneca vaccine campaign that goes way, way beyond the EU and Brexit....
    There’s a huge antivax / conspiracy theory culture out there already, so I think it’s wrong to assume it’s necessarily a massive orchestrated campaign.
    It could have happened all on its own, and a few nudges (of the kind we’ve seen in US political campaigns from foreign actors) would be all that was needed.
    During Brexit and Trumpism, all the usual suspects were very quick to attribute it all to the sly hand of Putinism. Well Vlad still hasn’t gone away. And Xi plays a league above him. It doesn’t take much of a “nudge” to a nameless official here, pointing a journo up a blind alley there, online bot action everywhere.

    Not saying this is what’s happening for sure, but Putin and Xi both run their countries first and foremost on the basis that they’re engaged in cold wars to the death with the West. And most actors in the West don’t realise it. It’s hard to think of anything in the post war period that has done more damage economically, socially and diplomatically to the Western alliance than covid itself and the vaccine procurement crisis.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 37,376
    edited March 23

    You have to hand it to the evil EU. I had no idea that they ran the US government as well.
    Could it be the Russian government is running both?

    Genius if so. Steal the information, produce a vaccine derived almost entirely from it, then force other people to run a misinformation campaign to discredit the cheaper original so you can sell your knock off to them at inflated prices.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 30,244

    AZ does seem a little naive, paddling in the piranha pool as it is.

    Selling its vaccine at cost price to developing countries - in perpetuity no less - was always going to be seen as a declaration of war by the rest of Big Pharma. The very idea of "doing our bit to help out in a global pandemic" runs entirely counter to the notion that the industry will milk the ailments of mankind, whatever, wherever. I mean, where does it stop? It wont do...won't do at all.

    The alternative view is that AZ knew exactly what it was doing - and was trying to drive a stake through the heart of competitors in Big Pharma with its faux "benevolence".

    Or neither, given that it was a condition of the Oxford license that it be provided at cost.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 6,630
    Sandpit said:

    So while everyone trashes AZ for their own selfish and political reasons, the UK quickly vaccinates the whole country and becomes the first G20 nation out of domestic restrictions in the next few months.

    Well done to everyone involved, and sad to see that no good deed goes unpunished as far as AZ are concerned.

    Only Israel and UAE (pop. 10m each) are ahead of the UK in the rollout, bar a few tiny states and enclaves.

    Surely the point is there are perfectly rational reasons for AZ-scepticism, whose trials were ballsed up from the start (incomplete coverage, dose errors). As @rcs1000 reports in this thread, there is probably a conspiracy to exaggerate and promulgate any doubts (and isn't it funny how interference in election and referendum campaigns is invariably dismissed as insignificant?).

    Declaration of interest, I've got an armful of AZ and no side-effects.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 30,244
    moonshine said:

    Nigelb said:

    rcs1000 said:

    There is a massive anti AstraZeneca vaccine campaign that goes way, way beyond the EU and Brexit....
    There’s a huge antivax / conspiracy theory culture out there already, so I think it’s wrong to assume it’s necessarily a massive orchestrated campaign.
    It could have happened all on its own, and a few nudges (of the kind we’ve seen in US political campaigns from foreign actors) would be all that was needed.
    During Brexit and Trumpism, all the usual suspects were very quick to attribute it all to the sly hand of Putinism. Well Vlad still hasn’t gone away. And Xi plays a league above him. It doesn’t take much of a “nudge” to a nameless official here, pointing a journo up a blind alley there, online bot action everywhere.

    Not saying this is what’s happening for sure, but Putin and Xi both run their countries first and foremost on the basis that they’re engaged in cold wars to the death with the West. And most actors in the West don’t realise it. It’s hard to think of anything in the post war period that has done more damage economically, socially and diplomatically to the Western alliance than covid itself and the vaccine procurement crisis.
    Absolutely - it’s entirely credible that either or both might have involvement.
    But as we’ve seen in other contexts, it only takes a relatively small effort to reap outsize results.

    The West needs to find some way to inoculate itself against this kind of thing.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 9,422
    ydoethur said:

    You have to hand it to the evil EU. I had no idea that they ran the US government as well.
    Could it be the Russian government is running both?

    Genius if so. Steal the information, produce a vaccine derived almost entirely from it, then force other people to run a misinformation campaign to discredit the cheaper original so you can sell your knock off to them at inflated prices.
    Its possible! As is the flip side of the coin that the AZ vaccine isn't the smash hit we've all been told it is, but our government have pushed ahead anyway. We just don't know. I have taken the anti-EU ranting in the partisan spirit it was meant - whilst there are delays in delivery of the vaccine for them, they still need people to take it. So trashing it for supposed short-term political gain makes zero sense as they're screwed as soon as supplies finally land and people refuse to take it.

    Either way, when I get an invite to have the thing I'll do so with a smile...
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 30,244

    “China Virus”

    “We are now basically in a new pandemic. The British mutation has become dominant,” Merkel told a news conference.

    “Fundamentally, we face a new virus of the same kind but with very different characteristics. More deadly, more infectious, and infectious for longer.”


    https://www.reuters.com/article/reutersComService_2_MOLT/idUSKBN2BF05L

    Duh....... This was news in, what - November?
    It was predictable in November; it has actually happened now.
  • eekeek Posts: 11,669
    Nigelb said:

    “China Virus”

    “We are now basically in a new pandemic. The British mutation has become dominant,” Merkel told a news conference.

    “Fundamentally, we face a new virus of the same kind but with very different characteristics. More deadly, more infectious, and infectious for longer.”


    https://www.reuters.com/article/reutersComService_2_MOLT/idUSKBN2BF05L

    Duh....... This was news in, what - November?
    It was predictable in November; it has actually happened now.
    The thing is that it was always going to hit Germany and Europe - the only question was one of when it would arrive.

    At the moment all the Covid mutations will eventually hit the rest of the world - once you fail to stop the initial cases getting out into the wild it is inevitable
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 30,577
    ydoethur said:

    You have to hand it to the evil EU. I had no idea that they ran the US government as well.
    Could it be the Russian government is running both?

    Genius if so. Steal the information, produce a vaccine derived almost entirely from it, then force other people to run a misinformation campaign to discredit the cheaper original so you can sell your knock off to them at inflated prices.
    I’m not one for conspiracy theories, but right now Russia has two sources of hard currency - O&G, and Sputnik vaccines, and the oil price is back down to $64 this morning.

    Sadly, the sort of online warfare engaged in by Russia and China costs almost nothing, compared to the value placed on the effect of their disinformation campaigns in the Western world.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 32,796
    rcs1000 said:

    There is a massive anti AstraZeneca vaccine campaign that goes way, way beyond the EU and Brexit.

    Do a Google for "adverse reaction AstraZeneca covid vaccine trial". You get a whole bunch of news stories about problems with the AstraZeneca trial, from reputable sources such as Statnews, CNN and others.

    Now, switch AstraZeneca for Moderna.

    Suddenly there's essentially nothing. A quarter of the number of links. And no stories suggesting any negative trial issues whatsoever.

    Bear in mind that this search is for the trial. This is long before the EU had even fucked up vaccine procurement.

    Now, Google for "issues AstraZeneca vaccine trial". Again. Tonnes of links: NYTimes. Statnews. And a whole bunch of serious medical sites.

    Now, do the same for Modera.

    And there's almost nothing.

    There is almost no serious anti-Moderna (or even anti-Pfizer) news.

    There is tonnes of anti-AstraZeneca.

    You're at risk of spoiling the Brexiters' fun..
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 30,244
    .
    eek said:

    Nigelb said:

    “China Virus”

    “We are now basically in a new pandemic. The British mutation has become dominant,” Merkel told a news conference.

    “Fundamentally, we face a new virus of the same kind but with very different characteristics. More deadly, more infectious, and infectious for longer.”


    https://www.reuters.com/article/reutersComService_2_MOLT/idUSKBN2BF05L

    Duh....... This was news in, what - November?
    It was predictable in November; it has actually happened now.
    The thing is that it was always going to hit Germany and Europe - the only question was one of when it would arrive.

    At the moment all the Covid mutations will eventually hit the rest of the world - once you fail to stop the initial cases getting out into the wild it is inevitable
    Absolutely. Germany seems to have repeated our mistakes from last year in reacting belatedly to what was inevitable.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 39,695
    Nigelb said:

    “China Virus”

    “We are now basically in a new pandemic. The British mutation has become dominant,” Merkel told a news conference.

