Von der Leyen’s spokesman, Eric Mamer, said it’s an institutional reality that all decisions go through the president’s cabinet and the college of commissioners. No decisions are taken without college consensus, he added...
While the crucial sections on Northern Ireland were a late addition to the document, all relevant senior officials had been involved and had sight of the plan before it went live. Final signoff was the responsibility of von der Leyen’s office
So an oversight such as previously described is impossible, and they were lying? I still don't think any of them will be sacked because the Member states agree with the anger at AZ, just not this response, but this seems explosive - how can they escape at least some censure?
Astra triggered the crisis just over a week ago when it revealed it was cutting back planned vaccine supply to the EU by a reported 60% to 31 million doses following disruption at a plant in Belgium. At the same time, deliveries in the U.K. have mostly met expectations, helping the British vaccination program race ahead of the continent.
'Mostly' doing some lifting here.
Some EU officials suspect that Astra was responsible for a portion of those shipments and should have kept back doses for European buyers. But they don’t have the evidence to prove it because the data aren’t broken down by manufacture
So why the f*ck did they make such claims so boldly if it cannot be proven?
And as expected, those pushing for the ridiculous raising of stakes?
By Tuesday evening, pressure began to mount from Germany, first, and then France, for a more stringent approach.
What is interesting is the claim that "deliveries in the U.K. have mostly met expectations" - I think this must be briefing from the EU, by people who are unaware that, in fact the UK deliveries have been far below expectations.
And well publicized....it is absolutely no secret about the Pfizer supply issues that can only be found on a dark corner of the internet.
It is dishonest from a former Guardian journalist....he will have known. This isn't some regional journalist from another European country who won't have paid any attention to the UK vaccine programme until this week.
BBC News - EU 'fiasco' on N Ireland heaps pressure on Commission
"It's like watching a car crash in slow motion," one irate EU diplomat told me. "President von der Leyen is a medical doctor. She wanted to take over the mass purchase of vaccines for all the EU - as a high-profile exercise. Normally health issues are dealt with nationally. This hasn't been a great advertisement for handing over powers to Brussels. I think that's the lesson member states will take away from this."
It's just amazing/bonkers that Ireland wasn't involved, or even told, of the upcoming decision.
Yes. But very much yesterday’s news now. Now it’s the UK under pressure and it’s only going to get worse.
“The World Health Organization has urged the UK to pause its vaccination programme after vulnerable groups have received their jabs to help ensure the global rollout of doses is fair. the WHO said countries should be aiming for 2bn doses to be “fairly distributed” around the world by the end of 2021. A WHO spokeswoman, Margaret Harris, said she wanted to appeal to people in the UK, telling them: “You can wait” because ensuring equitable global distribution is “clearly morally the right thing to do”.”
WHO can say COVID vaccine should be a global business, but it seems to be getting regionalised.
They should direct their ire at the EU. The UK has done far more proportionally speaking.
You mean when we go into the detail of the rights and wrongs of it? Whilst we are there we may even learn Marie Antoinette never actually said let them eat cake.
But the eyes will be on those whose store house has a mountain of grain, whilst everyone else is starving. That’s only natural and to be expected?
Gosh you do know there is a difference between having a surplus and not enough....the uk does not have enough vaccine , we aren't hoarding it dipshit
That’s rather rude. Considering I totally agree with you what the truth is. And considering you are the one who completely missed an obvious point.
We are no more hoarding than Marie Antoinette said let them eat cake.
So just to confirm you are not dip**** explain to everyone what is the important point I am trying to get you to realise.
Your meaning was obvious and you have always been one of the whiners who never gave britain credit for our help with covax but instead moaned we aren't doing enough to help rich europeans who can afford to help themselves but instead prefer to try and cheapskate....take your scrofulous self to coventry
You just have your head up high because you know what the truth is. Rather ignorant to how important perception actually is.
That’s the point I’m making. And it’s true isn’t it?
Because you are laying into me, who agrees with you. But look at what the WHO are saying who neither of us agree with.
We can’t just put our chin in the air, we have to manage perceptions. And that means, as I have been saying for days, doing something. I’m not saying it has to be a lot. But it has to be something.
The reply’s I get is**** *** to Coventry. You want to give all our good work away like Francis of Assisi. You have no intention of praising the U.K. government.
I’m just saying we need to do something to manage this, what could be damaging, long lasting perception.
I assume you are referring to the damaging, long lasting perception that the EU is suffering right now? because I can't see how the UK can be viewed as in the wrong on this particular issue.
But I started off by posting the WHOs perception. Not mine. Does that not prove there is a problem?
And explained with an example how perceptions come to be lived as fact. And used a metaphor of how we ain’t danger of being perceived if we don’t act to dispel it.
I am saying U.K. government cannot be liaisse faire, does have to manage this perception before it takes hold.
BBC News - EU 'fiasco' on N Ireland heaps pressure on Commission
"It's like watching a car crash in slow motion," one irate EU diplomat told me. "President von der Leyen is a medical doctor. She wanted to take over the mass purchase of vaccines for all the EU - as a high-profile exercise. Normally health issues are dealt with nationally. This hasn't been a great advertisement for handing over powers to Brussels. I think that's the lesson member states will take away from this."
It's just amazing/bonkers that Ireland wasn't involved, or even told, of the upcoming decision.
Yes. But very much yesterday’s news now. Now it’s the UK under pressure and it’s only going to get worse.
“The World Health Organization has urged the UK to pause its vaccination programme after vulnerable groups have received their jabs to help ensure the global rollout of doses is fair. the WHO said countries should be aiming for 2bn doses to be “fairly distributed” around the world by the end of 2021. A WHO spokeswoman, Margaret Harris, said she wanted to appeal to people in the UK, telling them: “You can wait” because ensuring equitable global distribution is “clearly morally the right thing to do”.”
WHO can say COVID vaccine should be a global business, but it seems to be getting regionalised.
They should direct their ire at the EU. The UK has done far more proportionally speaking.
You mean when we go into the detail of the rights and wrongs of it? Whilst we are there we may even learn Marie Antoinette never actually said let them eat cake.
But the eyes will be on those whose store house has a mountain of grain, whilst everyone else is starving. That’s only natural and to be expected?
Gosh you do know there is a difference between having a surplus and not enough....the uk does not have enough vaccine , we aren't hoarding it dipshit
That’s rather rude. Considering I totally agree with you what the truth is. And considering you are the one who completely missed an obvious point.
We are no more hoarding than Marie Antoinette said let them eat cake.
So just to confirm you are not dip**** explain to everyone what is the important point I am trying to get you to realise.
Your meaning was obvious and you have always been one of the whiners who never gave britain credit for our help with covax but instead moaned we aren't doing enough to help rich europeans who can afford to help themselves but instead prefer to try and cheapskate....take your scrofulous self to coventry
You just have your head up high because you know what the truth is. Rather ignorant to how important perception actually is.
