Howdy, Stranger!

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

This doesn’t look good for Sunak “next PM” backers – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited April 8 in General
This doesn’t look good for Sunak “next PM” backers – politicalbetting.com

Rishi Sunak confirms he 'pushed' to help David Cameron with Greensill COVID loan request https://t.co/934T2aMYMf

Read the full story here

«1

Comments

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 91,491
    edited April 8
    Told you to trade out a while back.

    Peak Rishi was a long time ago.

    His ratings will go further south once he has to start paying the Covid-19 bills and cannot save every business and job.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 65,092
    Just wikid Rob Roberts - a real looker.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 65,092
    On Astra I'd probably add 30 - 39 yr old women to the non provision list, keep men on it.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 91,491
    FPT

    Leon said:

    This is the argument of the incel movement. Sex as a human right, a fundamental ingredient for happiness, just like food, shelter, freedom, suffrage. You should not be deprived of sex because of an accident of birth, any more than you should be deprived of the vote because you are black or female

    it is actually quite persuasive, however mad it first appears. I talk as someone who is fortunately not incel, so I am not preaching up my own chances.

    The counter-argument is that sex is different because it needs a willing human partner, but the incels say In that case the government should pay hookers lots of money to give us sex

    And that's the point where I find it difficult to object, logically, to their argumentation, even if it seems bonkers

    My mother would tell you the answer to this is arranged marriages.

    Fortunately I dodged that bullet.
    Fortunately for whom? 🙂
    Fortunate for the person my mother would have married me off to.

    I'm hard work.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 26,402
    Jeez, desperate and desperately sad measures.

    https://twitter.com/nmannathukkaren/status/1380129214259720202?s=21
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 11,087
    ""Hi David, apologies for the delay. I think the proposals in the
    end did require a change to the Market Notice but I have pushed the team to explore an
    alternative with the Bank that might work. No guarantees, but the Bank are currently
    looking at it and Charles should be in touch. Best, Rishi"

    Not going to end his career.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 4,727
    The new Astra Zeneca story Max referenced FPT

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/04/08/vaccines-advice-could-still-change-30s-jcvi-suggests/


    The comms is just appalling. A vaccine is all about confidence. It doesn't work unless enough people feel confident in taking it.

    They are all over the shop, yeah the jab is great, but we might ban it, yeah it's really safe, but no it's not safe for anyone under 30, or maybe early 30s, no wait under 40 is bad too, errrrrr.

    It is shameful. Scientists should not have this job, it should be left to skilled politicians and media people. They are destroying the vaccine workhorse of the world with every amateurish interview. We will end up pointlessly banning it for anyone under 60 like the French, and much of the world will shun it, and many will die
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 27,086
    Pulpstar said:

    On Astra I'd probably add 30 - 39 yr old women to the non provision list, keep men on it.

    It really all depends on the risk factors involved. If we get to 1 in 20k for prevalence then the official guidance will almost certainly change, and we're probably close to that already after the drop off in the infection rate. In addition the new vaccines are actually better because they have 95% and 97% efficacy against symptoms and well over 90% efficacy against infection vs 90% against symptoms for AZ and abut 80% against infection and AZ needs 14 weeks to get to that level, Moderna and Novavax only need 5 weeks.

    There really is no reason to give under 40s AZ given the supply situation we're heading for and the logistical issues posed by requiring 12 weeks in between doses. I also think that increasing the relative value of Pfizer, Moderna and Novavax will be helpful for overall take up among 18-39 year olds.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 65,092
    Leon said:

    The new Astra Zeneca story Max referenced FPT

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/04/08/vaccines-advice-could-still-change-30s-jcvi-suggests/


    The comms is just appalling. A vaccine is all about confidence. It doesn't work unless enough people feel confident in taking it.

    They are all over the shop, yeah the jab is great, but we might ban it, yeah it's really safe, but no it's not safe for anyone under 30, or maybe early 30s, no wait under 40 is bad too, errrrrr.

    It is shameful. Scientists should not have this job, it should be left to skilled politicians and media people. They are destroying the vaccine workhorse of the world with every amateurish interview. We will end up pointlessly banning it for anyone under 60 like the French, and much of the world will shun it, and many will die

    No it's related to relative risk for us, and our massive takeup thus far. We're in an utterly luxurious position in being able to do this.
  • FenmanFenman Posts: 887
    Leon said:

    The new Astra Zeneca story Max referenced FPT

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/04/08/vaccines-advice-could-still-change-30s-jcvi-suggests/


    The comms is just appalling. A vaccine is all about confidence. It doesn't work unless enough people feel confident in taking it.

    They are all over the shop, yeah the jab is great, but we might ban it, yeah it's really safe, but no it's not safe for anyone under 30, or maybe early 30s, no wait under 40 is bad too, errrrrr.

    It is shameful. Scientists should not have this job, it should be left to skilled politicians and media people. They are destroying the vaccine workhorse of the world with every amateurish interview. We will end up pointlessly banning it for anyone under 60 like the French, and much of the world will shun it, and many will die

    And "coincidentally" American Pharmaceutical profits will be protected.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 15,837

    ""Hi David, apologies for the delay. I think the proposals in the
    end did require a change to the Market Notice but I have pushed the team to explore an
    alternative with the Bank that might work. No guarantees, but the Bank are currently
    looking at it and Charles should be in touch. Best, Rishi"

    Not going to end his career.

    No, and I don't think it should. But if a random business wrote to the Chancellor for help, would he reply personally that he was pushing to find a solution to help? I suspect they'd get a form letter referrring them to a website.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 65,092
    @MaxPB When do you think under 40s will be reached - start of June ?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 40,951
    Laying Starmer and Sunak (combo) has been my main betting play for the last six months.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 4,727
    MaxPB said:

    Pulpstar said:

    On Astra I'd probably add 30 - 39 yr old women to the non provision list, keep men on it.

    It really all depends on the risk factors involved. If we get to 1 in 20k for prevalence then the official guidance will almost certainly change, and we're probably close to that already after the drop off in the infection rate. In addition the new vaccines are actually better because they have 95% and 97% efficacy against symptoms and well over 90% efficacy against infection vs 90% against symptoms for AZ and abut 80% against infection and AZ needs 14 weeks to get to that level, Moderna and Novavax only need 5 weeks.

    There really is no reason to give under 40s AZ given the supply situation we're heading for and the logistical issues posed by requiring 12 weeks in between doses. I also think that increasing the relative value of Pfizer, Moderna and Novavax will be helpful for overall take up among 18-39 year olds.
    it's not just about us. It is about the PR signal we are sending very loudly around the world. "The British are not using the British vaccine on the under 30s, no., wait, and now the under 40s!!"

    Many countries will now boycott the best vaccine for the developing world. Because we are over-reacting to a tiny risk, and announcing this in very bold colours, without any proper PR management. It is shoddy British amateurism at its worst
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 19,528
    edited April 8
    Leon said:

    The new Astra Zeneca story Max referenced FPT

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/04/08/vaccines-advice-could-still-change-30s-jcvi-suggests/


    The comms is just appalling. A vaccine is all about confidence. It doesn't work unless enough people feel confident in taking it.

    They are all over the shop, yeah the jab is great, but we might ban it, yeah it's really safe, but no it's not safe for anyone under 30, or maybe early 30s, no wait under 40 is bad too, errrrrr.

    It is shameful. Scientists should not have this job, it should be left to skilled politicians and media people. They are destroying the vaccine workhorse of the world with every amateurish interview. We will end up pointlessly banning it for anyone under 60 like the French, and much of the world will shun it, and many will die

    An ultra cynic conspiracy theorist might suggest that's part of a plan.

    Wait until the UK has enough vaccines and then sow distrust to discourage and slow vaccination in other countries thereby increasing the death rate and economic damage in those countries.

    Perhaps Macron and Handelstwatt are involved / been useful idiots.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 40,951
    MaxPB said:

    Pulpstar said:

    On Astra I'd probably add 30 - 39 yr old women to the non provision list, keep men on it.

    It really all depends on the risk factors involved. If we get to 1 in 20k for prevalence then the official guidance will almost certainly change, and we're probably close to that already after the drop off in the infection rate. In addition the new vaccines are actually better because they have 95% and 97% efficacy against symptoms and well over 90% efficacy against infection vs 90% against symptoms for AZ and abut 80% against infection and AZ needs 14 weeks to get to that level, Moderna and Novavax only need 5 weeks.

    There really is no reason to give under 40s AZ given the supply situation we're heading for and the logistical issues posed by requiring 12 weeks in between doses. I also think that increasing the relative value of Pfizer, Moderna and Novavax will be helpful for overall take up among 18-39 year olds.
    Short: Oxford is ok but they ended up doing a University of Exeter job not an Oxbridge job.

    Others did better.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 91,491

    MaxPB said:

    Pulpstar said:

    On Astra I'd probably add 30 - 39 yr old women to the non provision list, keep men on it.

    It really all depends on the risk factors involved. If we get to 1 in 20k for prevalence then the official guidance will almost certainly change, and we're probably close to that already after the drop off in the infection rate. In addition the new vaccines are actually better because they have 95% and 97% efficacy against symptoms and well over 90% efficacy against infection vs 90% against symptoms for AZ and abut 80% against infection and AZ needs 14 weeks to get to that level, Moderna and Novavax only need 5 weeks.

    There really is no reason to give under 40s AZ given the supply situation we're heading for and the logistical issues posed by requiring 12 weeks in between doses. I also think that increasing the relative value of Pfizer, Moderna and Novavax will be helpful for overall take up among 18-39 year olds.
    Short: Oxford is ok but they ended up doing a University of Exeter job not an Oxbridge job.

    Others did better.
    They did an Oxford job.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 40,951
    FPT - there's a whole host of evidence that attractive people do better in life, and that's across genders and races.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 27,086
    Pulpstar said:

    @MaxPB When do you think under 40s will be reached - start of June ?

    Earlier. My expectation is that under 50s booking in England will recommence in the second and third weeks of April and by the first week of May they'll open up appointments for 36-39 year olds and 32-35 years olds from the end of May.

    For first doses from Moderna, Novavax and Pfizer we will have supply of over 2m per week in May for around 9m total for the month. Once we get to under 30s we'll be getting just that from Novavax and Moderna alone. Our early purchase of the Novavax vaccine has put us in an incredibly good position to be able pick and choose which vaccines to use. Only the US has got the same luxury.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 15,994

    Leon said:

    The new Astra Zeneca story Max referenced FPT

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/04/08/vaccines-advice-could-still-change-30s-jcvi-suggests/


    The comms is just appalling. A vaccine is all about confidence. It doesn't work unless enough people feel confident in taking it.

    They are all over the shop, yeah the jab is great, but we might ban it, yeah it's really safe, but no it's not safe for anyone under 30, or maybe early 30s, no wait under 40 is bad too, errrrrr.

    It is shameful. Scientists should not have this job, it should be left to skilled politicians and media people. They are destroying the vaccine workhorse of the world with every amateurish interview. We will end up pointlessly banning it for anyone under 60 like the French, and much of the world will shun it, and many will die

    An ultra cynic conspiracy theorist might suggest that's part of a plan.

    Wait until the UK has enough vaccines and then sow distrust to discourage and slow vaccination in other countries thereby increasing the death rate and economic damage in those countries.

    Perhaps Macron and Handelstwatt are involved / been useful idiots.
    You may have been too long in lockdown.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 4,727
    Read this, and weep


    "Thirtysomethings could be asked to take an alternative jab to Astra Zeneca, members of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) have said.