    “Fundamentally, we face a new virus of the same kind but with very different characteristics. More deadly, more infectious, and infectious for longer.”


    https://www.reuters.com/article/reutersComService_2_MOLT/idUSKBN2BF05L

    Duh....... This was news in, what - November?
    It was predictable in November; it has actually happened now.
    The deaths we had in January-February taught them damn all. Tragic waste of life.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 39,695
    IanB2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    There is a massive anti AstraZeneca vaccine campaign that goes way, way beyond the EU and Brexit.

    Do a Google for "adverse reaction AstraZeneca covid vaccine trial". You get a whole bunch of news stories about problems with the AstraZeneca trial, from reputable sources such as Statnews, CNN and others.

    Now, switch AstraZeneca for Moderna.

    Suddenly there's essentially nothing. A quarter of the number of links. And no stories suggesting any negative trial issues whatsoever.

    Bear in mind that this search is for the trial. This is long before the EU had even fucked up vaccine procurement.

    Now, Google for "issues AstraZeneca vaccine trial". Again. Tonnes of links: NYTimes. Statnews. And a whole bunch of serious medical sites.

    Now, do the same for Modera.

    And there's almost nothing.

    There is almost no serious anti-Moderna (or even anti-Pfizer) news.

    There is tonnes of anti-AstraZeneca.

    You're at risk of spoiling the Brexiters' fun..
    If you think that is our idea of fun, then it is no surprise you were "beaten by a bus".
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 30,244

    ydoethur said:

    You have to hand it to the evil EU. I had no idea that they ran the US government as well.
    Could it be the Russian government is running both?

    Genius if so. Steal the information, produce a vaccine derived almost entirely from it, then force other people to run a misinformation campaign to discredit the cheaper original so you can sell your knock off to them at inflated prices.
    Its possible! As is the flip side of the coin that the AZ vaccine isn't the smash hit we've all been told it is, but our government have pushed ahead anyway. We just don't know. I have taken the anti-EU ranting in the partisan spirit it was meant - whilst there are delays in delivery of the vaccine for them, they still need people to take it. So trashing it for supposed short-term political gain makes zero sense as they're screwed as soon as supplies finally land and people refuse to take it.

    Either way, when I get an invite to have the thing I'll do so with a smile...
    You don’t have to be an anti EU ranter to think that their handling of every aspect of the vaccine issue has been counterproductive, or actually destructive.

    And they don’t even seem to know now what it is that they want.
    https://www.politico.eu/article/threats-but-few-details-as-european-commission-demands-reciprocity-in-vaccine-exports/
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 52,426
    Nigelb said:

    .

    eek said:

    Nigelb said:

    “China Virus”

    “We are now basically in a new pandemic. The British mutation has become dominant,” Merkel told a news conference.

    “Fundamentally, we face a new virus of the same kind but with very different characteristics. More deadly, more infectious, and infectious for longer.”


    https://www.reuters.com/article/reutersComService_2_MOLT/idUSKBN2BF05L

    Duh....... This was news in, what - November?
    It was predictable in November; it has actually happened now.
    The thing is that it was always going to hit Germany and Europe - the only question was one of when it would arrive.

    At the moment all the Covid mutations will eventually hit the rest of the world - once you fail to stop the initial cases getting out into the wild it is inevitable
    Absolutely. Germany seems to have repeated our mistakes from last year in reacting belatedly to what was inevitable.
    It's worse because we didn't know what the Kent variant would mean until late in December by which point it was rather too late to do anything. They've known about it for four months.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 6,630
    ydoethur said:

    You have to hand it to the evil EU. I had no idea that they ran the US government as well.
    Could it be the Russian government is running both?

    Genius if so. Steal the information, produce a vaccine derived almost entirely from it, then force other people to run a misinformation campaign to discredit the cheaper original so you can sell your knock off to them at inflated prices.
    The Russian government could be running ours as well as the US and EU. At least, it would probably like to. It was widely reported the KGB tried to recruit one recent old etonian prime minister, and to corrupt a former American president. :wink:
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 39,695
    Nigelb said:

    AZ does seem a little naive, paddling in the piranha pool as it is.

    Selling its vaccine at cost price to developing countries - in perpetuity no less - was always going to be seen as a declaration of war by the rest of Big Pharma. The very idea of "doing our bit to help out in a global pandemic" runs entirely counter to the notion that the industry will milk the ailments of mankind, whatever, wherever. I mean, where does it stop? It wont do...won't do at all.

    The alternative view is that AZ knew exactly what it was doing - and was trying to drive a stake through the heart of competitors in Big Pharma with its faux "benevolence".

    Or neither, given that it was a condition of the Oxford license that it be provided at cost.
    Has any other vaccine player had that requirement placed upon it?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 39,695
    ydoethur said:

    You have to hand it to the evil EU. I had no idea that they ran the US government as well.
    Could it be the Russian government is running both?

    Genius if so. Steal the information, produce a vaccine derived almost entirely from it, then force other people to run a misinformation campaign to discredit the cheaper original so you can sell your knock off to them at inflated prices.
    Quite good at this capitalism malarkey, aren't they?
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 9,422
    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    You have to hand it to the evil EU. I had no idea that they ran the US government as well.
    Could it be the Russian government is running both?

    Genius if so. Steal the information, produce a vaccine derived almost entirely from it, then force other people to run a misinformation campaign to discredit the cheaper original so you can sell your knock off to them at inflated prices.
    Its possible! As is the flip side of the coin that the AZ vaccine isn't the smash hit we've all been told it is, but our government have pushed ahead anyway. We just don't know. I have taken the anti-EU ranting in the partisan spirit it was meant - whilst there are delays in delivery of the vaccine for them, they still need people to take it. So trashing it for supposed short-term political gain makes zero sense as they're screwed as soon as supplies finally land and people refuse to take it.

    Either way, when I get an invite to have the thing I'll do so with a smile...
    You don’t have to be an anti EU ranter to think that their handling of every aspect of the vaccine issue has been counterproductive, or actually destructive.

    And they don’t even seem to know now what it is that they want.
    https://www.politico.eu/article/threats-but-few-details-as-european-commission-demands-reciprocity-in-vaccine-exports/
    Of course! Its been a cluster fuck. But isn't that down to incompetence and the wildly different agendas being driven by leading members states forcing the EU into contradictory nonsense?

    The main accusation against the EU has always been "unelected bureaucrats dictating to member states" - on this very forum this last week writ large. And yet we have members states doing the exact opposite to each other in response to the virus and the vaccine.

    It isn't the EU driving this. Its Macron. Its Merkel. Its Dragi - with their internal domestic political shenanigans driving increasingly daft reactions from VDL. And not the other way round as insisted by EU foamers.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 30,577
    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    You have to hand it to the evil EU. I had no idea that they ran the US government as well.
    Could it be the Russian government is running both?

    Genius if so. Steal the information, produce a vaccine derived almost entirely from it, then force other people to run a misinformation campaign to discredit the cheaper original so you can sell your knock off to them at inflated prices.
    Its possible! As is the flip side of the coin that the AZ vaccine isn't the smash hit we've all been told it is, but our government have pushed ahead anyway. We just don't know. I have taken the anti-EU ranting in the partisan spirit it was meant - whilst there are delays in delivery of the vaccine for them, they still need people to take it. So trashing it for supposed short-term political gain makes zero sense as they're screwed as soon as supplies finally land and people refuse to take it.

    Either way, when I get an invite to have the thing I'll do so with a smile...
    You don’t have to be an anti EU ranter to think that their handling of every aspect of the vaccine issue has been counterproductive, or actually destructive.

    And they don’t even seem to know now what it is that they want.
    https://www.politico.eu/article/threats-but-few-details-as-european-commission-demands-reciprocity-in-vaccine-exports/
    What they want is simple - not to have a massively successful country on their doorstep, the country that just walked away from their club.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 1,943
    Nigelb said:

    AZ does seem a little naive, paddling in the piranha pool as it is.

    Selling its vaccine at cost price to developing countries - in perpetuity no less - was always going to be seen as a declaration of war by the rest of Big Pharma. The very idea of "doing our bit to help out in a global pandemic" runs entirely counter to the notion that the industry will milk the ailments of mankind, whatever, wherever. I mean, where does it stop? It wont do...won't do at all.