That’s the point I’m making. And it’s true isn’t it?
Because you are laying into me, who agrees with you. But look at what the WHO are saying who neither of us agree with.
We can’t just put our chin in the air, we have to manage perceptions. And that means, as I have been saying for days, doing something. I’m not saying it has to be a lot. But it has to be something.
The reply’s I get is**** *** to Coventry. You want to give all our good work away like Francis of Assisi. You have no intention of praising the U.K. government.
I’m just saying we need to do something to manage this, what could be damaging, long lasting perception.
I assume you are referring to the damaging, long lasting perception that the EU is suffering right now? because I can't see how the UK can be viewed as in the wrong on this particular issue.
But I started off by posting the WHOs perception. Not mine. Does that not prove there is a problem?
And explained with an example how perceptions come to be lived as fact. And used a metaphor of how we ain’t danger of being perceived if we don’t act to dispel it.
I am saying U.K. government cannot be liaisse faire, does have to manage this perception before it takes hold.
They want the UK to stop vaccinating after it's done the most elderly. That's not going to happen. They are asking all countries to do this, so by extension they must all be suffering from this damaging perception.
I'm beginning to think this might actually be a co-ordinated strategy on the part of the EU to extract themselves from the embarrassment over not having any AZ vaccine to distribute.
After all, if it's not going to high priority groups then everyone can afford to wait.
Presumably they're hoping that the plebs haven't spotted the obvious inconsistency between demanding they get it now and thinking that it's not all that good.
EU: Your vaccine is rubbish, it doesn't work, we hate it, and it ... it ... it smells of poo!
Also EU: GIVE US ALL YOUR VACCINE NOW NOW NOW!
Some pb posters: Germany is irrational for not jabbing older age groups where there is no proof of effectiveness.
Ditto: Britain cannot vaccinate children because it was not tested on the young.
And you could have similar contrasting claims around, say, different ethnic groups, or variants of the virus, or finger-in-the-air second dose schedules.
There have been a lot of stupid posts on this forum over the last 24 hours. That's right up there with them.
It is a form of Cognitive dissonance - they know the EU has demonstrated monumental incompetence over the supply issues and some countries are now petulantly trying to undermine a particular vaccine because it is linked to the UK. However, they also are infatuated with such hatred of Brexit that any criticism of the EU simply cannot be processed. The result is what we see. Fortunately there are many more on both sides of the Brexit Divide whose positions were always much less extreme. For them the dissonace simply does not exist.
I have a feeling if the UK government had done something similar the Guardian wouldn't be calling it a "blunder"....
The pandemic has been very bad for journalism. It's a real eye-opener to see just how poor most journalism is when it isn't one of the favourite topics, and the bias in so much of the reporting is clear as well.
That's a more encouraging tone and a blessed relief from some of the Europhobic mania that has been swirling around of late. Let's face it, the government must know that Boris's Brexit deal is sub-optimal and unsustainable and will want to get back in the EU's good books, in readiness for other negotiations further down the line. And I don't actually mean this as a criticism.
I think the last 48 hours of utter EU incompetence must have just passed you by. Or rather sailed right over your head.
Well no. I mentioned the EU's blunders down thread and the reasons why I thought they happened. Nevertheless, I do think there's something of the Pasty Tax about this current situation - a more serious subject matter, of course, but essentially media driven, ephemeral and tendentious.
Good to know that all along, we could have settled the hard Irish border problem by installing one that was "ephermeral".
BBC News - EU 'fiasco' on N Ireland heaps pressure on Commission
"It's like watching a car crash in slow motion," one irate EU diplomat told me. "President von der Leyen is a medical doctor. She wanted to take over the mass purchase of vaccines for all the EU - as a high-profile exercise. Normally health issues are dealt with nationally. This hasn't been a great advertisement for handing over powers to Brussels. I think that's the lesson member states will take away from this."
It's just amazing/bonkers that Ireland wasn't involved, or even told, of the upcoming decision.
Yes. But very much yesterday’s news now. Now it’s the UK under pressure and it’s only going to get worse.
“The World Health Organization has urged the UK to pause its vaccination programme after vulnerable groups have received their jabs to help ensure the global rollout of doses is fair. the WHO said countries should be aiming for 2bn doses to be “fairly distributed” around the world by the end of 2021. A WHO spokeswoman, Margaret Harris, said she wanted to appeal to people in the UK, telling them: “You can wait” because ensuring equitable global distribution is “clearly morally the right thing to do”.”
WHO can say COVID vaccine should be a global business, but it seems to be getting regionalised.
They should direct their ire at the EU. The UK has done far more proportionally speaking.
You mean when we go into the detail of the rights and wrongs of it? Whilst we are there we may even learn Marie Antoinette never actually said let them eat cake.
But the eyes will be on those whose store house has a mountain of grain, whilst everyone else is starving. That’s only natural and to be expected?
Gosh you do know there is a difference between having a surplus and not enough....the uk does not have enough vaccine , we aren't hoarding it dipshit
That’s rather rude. Considering I totally agree with you what the truth is. And considering you are the one who completely missed an obvious point.
We are no more hoarding than Marie Antoinette said let them eat cake.
So just to confirm you are not dip**** explain to everyone what is the important point I am trying to get you to realise.
Your meaning was obvious and you have always been one of the whiners who never gave britain credit for our help with covax but instead moaned we aren't doing enough to help rich europeans who can afford to help themselves but instead prefer to try and cheapskate....take your scrofulous self to coventry
You just have your head up high because you know what the truth is. Rather ignorant to how important perception actually is.
That’s the point I’m making. And it’s true isn’t it?
Because you are laying into me, who agrees with you. But look at what the WHO are saying who neither of us agree with.
We can’t just put our chin in the air, we have to manage perceptions. And that means, as I have been saying for days, doing something. I’m not saying it has to be a lot. But it has to be something.
The reply’s I get is**** *** to Coventry. You want to give all our good work away like Francis of Assisi. You have no intention of praising the U.K. government.
I’m just saying we need to do something to manage this, what could be damaging, long lasting perception.
I assume you are referring to the damaging, long lasting perception that the EU is suffering right now? because I can't see how the UK can be viewed as in the wrong on this particular issue.
But I started off by posting the WHOs perception. Not mine. Does that not prove there is a problem?
And explained with an example how perceptions come to be lived as fact. And used a metaphor of how we ain’t danger of being perceived if we don’t act to dispel it.
I am saying U.K. government cannot be liaisse faire, does have to manage this perception before it takes hold.
The WHO seems to come out with quite a lot of statements that it finds itself contradicting a few days later. Given the funding the UK put in, as well as the large financial commitments the UK have already made to COVAX, i think they can be fairly relaxed about the whole thing.