    The Government’s independent scientific advisers said a fresh risk/benefit assessment of the vaccine in different age brackets would be made before the rollout reaches those below the age of 40.

    Prof Anthony Harnden, deputy chairman of the JCVI said that safety data will be examined “in scrupulous detail” before the programme is rolled out to the under 40s.

    The scientist said “everybody should remain confident” in the vaccine programme which he said was going “full steam ahead”, saying any link with blood clots was a “very, very rare, extremely rare safety signal”."


    So it's a "very very rare, extremely rare safety signal", BUT they might ban it for an entire new cohort, the under 40s. So that's fine, "everyone should remain confident"
  • FenmanFenman Posts: 887

    FPT - there's a whole host of evidence that attractive people do better in life, and that's across genders and races.

    Thank you.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 27,086
    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Pulpstar said:

    On Astra I'd probably add 30 - 39 yr old women to the non provision list, keep men on it.

    It really all depends on the risk factors involved. If we get to 1 in 20k for prevalence then the official guidance will almost certainly change, and we're probably close to that already after the drop off in the infection rate. In addition the new vaccines are actually better because they have 95% and 97% efficacy against symptoms and well over 90% efficacy against infection vs 90% against symptoms for AZ and abut 80% against infection and AZ needs 14 weeks to get to that level, Moderna and Novavax only need 5 weeks.

    There really is no reason to give under 40s AZ given the supply situation we're heading for and the logistical issues posed by requiring 12 weeks in between doses. I also think that increasing the relative value of Pfizer, Moderna and Novavax will be helpful for overall take up among 18-39 year olds.
    it's not just about us. It is about the PR signal we are sending very loudly around the world. "The British are not using the British vaccine on the under 30s, no., wait, and now the under 40s!!"

    Many countries will now boycott the best vaccine for the developing world. Because we are over-reacting to a tiny risk, and announcing this in very bold colours, without any proper PR management. It is shoddy British amateurism at its worst
    Ultimately the regulator has made a sound case based on differential risk. In other countries the risk factors are significantly higher from COVID than they are here so the calculation has different inputs meaning pausing the vaccine rollout there for under 40s will lead to more people dying.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 19,528

    Leon said:

    The new Astra Zeneca story Max referenced FPT

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/04/08/vaccines-advice-could-still-change-30s-jcvi-suggests/


    The comms is just appalling. A vaccine is all about confidence. It doesn't work unless enough people feel confident in taking it.

    They are all over the shop, yeah the jab is great, but we might ban it, yeah it's really safe, but no it's not safe for anyone under 30, or maybe early 30s, no wait under 40 is bad too, errrrrr.

    It is shameful. Scientists should not have this job, it should be left to skilled politicians and media people. They are destroying the vaccine workhorse of the world with every amateurish interview. We will end up pointlessly banning it for anyone under 60 like the French, and much of the world will shun it, and many will die

    An ultra cynic conspiracy theorist might suggest that's part of a plan.

    Wait until the UK has enough vaccines and then sow distrust to discourage and slow vaccination in other countries thereby increasing the death rate and economic damage in those countries.

    Perhaps Macron and Handelstwatt are involved / been useful idiots.
    You may have been too long in lockdown.
    I may have bee too long reading PB :wink:
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 65,092
    edited April 8
    We have the NATIONAL health service in the UK. And it's been lauded over the past year. Health right now here is a massively collective thing, you're getting the jab to protect not just yourself but your friends and family too, and adding to the national herd immunity.
    We have huge takeup and also an independent regulator that is optimising each jab for the individual - as we get to lower age groups who have a lower individual risk from Covid we can pick and choose vaccinations as we're already at herd immunity within the context of current restrictions.
    Now it might be taking a little longer than everyone hoped to get to younger age groups but that's due to our collosal takeup by everyone older. It's going magnificently and will probably end up being the best vaccination program of any major country in the world.

    Edit: Because so many here are willijng to take a vaccine with the tiniest of risk it means millions won't have to. I mean I'd take it tommorow but I'm not offered it yet.
    Other nations aren't in the position we're in due to people looking at the vaccine very much as an individual thing.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 4,727
    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Pulpstar said:

    On Astra I'd probably add 30 - 39 yr old women to the non provision list, keep men on it.

    It really all depends on the risk factors involved. If we get to 1 in 20k for prevalence then the official guidance will almost certainly change, and we're probably close to that already after the drop off in the infection rate. In addition the new vaccines are actually better because they have 95% and 97% efficacy against symptoms and well over 90% efficacy against infection vs 90% against symptoms for AZ and abut 80% against infection and AZ needs 14 weeks to get to that level, Moderna and Novavax only need 5 weeks.

    There really is no reason to give under 40s AZ given the supply situation we're heading for and the logistical issues posed by requiring 12 weeks in between doses. I also think that increasing the relative value of Pfizer, Moderna and Novavax will be helpful for overall take up among 18-39 year olds.
    it's not just about us. It is about the PR signal we are sending very loudly around the world. "The British are not using the British vaccine on the under 30s, no., wait, and now the under 40s!!"

    Many countries will now boycott the best vaccine for the developing world. Because we are over-reacting to a tiny risk, and announcing this in very bold colours, without any proper PR management. It is shoddy British amateurism at its worst
    Ultimately the regulator has made a sound case based on differential risk. In other countries the risk factors are significantly higher from COVID than they are here so the calculation has different inputs meaning pausing the vaccine rollout there for under 40s will lead to more people dying.
    No, you're totally wrong. This is fucking terrible PR which will kill many people worldwide based on infinitesimally marginal scientific data
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 36,472
    DODGY DAVE :lol:
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 4,927
    Leon said:

    Read this, and weep


    "Thirtysomethings could be asked to take an alternative jab to Astra Zeneca, members of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) have said.

    The Government’s independent scientific advisers said a fresh risk/benefit assessment of the vaccine in different age brackets would be made before the rollout reaches those below the age of 40.

    Prof Anthony Harnden, deputy chairman of the JCVI said that safety data will be examined “in scrupulous detail” before the programme is rolled out to the under 40s.

    The scientist said “everybody should remain confident” in the vaccine programme which he said was going “full steam ahead”, saying any link with blood clots was a “very, very rare, extremely rare safety signal”."


    So it's a "very very rare, extremely rare safety signal", BUT they might ban it for an entire new cohort, the under 40s. So that's fine, "everyone should remain confident"

    A case of pragmatic self refutation by the eminent scientist.

  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 27,086
    Pulpstar said:

    We have the NATIONAL health service in the UK. And it's been lauded over the past year. Health right now here is a massively collective thing, you're getting the jab to protect not just yourself but your friends and family too, and adding to the national herd immunity.
    We have huge takeup and also an independent regulator that is optimising each jab for the individual - as we get to lower age groups who have a lower individual risk from Covid we can pick and choose vaccinations as we're already at herd immunity within the context of current restrictions.
    Now it might be taking a little longer than everyone hoped to get to younger age groups but that's due to our collosal takeup by everyone older. It's going magnificently and will probably end up being the best vaccination program of any major country in the world.

    It won't even take any longer though. Our supply situation for Novavax and Moderna is such that we won't need to slow down very much (at all?) despite not being able to use a vaccine for two cohorts. Simply, we were never going to use AZ for those cohorts anyway. I've only been saying it for about two months.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 36,472

    Jeez, desperate and desperately sad measures.

    https://twitter.com/nmannathukkaren/status/1380129214259720202?s=21

    Malayalam script in that Tweet.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 36,472
    FPT

    I don't expect any progress over NI, sadly.

    The reality is that one half of NI largely voted to Remain

    Corrected it for you :innocent:
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 27,086
    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Pulpstar said:

    On Astra I'd probably add 30 - 39 yr old women to the non provision list, keep men on it.

    It really all depends on the risk factors involved. If we get to 1 in 20k for prevalence then the official guidance will almost certainly change, and we're probably close to that already after the drop off in the infection rate. In addition the new vaccines are actually better because they have 95% and 97% efficacy against symptoms and well over 90% efficacy against infection vs 90% against symptoms for AZ and abut 80% against infection and AZ needs 14 weeks to get to that level, Moderna and Novavax only need 5 weeks.

    There really is no reason to give under 40s AZ given the supply situation we're heading for and the logistical issues posed by requiring 12 weeks in between doses. I also think that increasing the relative value of Pfizer, Moderna and Novavax will be helpful for overall take up among 18-39 year olds.
    it's not just about us. It is about the PR signal we are sending very loudly around the world. "The British are not using the British vaccine on the under 30s, no., wait, and now the under 40s!!"

    Many countries will now boycott the best vaccine for the developing world. Because we are over-reacting to a tiny risk, and announcing this in very bold colours, without any proper PR management. It is shoddy British amateurism at its worst
    Ultimately the regulator has made a sound case based on differential risk. In other countries the risk factors are significantly higher from COVID than they are here so the calculation has different inputs meaning pausing the vaccine rollout there for under 40s will lead to more people dying.
    No, you're totally wrong. This is fucking terrible PR which will kill many people worldwide based on infinitesimally marginal scientific data
    The MHRA remit is to look at the situation in the UK. It has made the case based on UK data. They literally said that in other scenarios where the prevalence of COVID was medium or high they wouldn't have changed the recommendation. The EMA has agreed with them and told European countries to keep jabbing all age groups because their risk level is so much higher in the EU.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 19,426

    Told you to trade out a while back.

    Peak Rishi was a long time ago.

    His ratings will go further south once he has to start paying the Covid-19 bills and cannot save every business and job.

    I laid Sunak ages ago and have been staring at deep red for a while.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 19,528

    ""Hi David, apologies for the delay. I think the proposals in the
    end did require a change to the Market Notice but I have pushed the team to explore an
    alternative with the Bank that might work. No guarantees, but the Bank are currently
    looking at it and Charles should be in touch. Best, Rishi"

    Not going to end his career.

    Didn't Rishi promise to reply the following day and then took three weeks ?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 4,727
    geoffw said:

    Leon said:

    Read this, and weep


    "Thirtysomethings could be asked to take an alternative jab to Astra Zeneca, members of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) have said.

    The Government’s independent scientific advisers said a fresh risk/benefit assessment of the vaccine in different age brackets would be made before the rollout reaches those below the age of 40.

    Prof Anthony Harnden, deputy chairman of the JCVI said that safety data will be examined “in scrupulous detail” before the programme is rolled out to the under 40s.

    The scientist said “everybody should remain confident” in the vaccine programme which he said was going “full steam ahead”, saying any link with blood clots was a “very, very rare, extremely rare safety signal”."


    So it's a "very very rare, extremely rare safety signal", BUT they might ban it for an entire new cohort, the under 40s. So that's fine, "everyone should remain confident"

    A case of pragmatic self refutation by the eminent scientist.

    A conspiracy theorist, of which there are millions when it comes to vaccinations, would say this is a scientific establishment in panic, as they discover a vaccine is really quite dangerous, but they can't admit it to 20 million people just jabbed in the UK alone

    Now, if that is the case, they need to admit their fears IMMEDIATELY. I do not believe it is the case, I believe, as I have said, that it is truly terrible PR. But I cannot prove it

    Neither solution to this puzzle is optimal
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 9,943
    Jenrick in a hi viz and hard hat defending Dave. If Jenrick is one's defence advocate, Sunak is in the cart!
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 1,039
    edited April 8
    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Pulpstar said:

    On Astra I'd probably add 30 - 39 yr old women to the non provision list, keep men on it.