    The alternative view is that AZ knew exactly what it was doing - and was trying to drive a stake through the heart of competitors in Big Pharma with its faux "benevolence".

    Or neither, given that it was a condition of the Oxford license that it be provided at cost.
    A remarkably stupid one, which will disincentivise the development of future vaccines.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 52,426
    edited March 23

    Nigelb said:

    AZ does seem a little naive, paddling in the piranha pool as it is.

    Selling its vaccine at cost price to developing countries - in perpetuity no less - was always going to be seen as a declaration of war by the rest of Big Pharma. The very idea of "doing our bit to help out in a global pandemic" runs entirely counter to the notion that the industry will milk the ailments of mankind, whatever, wherever. I mean, where does it stop? It wont do...won't do at all.

    The alternative view is that AZ knew exactly what it was doing - and was trying to drive a stake through the heart of competitors in Big Pharma with its faux "benevolence".

    Or neither, given that it was a condition of the Oxford license that it be provided at cost.
    Has any other vaccine player had that requirement placed upon it?
    No, because they weren't developed by Oxford University.

    The UK not monetising discoveries that come from our universities seems a tale as old as time.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 32,796
    edited March 23

    IanB2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    There is a massive anti AstraZeneca vaccine campaign that goes way, way beyond the EU and Brexit.

    Do a Google for "adverse reaction AstraZeneca covid vaccine trial". You get a whole bunch of news stories about problems with the AstraZeneca trial, from reputable sources such as Statnews, CNN and others.

    Now, switch AstraZeneca for Moderna.

    Suddenly there's essentially nothing. A quarter of the number of links. And no stories suggesting any negative trial issues whatsoever.

    Bear in mind that this search is for the trial. This is long before the EU had even fucked up vaccine procurement.

    Now, Google for "issues AstraZeneca vaccine trial". Again. Tonnes of links: NYTimes. Statnews. And a whole bunch of serious medical sites.

    Now, do the same for Modera.

    And there's almost nothing.

    There is almost no serious anti-Moderna (or even anti-Pfizer) news.

    There is tonnes of anti-AstraZeneca.

    You're at risk of spoiling the Brexiters' fun..
    If you think that is our idea of fun, then it is no surprise you were "beaten by a bus".
    Leon isn't the only one who jumps on any anti-EU angle with palpable enthusiasm.

    Having a go at a disinformation campaign by Big Pharma isn't nearly so satisfying.
  • felixfelix Posts: 12,583
    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    You have to hand it to the evil EU. I had no idea that they ran the US government as well.
    Could it be the Russian government is running both?

    Genius if so. Steal the information, produce a vaccine derived almost entirely from it, then force other people to run a misinformation campaign to discredit the cheaper original so you can sell your knock off to them at inflated prices.
    Its possible! As is the flip side of the coin that the AZ vaccine isn't the smash hit we've all been told it is, but our government have pushed ahead anyway. We just don't know. I have taken the anti-EU ranting in the partisan spirit it was meant - whilst there are delays in delivery of the vaccine for them, they still need people to take it. So trashing it for supposed short-term political gain makes zero sense as they're screwed as soon as supplies finally land and people refuse to take it.

    Either way, when I get an invite to have the thing I'll do so with a smile...
    You don’t have to be an anti EU ranter to think that their handling of every aspect of the vaccine issue has been counterproductive, or actually destructive.

    And they don’t even seem to know now what it is that they want.
    https://www.politico.eu/article/threats-but-few-details-as-european-commission-demands-reciprocity-in-vaccine-exports/
    The national governments are also crazy - France gives AZT only to over 65s while Spain only to under 65s with both making zero sense.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 39,695
    So much for honesty being the best policy.....

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-56490673
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 21,925

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    You have to hand it to the evil EU. I had no idea that they ran the US government as well.
    Could it be the Russian government is running both?

    Genius if so. Steal the information, produce a vaccine derived almost entirely from it, then force other people to run a misinformation campaign to discredit the cheaper original so you can sell your knock off to them at inflated prices.
    Its possible! As is the flip side of the coin that the AZ vaccine isn't the smash hit we've all been told it is, but our government have pushed ahead anyway. We just don't know. I have taken the anti-EU ranting in the partisan spirit it was meant - whilst there are delays in delivery of the vaccine for them, they still need people to take it. So trashing it for supposed short-term political gain makes zero sense as they're screwed as soon as supplies finally land and people refuse to take it.

    Either way, when I get an invite to have the thing I'll do so with a smile...
    You don’t have to be an anti EU ranter to think that their handling of every aspect of the vaccine issue has been counterproductive, or actually destructive.

    And they don’t even seem to know now what it is that they want.
    https://www.politico.eu/article/threats-but-few-details-as-european-commission-demands-reciprocity-in-vaccine-exports/
    Of course! Its been a cluster fuck. But isn't that down to incompetence and the wildly different agendas being driven by leading members states forcing the EU into contradictory nonsense?

    The main accusation against the EU has always been "unelected bureaucrats dictating to member states" - on this very forum this last week writ large. And yet we have members states doing the exact opposite to each other in response to the virus and the vaccine.

    It isn't the EU driving this. Its Macron. Its Merkel. Its Dragi - with their internal domestic political shenanigans driving increasingly daft reactions from VDL. And not the other way round as insisted by EU foamers.
    One of the few benefits of the UvdL being Commissioner surely is that she's not practising medicine on a one-to-one basis.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 6,630
    The common cold can prevent Covid infection. Trouble is, colds don't last very long.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56483445

    This might explain some of the confused data about seasonal effects: whether infection was reduced in winter.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 22,639

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    You have to hand it to the evil EU. I had no idea that they ran the US government as well.
    Could it be the Russian government is running both?

    Genius if so. Steal the information, produce a vaccine derived almost entirely from it, then force other people to run a misinformation campaign to discredit the cheaper original so you can sell your knock off to them at inflated prices.
    Its possible! As is the flip side of the coin that the AZ vaccine isn't the smash hit we've all been told it is, but our government have pushed ahead anyway. We just don't know. I have taken the anti-EU ranting in the partisan spirit it was meant - whilst there are delays in delivery of the vaccine for them, they still need people to take it. So trashing it for supposed short-term political gain makes zero sense as they're screwed as soon as supplies finally land and people refuse to take it.

    Either way, when I get an invite to have the thing I'll do so with a smile...
    You don’t have to be an anti EU ranter to think that their handling of every aspect of the vaccine issue has been counterproductive, or actually destructive.

    And they don’t even seem to know now what it is that they want.
    https://www.politico.eu/article/threats-but-few-details-as-european-commission-demands-reciprocity-in-vaccine-exports/
    Of course! Its been a cluster fuck. But isn't that down to incompetence and the wildly different agendas being driven by leading members states forcing the EU into contradictory nonsense?

    The main accusation against the EU has always been "unelected bureaucrats dictating to member states" - on this very forum this last week writ large. And yet we have members states doing the exact opposite to each other in response to the virus and the vaccine.

    It isn't the EU driving this. Its Macron. Its Merkel. Its Dragi - with their internal domestic political shenanigans driving increasingly daft reactions from VDL. And not the other way round as insisted by EU foamers.
    Indeed the EMA has endorsed the drug and encouraged its continued use. It is Sovereign nations that have instituted their own policies (wrongly). AZN haven't helped their own case by producing a dogs breakfast of trials and multiple shortfalls of promised deliveries.

    I think the future is the RNA viruses, particularly for autumn boosters to cover South African and Brazil strains.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 9,422
    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    You have to hand it to the evil EU. I had no idea that they ran the US government as well.
    Could it be the Russian government is running both?

    Genius if so. Steal the information, produce a vaccine derived almost entirely from it, then force other people to run a misinformation campaign to discredit the cheaper original so you can sell your knock off to them at inflated prices.
    Its possible! As is the flip side of the coin that the AZ vaccine isn't the smash hit we've all been told it is, but our government have pushed ahead anyway. We just don't know. I have taken the anti-EU ranting in the partisan spirit it was meant - whilst there are delays in delivery of the vaccine for them, they still need people to take it. So trashing it for supposed short-term political gain makes zero sense as they're screwed as soon as supplies finally land and people refuse to take it.