At this rate, some EU countries will only be using it on 18-21 year olds.
We wait with bated breath for the NHS clinical data. Shouldn't be too many weeks before effectiveness in the elderly can be more accurately assessed. Now,
1. We must hope that we don't get the infamous 8% figure, or anywhere close. I know there's been some dispute on the site today as to how much of a role vaccination has or hasn't played in the especially steep drop off in cases seen in our oldest citizens, but early indications appear encouraging to me 2. Assuming that AZ is good enough to pass muster, it will be fascinating to see how long it takes some of these more sceptical national authorities to perform U-turns, if they do at all
If there is no doubt about the efficacy of AZ for over 65s I am genuinely struggling to understand why these European medical agencies are deliberately not approving it for that age group. What is there to be gained? The decisions are made by medical and scientific professionals not politicians.
BBC News - EU 'fiasco' on N Ireland heaps pressure on Commission
"It's like watching a car crash in slow motion," one irate EU diplomat told me. "President von der Leyen is a medical doctor. She wanted to take over the mass purchase of vaccines for all the EU - as a high-profile exercise. Normally health issues are dealt with nationally. This hasn't been a great advertisement for handing over powers to Brussels. I think that's the lesson member states will take away from this."
It's just amazing/bonkers that Ireland wasn't involved, or even told, of the upcoming decision.
Yes. But very much yesterday’s news now. Now it’s the UK under pressure and it’s only going to get worse.
“The World Health Organization has urged the UK to pause its vaccination programme after vulnerable groups have received their jabs to help ensure the global rollout of doses is fair. the WHO said countries should be aiming for 2bn doses to be “fairly distributed” around the world by the end of 2021. A WHO spokeswoman, Margaret Harris, said she wanted to appeal to people in the UK, telling them: “You can wait” because ensuring equitable global distribution is “clearly morally the right thing to do”.”
WHO can say COVID vaccine should be a global business, but it seems to be getting regionalised.
They should direct their ire at the EU. The UK has done far more proportionally speaking.
You mean when we go into the detail of the rights and wrongs of it? Whilst we are there we may even learn Marie Antoinette never actually said let them eat cake.
But the eyes will be on those whose store house has a mountain of grain, whilst everyone else is starving. That’s only natural and to be expected?
Gosh you do know there is a difference between having a surplus and not enough....the uk does not have enough vaccine , we aren't hoarding it dipshit
That’s rather rude. Considering I totally agree with you what the truth is. And considering you are the one who completely missed an obvious point.
We are no more hoarding than Marie Antoinette said let them eat cake.
So just to confirm you are not dip**** explain to everyone what is the important point I am trying to get you to realise.
Your meaning was obvious and you have always been one of the whiners who never gave britain credit for our help with covax but instead moaned we aren't doing enough to help rich europeans who can afford to help themselves but instead prefer to try and cheapskate....take your scrofulous self to coventry
You just have your head up high because you know what the truth is. Rather ignorant to how important perception actually is.
That’s the point I’m making. And it’s true isn’t it?
Because you are laying into me, who agrees with you. But look at what the WHO are saying who neither of us agree with.
We can’t just put our chin in the air, we have to manage perceptions. And that means, as I have been saying for days, doing something. I’m not saying it has to be a lot. But it has to be something.
The reply’s I get is**** *** to Coventry. You want to give all our good work away like Francis of Assisi. You have no intention of praising the U.K. government.
I’m just saying we need to do something to manage this, what could be damaging, long lasting perception.
I assume you are referring to the damaging, long lasting perception that the EU is suffering right now? because I can't see how the UK can be viewed as in the wrong on this particular issue.
But I started off by posting the WHOs perception. Not mine. Does that not prove there is a problem?
And explained with an example how perceptions come to be lived as fact. And used a metaphor of how we ain’t danger of being perceived if we don’t act to dispel it.
I am saying U.K. government cannot be liaisse faire, does have to manage this perception before it takes hold.
The UK hasn't been laissez faire and has managed the perception. It has given more than half a billion pounds to Covax and has organised other nations to do so too.
At this rate, some EU countries will only be using it on 18-21 year olds.
We wait with bated breath for the NHS clinical data. Shouldn't be too many weeks before effectiveness in the elderly can be more accurately assessed. Now,
1. We must hope that we don't get the infamous 8% figure, or anywhere close. I know there's been some dispute on the site today as to how much of a role vaccination has or hasn't played in the especially steep drop off in cases seen in our oldest citizens, but early indications appear encouraging to me 2. Assuming that AZ is good enough to pass muster, it will be fascinating to see how long it takes some of these more sceptical national authorities to perform U-turns, if they do at all
If there is no doubt about the efficacy of AZ for over 65s I am genuinely struggling to understand why these European medical agencies are deliberately not approving it for that age group. What is there to be gained? The decisions are made by medical and scientific professionals not politicians.
Because of the wide confidence interval. However, Phase 2 trials showed a near-identical immune response between oldies and the younger cohorts.
I have a feeling if the UK government had done something similar the Guardian wouldn't be calling it a "blunder"....
The pandemic has been very bad for journalism. It's a real eye-opener to see just how poor most journalism is when it isn't one of the favourite topics, and the bias in so much of the reporting is clear as well.
I literally put Astrazenca vaccine UK into Google....
AstraZeneca would make up to 30 million doses available by September for people in the UK.
Neither of those things has happened: it’s now January 2021 and we have nowhere near 30 million doses of AstraZeneca vaccine
The government says 530,000 doses of AstraZeneca vaccine is available for use from this Monday (January 4),
At this rate, some EU countries will only be using it on 18-21 year olds.
We wait with bated breath for the NHS clinical data. Shouldn't be too many weeks before effectiveness in the elderly can be more accurately assessed. Now,
1. We must hope that we don't get the infamous 8% figure, or anywhere close. I know there's been some dispute on the site today as to how much of a role vaccination has or hasn't played in the especially steep drop off in cases seen in our oldest citizens, but early indications appear encouraging to me 2. Assuming that AZ is good enough to pass muster, it will be fascinating to see how long it takes some of these more sceptical national authorities to perform U-turns, if they do at all
If there is no doubt about the efficacy of AZ for over 65s I am genuinely struggling to understand why these European medical agencies are deliberately not approving it for that age group. What is there to be gained? The decisions are made by medical and scientific professionals not politicians.
I am genuinely impressed that the government didn't go all Daily Mail over the vaccine dispute with the EU. They appear to have gone behind the scenes, used diplomacy and resolved the issue.
The EU clearly paniced and lashed out stupidly and made mistakes. However within 48 hours cooler heads prevailed and they u-turned on vaccine exports and on the NI border issue and we are back to where we were mid-week.