    It really all depends on the risk factors involved. If we get to 1 in 20k for prevalence then the official guidance will almost certainly change, and we're probably close to that already after the drop off in the infection rate. In addition the new vaccines are actually better because they have 95% and 97% efficacy against symptoms and well over 90% efficacy against infection vs 90% against symptoms for AZ and abut 80% against infection and AZ needs 14 weeks to get to that level, Moderna and Novavax only need 5 weeks.

    There really is no reason to give under 40s AZ given the supply situation we're heading for and the logistical issues posed by requiring 12 weeks in between doses. I also think that increasing the relative value of Pfizer, Moderna and Novavax will be helpful for overall take up among 18-39 year olds.
    it's not just about us. It is about the PR signal we are sending very loudly around the world. "The British are not using the British vaccine on the under 30s, no., wait, and now the under 40s!!"

    Many countries will now boycott the best vaccine for the developing world. Because we are over-reacting to a tiny risk, and announcing this in very bold colours, without any proper PR management. It is shoddy British amateurism at its worst
    Ultimately the regulator has made a sound case based on differential risk. In other countries the risk factors are significantly higher from COVID than they are here so the calculation has different inputs meaning pausing the vaccine rollout there for under 40s will lead to more people dying.
    FPT, I wondered how this would be presented in, say, New Zealand.

    Currently they have almost no cases. So the present risk of catching and suffering harm from Covid is almost nil.

    All vaccines will have some risk, including Pfizer.

    Should New Zealand wait until they've got enough cases of Covid to make the relative risk favourable before vaccinating anyone?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 40,951
    Pulpstar said:

    We have the NATIONAL health service in the UK. And it's been lauded over the past year. Health right now here is a massively collective thing, you're getting the jab to protect not just yourself but your friends and family too, and adding to the national herd immunity.
    We have huge takeup and also an independent regulator that is optimising each jab for the individual - as we get to lower age groups who have a lower individual risk from Covid we can pick and choose vaccinations as we're already at herd immunity within the context of current restrictions.
    Now it might be taking a little longer than everyone hoped to get to younger age groups but that's due to our collosal takeup by everyone older. It's going magnificently and will probably end up being the best vaccination program of any major country in the world.

    Yes. This. It's certainly made me pause on any abstract thoughts I might have had on moving to Australia or Canada for a few years: they're simply not world innovation or manufacturing hubs in the same way we are.

    We really do overdo our "we're all doomed" narrative on these shores. Yes, the weather's a bit shit, houses cost too much, we have some terribly dreary towns, and the Wokies drives me nuts, but this truly is a great country to live in.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 65,092
    A heterogenous mix of vaccinations through the population might be best. Don't want something springing up that belts through one particular vaccination type.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 10,316
    Good news:

    Drakeford has decided to open things up a bit earlier than planned in Wales due to lower infection rates.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 14,112
    edited April 8
    So blind recruitment.

    I have to remove the name of educational institutions.

    However I worked at educational institution Student’s Union during my studies.

    Do we think I have to redact or remove that too?
  • EPGEPG Posts: 3,677

    So blind recruitment.

    I have to remove the name of educational institutions.

    However I worked at educational institution Student’s Union during my studies.

    Do we think I have to redact or remove that too?

    How does one explain that one's degree came from a university with standards?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 4,727
    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Pulpstar said:

    On Astra I'd probably add 30 - 39 yr old women to the non provision list, keep men on it.

    It really all depends on the risk factors involved. If we get to 1 in 20k for prevalence then the official guidance will almost certainly change, and we're probably close to that already after the drop off in the infection rate. In addition the new vaccines are actually better because they have 95% and 97% efficacy against symptoms and well over 90% efficacy against infection vs 90% against symptoms for AZ and abut 80% against infection and AZ needs 14 weeks to get to that level, Moderna and Novavax only need 5 weeks.

    There really is no reason to give under 40s AZ given the supply situation we're heading for and the logistical issues posed by requiring 12 weeks in between doses. I also think that increasing the relative value of Pfizer, Moderna and Novavax will be helpful for overall take up among 18-39 year olds.
    it's not just about us. It is about the PR signal we are sending very loudly around the world. "The British are not using the British vaccine on the under 30s, no., wait, and now the under 40s!!"

    Many countries will now boycott the best vaccine for the developing world. Because we are over-reacting to a tiny risk, and announcing this in very bold colours, without any proper PR management. It is shoddy British amateurism at its worst
    Ultimately the regulator has made a sound case based on differential risk. In other countries the risk factors are significantly higher from COVID than they are here so the calculation has different inputs meaning pausing the vaccine rollout there for under 40s will lead to more people dying.
    No, you're totally wrong. This is fucking terrible PR which will kill many people worldwide based on infinitesimally marginal scientific data
    The MHRA remit is to look at the situation in the UK. It has made the case based on UK data. They literally said that in other scenarios where the prevalence of COVID was medium or high they wouldn't have changed the recommendation. The EMA has agreed with them and told European countries to keep jabbing all age groups because their risk level is so much higher in the EU.
    I get that you know more about our vaccine supply than me. And I am always hugely grateful for your insight on that. But, as an artisan creating things, I suspect I know more about stories than you, and the story being sold here is a dead puppy
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 91,491

    So blind recruitment.

    I have to remove the name of educational institutions.

    However I worked at educational institution Student’s Union during my studies.

    Do we think I have to redact or remove that too?

    Redact, the policies I've seen is that any indirect hints of the institution you attended is a blackball.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 65,092

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Pulpstar said:

    On Astra I'd probably add 30 - 39 yr old women to the non provision list, keep men on it.

    It really all depends on the risk factors involved. If we get to 1 in 20k for prevalence then the official guidance will almost certainly change, and we're probably close to that already after the drop off in the infection rate. In addition the new vaccines are actually better because they have 95% and 97% efficacy against symptoms and well over 90% efficacy against infection vs 90% against symptoms for AZ and abut 80% against infection and AZ needs 14 weeks to get to that level, Moderna and Novavax only need 5 weeks.

    There really is no reason to give under 40s AZ given the supply situation we're heading for and the logistical issues posed by requiring 12 weeks in between doses. I also think that increasing the relative value of Pfizer, Moderna and Novavax will be helpful for overall take up among 18-39 year olds.
    it's not just about us. It is about the PR signal we are sending very loudly around the world. "The British are not using the British vaccine on the under 30s, no., wait, and now the under 40s!!"

    Many countries will now boycott the best vaccine for the developing world. Because we are over-reacting to a tiny risk, and announcing this in very bold colours, without any proper PR management. It is shoddy British amateurism at its worst
    Ultimately the regulator has made a sound case based on differential risk. In other countries the risk factors are significantly higher from COVID than they are here so the calculation has different inputs meaning pausing the vaccine rollout there for under 40s will lead to more people dying.
    FPT, I wondered how this would be presented in, say, New Zealand.

    Currently they have almost no cases. So the present risk of catching and suffering harm from Covid is almost nil.

    All vaccines will have some risk, including Pfizer.

    Should New Zealand wait until they've got enough cases of Covid to make the relative risk favourable before vaccinating anyone?
    Nah you crack on with Pfizer if you're New Zealand, oldest & healthcare 1st.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 14,112
    EPG said:

    So blind recruitment.

    I have to remove the name of educational institutions.

    However I worked at educational institution Student’s Union during my studies.

    Do we think I have to redact or remove that too?

    How does one explain that one's degree came from a university with standards?
    Papa will have to have a word
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 27,086

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Pulpstar said:

    On Astra I'd probably add 30 - 39 yr old women to the non provision list, keep men on it.

    It really all depends on the risk factors involved. If we get to 1 in 20k for prevalence then the official guidance will almost certainly change, and we're probably close to that already after the drop off in the infection rate. In addition the new vaccines are actually better because they have 95% and 97% efficacy against symptoms and well over 90% efficacy against infection vs 90% against symptoms for AZ and abut 80% against infection and AZ needs 14 weeks to get to that level, Moderna and Novavax only need 5 weeks.

    There really is no reason to give under 40s AZ given the supply situation we're heading for and the logistical issues posed by requiring 12 weeks in between doses. I also think that increasing the relative value of Pfizer, Moderna and Novavax will be helpful for overall take up among 18-39 year olds.
    it's not just about us. It is about the PR signal we are sending very loudly around the world. "The British are not using the British vaccine on the under 30s, no., wait, and now the under 40s!!"

    Many countries will now boycott the best vaccine for the developing world. Because we are over-reacting to a tiny risk, and announcing this in very bold colours, without any proper PR management. It is shoddy British amateurism at its worst
    Ultimately the regulator has made a sound case based on differential risk. In other countries the risk factors are significantly higher from COVID than they are here so the calculation has different inputs meaning pausing the vaccine rollout there for under 40s will lead to more people dying.
    FPT, I wondered how this would be presented in, say, New Zealand.

    Currently they have almost no cases. So the present risk of catching and suffering harm from Covid is almost nil.

    All vaccines will have some risk, including Pfizer.

    Should New Zealand wait until they've got enough cases of Covid to make the relative risk favourable before vaccinating anyone?
    That's a different calculation for NZ because firstly the risk factors are being kept down with gigantic economic and social hardship by keeping the border permanently closed. The COVID risk factors in NZ are artificially low. Over here the risk factors have been lowered by vaccines and reaching an almost herd immunity level of antibody prevalence. The chance of a massive outbreak in the UK is very small which is what the MHRA are making their judgements based on.

    If anything this actually flies completely in the face of the doom mongering models from SAGE over the weekend. The MHRA have made the (correct IMO) judgement that with COVID risk permanently lowered for under 30s and going down significantly for under 40s and with better vaccines available there is a case to use those for those two cohorts.

    It's been blown completely out of proportion by the excitable types.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 14,112

    So blind recruitment.

    I have to remove the name of educational institutions.

    However I worked at educational institution Student’s Union during my studies.

    Do we think I have to redact or remove that too?

    Redact, the policies I've seen is that any indirect hints of the institution you attended is a blackball.
    Thank you!
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 10,316
    Do we have enough Moderna and Pfizer for the under 40s?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 4,727

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Pulpstar said:

    On Astra I'd probably add 30 - 39 yr old women to the non provision list, keep men on it.

    It really all depends on the risk factors involved. If we get to 1 in 20k for prevalence then the official guidance will almost certainly change, and we're probably close to that already after the drop off in the infection rate. In addition the new vaccines are actually better because they have 95% and 97% efficacy against symptoms and well over 90% efficacy against infection vs 90% against symptoms for AZ and abut 80% against infection and AZ needs 14 weeks to get to that level, Moderna and Novavax only need 5 weeks.

    There really is no reason to give under 40s AZ given the supply situation we're heading for and the logistical issues posed by requiring 12 weeks in between doses. I also think that increasing the relative value of Pfizer, Moderna and Novavax will be helpful for overall take up among 18-39 year olds.
    it's not just about us. It is about the PR signal we are sending very loudly around the world. "The British are not using the British vaccine on the under 30s, no., wait, and now the under 40s!!"

    Many countries will now boycott the best vaccine for the developing world. Because we are over-reacting to a tiny risk, and announcing this in very bold colours, without any proper PR management. It is shoddy British amateurism at its worst
    Ultimately the regulator has made a sound case based on differential risk. In other countries the risk factors are significantly higher from COVID than they are here so the calculation has different inputs meaning pausing the vaccine rollout there for under 40s will lead to more people dying.
    FPT, I wondered how this would be presented in, say, New Zealand.

    Currently they have almost no cases. So the present risk of catching and suffering harm from Covid is almost nil.

    All vaccines will have some risk, including Pfizer.