    Either way, when I get an invite to have the thing I'll do so with a smile...
    You don’t have to be an anti EU ranter to think that their handling of every aspect of the vaccine issue has been counterproductive, or actually destructive.

    And they don’t even seem to know now what it is that they want.
    https://www.politico.eu/article/threats-but-few-details-as-european-commission-demands-reciprocity-in-vaccine-exports/
    What they want is simple - not to have a massively successful country on their doorstep, the country that just walked away from their club.
    And yet when you look at our trading figures with collapses in exports we're hardly "massively successful". Go ask a business leader how successful they feel right now.

    We got the Vaccine Right. We got the Brexit deal wrong. They aren't mutually exclusive.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 39,695

    Nigelb said:

    AZ does seem a little naive, paddling in the piranha pool as it is.

    Selling its vaccine at cost price to developing countries - in perpetuity no less - was always going to be seen as a declaration of war by the rest of Big Pharma. The very idea of "doing our bit to help out in a global pandemic" runs entirely counter to the notion that the industry will milk the ailments of mankind, whatever, wherever. I mean, where does it stop? It wont do...won't do at all.

    The alternative view is that AZ knew exactly what it was doing - and was trying to drive a stake through the heart of competitors in Big Pharma with its faux "benevolence".

    Or neither, given that it was a condition of the Oxford license that it be provided at cost.
    Has any other vaccine player had that requirement placed upon it?
    No, because they weren't developed by Oxford University.

    The UK not monetising discoveries that come from our universities seems a tale as old as time.
    I assume that Big Pharma thinks AZ should have told the Govt. to bugger off with the terms of their licence to produce at cost. Sets a terrible - and for them, terrifying - precedent.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 12,663

    And yet when you look at our trading figures with collapses in exports we're hardly "massively successful". Go ask a business leader how successful they feel right now.

    We got the Vaccine Right. We got the Brexit deal wrong. They aren't mutually exclusive.

    https://twitter.com/InigoGilmore/status/1374132386921771010
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 22,639

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    You have to hand it to the evil EU. I had no idea that they ran the US government as well.
    Could it be the Russian government is running both?

    Genius if so. Steal the information, produce a vaccine derived almost entirely from it, then force other people to run a misinformation campaign to discredit the cheaper original so you can sell your knock off to them at inflated prices.
    Its possible! As is the flip side of the coin that the AZ vaccine isn't the smash hit we've all been told it is, but our government have pushed ahead anyway. We just don't know. I have taken the anti-EU ranting in the partisan spirit it was meant - whilst there are delays in delivery of the vaccine for them, they still need people to take it. So trashing it for supposed short-term political gain makes zero sense as they're screwed as soon as supplies finally land and people refuse to take it.

    Either way, when I get an invite to have the thing I'll do so with a smile...
    You don’t have to be an anti EU ranter to think that their handling of every aspect of the vaccine issue has been counterproductive, or actually destructive.

    And they don’t even seem to know now what it is that they want.
    https://www.politico.eu/article/threats-but-few-details-as-european-commission-demands-reciprocity-in-vaccine-exports/
    What they want is simple - not to have a massively successful country on their doorstep, the country that just walked away from their club.
    And yet when you look at our trading figures with collapses in exports we're hardly "massively successful". Go ask a business leader how successful they feel right now.

    We got the Vaccine Right. We got the Brexit deal wrong. They aren't mutually exclusive.
    The drop in agricultural export figures are eye watering:

    https://twitter.com/adampayne26/status/1373974501998915585?s=19
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 6,488
    Integrated Review handily summarised..


  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 21,925

    Nigelb said:

    AZ does seem a little naive, paddling in the piranha pool as it is.

    Selling its vaccine at cost price to developing countries - in perpetuity no less - was always going to be seen as a declaration of war by the rest of Big Pharma. The very idea of "doing our bit to help out in a global pandemic" runs entirely counter to the notion that the industry will milk the ailments of mankind, whatever, wherever. I mean, where does it stop? It wont do...won't do at all.

    The alternative view is that AZ knew exactly what it was doing - and was trying to drive a stake through the heart of competitors in Big Pharma with its faux "benevolence".

    Or neither, given that it was a condition of the Oxford license that it be provided at cost.
    Has any other vaccine player had that requirement placed upon it?
    No, because they weren't developed by Oxford University.

    The UK not monetising discoveries that come from our universities seems a tale as old as time.
    I assume that Big Pharma thinks AZ should have told the Govt. to bugger off with the terms of their licence to produce at cost. Sets a terrible - and for them, terrifying - precedent.
    Was it a Govt. licence condition; I though (see above) that it was Oxford Uni's?
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 5,008
    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    You have to hand it to the evil EU. I had no idea that they ran the US government as well.
    Could it be the Russian government is running both?

    Genius if so. Steal the information, produce a vaccine derived almost entirely from it, then force other people to run a misinformation campaign to discredit the cheaper original so you can sell your knock off to them at inflated prices.
    Its possible! As is the flip side of the coin that the AZ vaccine isn't the smash hit we've all been told it is, but our government have pushed ahead anyway. We just don't know. I have taken the anti-EU ranting in the partisan spirit it was meant - whilst there are delays in delivery of the vaccine for them, they still need people to take it. So trashing it for supposed short-term political gain makes zero sense as they're screwed as soon as supplies finally land and people refuse to take it.

    Either way, when I get an invite to have the thing I'll do so with a smile...
    You don’t have to be an anti EU ranter to think that their handling of every aspect of the vaccine issue has been counterproductive, or actually destructive.

    And they don’t even seem to know now what it is that they want.
    https://www.politico.eu/article/threats-but-few-details-as-european-commission-demands-reciprocity-in-vaccine-exports/
    They also fail repeatedly to understand that the AZ UK plants are part of a strategy of local supply chains for largely domestic use. That is their purpose. Anything exported to the EU or elsewhere was always (initially anyway) intended to be on the basis of availibility of spare capacity after the needs of the local supply chain was satisfied. That is why they have other (and sometimes larger/greater numbers of) manufacturing sites in the EU, and India, and now Australia and elsewhere.

    Pfizer, the major contributor to "EU exports" to the world and elsewhere is set up with global manufacturing sites to satisfy global supply chains. AZ in the UK could fill a small fraction of the EU shortfall. Exports from Pfizer to the UK are only a fraction of their overall production.

    10m doses exported to the UK is the equivalent of 80-90m doses to the EU. And yet the EU seems to think the the EU and UK should be equal contributors in terms of vaccine supplies. Whereas even if "reciprocity" were a thing, we wouldn't "owe" the EU more than about 1-2m doses.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 52,426

    Nigelb said:

    AZ does seem a little naive, paddling in the piranha pool as it is.

    Selling its vaccine at cost price to developing countries - in perpetuity no less - was always going to be seen as a declaration of war by the rest of Big Pharma. The very idea of "doing our bit to help out in a global pandemic" runs entirely counter to the notion that the industry will milk the ailments of mankind, whatever, wherever. I mean, where does it stop? It wont do...won't do at all.

    The alternative view is that AZ knew exactly what it was doing - and was trying to drive a stake through the heart of competitors in Big Pharma with its faux "benevolence".

    Or neither, given that it was a condition of the Oxford license that it be provided at cost.
    Has any other vaccine player had that requirement placed upon it?
    No, because they weren't developed by Oxford University.

    The UK not monetising discoveries that come from our universities seems a tale as old as time.
    I assume that Big Pharma thinks AZ should have told the Govt. to bugger off with the terms of their licence to produce at cost. Sets a terrible - and for them, terrifying - precedent.
    Was it a Govt. licence condition; I though (see above) that it was Oxford Uni's?
    Indeed. Had it been an American University that had developed it, then the University would have taken a share in the profits. Billions of profits for the University that had discovered it.

    Oxford seems to have treated that as a dirty concept.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 30,244

    Nigelb said:

    AZ does seem a little naive, paddling in the piranha pool as it is.

    Selling its vaccine at cost price to developing countries - in perpetuity no less - was always going to be seen as a declaration of war by the rest of Big Pharma. The very idea of "doing our bit to help out in a global pandemic" runs entirely counter to the notion that the industry will milk the ailments of mankind, whatever, wherever. I mean, where does it stop? It wont do...won't do at all.

    The alternative view is that AZ knew exactly what it was doing - and was trying to drive a stake through the heart of competitors in Big Pharma with its faux "benevolence".