In six months time, when the EU catches up with vaccinations, this whole episode will be seen as more of a storm in a tea cup rather than the cataclysmic event some of our more excitable posters seem to see it as.
What makes you so sure they would not turn on us again if it suited them?
No surer than I am that our government would do the same if it suited them but the fact is they have seen sense very quickly and rectified their mistakes. That is in all our interests except those who still want the EU to be the big bad ogre that all our problems can be blamed on.
Being bored silly of covid and brexit, and having always been bored silly of Scottish independence which seems to have had a surge on here over the last week, my absolute favourite story at the moment is Gamestop. On more left-wing corners of the internet there's a 'Hahaha look at these rich wall street traders losing money and these little people winning' thing going on. But will any fund on Wall street or in the City really lose much if they just cover themselves until the price returns to something sensible? Could any of them actually lose more than would just come out in the wash at the end of the year? And as for the little people, I know that if they get out at the right time they could make / have made a fortune, but I imagine a lot are going to lose their entire 4 or 5 figure savings, in order that some investment fund shaves 0.01% off their profit margin. Or is there are chance a fund's losses could be big?
And could someone explain to me how if you have to borrow stock in order to short It, it's possible for the total amount shorted to be 140% of stock, as I've seen mentioned somewhere.
Forgive me if there are any major misunderstandings in my post, it isn't my area!
As to shorting 140% of the stock - the answer is naked shorting.
As to how much they could lose - well it depends on how stupid/exuberant the traders were.
One big question I have re: the gamers ramp re: GameStop is this: how many (or what %) of those who have bought the stock (via Robinhood or some other method) have put in signficant (for them) amounts of money, as opposed to those whose stake is much more limited.
Keep hearing that small fry will be "runined".
But is it ruination IF some geek in a basement "invests" say $500, which is temporarily/theoretically worth a king's ransom BUT ends up (in the end) losing their five hundred bucks?
Whereas for most folks it WOULD be ruinous if they'd put in $50,000.
At this rate, some EU countries will only be using it on 18-21 year olds.
We wait with bated breath for the NHS clinical data. Shouldn't be too many weeks before effectiveness in the elderly can be more accurately assessed. Now,
1. We must hope that we don't get the infamous 8% figure, or anywhere close. I know there's been some dispute on the site today as to how much of a role vaccination has or hasn't played in the especially steep drop off in cases seen in our oldest citizens, but early indications appear encouraging to me 2. Assuming that AZ is good enough to pass muster, it will be fascinating to see how long it takes some of these more sceptical national authorities to perform U-turns, if they do at all
If there is no doubt about the efficacy of AZ for over 65s I am genuinely struggling to understand why these European medical agencies are deliberately not approving it for that age group. What is there to be gained? The decisions are made by medical and scientific professionals not politicians.
Because of the wide confidence interval. However, Phase 2 trials showed a near-identical immune response between oldies and the younger cohorts.
And Pfizer had a wide confidence interval too.
Politics is corrupting this. If they had an abundance of vaccines there's not a chance they'd be saying its not appropriate.
I have a feeling if the UK government had done something similar the Guardian wouldn't be calling it a "blunder"....
The pandemic has been very bad for journalism. It's a real eye-opener to see just how poor most journalism is when it isn't one of the favourite topics, and the bias in so much of the reporting is clear as well.
I literally put Astrazenca vaccine UK into Google....
AstraZeneca would make up to 30 million doses available by September for people in the UK.
Neither of those things has happened: it’s now January 2021 and we have nowhere near 30 million doses of AstraZeneca vaccine
The government says 530,000 doses of AstraZeneca vaccine is available for use from this Monday (January 4),
Journalists got used in the last century for their word being accepted as truth after all they wouldn't publish it if it wasn't true.....now we have the internet and can go look we find their facts have more holes that rab c nesbitts vest
Being bored silly of covid and brexit, and having always been bored silly of Scottish independence which seems to have had a surge on here over the last week, my absolute favourite story at the moment is Gamestop. On more left-wing corners of the internet there's a 'Hahaha look at these rich wall street traders losing money and these little people winning' thing going on. But will any fund on Wall street or in the City really lose much if they just cover themselves until the price returns to something sensible? Could any of them actually lose more than would just come out in the wash at the end of the year? And as for the little people, I know that if they get out at the right time they could make / have made a fortune, but I imagine a lot are going to lose their entire 4 or 5 figure savings, in order that some investment fund shaves 0.01% off their profit margin. Or is there are chance a fund's losses could be big?
And could someone explain to me how if you have to borrow stock in order to short It, it's possible for the total amount shorted to be 140% of stock, as I've seen mentioned somewhere.
Forgive me if there are any major misunderstandings in my post, it isn't my area!
To try and answer your 2 questions:
The reason they may not be able to just wait is that they will be paying interest, possibly very high interest, on the borrowed shares. The longer this goes on the more interest they will have to pay.
And the reason that the total amount shorted can be 140% of stock is because the same stock can be shorted more than once at the same time. So you borrow the stock, sell it at a price expecting it to drop in value so you can buy it back. Meanwhile the person you sold it to lends it again to another shorter who resells it. So now it has to be bought back twice and 'unborrowed' twice. On the same stock.
I'm beginning to think this might actually be a co-ordinated strategy on the part of the EU to extract themselves from the embarrassment over not having any AZ vaccine to distribute.
After all, if it's not going to high priority groups then everyone can afford to wait.
Presumably they're hoping that the plebs haven't spotted the obvious inconsistency between demanding they get it now and thinking that it's not all that good.
Von der Leyen’s spokesman, Eric Mamer, said it’s an institutional reality that all decisions go through the president’s cabinet and the college of commissioners. No decisions are taken without college consensus, he added...
While the crucial sections on Northern Ireland were a late addition to the document, all relevant senior officials had been involved and had sight of the plan before it went live. Final signoff was the responsibility of von der Leyen’s office
So an oversight such as previously described is impossible, and they were lying? I still don't think any of them will be sacked because the Member states agree with the anger at AZ, just not this response, but this seems explosive - how can they escape at least some censure?
Astra triggered the crisis just over a week ago when it revealed it was cutting back planned vaccine supply to the EU by a reported 60% to 31 million doses following disruption at a plant in Belgium. At the same time, deliveries in the U.K. have mostly met expectations, helping the British vaccination program race ahead of the continent.
'Mostly' doing some lifting here.
Some EU officials suspect that Astra was responsible for a portion of those shipments and should have kept back doses for European buyers. But they don’t have the evidence to prove it because the data aren’t broken down by manufacture
So why the f*ck did they make such claims so boldly if it cannot be proven?
And as expected, those pushing for the ridiculous raising of stakes?
By Tuesday evening, pressure began to mount from Germany, first, and then France, for a more stringent approach.