    Should New Zealand wait until they've got enough cases of Covid to make the relative risk favourable before vaccinating anyone?
    That is quite an unanswerable point, because that IS the bizarre logic of JVCI
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 40,951

    FPT

    I don't expect any progress over NI, sadly.

    The reality is that one half of NI largely voted to Remain

    Corrected it for you :innocent:
    It was 56:44, and the Nationalist and Loyalist communities largely voted on those lines. If you reach back into the recent past you might find examples of other referendums that were carried by similar margins that have proved far from politically "decisive".

    This can't be dismissed. London and Scotland voted to Remain by far more convincing margins than NI did and yet this belief has grown up that there was only one point of view in NI and only one community needed to be dealt with.

    There wasn't and there isn't.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 14,599
    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Pulpstar said:

    On Astra I'd probably add 30 - 39 yr old women to the non provision list, keep men on it.

    It really all depends on the risk factors involved. If we get to 1 in 20k for prevalence then the official guidance will almost certainly change, and we're probably close to that already after the drop off in the infection rate. In addition the new vaccines are actually better because they have 95% and 97% efficacy against symptoms and well over 90% efficacy against infection vs 90% against symptoms for AZ and abut 80% against infection and AZ needs 14 weeks to get to that level, Moderna and Novavax only need 5 weeks.

    There really is no reason to give under 40s AZ given the supply situation we're heading for and the logistical issues posed by requiring 12 weeks in between doses. I also think that increasing the relative value of Pfizer, Moderna and Novavax will be helpful for overall take up among 18-39 year olds.
    it's not just about us. It is about the PR signal we are sending very loudly around the world. "The British are not using the British vaccine on the under 30s, no., wait, and now the under 40s!!"

    Many countries will now boycott the best vaccine for the developing world. Because we are over-reacting to a tiny risk, and announcing this in very bold colours, without any proper PR management. It is shoddy British amateurism at its worst
    Ultimately the regulator has made a sound case based on differential risk. In other countries the risk factors are significantly higher from COVID than they are here so the calculation has different inputs meaning pausing the vaccine rollout there for under 40s will lead to more people dying.
    But where is the actual analysis? Whilst it's nice to think that 'Covid is a lottery, we could all die from it', the truth is that the healthier you are, the easier time you will have with Covid. It is exactly the same with vaccine, and the victims of this clotting must have certain commonalities, in (for example) prior health conditions, age, weight, manner in which the vaccine was administered, what they did afterwards etc etc etc.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 19,528
    April 8
    15,869 new cases and 345 new deaths in France. Following technical incidents detected in the chain of data, the Ministry of Health reported a higher number of positive cases today which includes a backlog. Worldometer redistributed the reported positive cases, of which 30,785 occurred on Apr 7, 49,754 occurred on Apr 6 and 1,542 occurred on Apr 5.

    April 7
    30,785 new cases and 431 new deaths in France. Around 400,000 test results (not deduplicated, positive or negative results) could not be integrated into the SI-DEP database of Public Health France. The total number of daily confirmed cases is therefore underestimated, and is not published today by Public Health France.

    April 4
    60,922 new cases and 185 new deaths in France. Following technical incidents detected in the chain of data, the Ministry of Health reported a higher number of positive cases today which includes a backlog. Worldometer redistributed the reported positive cases, of which 19,789 occurred on Apr 3.

    April 3
    19,789 new cases and 213 new deaths in France "Following an incident on the data flow, approximately 400,000 test results (not deduplicated, positive or negative results) could not be integrated into the SI-DEP database of Public Health France. The total number of confirmed cases recorded for the day was therefore underestimated, and is therefore not published by Santé Publique France."

    March 31
    41,907 new cases and 325 new deaths in France. Following technical incidents detected in the chain of data, the Ministry of Health reported a higher number of positive cases today which includes a backlog. Worldometer redistributed the reported 59,038 cases, of which 28,604 occurred on Mar 29 and 28,323 occurred on Mar 30.


    https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/france/
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 4,927
    Leon said:

    geoffw said:

    Leon said:

    Read this, and weep


    "Thirtysomethings could be asked to take an alternative jab to Astra Zeneca, members of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) have said.

    The Government’s independent scientific advisers said a fresh risk/benefit assessment of the vaccine in different age brackets would be made before the rollout reaches those below the age of 40.

    Prof Anthony Harnden, deputy chairman of the JCVI said that safety data will be examined “in scrupulous detail” before the programme is rolled out to the under 40s.

    The scientist said “everybody should remain confident” in the vaccine programme which he said was going “full steam ahead”, saying any link with blood clots was a “very, very rare, extremely rare safety signal”."


    So it's a "very very rare, extremely rare safety signal", BUT they might ban it for an entire new cohort, the under 40s. So that's fine, "everyone should remain confident"

    A case of pragmatic self refutation by the eminent scientist.

    A conspiracy theorist, of which there are millions when it comes to vaccinations, would say this is a scientific establishment in panic, as they discover a vaccine is really quite dangerous, but they can't admit it to 20 million people just jabbed in the UK alone

    Now, if that is the case, they need to admit their fears IMMEDIATELY. I do not believe it is the case, I believe, as I have said, that it is truly terrible PR. But I cannot prove it

    Neither solution to this puzzle is optimal
    If it really was so dangerous we would have seen more evidence by now, with around 20 million people having had the AZ jab.
    Meanwhile the other vaccines probably have side effects too. We haven't heard much about them.
    Also meanwhile, I heard earlier today that there could be a means of treating clotting.

  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 65,092

    So blind recruitment.

    I have to remove the name of educational institutions.

    However I worked at educational institution Student’s Union during my studies.

    Do we think I have to redact or remove that too?

    Redact, the policies I've seen is that any indirect hints of the institution you attended is a blackball.
    The President of Buranda is a crook!
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 91,491

    FPT

    I don't expect any progress over NI, sadly.

    The reality is that one half of NI largely voted to Remain

    Corrected it for you :innocent:
    It was 56:44, and the Nationalist and Loyalist communities largely voted on those lines. If you reach back into the recent past you might find examples of other referendums that were carried by similar margins that have proved far from politically "decisive".

    This can't be dismissed. London and Scotland voted to Remain by far more convincing margins than NI did and yet this belief has grown up that there was only one point of view in NI and only one community needed to be dealt with.

    There wasn't and there isn't.
    But that ignores the history of (Northern) Ireland.

    Did London or Scotland have issues that were resolved with another country changing its constitution as part of an agreement we made with them?
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 36,472

    FPT

    I don't expect any progress over NI, sadly.

    The reality is that one half of NI largely voted to Remain

    Corrected it for you :innocent:
    It was 56:44, and the Nationalist and Loyalist communities largely voted on those lines. If you reach back into the recent past you might find examples of other referendums that were carried by similar margins that have proved far from politically "decisive".

    This can't be dismissed. London and Scotland voted to Remain by far more convincing margins than NI did and yet this belief has grown up that there was only one point of view in NI and only one community needed to be dealt with.

    There wasn't and there isn't.
    The result was 56:44, yes, but Nationalists are the minority community. If everyone voted on sectarian lines, LEAVE would have won easily.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 4,727
    geoffw said:

    Leon said:

    geoffw said:

    Leon said:

    Read this, and weep


    "Thirtysomethings could be asked to take an alternative jab to Astra Zeneca, members of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) have said.

    The Government’s independent scientific advisers said a fresh risk/benefit assessment of the vaccine in different age brackets would be made before the rollout reaches those below the age of 40.

    Prof Anthony Harnden, deputy chairman of the JCVI said that safety data will be examined “in scrupulous detail” before the programme is rolled out to the under 40s.

    The scientist said “everybody should remain confident” in the vaccine programme which he said was going “full steam ahead”, saying any link with blood clots was a “very, very rare, extremely rare safety signal”."


    So it's a "very very rare, extremely rare safety signal", BUT they might ban it for an entire new cohort, the under 40s. So that's fine, "everyone should remain confident"

    A case of pragmatic self refutation by the eminent scientist.

    A conspiracy theorist, of which there are millions when it comes to vaccinations, would say this is a scientific establishment in panic, as they discover a vaccine is really quite dangerous, but they can't admit it to 20 million people just jabbed in the UK alone

    Now, if that is the case, they need to admit their fears IMMEDIATELY. I do not believe it is the case, I believe, as I have said, that it is truly terrible PR. But I cannot prove it

    Neither solution to this puzzle is optimal
    If it really was so dangerous we would have seen more evidence by now, with around 20 million people having had the AZ jab.
    Meanwhile the other vaccines probably have side effects too. We haven't heard much about them.
    Also meanwhile, I heard earlier today that there could be a means of treating clotting.

    Yes, that German MP said they have a treatment for the AZ clotting problem

    Which again points to this being just a colossal PR clusterfuck, almost inexplicable, from JCVI
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 27,086
    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Pulpstar said:

    On Astra I'd probably add 30 - 39 yr old women to the non provision list, keep men on it.

    It really all depends on the risk factors involved. If we get to 1 in 20k for prevalence then the official guidance will almost certainly change, and we're probably close to that already after the drop off in the infection rate. In addition the new vaccines are actually better because they have 95% and 97% efficacy against symptoms and well over 90% efficacy against infection vs 90% against symptoms for AZ and abut 80% against infection and AZ needs 14 weeks to get to that level, Moderna and Novavax only need 5 weeks.

    There really is no reason to give under 40s AZ given the supply situation we're heading for and the logistical issues posed by requiring 12 weeks in between doses. I also think that increasing the relative value of Pfizer, Moderna and Novavax will be helpful for overall take up among 18-39 year olds.
    it's not just about us. It is about the PR signal we are sending very loudly around the world. "The British are not using the British vaccine on the under 30s, no., wait, and now the under 40s!!"

    Many countries will now boycott the best vaccine for the developing world. Because we are over-reacting to a tiny risk, and announcing this in very bold colours, without any proper PR management. It is shoddy British amateurism at its worst
    Ultimately the regulator has made a sound case based on differential risk. In other countries the risk factors are significantly higher from COVID than they are here so the calculation has different inputs meaning pausing the vaccine rollout there for under 40s will lead to more people dying.
    No, you're totally wrong. This is fucking terrible PR which will kill many people worldwide based on infinitesimally marginal scientific data
    The MHRA remit is to look at the situation in the UK. It has made the case based on UK data. They literally said that in other scenarios where the prevalence of COVID was medium or high they wouldn't have changed the recommendation. The EMA has agreed with them and told European countries to keep jabbing all age groups because their risk level is so much higher in the EU.
    I get that you know more about our vaccine supply than me. And I am always hugely grateful for your insight on that. But, as an artisan creating things, I suspect I know more about stories than you, and the story being sold here is a dead puppy
    I understand that looking in from the outside other countries and regulators are probably pretty confused about it. However, the remit of the MHRA is to the British public not to anyone else. I'm not sure what else they could have done. My solution was just to use the automatic provisioning system to remove AZ for affected cohorts still waiting for the first dose and just have a hugely technical paper with loads of stuff common man and idiot journalist doesn't understand released down the line.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 2,494

    MaxPB said:

    Pulpstar said:

    On Astra I'd probably add 30 - 39 yr old women to the non provision list, keep men on it.

    It really all depends on the risk factors involved. If we get to 1 in 20k for prevalence then the official guidance will almost certainly change, and we're probably close to that already after the drop off in the infection rate. In addition the new vaccines are actually better because they have 95% and 97% efficacy against symptoms and well over 90% efficacy against infection vs 90% against symptoms for AZ and abut 80% against infection and AZ needs 14 weeks to get to that level, Moderna and Novavax only need 5 weeks.