    Or neither, given that it was a condition of the Oxford license that it be provided at cost.
    Has any other vaccine player had that requirement placed upon it?
    No - but Oxford only had the property rights to theirs.
    And that was their condition for licensing it.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 14,599
    Morning all. Glad that the less savoury elements of US pharma are revealing themselves this way. Personally I would never knowingly buy a Pfizer product. Impotence would be preferable.
  • NerysHughesNerysHughes Posts: 1,658

    Nigelb said:

    AZ does seem a little naive, paddling in the piranha pool as it is.

    Selling its vaccine at cost price to developing countries - in perpetuity no less - was always going to be seen as a declaration of war by the rest of Big Pharma. The very idea of "doing our bit to help out in a global pandemic" runs entirely counter to the notion that the industry will milk the ailments of mankind, whatever, wherever. I mean, where does it stop? It wont do...won't do at all.

    The alternative view is that AZ knew exactly what it was doing - and was trying to drive a stake through the heart of competitors in Big Pharma with its faux "benevolence".

    Or neither, given that it was a condition of the Oxford license that it be provided at cost.
    Has any other vaccine player had that requirement placed upon it?
    No, because they weren't developed by Oxford University.

    The UK not monetising discoveries that come from our universities seems a tale as old as time.
    I assume that Big Pharma thinks AZ should have told the Govt. to bugger off with the terms of their licence to produce at cost. Sets a terrible - and for them, terrifying - precedent.
    Was it a Govt. licence condition; I though (see above) that it was Oxford Uni's?
    Indeed. Had it been an American University that had developed it, then the University would have taken a share in the profits. Billions of profits for the University that had discovered it.

    Oxford seems to have treated that as a dirty concept.
    Isn't that a good thing, rather than trying to make money, Oxford was more interested in saving lives.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 22,639

    Morning all. Glad that the less savoury elements of US pharma are revealing themselves this way. Personally I would never knowingly buy a Pfizer product. Impotence would be preferable.

    No point in taking a hard line...
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 52,426

    Nigelb said:

    AZ does seem a little naive, paddling in the piranha pool as it is.

    Selling its vaccine at cost price to developing countries - in perpetuity no less - was always going to be seen as a declaration of war by the rest of Big Pharma. The very idea of "doing our bit to help out in a global pandemic" runs entirely counter to the notion that the industry will milk the ailments of mankind, whatever, wherever. I mean, where does it stop? It wont do...won't do at all.

    The alternative view is that AZ knew exactly what it was doing - and was trying to drive a stake through the heart of competitors in Big Pharma with its faux "benevolence".

    Or neither, given that it was a condition of the Oxford license that it be provided at cost.
    Has any other vaccine player had that requirement placed upon it?
    No, because they weren't developed by Oxford University.

    The UK not monetising discoveries that come from our universities seems a tale as old as time.
    I assume that Big Pharma thinks AZ should have told the Govt. to bugger off with the terms of their licence to produce at cost. Sets a terrible - and for them, terrifying - precedent.
    Was it a Govt. licence condition; I though (see above) that it was Oxford Uni's?
    Indeed. Had it been an American University that had developed it, then the University would have taken a share in the profits. Billions of profits for the University that had discovered it.

    Oxford seems to have treated that as a dirty concept.
    Isn't that a good thing, rather than trying to make money, Oxford was more interested in saving lives.
    They could and should have done both.
  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 2,962

    Nigelb said:

    AZ does seem a little naive, paddling in the piranha pool as it is.

    Selling its vaccine at cost price to developing countries - in perpetuity no less - was always going to be seen as a declaration of war by the rest of Big Pharma. The very idea of "doing our bit to help out in a global pandemic" runs entirely counter to the notion that the industry will milk the ailments of mankind, whatever, wherever. I mean, where does it stop? It wont do...won't do at all.

    The alternative view is that AZ knew exactly what it was doing - and was trying to drive a stake through the heart of competitors in Big Pharma with its faux "benevolence".

    Or neither, given that it was a condition of the Oxford license that it be provided at cost.
    Has any other vaccine player had that requirement placed upon it?
    No, because they weren't developed by Oxford University.

    The UK not monetising discoveries that come from our universities seems a tale as old as time.
    I assume that Big Pharma thinks AZ should have told the Govt. to bugger off with the terms of their licence to produce at cost. Sets a terrible - and for them, terrifying - precedent.
    Was it a Govt. licence condition; I though (see above) that it was Oxford Uni's?
    Indeed. Had it been an American University that had developed it, then the University would have taken a share in the profits. Billions of profits for the University that had discovered it.

    Oxford seems to have treated that as a dirty concept.
    Isn't that a good thing, rather than trying to make money, Oxford was more interested in saving lives.
    They could have used the profit to close the USS pension scheme!
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 39,695
    Everyone jabbed in an EU country will also be given their very own unicorn. Because that is the world the EU wants its citizens to live in.
  • NerysHughesNerysHughes Posts: 1,658

    Nigelb said:

    AZ does seem a little naive, paddling in the piranha pool as it is.

    Selling its vaccine at cost price to developing countries - in perpetuity no less - was always going to be seen as a declaration of war by the rest of Big Pharma. The very idea of "doing our bit to help out in a global pandemic" runs entirely counter to the notion that the industry will milk the ailments of mankind, whatever, wherever. I mean, where does it stop? It wont do...won't do at all.

    The alternative view is that AZ knew exactly what it was doing - and was trying to drive a stake through the heart of competitors in Big Pharma with its faux "benevolence".

    Or neither, given that it was a condition of the Oxford license that it be provided at cost.
    Has any other vaccine player had that requirement placed upon it?
    No, because they weren't developed by Oxford University.

    The UK not monetising discoveries that come from our universities seems a tale as old as time.
    I assume that Big Pharma thinks AZ should have told the Govt. to bugger off with the terms of their licence to produce at cost. Sets a terrible - and for them, terrifying - precedent.
    Was it a Govt. licence condition; I though (see above) that it was Oxford Uni's?
    Indeed. Had it been an American University that had developed it, then the University would have taken a share in the profits. Billions of profits for the University that had discovered it.

    Oxford seems to have treated that as a dirty concept.
    Isn't that a good thing, rather than trying to make money, Oxford was more interested in saving lives.
    They could and should have done both.
    Why? So Pharma Companies can hold the world to ransom which is what the "attack AZ vaccine" is all about. If the AZ vaccine was more expensive that the Pfizer one then none of this anti AZ stuff would be happening. The fact that it is 10 times as cheap makes it a threat.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 5,008

    Nigelb said:

    AZ does seem a little naive, paddling in the piranha pool as it is.

    Selling its vaccine at cost price to developing countries - in perpetuity no less - was always going to be seen as a declaration of war by the rest of Big Pharma. The very idea of "doing our bit to help out in a global pandemic" runs entirely counter to the notion that the industry will milk the ailments of mankind, whatever, wherever. I mean, where does it stop? It wont do...won't do at all.

    The alternative view is that AZ knew exactly what it was doing - and was trying to drive a stake through the heart of competitors in Big Pharma with its faux "benevolence".

    Or neither, given that it was a condition of the Oxford license that it be provided at cost.
    Has any other vaccine player had that requirement placed upon it?
    No, because they weren't developed by Oxford University.

    The UK not monetising discoveries that come from our universities seems a tale as old as time.
    I assume that Big Pharma thinks AZ should have told the Govt. to bugger off with the terms of their licence to produce at cost. Sets a terrible - and for them, terrifying - precedent.
    Was it a Govt. licence condition; I though (see above) that it was Oxford Uni's?
    Indeed. Had it been an American University that had developed it, then the University would have taken a share in the profits. Billions of profits for the University that had discovered it.

    Oxford seems to have treated that as a dirty concept.
    Isn't that a good thing, rather than trying to make money, Oxford was more interested in saving lives.
    They could have nuanced. At profit to the developed world, at cost to the developing world.

  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 52,426



    Indeed. Had it been an American University that had developed it, then the University would have taken a share in the profits. Billions of profits for the University that had discovered it.

    Oxford seems to have treated that as a dirty concept.

    I think the scientists involved in developing the vaccine thought that it should be available at cost.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55043551

    Sarah Gilbert: "We're a university and we're not in this to make money."

    Note that this used to be the perfectly accepted view in European universities.