What is interesting is the claim that "deliveries in the U.K. have mostly met expectations" - I think this must be briefing from the EU, by people who are unaware that, in fact the UK deliveries have been far below expectations.
Certainly, but there are levels of outrage in newspaper headlines. Blunder is relatively mild, you could use it to describe some pretty minor things compared to the triggering of a major diplomatic incident without tellin ga head of government of the EU Member state involved.
It's no biggie, I cannot think what the 'right' word would have been, but it's hardly unusual for newspapers to use more or less inflammatory desriptors depending on if it involves sides they hate or love. Unless its supporting an alternative Tory faction the Telgraph would never describe a Boris cock up as strongly as it might.
BBC News - EU 'fiasco' on N Ireland heaps pressure on Commission
"It's like watching a car crash in slow motion," one irate EU diplomat told me. "President von der Leyen is a medical doctor. She wanted to take over the mass purchase of vaccines for all the EU - as a high-profile exercise. Normally health issues are dealt with nationally. This hasn't been a great advertisement for handing over powers to Brussels. I think that's the lesson member states will take away from this."
It's just amazing/bonkers that Ireland wasn't involved, or even told, of the upcoming decision.
Yes. But very much yesterday’s news now. Now it’s the UK under pressure and it’s only going to get worse.
“The World Health Organization has urged the UK to pause its vaccination programme after vulnerable groups have received their jabs to help ensure the global rollout of doses is fair. the WHO said countries should be aiming for 2bn doses to be “fairly distributed” around the world by the end of 2021. A WHO spokeswoman, Margaret Harris, said she wanted to appeal to people in the UK, telling them: “You can wait” because ensuring equitable global distribution is “clearly morally the right thing to do”.”
WHO can say COVID vaccine should be a global business, but it seems to be getting regionalised.
They should direct their ire at the EU. The UK has done far more proportionally speaking.
You mean when we go into the detail of the rights and wrongs of it? Whilst we are there we may even learn Marie Antoinette never actually said let them eat cake.
But the eyes will be on those whose store house has a mountain of grain, whilst everyone else is starving. That’s only natural and to be expected?
Gosh you do know there is a difference between having a surplus and not enough....the uk does not have enough vaccine , we aren't hoarding it dipshit
That’s rather rude. Considering I totally agree with you what the truth is. And considering you are the one who completely missed an obvious point.
We are no more hoarding than Marie Antoinette said let them eat cake.
So just to confirm you are not dip**** explain to everyone what is the important point I am trying to get you to realise.
Your meaning was obvious and you have always been one of the whiners who never gave britain credit for our help with covax but instead moaned we aren't doing enough to help rich europeans who can afford to help themselves but instead prefer to try and cheapskate....take your scrofulous self to coventry
You just have your head up high because you know what the truth is. Rather ignorant to how important perception actually is.
That’s the point I’m making. And it’s true isn’t it?
Because you are laying into me, who agrees with you. But look at what the WHO are saying who neither of us agree with.
We can’t just put our chin in the air, we have to manage perceptions. And that means, as I have been saying for days, doing something. I’m not saying it has to be a lot. But it has to be something.
The reply’s I get is**** *** to Coventry. You want to give all our good work away like Francis of Assisi. You have no intention of praising the U.K. government.
I’m just saying we need to do something to manage this, what could be damaging, long lasting perception.
I have not said a bad word about the uk government in regard to vaccines. Others are reading your post the same way as I am as a "We should send some of our vaccines to europe"
First of all you actually have to agree there is a perception problem, not in our interest just to ignore. And let fester and grow. And become a damaging myth and misconception. That’s the main concern to me at moment, that you and these others on here just don’t get there is a problem.
And then we can probably agree on what we can do about it. Emergency summits. Agreements headed “ The world is watching us, and everyone knows it is only through international collaboration that we will beat this pandemic.” A few win win agreements, where it looks like we are in fact sending some of our jabs to EU,
that’s actually the headline U.K. would want so tackle perceptions,
in fact it’s further down the line, or in exchange for something now for a stake of future gear that has potential to be even better, so we are actually just balancing our options and getting our fingers in future pies
That the sort of thing I think we really need to do, but seem a million miles away, with everyone convinced it’s politically impossible to do,
Certainly, but there are levels of outrage in newspaper headlines. Blunder is relatively mild, you could use it to describe some pretty minor things compared to the triggering of a major diplomatic incident without tellin ga head of government of the EU Member state involved.
It's no biggie, I cannot think what the 'right' word would have been, but it's hardly unusual for newspapers to use more or less inflammatory desriptors depending on if it involves sides they hate or love.
Talleyrand memorably said (or strongly suggested) that a blunder was worse than a crime.
Though perhaps he was just a proto-apologist for the EU . . .
That's the thing that always gets me, years ago a journalist or politician could spout nonsense and generally get away with it, as checking their "facts" was hard. It's so damn easy to find an authoritative source to check what they say now. If they make a claim they had better be to be able to back it up, as people will find out if they are wrong, and the internet does not forget so they needn't bother deleting it.
At this rate, some EU countries will only be using it on 18-21 year olds.
We wait with bated breath for the NHS clinical data. Shouldn't be too many weeks before effectiveness in the elderly can be more accurately assessed. Now,
1. We must hope that we don't get the infamous 8% figure, or anywhere close. I know there's been some dispute on the site today as to how much of a role vaccination has or hasn't played in the especially steep drop off in cases seen in our oldest citizens, but early indications appear encouraging to me 2. Assuming that AZ is good enough to pass muster, it will be fascinating to see how long it takes some of these more sceptical national authorities to perform U-turns, if they do at all
If there is no doubt about the efficacy of AZ for over 65s I am genuinely struggling to understand why these European medical agencies are deliberately not approving it for that age group. What is there to be gained? The decisions are made by medical and scientific professionals not politicians.
It doesn't seem there is no doubt, just that it isn't a case of it being equally likely effective/non-effective and in places harder hit the risk is worth it on pure numbers terms. But more cautious approaches could be justified, though not on the Macron anti-vax level.
That's the thing that always gets me, years ago a journalist or politician could spout nonsense and generally get away with it, as checking their "facts" was hard. It's so damn easy to find an authoritative source to check what they say now. If they make a claim they had better be to be able to back it up, as people will find out if they are wrong, and the internet does not forget so they needn't bother deleting it.
There are some things you can get away with because they are debatable how you measure them e.g. lets say you make a statement about poverty, you could be using absolute, relative, etc....or a whole host of economic metrics which get very complicated very quickly.
In this case, it has been widely reported many many times, what the UK ordered, what they were promised when and what they got. And we aren't arguing over them getting 29 million rather than 30 million. The "miss" was by an more than an order of magnitude.