    There really is no reason to give under 40s AZ given the supply situation we're heading for and the logistical issues posed by requiring 12 weeks in between doses. I also think that increasing the relative value of Pfizer, Moderna and Novavax will be helpful for overall take up among 18-39 year olds.
    Short: Oxford is ok but they ended up doing a University of Exeter job not an Oxbridge job.

    Others did better.
    They did an Oxford job.
    It's a neat bit of science, and the non-profit plan was a good deed in a less than good world.

    But the trials were ameturish in terms of getting solid data to send to the regulators, and production has stubbornly refused to take off. The PR doesn't matter if the doses don't exist.

    I'm reminded of Beardy Branson's bids to run the National Lottery. He said he'd do that as a nonprofit, but it turned out that the profit-taking consortia were likely to raise more for good causes.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 65,092
    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Pulpstar said:

    On Astra I'd probably add 30 - 39 yr old women to the non provision list, keep men on it.

    It really all depends on the risk factors involved. If we get to 1 in 20k for prevalence then the official guidance will almost certainly change, and we're probably close to that already after the drop off in the infection rate. In addition the new vaccines are actually better because they have 95% and 97% efficacy against symptoms and well over 90% efficacy against infection vs 90% against symptoms for AZ and abut 80% against infection and AZ needs 14 weeks to get to that level, Moderna and Novavax only need 5 weeks.

    There really is no reason to give under 40s AZ given the supply situation we're heading for and the logistical issues posed by requiring 12 weeks in between doses. I also think that increasing the relative value of Pfizer, Moderna and Novavax will be helpful for overall take up among 18-39 year olds.
    it's not just about us. It is about the PR signal we are sending very loudly around the world. "The British are not using the British vaccine on the under 30s, no., wait, and now the under 40s!!"

    Many countries will now boycott the best vaccine for the developing world. Because we are over-reacting to a tiny risk, and announcing this in very bold colours, without any proper PR management. It is shoddy British amateurism at its worst
    Ultimately the regulator has made a sound case based on differential risk. In other countries the risk factors are significantly higher from COVID than they are here so the calculation has different inputs meaning pausing the vaccine rollout there for under 40s will lead to more people dying.
    FPT, I wondered how this would be presented in, say, New Zealand.

    Currently they have almost no cases. So the present risk of catching and suffering harm from Covid is almost nil.

    All vaccines will have some risk, including Pfizer.

    Should New Zealand wait until they've got enough cases of Covid to make the relative risk favourable before vaccinating anyone?
    That is quite an unanswerable point, because that IS the bizarre logic of JVCI
    MHRA is dealing solely with the UK rollout. You'd never start New Zealand's with the same logic - as they've done so well with Covid but their own health board won't apply it; they don't want to be cut out forever. They've solely ordered Pfizer anyway I think so no Astra conundrums for them.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 39,928

    Jeez, desperate and desperately sad measures.

    https://twitter.com/nmannathukkaren/status/1380129214259720202?s=21

    Malayalam script in that Tweet.
    That is so sad and upsetting
  • LeonLeon Posts: 4,727
    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Pulpstar said:

    On Astra I'd probably add 30 - 39 yr old women to the non provision list, keep men on it.

    It really all depends on the risk factors involved. If we get to 1 in 20k for prevalence then the official guidance will almost certainly change, and we're probably close to that already after the drop off in the infection rate. In addition the new vaccines are actually better because they have 95% and 97% efficacy against symptoms and well over 90% efficacy against infection vs 90% against symptoms for AZ and abut 80% against infection and AZ needs 14 weeks to get to that level, Moderna and Novavax only need 5 weeks.

    There really is no reason to give under 40s AZ given the supply situation we're heading for and the logistical issues posed by requiring 12 weeks in between doses. I also think that increasing the relative value of Pfizer, Moderna and Novavax will be helpful for overall take up among 18-39 year olds.
    it's not just about us. It is about the PR signal we are sending very loudly around the world. "The British are not using the British vaccine on the under 30s, no., wait, and now the under 40s!!"

    Many countries will now boycott the best vaccine for the developing world. Because we are over-reacting to a tiny risk, and announcing this in very bold colours, without any proper PR management. It is shoddy British amateurism at its worst
    Ultimately the regulator has made a sound case based on differential risk. In other countries the risk factors are significantly higher from COVID than they are here so the calculation has different inputs meaning pausing the vaccine rollout there for under 40s will lead to more people dying.
    No, you're totally wrong. This is fucking terrible PR which will kill many people worldwide based on infinitesimally marginal scientific data
    The MHRA remit is to look at the situation in the UK. It has made the case based on UK data. They literally said that in other scenarios where the prevalence of COVID was medium or high they wouldn't have changed the recommendation. The EMA has agreed with them and told European countries to keep jabbing all age groups because their risk level is so much higher in the EU.
    I get that you know more about our vaccine supply than me. And I am always hugely grateful for your insight on that. But, as an artisan creating things, I suspect I know more about stories than you, and the story being sold here is a dead puppy
    I understand that looking in from the outside other countries and regulators are probably pretty confused about it. However, the remit of the MHRA is to the British public not to anyone else. I'm not sure what else they could have done. My solution was just to use the automatic provisioning system to remove AZ for affected cohorts still waiting for the first dose and just have a hugely technical paper with loads of stuff common man and idiot journalist doesn't understand released down the line.
    And your solution would have been much better than this disaster, and a professional PR operation with skilled politicians working alongside would have come up with an even better solution. There were ways of doing this, without any lies, with absolutely no "cover up", which would have reduced the worldwide panic. Because that is what we have kicked off. Worldwide panic.

    Half a dozen countries have either banned or severely restricted AZ since our decision. And it is our decision which is driving this
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 19,528
    If we're looking for a vaccine scandal story then Russia selling duff vaccine to Hungary and Slovakia might be one.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 65,092
    edited April 8
    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Pulpstar said:

    On Astra I'd probably add 30 - 39 yr old women to the non provision list, keep men on it.

    It really all depends on the risk factors involved. If we get to 1 in 20k for prevalence then the official guidance will almost certainly change, and we're probably close to that already after the drop off in the infection rate. In addition the new vaccines are actually better because they have 95% and 97% efficacy against symptoms and well over 90% efficacy against infection vs 90% against symptoms for AZ and abut 80% against infection and AZ needs 14 weeks to get to that level, Moderna and Novavax only need 5 weeks.

    There really is no reason to give under 40s AZ given the supply situation we're heading for and the logistical issues posed by requiring 12 weeks in between doses. I also think that increasing the relative value of Pfizer, Moderna and Novavax will be helpful for overall take up among 18-39 year olds.
    it's not just about us. It is about the PR signal we are sending very loudly around the world. "The British are not using the British vaccine on the under 30s, no., wait, and now the under 40s!!"

    Many countries will now boycott the best vaccine for the developing world. Because we are over-reacting to a tiny risk, and announcing this in very bold colours, without any proper PR management. It is shoddy British amateurism at its worst
    Ultimately the regulator has made a sound case based on differential risk. In other countries the risk factors are significantly higher from COVID than they are here so the calculation has different inputs meaning pausing the vaccine rollout there for under 40s will lead to more people dying.
    No, you're totally wrong. This is fucking terrible PR which will kill many people worldwide based on infinitesimally marginal scientific data
    The MHRA remit is to look at the situation in the UK. It has made the case based on UK data. They literally said that in other scenarios where the prevalence of COVID was medium or high they wouldn't have changed the recommendation. The EMA has agreed with them and told European countries to keep jabbing all age groups because their risk level is so much higher in the EU.
    I get that you know more about our vaccine supply than me. And I am always hugely grateful for your insight on that. But, as an artisan creating things, I suspect I know more about stories than you, and the story being sold here is a dead puppy
    I understand that looking in from the outside other countries and regulators are probably pretty confused about it. However, the remit of the MHRA is to the British public not to anyone else. I'm not sure what else they could have done. My solution was just to use the automatic provisioning system to remove AZ for affected cohorts still waiting for the first dose and just have a hugely technical paper with loads of stuff common man and idiot journalist doesn't understand released down the line.
    And your solution would have been much better than this disaster, and a professional PR operation with skilled politicians working alongside would have come up with an even better solution. There were ways of doing this, without any lies, with absolutely no "cover up", which would have reduced the worldwide panic. Because that is what we have kicked off. Worldwide panic.

    Half a dozen countries have either banned or severely restricted AZ since our decision. And it is our decision which is driving this
    Are their health boards filled with people with brains ?

    The Oz sub 50 restriction makes sense. Other nations where Covid is rampant... less so.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 40,951

    FPT

    I don't expect any progress over NI, sadly.

    The reality is that one half of NI largely voted to Remain

    Corrected it for you :innocent:
    It was 56:44, and the Nationalist and Loyalist communities largely voted on those lines. If you reach back into the recent past you might find examples of other referendums that were carried by similar margins that have proved far from politically "decisive".

    This can't be dismissed. London and Scotland voted to Remain by far more convincing margins than NI did and yet this belief has grown up that there was only one point of view in NI and only one community needed to be dealt with.

    There wasn't and there isn't.
    But that ignores the history of (Northern) Ireland.

    Did London or Scotland have issues that were resolved with another country changing its constitution as part of an agreement we made with them?
    The only ones ignoring the history of Northern Ireland are the ones conveniently ignoring one of its two key communities.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 91,491

    FPT

    I don't expect any progress over NI, sadly.

    The reality is that one half of NI largely voted to Remain

    Corrected it for you :innocent:
    It was 56:44, and the Nationalist and Loyalist communities largely voted on those lines. If you reach back into the recent past you might find examples of other referendums that were carried by similar margins that have proved far from politically "decisive".

    This can't be dismissed. London and Scotland voted to Remain by far more convincing margins than NI did and yet this belief has grown up that there was only one point of view in NI and only one community needed to be dealt with.

    There wasn't and there isn't.
    But that ignores the history of (Northern) Ireland.

    Did London or Scotland have issues that were resolved with another country changing its constitution as part of an agreement we made with them?
    The only ones ignoring the history of Northern Ireland are the ones conveniently ignoring one of its two key communities.
    How about listening to the two guys who helped bring peace to Northern Ireland and warned before Brexit that this would happen.

    Or how about listening to the chap who went to the DUP conference and warned about the dangers of putting a border down the Irish Sea, he warned that would lead to violence.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 36,472

    FPT

    I don't expect any progress over NI, sadly.

    The reality is that one half of NI largely voted to Remain

    Corrected it for you :innocent:
    It was 56:44, and the Nationalist and Loyalist communities largely voted on those lines. If you reach back into the recent past you might find examples of other referendums that were carried by similar margins that have proved far from politically "decisive".

    This can't be dismissed. London and Scotland voted to Remain by far more convincing margins than NI did and yet this belief has grown up that there was only one point of view in NI and only one community needed to be dealt with.

    There wasn't and there isn't.
    But that ignores the history of (Northern) Ireland.

    Did London or Scotland have issues that were resolved with another country changing its constitution as part of an agreement we made with them?
    The only ones ignoring the history of Northern Ireland are the ones conveniently ignoring one of its two key communities.
    The DUP backed Brexit despite a majority of NI voting to REMAIN (that majority consisting of both Unionists and Nationalists).
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 19,560
    FPT


    Well, well.

    For those following the Greensill affair - a murky business - the main characters in the frame have been Cameron, an ex-PM, and the late Jeremy Heywood, Cabinet Secretary.