    When Wilhelm Rontgen discovered X-rays -- with their immediate medical benefits -- he did not patent the discovery.

    He made them freely available to all.

    Sarah Gilbert (and even AZ) are heroes for our time.

    The trashing of their work by the EU, Ursula von der Leyen and European pols like Macron is the crushing of beauty and nobility by ugliness and mean-spiritedness.
    Indeed that's the difference between European and American universities - and a reason the biggest companies of our time are Americans. Also a reason why the best universities in the globe are mainly American ones too, there are no EU universities at all in the Top 50 in most rankings.

    American companies and American universities symbiotically make a profit in making new discoveries and monetising them.

    Google began life as a project at Stanford making Stanford hundreds of millions of dollars as a result.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCZWcnQwJtk

    University Patent Attorney: Just need you to review and sign this document acknowledging that you understand the university will own 75% of the patent.
    Howard: 75%?
    Sheldon: That's outrageous. This is our idea based on our research. How can you possibly justify owning a majority share?
    University Patent Attorney: It's university policy.
    Sheldon: Well, I know when I'm beat.
    Leonard: Hold on, hold on. So the three of us do all the work and only end up with 25%?
    University Patent Attorney: Dr. Hofstadter, this university has been paying your salaries for over ten years. Did you think we do that out of the goodness of our hearts?
    Leonard: Well, until you just said that mean thing, kinda.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 5,008
    Still the ongoing failure to see beyond the idea of vaccine supply as a zero sum game. Appropriation from others rather than focussing on overall growth and floating all ships.

    Still not sure how banning exports gets the EU more Pfizer doses. They could only do that via actual appropriation.

    Scepticism of vaccines is such in some EU countries that is possible they already couldn't reach UK vaccination rates. (although what happened to the argument that the UK being ahead was an illusion based on our dosing strategy...?)
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 30,244

    Nigelb said:

    AZ does seem a little naive, paddling in the piranha pool as it is.

    Selling its vaccine at cost price to developing countries - in perpetuity no less - was always going to be seen as a declaration of war by the rest of Big Pharma. The very idea of "doing our bit to help out in a global pandemic" runs entirely counter to the notion that the industry will milk the ailments of mankind, whatever, wherever. I mean, where does it stop? It wont do...won't do at all.

    The alternative view is that AZ knew exactly what it was doing - and was trying to drive a stake through the heart of competitors in Big Pharma with its faux "benevolence".

    Or neither, given that it was a condition of the Oxford license that it be provided at cost.
    Has any other vaccine player had that requirement placed upon it?
    No, because they weren't developed by Oxford University.

    The UK not monetising discoveries that come from our universities seems a tale as old as time.
    I seem to recall at the time many of those posting here were celebrating the spirit of generosity embodied in the deal.

    But it does make the complaints of various European governments about 'fairness' rankle somewhat.
    And given the billion or so doses that India will be producing, our effective contribution to the Covax effort ought to be measured in the billions, rather than the £500m or so cash that we're contributing.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 40,058



    Indeed. Had it been an American University that had developed it, then the University would have taken a share in the profits. Billions of profits for the University that had discovered it.

    Oxford seems to have treated that as a dirty concept.

    I think the scientists involved in developing the vaccine thought that it should be available at cost.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55043551

    Sarah Gilbert: "We're a university and we're not in this to make money."

    Note that this used to be the perfectly accepted view in European universities.

    When Wilhelm Rontgen discovered X-rays -- with their immediate medical benefits -- he did not patent the discovery.

    He made them freely available to all.

    Sarah Gilbert (and even AZ) are heroes for our time.

    The trashing of their work by the EU, Ursula von der Leyen and European pols like Macron is the crushing of beauty and nobility by ugliness and mean-spiritedness.
    Indeed that's the difference between European and American universities - and a reason the biggest companies of our time are Americans. Also a reason why the best universities in the globe are mainly American ones too, there are no EU universities at all in the Top 50 in most rankings.

    American companies and American universities symbiotically make a profit in making new discoveries and monetising them.

    Google began life as a project at Stanford making Stanford hundreds of millions of dollars as a result.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCZWcnQwJtk

    University Patent Attorney: Just need you to review and sign this document acknowledging that you understand the university will own 75% of the patent.
    Howard: 75%?
    Sheldon: That's outrageous. This is our idea based on our research. How can you possibly justify owning a majority share?
    University Patent Attorney: It's university policy.
    Sheldon: Well, I know when I'm beat.
    Leonard: Hold on, hold on. So the three of us do all the work and only end up with 25%?
    University Patent Attorney: Dr. Hofstadter, this university has been paying your salaries for over ten years. Did you think we do that out of the goodness of our hearts?
    Leonard: Well, until you just said that mean thing, kinda.
    UK universities are very interested in monetising their research. The cuddly view of ivory towers and not-in-touch academics is a bit out of date, at least for the sciences.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 9,422
    Foxy said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    You have to hand it to the evil EU. I had no idea that they ran the US government as well.
    Could it be the Russian government is running both?

    Genius if so. Steal the information, produce a vaccine derived almost entirely from it, then force other people to run a misinformation campaign to discredit the cheaper original so you can sell your knock off to them at inflated prices.
    Its possible! As is the flip side of the coin that the AZ vaccine isn't the smash hit we've all been told it is, but our government have pushed ahead anyway. We just don't know. I have taken the anti-EU ranting in the partisan spirit it was meant - whilst there are delays in delivery of the vaccine for them, they still need people to take it. So trashing it for supposed short-term political gain makes zero sense as they're screwed as soon as supplies finally land and people refuse to take it.

    Either way, when I get an invite to have the thing I'll do so with a smile...
    You don’t have to be an anti EU ranter to think that their handling of every aspect of the vaccine issue has been counterproductive, or actually destructive.

    And they don’t even seem to know now what it is that they want.
    https://www.politico.eu/article/threats-but-few-details-as-european-commission-demands-reciprocity-in-vaccine-exports/
    What they want is simple - not to have a massively successful country on their doorstep, the country that just walked away from their club.
    And yet when you look at our trading figures with collapses in exports we're hardly "massively successful". Go ask a business leader how successful they feel right now.

    We got the Vaccine Right. We got the Brexit deal wrong. They aren't mutually exclusive.
    The drop in agricultural export figures are eye watering:

    https://twitter.com/adampayne26/status/1373974501998915585?s=19
    As I understand it from the trade press, the issue isn't confined to lost exports. Farmers make money from the whole animal, and the parts that we don't want Europeans do. Once we lose our ability to effectively export, we threaten our ability to produce the cuts that we do want at a price that is competitive.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 9,422
    felix said:

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    There is a massive anti AstraZeneca vaccine campaign that goes way, way beyond the EU and Brexit.

    Do a Google for "adverse reaction AstraZeneca covid vaccine trial". You get a whole bunch of news stories about problems with the AstraZeneca trial, from reputable sources such as Statnews, CNN and others.

    Now, switch AstraZeneca for Moderna.

    Suddenly there's essentially nothing. A quarter of the number of links. And no stories suggesting any negative trial issues whatsoever.

    Bear in mind that this search is for the trial. This is long before the EU had even fucked up vaccine procurement.

    Now, Google for "issues AstraZeneca vaccine trial". Again. Tonnes of links: NYTimes. Statnews. And a whole bunch of serious medical sites.

    Now, do the same for Modera.

    And there's almost nothing.

    There is almost no serious anti-Moderna (or even anti-Pfizer) news.

    There is tonnes of anti-AstraZeneca.

    You're at risk of spoiling the Brexiters' fun..
    If you think that is our idea of fun, then it is no surprise you were "beaten by a bus".
    Leon isn't the only one who jumps on any anti-EU angle with palpable enthusiasm.

    Having a go at a disinformation campaign by Big Pharma isn't nearly so satisfying.
    So the attempt to wreck the peace on Ireland, the threats to ban exports, the 8% efficacy and Macron's smears - none of it happened?
    WE are trying to wreck the peace in NI. The hardline Unionists are the threat, not the IRA, and they are up in arms about the GB - NI border which WE decided to impose.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 52,426

    Nigelb said:

    AZ does seem a little naive, paddling in the piranha pool as it is.