BBC News - EU 'fiasco' on N Ireland heaps pressure on Commission
"It's like watching a car crash in slow motion," one irate EU diplomat told me. "President von der Leyen is a medical doctor. She wanted to take over the mass purchase of vaccines for all the EU - as a high-profile exercise. Normally health issues are dealt with nationally. This hasn't been a great advertisement for handing over powers to Brussels. I think that's the lesson member states will take away from this."
It's just amazing/bonkers that Ireland wasn't involved, or even told, of the upcoming decision.
Yes. But very much yesterday’s news now. Now it’s the UK under pressure and it’s only going to get worse.
“The World Health Organization has urged the UK to pause its vaccination programme after vulnerable groups have received their jabs to help ensure the global rollout of doses is fair. the WHO said countries should be aiming for 2bn doses to be “fairly distributed” around the world by the end of 2021. A WHO spokeswoman, Margaret Harris, said she wanted to appeal to people in the UK, telling them: “You can wait” because ensuring equitable global distribution is “clearly morally the right thing to do”.”
WHO can say COVID vaccine should be a global business, but it seems to be getting regionalised.
They should direct their ire at the EU. The UK has done far more proportionally speaking.
You mean when we go into the detail of the rights and wrongs of it? Whilst we are there we may even learn Marie Antoinette never actually said let them eat cake.
But the eyes will be on those whose store house has a mountain of grain, whilst everyone else is starving. That’s only natural and to be expected?
Gosh you do know there is a difference between having a surplus and not enough....the uk does not have enough vaccine , we aren't hoarding it dipshit
That’s rather rude. Considering I totally agree with you what the truth is. And considering you are the one who completely missed an obvious point.
We are no more hoarding than Marie Antoinette said let them eat cake.
So just to confirm you are not dip**** explain to everyone what is the important point I am trying to get you to realise.
Your meaning was obvious and you have always been one of the whiners who never gave britain credit for our help with covax but instead moaned we aren't doing enough to help rich europeans who can afford to help themselves but instead prefer to try and cheapskate....take your scrofulous self to coventry
You just have your head up high because you know what the truth is. Rather ignorant to how important perception actually is.
That’s the point I’m making. And it’s true isn’t it?
Because you are laying into me, who agrees with you. But look at what the WHO are saying who neither of us agree with.
We can’t just put our chin in the air, we have to manage perceptions. And that means, as I have been saying for days, doing something. I’m not saying it has to be a lot. But it has to be something.
The reply’s I get is**** *** to Coventry. You want to give all our good work away like Francis of Assisi. You have no intention of praising the U.K. government.
I’m just saying we need to do something to manage this, what could be damaging, long lasting perception.
I have not said a bad word about the uk government in regard to vaccines. Others are reading your post the same way as I am as a "We should send some of our vaccines to europe"
First of all you actually have to agree there is a perception problem, not in our interest just to ignore. And let fester and grow. And become a damaging myth and misconception. That’s the main concern to me at moment, that you and these others on here just don’t get there is a problem.
And then we can probably agree on what we can do about it. Emergency summits. Agreements headed “ The world is watching us, and everyone knows it is only through international collaboration that we will beat this pandemic.” A few win win agreements, where it looks like we are in fact sending some of our jabs to EU,
that’s actually the headline U.K. would want so tackle perceptions,
in fact it’s further down the line, or in exchange for something now for a stake of future gear that has potential to be even better, so we are actually just balancing our options and getting our fingers in future pies
That the sort of thing I think we really need to do, but seem a million miles away, with everyone convinced it’s politically impossible to do,
but I think the voters would go for it.
The perception i'm getting as coming across is that the UK has played a blinder (on vaccine production and procurement), and is likely to be in the lucky position of being able to consider its long term approach at its leisure, and potentially free from competing domestic political pressure.
BBC News - EU 'fiasco' on N Ireland heaps pressure on Commission
"It's like watching a car crash in slow motion," one irate EU diplomat told me. "President von der Leyen is a medical doctor. She wanted to take over the mass purchase of vaccines for all the EU - as a high-profile exercise. Normally health issues are dealt with nationally. This hasn't been a great advertisement for handing over powers to Brussels. I think that's the lesson member states will take away from this."
It's just amazing/bonkers that Ireland wasn't involved, or even told, of the upcoming decision.
Yes. But very much yesterday’s news now. Now it’s the UK under pressure and it’s only going to get worse.
“The World Health Organization has urged the UK to pause its vaccination programme after vulnerable groups have received their jabs to help ensure the global rollout of doses is fair. the WHO said countries should be aiming for 2bn doses to be “fairly distributed” around the world by the end of 2021. A WHO spokeswoman, Margaret Harris, said she wanted to appeal to people in the UK, telling them: “You can wait” because ensuring equitable global distribution is “clearly morally the right thing to do”.”
WHO can say COVID vaccine should be a global business, but it seems to be getting regionalised.
They should direct their ire at the EU. The UK has done far more proportionally speaking.
You mean when we go into the detail of the rights and wrongs of it? Whilst we are there we may even learn Marie Antoinette never actually said let them eat cake.
But the eyes will be on those whose store house has a mountain of grain, whilst everyone else is starving. That’s only natural and to be expected?
Gosh you do know there is a difference between having a surplus and not enough....the uk does not have enough vaccine , we aren't hoarding it dipshit
That’s rather rude. Considering I totally agree with you what the truth is. And considering you are the one who completely missed an obvious point.
We are no more hoarding than Marie Antoinette said let them eat cake.
So just to confirm you are not dip**** explain to everyone what is the important point I am trying to get you to realise.
Your meaning was obvious and you have always been one of the whiners who never gave britain credit for our help with covax but instead moaned we aren't doing enough to help rich europeans who can afford to help themselves but instead prefer to try and cheapskate....take your scrofulous self to coventry
You just have your head up high because you know what the truth is. Rather ignorant to how important perception actually is.
That’s the point I’m making. And it’s true isn’t it?
Because you are laying into me, who agrees with you. But look at what the WHO are saying who neither of us agree with.
We can’t just put our chin in the air, we have to manage perceptions. And that means, as I have been saying for days, doing something. I’m not saying it has to be a lot. But it has to be something.
The reply’s I get is**** *** to Coventry. You want to give all our good work away like Francis of Assisi. You have no intention of praising the U.K. government.
I’m just saying we need to do something to manage this, what could be damaging, long lasting perception.
I have not said a bad word about the uk government in regard to vaccines. Others are reading your post the same way as I am as a "We should send some of our vaccines to europe"
First of all you actually have to agree there is a perception problem, not in our interest just to ignore. And let fester and grow. And become a damaging myth and misconception. That’s the main concern to me at moment, that you and these others on here just don’t get there is a problem.