    All very interesting but a bit niche relating to long ago and people no longer active in politics.

    And now we find emails being disgorged at record speed following an FoI request which suggest that Sunak may have pushed officials to consider Greensill's requests for Covid-related loans, which the doomed company did in fact get.

    Dear me. Would it be impertinent to ask who might benefit from the Chancellor being dragged into this mess?

  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 10,316

    FPT

    I don't expect any progress over NI, sadly.

    The reality is that one half of NI largely voted to Remain

    Corrected it for you :innocent:
    It was 56:44, and the Nationalist and Loyalist communities largely voted on those lines. If you reach back into the recent past you might find examples of other referendums that were carried by similar margins that have proved far from politically "decisive".

    This can't be dismissed. London and Scotland voted to Remain by far more convincing margins than NI did and yet this belief has grown up that there was only one point of view in NI and only one community needed to be dealt with.

    There wasn't and there isn't.
    It's thought that Nationalists voted about 90% Remain and Unionists about 65% Leave.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 8,020
    Picking up on @Flatlander ’s very good point FPT.

    At this rate, by that thinking, it will very soon be statistically perverse for the healthy under 50s to take any vaccine at all.

    Not sure the government has thought this through?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 40,951

    FPT

    I don't expect any progress over NI, sadly.

    The reality is that one half of NI largely voted to Remain

    Corrected it for you :innocent:
    It was 56:44, and the Nationalist and Loyalist communities largely voted on those lines. If you reach back into the recent past you might find examples of other referendums that were carried by similar margins that have proved far from politically "decisive".

    This can't be dismissed. London and Scotland voted to Remain by far more convincing margins than NI did and yet this belief has grown up that there was only one point of view in NI and only one community needed to be dealt with.

    There wasn't and there isn't.
    The result was 56:44, yes, but Nationalists are the minority community. If everyone voted on sectarian lines, LEAVE would have won easily.
    It's about 50% unionist, 45% nationalist and 5% non-aligned so it is largely partisan albeit some moderate Unionists/alliance/non-aligned voters went for Remain.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 27,086

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Pulpstar said:

    On Astra I'd probably add 30 - 39 yr old women to the non provision list, keep men on it.

    It really all depends on the risk factors involved. If we get to 1 in 20k for prevalence then the official guidance will almost certainly change, and we're probably close to that already after the drop off in the infection rate. In addition the new vaccines are actually better because they have 95% and 97% efficacy against symptoms and well over 90% efficacy against infection vs 90% against symptoms for AZ and abut 80% against infection and AZ needs 14 weeks to get to that level, Moderna and Novavax only need 5 weeks.

    There really is no reason to give under 40s AZ given the supply situation we're heading for and the logistical issues posed by requiring 12 weeks in between doses. I also think that increasing the relative value of Pfizer, Moderna and Novavax will be helpful for overall take up among 18-39 year olds.
    it's not just about us. It is about the PR signal we are sending very loudly around the world. "The British are not using the British vaccine on the under 30s, no., wait, and now the under 40s!!"

    Many countries will now boycott the best vaccine for the developing world. Because we are over-reacting to a tiny risk, and announcing this in very bold colours, without any proper PR management. It is shoddy British amateurism at its worst
    Ultimately the regulator has made a sound case based on differential risk. In other countries the risk factors are significantly higher from COVID than they are here so the calculation has different inputs meaning pausing the vaccine rollout there for under 40s will lead to more people dying.
    But where is the actual analysis? Whilst it's nice to think that 'Covid is a lottery, we could all die from it', the truth is that the healthier you are, the easier time you will have with Covid. It is exactly the same with vaccine, and the victims of this clotting must have certain commonalities, in (for example) prior health conditions, age, weight, manner in which the vaccine was administered, what they did afterwards etc etc etc.
    It's actually the opposite with the AZ vaccine according to the regulator which is why cases are inversely proportional with age. Younger and healthier people have a stronger immune response to the AZ vaccine (probably to the vector, not the active vaccine) which can cause an almost autoimmune reponse against blood cells leading to clotting.

    The smart thing to do would be to reserve AZ (and probably J&J which has also had blood clotting noted as a rare side effect) for the world's over 40s population and use the other ones for under 40s.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 8,020
    Pulpstar said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Pulpstar said:

    On Astra I'd probably add 30 - 39 yr old women to the non provision list, keep men on it.

    It really all depends on the risk factors involved. If we get to 1 in 20k for prevalence then the official guidance will almost certainly change, and we're probably close to that already after the drop off in the infection rate. In addition the new vaccines are actually better because they have 95% and 97% efficacy against symptoms and well over 90% efficacy against infection vs 90% against symptoms for AZ and abut 80% against infection and AZ needs 14 weeks to get to that level, Moderna and Novavax only need 5 weeks.

    There really is no reason to give under 40s AZ given the supply situation we're heading for and the logistical issues posed by requiring 12 weeks in between doses. I also think that increasing the relative value of Pfizer, Moderna and Novavax will be helpful for overall take up among 18-39 year olds.
    it's not just about us. It is about the PR signal we are sending very loudly around the world. "The British are not using the British vaccine on the under 30s, no., wait, and now the under 40s!!"

    Many countries will now boycott the best vaccine for the developing world. Because we are over-reacting to a tiny risk, and announcing this in very bold colours, without any proper PR management. It is shoddy British amateurism at its worst
    Ultimately the regulator has made a sound case based on differential risk. In other countries the risk factors are significantly higher from COVID than they are here so the calculation has different inputs meaning pausing the vaccine rollout there for under 40s will lead to more people dying.
    FPT, I wondered how this would be presented in, say, New Zealand.

    Currently they have almost no cases. So the present risk of catching and suffering harm from Covid is almost nil.

    All vaccines will have some risk, including Pfizer.

    Should New Zealand wait until they've got enough cases of Covid to make the relative risk favourable before vaccinating anyone?
    That is quite an unanswerable point, because that IS the bizarre logic of JVCI
    MHRA is dealing solely with the UK rollout. You'd never start New Zealand's with the same logic - as they've done so well with Covid but their own health board won't apply it; they don't want to be cut out forever. They've solely ordered Pfizer anyway I think so no Astra conundrums for them.
    Presumably Pfizer also has side effects in infinitesimally few cases?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 40,951
    Andy_JS said:

    FPT

    I don't expect any progress over NI, sadly.

    The reality is that one half of NI largely voted to Remain

    Corrected it for you :innocent:
    It was 56:44, and the Nationalist and Loyalist communities largely voted on those lines. If you reach back into the recent past you might find examples of other referendums that were carried by similar margins that have proved far from politically "decisive".

    This can't be dismissed. London and Scotland voted to Remain by far more convincing margins than NI did and yet this belief has grown up that there was only one point of view in NI and only one community needed to be dealt with.

    There wasn't and there isn't.
    It's thought that Nationalists voted about 90% Remain and Unionists about 65% Leave.
    Yes, that sounds about right.

    There needs to be some checks between Ireland the continent and some between GB and NI and virtually none across the island of Ireland, except at the point of use, and the British isles as a whole should form a single SPS zone.

    That'd be fair to all sides, and would fix it. Everyone should swallow their pride, bite the bullet and just get on with it.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 65,092
    Tbh there's no shortage of global demand for AstraZeneca, India will do everyone over 45 there with it I expect. That's 600 million doses accounted for right away.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 3,137

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Pulpstar said:

    On Astra I'd probably add 30 - 39 yr old women to the non provision list, keep men on it.

    It really all depends on the risk factors involved. If we get to 1 in 20k for prevalence then the official guidance will almost certainly change, and we're probably close to that already after the drop off in the infection rate. In addition the new vaccines are actually better because they have 95% and 97% efficacy against symptoms and well over 90% efficacy against infection vs 90% against symptoms for AZ and abut 80% against infection and AZ needs 14 weeks to get to that level, Moderna and Novavax only need 5 weeks.

    There really is no reason to give under 40s AZ given the supply situation we're heading for and the logistical issues posed by requiring 12 weeks in between doses. I also think that increasing the relative value of Pfizer, Moderna and Novavax will be helpful for overall take up among 18-39 year olds.
    it's not just about us. It is about the PR signal we are sending very loudly around the world. "The British are not using the British vaccine on the under 30s, no., wait, and now the under 40s!!"

    Many countries will now boycott the best vaccine for the developing world. Because we are over-reacting to a tiny risk, and announcing this in very bold colours, without any proper PR management. It is shoddy British amateurism at its worst
    Ultimately the regulator has made a sound case based on differential risk. In other countries the risk factors are significantly higher from COVID than they are here so the calculation has different inputs meaning pausing the vaccine rollout there for under 40s will lead to more people dying.
    FPT, I wondered how this would be presented in, say, New Zealand.

    Currently they have almost no cases. So the present risk of catching and suffering harm from Covid is almost nil.

    All vaccines will have some risk, including Pfizer.

    Should New Zealand wait until they've got enough cases of Covid to make the relative risk favourable before vaccinating anyone?
    Yes, it makes no sense to calculate the risk from Covid on the basis of the present prevalence of Covid in the country.

    The expectation is not that vaccination will almost eliminate Covid - as with Polio, say - and so there will be a continual risk of exposure to the virus that would be expected to grow as we end lockdown when protected by the vaccine.

    So ultimately the likelihood of catching the virus approaches 1, and the vaccine protects you from becoming ill.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 40,951

    FPT

    I don't expect any progress over NI, sadly.

    The reality is that one half of NI largely voted to Remain

    Corrected it for you :innocent:
    It was 56:44, and the Nationalist and Loyalist communities largely voted on those lines. If you reach back into the recent past you might find examples of other referendums that were carried by similar margins that have proved far from politically "decisive".

    This can't be dismissed. London and Scotland voted to Remain by far more convincing margins than NI did and yet this belief has grown up that there was only one point of view in NI and only one community needed to be dealt with.

    There wasn't and there isn't.
    But that ignores the history of (Northern) Ireland.

    Did London or Scotland have issues that were resolved with another country changing its constitution as part of an agreement we made with them?
    The only ones ignoring the history of Northern Ireland are the ones conveniently ignoring one of its two key communities.
    The DUP backed Brexit despite a majority of NI voting to REMAIN (that majority consisting of both Unionists and Nationalists).
    We're going round in circles. I haven't disputed that a majority of Northern Ireland voted Remain.

    But, if the history of Northern Ireland has taught us anything, it's that one-sided treatment toward a community by virtue of a majority causes.. err.. Trouble.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 27,086

    Picking up on @Flatlander ’s very good point FPT.

    At this rate, by that thinking, it will very soon be statistically perverse for the healthy under 50s to take any vaccine at all.

    Not sure the government has thought this through?

    That's not the issue here. What's happened with AZ (and maybe J&J) is that young people generate a huge immune response to both the vector and the vaccine, this, in some rare scenarios, can lead to blood clots and in even rarer scenarios - death. These are cases in addition to the background rate of these kinds of events, as in - if that person didn't take the vaccine they would probably not be dead right now.

    With the other vaccines, Pfizer, Moderna and Novavax, that isn't the case. Yes they have some side effects, Moderna in particular seems to generate a lot of them in patients in the US, but they are all fleeting and none of them have been associated to any deaths. On an individual risk basis it doesn't make sense for under 40s to take AZ when COVID prevalence is so low when other vaccines are available to us.
  • GarethoftheVale2GarethoftheVale2 Posts: 1,556
    I see that the UK is now out of the top 10 countries for deaths per capita (excluding microstates)

    Top 10 now are:

    Czechia
    Hungary
    Bosnia
    Montenegro
    Bulgaria
    Belgium
    Macedonia
    Slovenia
    Slovakia
    Italy

    Surprisingly the US is not far behind the UK now. 893 deaths today despite what is supposed to be a great vaccine roll out.