    Selling its vaccine at cost price to developing countries - in perpetuity no less - was always going to be seen as a declaration of war by the rest of Big Pharma. The very idea of "doing our bit to help out in a global pandemic" runs entirely counter to the notion that the industry will milk the ailments of mankind, whatever, wherever. I mean, where does it stop? It wont do...won't do at all.

    The alternative view is that AZ knew exactly what it was doing - and was trying to drive a stake through the heart of competitors in Big Pharma with its faux "benevolence".

    Or neither, given that it was a condition of the Oxford license that it be provided at cost.
    Has any other vaccine player had that requirement placed upon it?
    No, because they weren't developed by Oxford University.

    The UK not monetising discoveries that come from our universities seems a tale as old as time.
    I assume that Big Pharma thinks AZ should have told the Govt. to bugger off with the terms of their licence to produce at cost. Sets a terrible - and for them, terrifying - precedent.
    Was it a Govt. licence condition; I though (see above) that it was Oxford Uni's?
    Indeed. Had it been an American University that had developed it, then the University would have taken a share in the profits. Billions of profits for the University that had discovered it.

    Oxford seems to have treated that as a dirty concept.
    Isn't that a good thing, rather than trying to make money, Oxford was more interested in saving lives.
    They could and should have done both.
    Why? So Pharma Companies can hold the world to ransom which is what the "attack AZ vaccine" is all about. If the AZ vaccine was more expensive that the Pfizer one then none of this anti AZ stuff would be happening. The fact that it is 10 times as cheap makes it a threat.
    Pharma doesn't hold the world to ransom, Pharma develops the solutions for the world's crises.

    Oxford were in a rather fortunate position to be working on a solution for SARS that neatly transferred over to Covid19 but its noteworthy that all other vaccines came from Pharma, not from Universities. We should be grateful for Pharma. No other universities found a solution but Pharma found many, without the profit motive there would have not been the inventions in the first place.

    Oxford are selling their vaccine for less than a Caramel Latte, for less than a Big Mac. Pfizer are selling theirs less than a steak can cost at a restaurant - not hundreds or thousands of dollars per dose. If Astrazeneca put theirs at the cost of a Big Mac meal it would not be "holding the world to ransom", but it would be making a very justified reward on helping to save the world that it could use to fund future research, future discoveries in a virtuous circle which is why American universities outclass European ones for research.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 6,630
    isam said:
    ... former Tory prime minister Cameron had personally lobbied senior figures in the Treasury and Downing Street to try to help it secure greater access to state-backed Covid-19 loan schemes.

    The Treasury ultimately turned down those attempts, which at one point involved Cameron personally texting chancellor Rishi Sunak...

    https://www.ft.com/content/84ca5ada-f916-47f0-b386-fd4d5790a0d1 (not paywalled)

    Conservatives blocking corruption inquiries: unprecedented, no doubt. Greensill must be miffed. What's the point of paying an ex-prime minister if he can't even get money from an old school-chum?
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 14,599
    Foxy said:

    Morning all. Glad that the less savoury elements of US pharma are revealing themselves this way. Personally I would never knowingly buy a Pfizer product. Impotence would be preferable.

    No point in taking a hard line...
    Apologies for the turgid prose.
  • NerysHughesNerysHughes Posts: 1,658

    Nigelb said:

    AZ does seem a little naive, paddling in the piranha pool as it is.

    Selling its vaccine at cost price to developing countries - in perpetuity no less - was always going to be seen as a declaration of war by the rest of Big Pharma. The very idea of "doing our bit to help out in a global pandemic" runs entirely counter to the notion that the industry will milk the ailments of mankind, whatever, wherever. I mean, where does it stop? It wont do...won't do at all.

    The alternative view is that AZ knew exactly what it was doing - and was trying to drive a stake through the heart of competitors in Big Pharma with its faux "benevolence".

    Or neither, given that it was a condition of the Oxford license that it be provided at cost.
    Has any other vaccine player had that requirement placed upon it?
    No, because they weren't developed by Oxford University.

    The UK not monetising discoveries that come from our universities seems a tale as old as time.
    I assume that Big Pharma thinks AZ should have told the Govt. to bugger off with the terms of their licence to produce at cost. Sets a terrible - and for them, terrifying - precedent.
    Was it a Govt. licence condition; I though (see above) that it was Oxford Uni's?
    Indeed. Had it been an American University that had developed it, then the University would have taken a share in the profits. Billions of profits for the University that had discovered it.

    Oxford seems to have treated that as a dirty concept.
    Isn't that a good thing, rather than trying to make money, Oxford was more interested in saving lives.
    They could and should have done both.
    Why? So Pharma Companies can hold the world to ransom which is what the "attack AZ vaccine" is all about. If the AZ vaccine was more expensive that the Pfizer one then none of this anti AZ stuff would be happening. The fact that it is 10 times as cheap makes it a threat.
    Pharma doesn't hold the world to ransom, Pharma develops the solutions for the world's crises.

    Oxford were in a rather fortunate position to be working on a solution for SARS that neatly transferred over to Covid19 but its noteworthy that all other vaccines came from Pharma, not from Universities. We should be grateful for Pharma. No other universities found a solution but Pharma found many, without the profit motive there would have not been the inventions in the first place.

    Oxford are selling their vaccine for less than a Caramel Latte, for less than a Big Mac. Pfizer are selling theirs less than a steak can cost at a restaurant - not hundreds or thousands of dollars per dose. If Astrazeneca put theirs at the cost of a Big Mac meal it would not be "holding the world to ransom", but it would be making a very justified reward on helping to save the world that it could use to fund future research, future discoveries in a virtuous circle which is why American universities outclass European ones for research.
    So why the attacks on the cheap and very effective vaccine then?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 52,426

    felix said:

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    There is a massive anti AstraZeneca vaccine campaign that goes way, way beyond the EU and Brexit.

    Do a Google for "adverse reaction AstraZeneca covid vaccine trial". You get a whole bunch of news stories about problems with the AstraZeneca trial, from reputable sources such as Statnews, CNN and others.

    Now, switch AstraZeneca for Moderna.

    Suddenly there's essentially nothing. A quarter of the number of links. And no stories suggesting any negative trial issues whatsoever.

    Bear in mind that this search is for the trial. This is long before the EU had even fucked up vaccine procurement.

    Now, Google for "issues AstraZeneca vaccine trial". Again. Tonnes of links: NYTimes. Statnews. And a whole bunch of serious medical sites.

    Now, do the same for Modera.

    And there's almost nothing.

    There is almost no serious anti-Moderna (or even anti-Pfizer) news.

    There is tonnes of anti-AstraZeneca.

    You're at risk of spoiling the Brexiters' fun..
    If you think that is our idea of fun, then it is no surprise you were "beaten by a bus".
    Leon isn't the only one who jumps on any anti-EU angle with palpable enthusiasm.

    Having a go at a disinformation campaign by Big Pharma isn't nearly so satisfying.
    So the attempt to wreck the peace on Ireland, the threats to ban exports, the 8% efficacy and Macron's smears - none of it happened?
    WE are trying to wreck the peace in NI. The hardline Unionists are the threat, not the IRA, and they are up in arms about the GB - NI border which WE decided to impose.
    We decided not to impose the border. Quite right too.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 6,630

    Nigelb said:

    AZ does seem a little naive, paddling in the piranha pool as it is.

    Selling its vaccine at cost price to developing countries - in perpetuity no less - was always going to be seen as a declaration of war by the rest of Big Pharma. The very idea of "doing our bit to help out in a global pandemic" runs entirely counter to the notion that the industry will milk the ailments of mankind, whatever, wherever. I mean, where does it stop? It wont do...won't do at all.

    The alternative view is that AZ knew exactly what it was doing - and was trying to drive a stake through the heart of competitors in Big Pharma with its faux "benevolence".

    Or neither, given that it was a condition of the Oxford license that it be provided at cost.
    Has any other vaccine player had that requirement placed upon it?
    No, because they weren't developed by Oxford University.

    The UK not monetising discoveries that come from our universities seems a tale as old as time.
    I assume that Big Pharma thinks AZ should have told the Govt. to bugger off with the terms of their licence to produce at cost. Sets a terrible - and for them, terrifying - precedent.
    Was it a Govt. licence condition; I though (see above) that it was Oxford Uni's?
    Indeed. Had it been an American University that had developed it, then the University would have taken a share in the profits. Billions of profits for the University that had discovered it.