And then we can probably agree on what we can do about it. Emergency summits. Agreements headed “ The world is watching us, and everyone knows it is only through international collaboration that we will beat this pandemic.” A few win win agreements, where it looks like we are in fact sending some of our jabs to EU,
that’s actually the headline U.K. would want so tackle perceptions,
in fact it’s further down the line, or in exchange for something now for a stake of future gear that has potential to be even better, so we are actually just balancing our options and getting our fingers in future pies
That the sort of thing I think we really need to do, but seem a million miles away, with everyone convinced it’s politically impossible to do,
but I think the voters would go for it.
No I don't agree the uk and the us have done more for covid vaccine production and distribution world wide than any other two countries in the world....the fact people like you think we havent done enough is irrelevant....the who failed badly in this pandemic from early days and no one credits anything they say....go shout at your wonderful eu who have done the least
At this rate, some EU countries will only be using it on 18-21 year olds.
We wait with bated breath for the NHS clinical data. Shouldn't be too many weeks before effectiveness in the elderly can be more accurately assessed. Now,
1. We must hope that we don't get the infamous 8% figure, or anywhere close. I know there's been some dispute on the site today as to how much of a role vaccination has or hasn't played in the especially steep drop off in cases seen in our oldest citizens, but early indications appear encouraging to me 2. Assuming that AZ is good enough to pass muster, it will be fascinating to see how long it takes some of these more sceptical national authorities to perform U-turns, if they do at all
If there is no doubt about the efficacy of AZ for over 65s I am genuinely struggling to understand why these European medical agencies are deliberately not approving it for that age group. What is there to be gained? The decisions are made by medical and scientific professionals not politicians.
It doesn't seem there is no doubt, just that it isn't a case of it being equally likely effective/non-effective and in places harder hit the risk is worth it on pure numbers terms. But more cautious approaches could be justified, though not on the Macron anti-vax level.
Yes there should be zero doubt what is the best decision. There is a lot of doubt as to the exact efficacy for over 65s. There is a small amount of doubt about whether that efficacy was likely to have been enough to pass a standard trial.
The regulators who have not approved it for the elderly are doing so out of rigorously following rules rather than using judgment needed in an emergency.
Good OGH. I had mine last week. But then I'm older than you. Mine was the expensive one---Pfizer I think it's called. My arm was just a little bit sore for a while, but my session on the turbo trainer went well. Was that psychological? Good, anyway. I guess it hasn't made me more prolix.
Von der Leyen’s spokesman, Eric Mamer, said it’s an institutional reality that all decisions go through the president’s cabinet and the college of commissioners. No decisions are taken without college consensus, he added...
While the crucial sections on Northern Ireland were a late addition to the document, all relevant senior officials had been involved and had sight of the plan before it went live. Final signoff was the responsibility of von der Leyen’s office
So an oversight such as previously described is impossible, and they were lying? I still don't think any of them will be sacked because the Member states agree with the anger at AZ, just not this response, but this seems explosive - how can they escape at least some censure?
Astra triggered the crisis just over a week ago when it revealed it was cutting back planned vaccine supply to the EU by a reported 60% to 31 million doses following disruption at a plant in Belgium. At the same time, deliveries in the U.K. have mostly met expectations, helping the British vaccination program race ahead of the continent.
'Mostly' doing some lifting here.
Some EU officials suspect that Astra was responsible for a portion of those shipments and should have kept back doses for European buyers. But they don’t have the evidence to prove it because the data aren’t broken down by manufacture
So why the f*ck did they make such claims so boldly if it cannot be proven?
And as expected, those pushing for the ridiculous raising of stakes?
By Tuesday evening, pressure began to mount from Germany, first, and then France, for a more stringent approach.
What is interesting is the claim that "deliveries in the U.K. have mostly met expectations" - I think this must be briefing from the EU, by people who are unaware that, in fact the UK deliveries have been far below expectations.
This link (from the start of January) was posted somewhere further down thread. Explains, as Mr Soriot from AZ insisted, that the UK had the same kinds of production teething problems that the EU plants are now experiencing. Available vaccine doses were therefore a small fraction of what was scheduled to have been delivered by that point.
At this rate, some EU countries will only be using it on 18-21 year olds.
We wait with bated breath for the NHS clinical data. Shouldn't be too many weeks before effectiveness in the elderly can be more accurately assessed. Now,
1. We must hope that we don't get the infamous 8% figure, or anywhere close. I know there's been some dispute on the site today as to how much of a role vaccination has or hasn't played in the especially steep drop off in cases seen in our oldest citizens, but early indications appear encouraging to me 2. Assuming that AZ is good enough to pass muster, it will be fascinating to see how long it takes some of these more sceptical national authorities to perform U-turns, if they do at all
If there is no doubt about the efficacy of AZ for over 65s I am genuinely struggling to understand why these European medical agencies are deliberately not approving it for that age group. What is there to be gained? The decisions are made by medical and scientific professionals not politicians.
I think the explanation could be this. Of any country with a population larger than about 10 million, we have the lowest rating. France, Italy and Germany all have fairly or very high ratings.
"Uncertainty avoidance deals with a society’s tolerance for uncertainty and ambiguity"
At this rate, some EU countries will only be using it on 18-21 year olds.
We wait with bated breath for the NHS clinical data. Shouldn't be too many weeks before effectiveness in the elderly can be more accurately assessed. Now,
1. We must hope that we don't get the infamous 8% figure, or anywhere close. I know there's been some dispute on the site today as to how much of a role vaccination has or hasn't played in the especially steep drop off in cases seen in our oldest citizens, but early indications appear encouraging to me 2. Assuming that AZ is good enough to pass muster, it will be fascinating to see how long it takes some of these more sceptical national authorities to perform U-turns, if they do at all
If there is no doubt about the efficacy of AZ for over 65s I am genuinely struggling to understand why these European medical agencies are deliberately not approving it for that age group. What is there to be gained? The decisions are made by medical and scientific professionals not politicians.
Because of the wide confidence interval. However, Phase 2 trials showed a near-identical immune response between oldies and the younger cohorts.
Trying to take the EU sentiments out of the equation I was curious to see where AZ was up to in the US process and the first article that came started by saying :-
"AstraZeneca may not apply for a US FDA Emergency Use Authorization until the spring. The data from their UK trial was "odd" and had one "pretty serious error" in it, a US vaccine expert said".
I am genuinely hoping there is nothing to be concerned about because I am likely to be getting that vaccine in a few days time. On the other hand I am not willing to dismiss Germany, France and Italy not approving it for over 65s simply on the grounds that that it's just the stupid Europeans trying to revenge for Brexit.
Warwick eggheads say even best case scenario with vaccinations, lockdown until end of May and then back to last September restrictions for the rest of the year.....
Warwick eggheads say even best case scenario with vaccinations, lockdown until end of May and then back to last September restrictions for the rest of the year.....