    I would expect most of the South American countries to go past the UK over the summer for deaths per capita. For the rest of Europe, they have the summer to get their act together.

    11-20 globally are:

    UK
    USA
    Portugal
    Spain
    Peru
    Brazil
    Mexico
    Croatia
    France
    Poland
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 12,240

    MaxPB said:

    Pulpstar said:

    On Astra I'd probably add 30 - 39 yr old women to the non provision list, keep men on it.

    It really all depends on the risk factors involved. If we get to 1 in 20k for prevalence then the official guidance will almost certainly change, and we're probably close to that already after the drop off in the infection rate. In addition the new vaccines are actually better because they have 95% and 97% efficacy against symptoms and well over 90% efficacy against infection vs 90% against symptoms for AZ and abut 80% against infection and AZ needs 14 weeks to get to that level, Moderna and Novavax only need 5 weeks.

    There really is no reason to give under 40s AZ given the supply situation we're heading for and the logistical issues posed by requiring 12 weeks in between doses. I also think that increasing the relative value of Pfizer, Moderna and Novavax will be helpful for overall take up among 18-39 year olds.
    Short: Oxford is ok but they ended up doing a University of Exeter job not an Oxbridge job.

    Others did better.
    They did an Oxford job.
    It's a neat bit of science, and the non-profit plan was a good deed in a less than good world.

    But the trials were ameturish in terms of getting solid data to send to the regulators, and production has stubbornly refused to take off. The PR doesn't matter if the doses don't exist.

    I'm reminded of Beardy Branson's bids to run the National Lottery. He said he'd do that as a nonprofit, but it turned out that the profit-taking consortia were likely to raise more for good causes.
    The Astrazeneca company made some unforced errors but the bloodclot type issue is pure bad luck. It could happen to any of vaccines. It's a shame because the vaccine itself is a good one and what Oxford University is trying to do with its distribution model is inspiring.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 30,969
    Cyclefree said:

    FPT


    Well, well.

    For those following the Greensill affair - a murky business - the main characters in the frame have been Cameron, an ex-PM, and the late Jeremy Heywood, Cabinet Secretary.

    All very interesting but a bit niche relating to long ago and people no longer active in politics.

    And now we find emails being disgorged at record speed following an FoI request which suggest that Sunak may have pushed officials to consider Greensill's requests for Covid-related loans, which the doomed company did in fact get.

    Dear me. Would it be impertinent to ask who might benefit from the Chancellor being dragged into this mess?

    The chancellor chose to release the texts - his personal permission was required.

    But “I’ve pushed officials to do X” is just loose wording to get brownie points with Cameron / look like he is being responsive. At most all it means he sent an email saying “chat to the bank about X”.

    Not a smoking gun
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 27,086

    Pulpstar said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Pulpstar said:

    On Astra I'd probably add 30 - 39 yr old women to the non provision list, keep men on it.

    It really all depends on the risk factors involved. If we get to 1 in 20k for prevalence then the official guidance will almost certainly change, and we're probably close to that already after the drop off in the infection rate. In addition the new vaccines are actually better because they have 95% and 97% efficacy against symptoms and well over 90% efficacy against infection vs 90% against symptoms for AZ and abut 80% against infection and AZ needs 14 weeks to get to that level, Moderna and Novavax only need 5 weeks.

    There really is no reason to give under 40s AZ given the supply situation we're heading for and the logistical issues posed by requiring 12 weeks in between doses. I also think that increasing the relative value of Pfizer, Moderna and Novavax will be helpful for overall take up among 18-39 year olds.
    it's not just about us. It is about the PR signal we are sending very loudly around the world. "The British are not using the British vaccine on the under 30s, no., wait, and now the under 40s!!"

    Many countries will now boycott the best vaccine for the developing world. Because we are over-reacting to a tiny risk, and announcing this in very bold colours, without any proper PR management. It is shoddy British amateurism at its worst
    Ultimately the regulator has made a sound case based on differential risk. In other countries the risk factors are significantly higher from COVID than they are here so the calculation has different inputs meaning pausing the vaccine rollout there for under 40s will lead to more people dying.
    FPT, I wondered how this would be presented in, say, New Zealand.

    Currently they have almost no cases. So the present risk of catching and suffering harm from Covid is almost nil.

    All vaccines will have some risk, including Pfizer.

    Should New Zealand wait until they've got enough cases of Covid to make the relative risk favourable before vaccinating anyone?
    That is quite an unanswerable point, because that IS the bizarre logic of JVCI
    MHRA is dealing solely with the UK rollout. You'd never start New Zealand's with the same logic - as they've done so well with Covid but their own health board won't apply it; they don't want to be cut out forever. They've solely ordered Pfizer anyway I think so no Astra conundrums for them.
    Presumably Pfizer also has side effects in infinitesimally few cases?
    None of which are linked to people dying, or having any lasting issues.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 8,020
    Leon said:

    geoffw said:

    Leon said:

    geoffw said:

    Leon said:

    Read this, and weep


    "Thirtysomethings could be asked to take an alternative jab to Astra Zeneca, members of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) have said.

    The Government’s independent scientific advisers said a fresh risk/benefit assessment of the vaccine in different age brackets would be made before the rollout reaches those below the age of 40.

    Prof Anthony Harnden, deputy chairman of the JCVI said that safety data will be examined “in scrupulous detail” before the programme is rolled out to the under 40s.

    The scientist said “everybody should remain confident” in the vaccine programme which he said was going “full steam ahead”, saying any link with blood clots was a “very, very rare, extremely rare safety signal”."


    So it's a "very very rare, extremely rare safety signal", BUT they might ban it for an entire new cohort, the under 40s. So that's fine, "everyone should remain confident"

    A case of pragmatic self refutation by the eminent scientist.

    A conspiracy theorist, of which there are millions when it comes to vaccinations, would say this is a scientific establishment in panic, as they discover a vaccine is really quite dangerous, but they can't admit it to 20 million people just jabbed in the UK alone

    Now, if that is the case, they need to admit their fears IMMEDIATELY. I do not believe it is the case, I believe, as I have said, that it is truly terrible PR. But I cannot prove it

    Neither solution to this puzzle is optimal
    If it really was so dangerous we would have seen more evidence by now, with around 20 million people having had the AZ jab.
    Meanwhile the other vaccines probably have side effects too. We haven't heard much about them.
    Also meanwhile, I heard earlier today that there could be a means of treating clotting.

    Yes, that German MP said they have a treatment for the AZ clotting problem

    Which again points to this being just a colossal PR clusterfuck, almost inexplicable, from JCVI
    Yes, I often (quite reasonably) criticise you for hyperbole and crying wolf, yet I think in this case your heightened response is justified. We appear, globally, to be determined to trash a very cheap, easy to distribute, effective vaccine that is less risky than walking down the stairs or having a weekly bath.

    It’s not a good look, to put it ludicrously mildly.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 27,086
    FF43 said:

    MaxPB said:

    Pulpstar said:

    On Astra I'd probably add 30 - 39 yr old women to the non provision list, keep men on it.

    It really all depends on the risk factors involved. If we get to 1 in 20k for prevalence then the official guidance will almost certainly change, and we're probably close to that already after the drop off in the infection rate. In addition the new vaccines are actually better because they have 95% and 97% efficacy against symptoms and well over 90% efficacy against infection vs 90% against symptoms for AZ and abut 80% against infection and AZ needs 14 weeks to get to that level, Moderna and Novavax only need 5 weeks.

    There really is no reason to give under 40s AZ given the supply situation we're heading for and the logistical issues posed by requiring 12 weeks in between doses. I also think that increasing the relative value of Pfizer, Moderna and Novavax will be helpful for overall take up among 18-39 year olds.
    Short: Oxford is ok but they ended up doing a University of Exeter job not an Oxbridge job.

    Others did better.
    They did an Oxford job.
    It's a neat bit of science, and the non-profit plan was a good deed in a less than good world.

    But the trials were ameturish in terms of getting solid data to send to the regulators, and production has stubbornly refused to take off. The PR doesn't matter if the doses don't exist.

    I'm reminded of Beardy Branson's bids to run the National Lottery. He said he'd do that as a nonprofit, but it turned out that the profit-taking consortia were likely to raise more for good causes.
    The Astrazeneca company made some unforced errors but the bloodclot type issue is pure bad luck. It could happen to any of vaccines. It's a shame because the vaccine itself is a good one and what Oxford University is trying to do with its distribution model is inspiring.
    Yes, this is the rare occasion on which you and I agree. And all isn't lost, the world's over 40s need to be vaccinated and the individual risk there is literally almost zero so I think it will still have a lot of use with billions of doses worth being injected over the next year or so until Oxford and AZ tweak the vector/formula to fix the current issue.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 36,472

    FPT

    I don't expect any progress over NI, sadly.

    The reality is that one half of NI largely voted to Remain

    Corrected it for you :innocent:
    It was 56:44, and the Nationalist and Loyalist communities largely voted on those lines. If you reach back into the recent past you might find examples of other referendums that were carried by similar margins that have proved far from politically "decisive".

    This can't be dismissed. London and Scotland voted to Remain by far more convincing margins than NI did and yet this belief has grown up that there was only one point of view in NI and only one community needed to be dealt with.

    There wasn't and there isn't.
    But that ignores the history of (Northern) Ireland.

    Did London or Scotland have issues that were resolved with another country changing its constitution as part of an agreement we made with them?
    The only ones ignoring the history of Northern Ireland are the ones conveniently ignoring one of its two key communities.
    The DUP backed Brexit despite a majority of NI voting to REMAIN (that majority consisting of both Unionists and Nationalists).
    We're going round in circles. I haven't disputed that a majority of Northern Ireland voted Remain.

    But, if the history of Northern Ireland has taught us anything, it's that one-sided treatment toward a community by virtue of a majority causes.. err.. Trouble.
    In that case: Should Northern Ireland have been created as a sectarian entity in the first place?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 4,727
    edited April 8

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Pulpstar said:

    On Astra I'd probably add 30 - 39 yr old women to the non provision list, keep men on it.

    It really all depends on the risk factors involved. If we get to 1 in 20k for prevalence then the official guidance will almost certainly change, and we're probably close to that already after the drop off in the infection rate. In addition the new vaccines are actually better because they have 95% and 97% efficacy against symptoms and well over 90% efficacy against infection vs 90% against symptoms for AZ and abut 80% against infection and AZ needs 14 weeks to get to that level, Moderna and Novavax only need 5 weeks.

    There really is no reason to give under 40s AZ given the supply situation we're heading for and the logistical issues posed by requiring 12 weeks in between doses. I also think that increasing the relative value of Pfizer, Moderna and Novavax will be helpful for overall take up among 18-39 year olds.
    it's not just about us. It is about the PR signal we are sending very loudly around the world. "The British are not using the British vaccine on the under 30s, no., wait, and now the under 40s!!"

    Many countries will now boycott the best vaccine for the developing world. Because we are over-reacting to a tiny risk, and announcing this in very bold colours, without any proper PR management. It is shoddy British amateurism at its worst
    Ultimately the regulator has made a sound case based on differential risk. In other countries the risk factors are significantly higher from COVID than they are here so the calculation has different inputs meaning pausing the vaccine rollout there for under 40s will lead to more people dying.
    FPT, I wondered how this would be presented in, say, New Zealand.