    Oxford seems to have treated that as a dirty concept.
    Isn't that a good thing, rather than trying to make money, Oxford was more interested in saving lives.
    They could and should have done both.
    Why? So Pharma Companies can hold the world to ransom which is what the "attack AZ vaccine" is all about. If the AZ vaccine was more expensive that the Pfizer one then none of this anti AZ stuff would be happening. The fact that it is 10 times as cheap makes it a threat.
    Pharma doesn't hold the world to ransom, Pharma develops the solutions for the world's crises.

    Oxford were in a rather fortunate position to be working on a solution for SARS that neatly transferred over to Covid19 but its noteworthy that all other vaccines came from Pharma, not from Universities. We should be grateful for Pharma. No other universities found a solution but Pharma found many, without the profit motive there would have not been the inventions in the first place.

    Oxford are selling their vaccine for less than a Caramel Latte, for less than a Big Mac. Pfizer are selling theirs less than a steak can cost at a restaurant - not hundreds or thousands of dollars per dose. If Astrazeneca put theirs at the cost of a Big Mac meal it would not be "holding the world to ransom", but it would be making a very justified reward on helping to save the world that it could use to fund future research, future discoveries in a virtuous circle which is why American universities outclass European ones for research.
    Yeah, big pharma does a great job but remember the government declined to fund the Imperial jab, and that is betting without the state-capitalist Chinese and Russian vaccines.

  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 14,599

    Nigelb said:

    AZ does seem a little naive, paddling in the piranha pool as it is.

    Selling its vaccine at cost price to developing countries - in perpetuity no less - was always going to be seen as a declaration of war by the rest of Big Pharma. The very idea of "doing our bit to help out in a global pandemic" runs entirely counter to the notion that the industry will milk the ailments of mankind, whatever, wherever. I mean, where does it stop? It wont do...won't do at all.

    The alternative view is that AZ knew exactly what it was doing - and was trying to drive a stake through the heart of competitors in Big Pharma with its faux "benevolence".

    Or neither, given that it was a condition of the Oxford license that it be provided at cost.
    Has any other vaccine player had that requirement placed upon it?
    No, because they weren't developed by Oxford University.

    The UK not monetising discoveries that come from our universities seems a tale as old as time.
    I assume that Big Pharma thinks AZ should have told the Govt. to bugger off with the terms of their licence to produce at cost. Sets a terrible - and for them, terrifying - precedent.
    Was it a Govt. licence condition; I though (see above) that it was Oxford Uni's?
    Indeed. Had it been an American University that had developed it, then the University would have taken a share in the profits. Billions of profits for the University that had discovered it.

    Oxford seems to have treated that as a dirty concept.
    Isn't that a good thing, rather than trying to make money, Oxford was more interested in saving lives.
    They could and should have done both.
    Why? So Pharma Companies can hold the world to ransom which is what the "attack AZ vaccine" is all about. If the AZ vaccine was more expensive that the Pfizer one then none of this anti AZ stuff would be happening. The fact that it is 10 times as cheap makes it a threat.
    Pharma doesn't hold the world to ransom, Pharma develops the solutions for the world's crises.

    Oxford were in a rather fortunate position to be working on a solution for SARS that neatly transferred over to Covid19 but its noteworthy that all other vaccines came from Pharma, not from Universities. We should be grateful for Pharma. No other universities found a solution but Pharma found many, without the profit motive there would have not been the inventions in the first place.

    Oxford are selling their vaccine for less than a Caramel Latte, for less than a Big Mac. Pfizer are selling theirs less than a steak can cost at a restaurant - not hundreds or thousands of dollars per dose. If Astrazeneca put theirs at the cost of a Big Mac meal it would not be "holding the world to ransom", but it would be making a very justified reward on helping to save the world that it could use to fund future research, future discoveries in a virtuous circle which is why American universities outclass European ones for research.
    Assuming that it has taken place, and I regard RCS to be a very reliable source on this, do you regard a covert PR campaign against a vaccine that could save millions from Covid to be in any way morally acceptable?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 39,695

    isam said:
    ... former Tory prime minister Cameron had personally lobbied senior figures in the Treasury and Downing Street to try to help it secure greater access to state-backed Covid-19 loan schemes.

    The Treasury ultimately turned down those attempts, which at one point involved Cameron personally texting chancellor Rishi Sunak...

    https://www.ft.com/content/84ca5ada-f916-47f0-b386-fd4d5790a0d1 (not paywalled)

    Conservatives blocking corruption inquiries: unprecedented, no doubt. Greensill must be miffed. What's the point of paying an ex-prime minister if he can't even get money from an old school-chum?
    Careful - why talk of "corruption"? Do you not understand the concept of lobbying? Lobbying is what is being talked about here. It didn't work. It often doesn't, because the merits didn't stack up.

    Corruption is an outcome where you get the outcome, even though the merits don't stack up. Usually for an obvious reason - somebody gets rich(er).

    The bizarre element of this case is why anybody would think Cameron could negotiate for your desired outcome, given how he flunked Negotiating 1.01 with the EU.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 13,012
    https://twitter.com/MacaesBruno/status/1374155743834824705

    might explain in part the insane flailing out of the EU

    Not exactly catching up are they
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 52,426

    Nigelb said:

    AZ does seem a little naive, paddling in the piranha pool as it is.

    Selling its vaccine at cost price to developing countries - in perpetuity no less - was always going to be seen as a declaration of war by the rest of Big Pharma. The very idea of "doing our bit to help out in a global pandemic" runs entirely counter to the notion that the industry will milk the ailments of mankind, whatever, wherever. I mean, where does it stop? It wont do...won't do at all.

    The alternative view is that AZ knew exactly what it was doing - and was trying to drive a stake through the heart of competitors in Big Pharma with its faux "benevolence".

    Or neither, given that it was a condition of the Oxford license that it be provided at cost.
    Has any other vaccine player had that requirement placed upon it?
    No, because they weren't developed by Oxford University.

    The UK not monetising discoveries that come from our universities seems a tale as old as time.
    I assume that Big Pharma thinks AZ should have told the Govt. to bugger off with the terms of their licence to produce at cost. Sets a terrible - and for them, terrifying - precedent.
    Was it a Govt. licence condition; I though (see above) that it was Oxford Uni's?
    Indeed. Had it been an American University that had developed it, then the University would have taken a share in the profits. Billions of profits for the University that had discovered it.

    Oxford seems to have treated that as a dirty concept.
    Isn't that a good thing, rather than trying to make money, Oxford was more interested in saving lives.
    They could and should have done both.
    Why? So Pharma Companies can hold the world to ransom which is what the "attack AZ vaccine" is all about. If the AZ vaccine was more expensive that the Pfizer one then none of this anti AZ stuff would be happening. The fact that it is 10 times as cheap makes it a threat.
    Pharma doesn't hold the world to ransom, Pharma develops the solutions for the world's crises.

    Oxford were in a rather fortunate position to be working on a solution for SARS that neatly transferred over to Covid19 but its noteworthy that all other vaccines came from Pharma, not from Universities. We should be grateful for Pharma. No other universities found a solution but Pharma found many, without the profit motive there would have not been the inventions in the first place.

    Oxford are selling their vaccine for less than a Caramel Latte, for less than a Big Mac. Pfizer are selling theirs less than a steak can cost at a restaurant - not hundreds or thousands of dollars per dose. If Astrazeneca put theirs at the cost of a Big Mac meal it would not be "holding the world to ransom", but it would be making a very justified reward on helping to save the world that it could use to fund future research, future discoveries in a virtuous circle which is why American universities outclass European ones for research.
    Assuming that it has taken place, and I regard RCS to be a very reliable source on this, do you regard a covert PR campaign against a vaccine that could save millions from Covid to be in any way morally acceptable?
    Of course not!
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 13,261
    edited March 23

    Everyone jabbed in an EU country will also be given their very own unicorn. Because that is the world the EU wants its citizens to live in.
    Give them a competent government. Unicorns are less rare -

    image
  • MattWMattW Posts: 6,850
    One question:

    Why were AZ chosen over GSK by the VTF?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 40,058
    Floater said:

    https://twitter.com/MacaesBruno/status/1374155743834824705

    might explain in part the insane flailing out of the EU

    Not exactly catching up are they

    They have a demand and a supply problem to say the least.
Sign In or Register to comment.