    Currently they have almost no cases. So the present risk of catching and suffering harm from Covid is almost nil.

    All vaccines will have some risk, including Pfizer.

    Should New Zealand wait until they've got enough cases of Covid to make the relative risk favourable before vaccinating anyone?
    Yes, it makes no sense to calculate the risk from Covid on the basis of the present prevalence of Covid in the country.

    The expectation is not that vaccination will almost eliminate Covid - as with Polio, say - and so there will be a continual risk of exposure to the virus that would be expected to grow as we end lockdown when protected by the vaccine.

    So ultimately the likelihood of catching the virus approaches 1, and the vaccine protects you from becoming ill.
    Always remember, Jonathan Van Tam, the football-faced Fuhrer of the JCVI, solemnly told us that we shouldn't wear masks, because masks are bad, and he knows this because he has a boffin friend in Hong Kong who agrees with him on masks; Hong Kong being a place, coincidentally, where they have universal mask wearing, and a Covid-19 death rate 100 times lower than ours
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 15,994
    Cyclefree said:

    FPT


    Well, well.

    For those following the Greensill affair - a murky business - the main characters in the frame have been Cameron, an ex-PM, and the late Jeremy Heywood, Cabinet Secretary.

    All very interesting but a bit niche relating to long ago and people no longer active in politics.

    And now we find emails being disgorged at record speed following an FoI request which suggest that Sunak may have pushed officials to consider Greensill's requests for Covid-related loans, which the doomed company did in fact get.

    Dear me. Would it be impertinent to ask who might benefit from the Chancellor being dragged into this mess?

    Didn't the Chancellor drag himself into this mess by 'giving a push' to his former PM's request?
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 27,086

    Cyclefree said:

    FPT


    Well, well.

    For those following the Greensill affair - a murky business - the main characters in the frame have been Cameron, an ex-PM, and the late Jeremy Heywood, Cabinet Secretary.

    All very interesting but a bit niche relating to long ago and people no longer active in politics.

    And now we find emails being disgorged at record speed following an FoI request which suggest that Sunak may have pushed officials to consider Greensill's requests for Covid-related loans, which the doomed company did in fact get.

    Dear me. Would it be impertinent to ask who might benefit from the Chancellor being dragged into this mess?

    Didn't the Chancellor drag himself into this mess by 'giving a push' to his former PM's request?
    Hmm, what he texted to Dave and what he did were probably two very different things.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 19,560

    ""Hi David, apologies for the delay. I think the proposals in the
    end did require a change to the Market Notice but I have pushed the team to explore an
    alternative with the Bank that might work. No guarantees, but the Bank are currently
    looking at it and Charles should be in touch. Best, Rishi"

    Not going to end his career.

    Probably not but as @NickPalmer has pointed out would any other company without such links have received even this response?

    We have not seen all the relevant emails. Nor do we know the basis on which Greensills did get Covid loans. So it is not possible to judge.

    But what has happened is that a niche story involving an ex-PM now involves the current Chancellor.

    Is someone drip-feeding these emails out? An awful lot have come out. Is Sunak getting his defence in early? What else is to come?

    And who benefits?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 40,951

    FPT

    I don't expect any progress over NI, sadly.

    The reality is that one half of NI largely voted to Remain

    Corrected it for you :innocent:
    It was 56:44, and the Nationalist and Loyalist communities largely voted on those lines. If you reach back into the recent past you might find examples of other referendums that were carried by similar margins that have proved far from politically "decisive".

    This can't be dismissed. London and Scotland voted to Remain by far more convincing margins than NI did and yet this belief has grown up that there was only one point of view in NI and only one community needed to be dealt with.

    There wasn't and there isn't.
    But that ignores the history of (Northern) Ireland.

    Did London or Scotland have issues that were resolved with another country changing its constitution as part of an agreement we made with them?
    The only ones ignoring the history of Northern Ireland are the ones conveniently ignoring one of its two key communities.
    How about listening to the two guys who helped bring peace to Northern Ireland and warned before Brexit that this would happen.

    Or how about listening to the chap who went to the DUP conference and warned about the dangers of putting a border down the Irish Sea, he warned that would lead to violence.
    That's a predictable response, and it's sign of the trouble we're in: those points of view are predicated on people who wanted to stop or inhibit Brexit rather than adapting the GFA so it would work with it.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 8,020
    Andy_JS said:

    Good news:

    Drakeford has decided to open things up a bit earlier than planned in Wales due to lower infection rates.

    What. A. Guy.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 15,994
    MaxPB said:

    Cyclefree said:

    FPT


    Well, well.

    For those following the Greensill affair - a murky business - the main characters in the frame have been Cameron, an ex-PM, and the late Jeremy Heywood, Cabinet Secretary.

    All very interesting but a bit niche relating to long ago and people no longer active in politics.

    And now we find emails being disgorged at record speed following an FoI request which suggest that Sunak may have pushed officials to consider Greensill's requests for Covid-related loans, which the doomed company did in fact get.

    Dear me. Would it be impertinent to ask who might benefit from the Chancellor being dragged into this mess?

    Didn't the Chancellor drag himself into this mess by 'giving a push' to his former PM's request?
    Hmm, what he texted to Dave and what he did were probably two very different things.
    And yet the loans were approved. In any event the text to Cameron shows poor judgement.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 8,020
    Max

    Fair point, well made.

    I think if they communicated the immune response in the young factor properly, it could have helped matters.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 19,528

    I see that the UK is now out of the top 10 countries for deaths per capita (excluding microstates)

    Top 10 now are:

    Czechia
    Hungary
    Bosnia
    Montenegro
    Bulgaria
    Belgium
    Macedonia
    Slovenia
    Slovakia
    Italy

    Surprisingly the US is not far behind the UK now. 893 deaths today despite what is supposed to be a great vaccine roll out.

    I would expect most of the South American countries to go past the UK over the summer for deaths per capita. For the rest of Europe, they have the summer to get their act together.

    11-20 globally are:

    UK
    USA
    Portugal
    Spain
    Peru
    Brazil
    Mexico
    Croatia
    France
    Poland

    Eastern Europe has done horribly badly especially as it was little touched in the first wave.

    I wonder how much complacency the luck they had last spring induced.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 40,951

    FPT

    I don't expect any progress over NI, sadly.

    The reality is that one half of NI largely voted to Remain

    Corrected it for you :innocent:
    It was 56:44, and the Nationalist and Loyalist communities largely voted on those lines. If you reach back into the recent past you might find examples of other referendums that were carried by similar margins that have proved far from politically "decisive".

    This can't be dismissed. London and Scotland voted to Remain by far more convincing margins than NI did and yet this belief has grown up that there was only one point of view in NI and only one community needed to be dealt with.

    There wasn't and there isn't.
    But that ignores the history of (Northern) Ireland.

    Did London or Scotland have issues that were resolved with another country changing its constitution as part of an agreement we made with them?
    The only ones ignoring the history of Northern Ireland are the ones conveniently ignoring one of its two key communities.
    The DUP backed Brexit despite a majority of NI voting to REMAIN (that majority consisting of both Unionists and Nationalists).
    We're going round in circles. I haven't disputed that a majority of Northern Ireland voted Remain.

    But, if the history of Northern Ireland has taught us anything, it's that one-sided treatment toward a community by virtue of a majority causes.. err.. Trouble.
    In that case: Should Northern Ireland have been created as a sectarian entity in the first place?
    We're moving onto a different debate here but, ideally, no.

    Ireland should have been given home rule within the UK in the 1890s under Gladstone's second home rule bill, IMHO, with safeguards for Ulster as a special provincial government; however, by 1921 splitting Northern Ireland out was the only way to avoid protracted civil war.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 19,560
    Charles said:

    Cyclefree said:

    FPT


    Well, well.

    For those following the Greensill affair - a murky business - the main characters in the frame have been Cameron, an ex-PM, and the late Jeremy Heywood, Cabinet Secretary.

    All very interesting but a bit niche relating to long ago and people no longer active in politics.

    And now we find emails being disgorged at record speed following an FoI request which suggest that Sunak may have pushed officials to consider Greensill's requests for Covid-related loans, which the doomed company did in fact get.

    Dear me. Would it be impertinent to ask who might benefit from the Chancellor being dragged into this mess?

    The chancellor chose to release the texts - his personal permission was required.

    But “I’ve pushed officials to do X” is just loose wording to get brownie points with Cameron / look like he is being responsive. At most all it means he sent an email saying “chat to the bank about X”.

    Not a smoking gun
    Agreed.

    If anything, I think the person who comes out of this worst - based only on what we've seen - is Jeremy Heywood.

    What is also interesting is that, despite all the alleged horror at what Greensill was trying to do, the Treasury is still going ahead with something similar now - and is apparently going out to tender. Why? There is no rationale for such a scheme, as many civil servants pointed out at the time. What's changed? If it did not make sense then, why does it make sense now?

    And who is going to benefit and what will it cost taxpayers?

    These are the questions Labour ought to be asking. Not about the Ministerial code etc.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 27,086

    Max

    Fair point, well made.

    I think if they communicated the immune response in the young factor properly, it could have helped matters.

    Yes, I think it's a communication problem more than anything else. It would be interesting to see if there are any similarities between patients who had a severe reaction to COVID and those who had a severe reaction to the AZ vaccine, both may be the result of an overly strong immune response that ends up attacking the cells in the body rather than the invader.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 2,494
    FF43 said:

    MaxPB said:

    Pulpstar said:

    On Astra I'd probably add 30 - 39 yr old women to the non provision list, keep men on it.

    It really all depends on the risk factors involved. If we get to 1 in 20k for prevalence then the official guidance will almost certainly change, and we're probably close to that already after the drop off in the infection rate. In addition the new vaccines are actually better because they have 95% and 97% efficacy against symptoms and well over 90% efficacy against infection vs 90% against symptoms for AZ and abut 80% against infection and AZ needs 14 weeks to get to that level, Moderna and Novavax only need 5 weeks.

    There really is no reason to give under 40s AZ given the supply situation we're heading for and the logistical issues posed by requiring 12 weeks in between doses. I also think that increasing the relative value of Pfizer, Moderna and Novavax will be helpful for overall take up among 18-39 year olds.
    Short: Oxford is ok but they ended up doing a University of Exeter job not an Oxbridge job.

    Others did better.
    They did an Oxford job.
    It's a neat bit of science, and the non-profit plan was a good deed in a less than good world.

    But the trials were ameturish in terms of getting solid data to send to the regulators, and production has stubbornly refused to take off. The PR doesn't matter if the doses don't exist.

    I'm reminded of Beardy Branson's bids to run the National Lottery. He said he'd do that as a nonprofit, but it turned out that the profit-taking consortia were likely to raise more for good causes.
    The Astrazeneca company made some unforced errors but the bloodclot type issue is pure bad luck. It could happen to any of vaccines. It's a shame because the vaccine itself is a good one and what Oxford University is trying to do with its distribution model is inspiring.
    Fully agree- and for most people being vaccinated, it's a tiny problem (and weren't there some German doctors who had tracked the issue and worked out the treatment?)

    Unfortunately, AZ had burnt up a lot of the initial goodwill. Partly because of the initial messy data, partly because of the sense that the PR was running a step or two ahead of what the data were showing at any given moment.

    But the biggest problem is the simple lack of doses. And whilst making biological stuff is hard (I'm a science teacher, it's blooming hard to make biological experiments work reliably), AZ's inexperience in the field can't have helped.
Sign In or Register to comment.