At this rate, some EU countries will only be using it on 18-21 year olds.
We wait with bated breath for the NHS clinical data. Shouldn't be too many weeks before effectiveness in the elderly can be more accurately assessed. Now,
1. We must hope that we don't get the infamous 8% figure, or anywhere close. I know there's been some dispute on the site today as to how much of a role vaccination has or hasn't played in the especially steep drop off in cases seen in our oldest citizens, but early indications appear encouraging to me 2. Assuming that AZ is good enough to pass muster, it will be fascinating to see how long it takes some of these more sceptical national authorities to perform U-turns, if they do at all
If there is no doubt about the efficacy of AZ for over 65s I am genuinely struggling to understand why these European medical agencies are deliberately not approving it for that age group. What is there to be gained? The decisions are made by medical and scientific professionals not politicians.
Because of the wide confidence interval. However, Phase 2 trials showed a near-identical immune response between oldies and the younger cohorts.
Trying to take the EU sentiments out of the equation I was curious to see where AZ was up to in the US process and the first article that came started by saying :-
"AstraZeneca may not apply for a US FDA Emergency Use Authorization until the spring. The data from their UK trial was "odd" and had one "pretty serious error" in it, a US vaccine expert said".
I am genuinely hoping there is nothing to be concerned about because I am likely to be getting that vaccine in a few days time. On the other hand I am not willing to dismiss Germany, France and Italy not approving it for over 65s simply on the grounds that that it's just the stupid Europeans trying to revenge for Brexit.
They are probably talking about the different doses, which isn't exactly new news.
It is quite neutral compared to what the headline should have been
EU Shits On Vaccine suit ye better?
Obviously NOT hyperbolic enough.
Day 2, wee randoms on internet move on from demanding other posters engage with their enraged circlejerk to howling at the press for an insufficiency of vaccine nationalism.
Day 3, that moon’s shining indiscriminately on the EU, get the fecker!
Certainly, but there are levels of outrage in newspaper headlines. Blunder is relatively mild, you could use it to describe some pretty minor things compared to the triggering of a major diplomatic incident without tellin ga head of government of the EU Member state involved.
It's no biggie, I cannot think what the 'right' word would have been, but it's hardly unusual for newspapers to use more or less inflammatory desriptors depending on if it involves sides they hate or love. Unless its supporting an alternative Tory faction the Telgraph would never describe a Boris cock up as strongly as it might.
Blunder is very strong for a non-tabloid in a news headline as opposed to an opinion piece. I think perhaps perceptions have been warped by the arms race of punchy rhetoric on this matter from many of the articulate, passionate posters on here over the last few days.
Its the equivalent of describing a massive multi-car pile up involving 10s of vehicles as there has been a bit of a whoopsie on the motorway.
Can you suggest a stronger more suitable word? This is a genuine question as I can't think of anything.
Omnishambles, ClusterF##k, International Diplomatic Incident, Screwup, Decable, Fiasco, Trainwreck,
Have the Guardian/Observer used any of these to headline HMG's recent blunders?
The europhile Observer is calling out that the EU's made a mess of this; I'd have thought you'd be happy with that tbh. (I know I would be if the Telegraph called out any of the Tory government's many blunders.)
At this rate, some EU countries will only be using it on 18-21 year olds.
We wait with bated breath for the NHS clinical data. Shouldn't be too many weeks before effectiveness in the elderly can be more accurately assessed. Now,
1. We must hope that we don't get the infamous 8% figure, or anywhere close. I know there's been some dispute on the site today as to how much of a role vaccination has or hasn't played in the especially steep drop off in cases seen in our oldest citizens, but early indications appear encouraging to me 2. Assuming that AZ is good enough to pass muster, it will be fascinating to see how long it takes some of these more sceptical national authorities to perform U-turns, if they do at all
If there is no doubt about the efficacy of AZ for over 65s I am genuinely struggling to understand why these European medical agencies are deliberately not approving it for that age group. What is there to be gained? The decisions are made by medical and scientific professionals not politicians.
Because of the wide confidence interval. However, Phase 2 trials showed a near-identical immune response between oldies and the younger cohorts.
Trying to take the EU sentiments out of the equation I was curious to see where AZ was up to in the US process and the first article that came started by saying :-
"AstraZeneca may not apply for a US FDA Emergency Use Authorization until the spring. The data from their UK trial was "odd" and had one "pretty serious error" in it, a US vaccine expert said".
I am genuinely hoping there is nothing to be concerned about because I am likely to be getting that vaccine in a few days time. On the other hand I am not willing to dismiss Germany, France and Italy not approving it for over 65s simply on the grounds that that it's just the stupid Europeans trying to revenge for Brexit.
Presumably that was an article from several months ago. I think this was all discussed when they first announced the provisional outcomes of their initial trials. The "error" was all around the dosing regime (the "accidental" discovery of the supposed advantage of a "half dose/full dose" regime - which anyway seems to have dropped by the wayside)
Warwick eggheads say even best case scenario with vaccinations, lockdown until end of May and then back to last September restrictions for the rest of the year.....
Its the equivalent of describing a massive multi-car pile up involving 10s of vehicles as there has been a bit of a whoopsie on the motorway.
Can you suggest a stronger more suitable word? This is a genuine question as I can't think of anything.
Omnishambles, ClusterF##k, International Diplomatic Incident, Screwup, Decable, Fiasco, Trainwreck,
Have the Guardian/Observer used any of these to headline HMG's recent blunders?
The europhile Observer is calling out that the EU's made a mess of this; I'd have thought you'd be happy with that tbh. (I know I would be if the Telegraph called out any of the Tory government's many blunders.)
And blunder is at least as strong as most of those.
At this rate, some EU countries will only be using it on 18-21 year olds.
We wait with bated breath for the NHS clinical data. Shouldn't be too many weeks before effectiveness in the elderly can be more accurately assessed. Now,
1. We must hope that we don't get the infamous 8% figure, or anywhere close. I know there's been some dispute on the site today as to how much of a role vaccination has or hasn't played in the especially steep drop off in cases seen in our oldest citizens, but early indications appear encouraging to me 2. Assuming that AZ is good enough to pass muster, it will be fascinating to see how long it takes some of these more sceptical national authorities to perform U-turns, if they do at all
If there is no doubt about the efficacy of AZ for over 65s I am genuinely struggling to understand why these European medical agencies are deliberately not approving it for that age group. What is there to be gained? The decisions are made by medical and scientific professionals not politicians.
The evidence is akin to a polling subsample. It’s probably OK but there’s a wide MoE and a chance it might be a fair bit less effective. So the decision to go ahead means weighing the usual strict approach to assessment with the pressing nature of the crisis. That’s a judgment different experts may call differently.
The odds are in our favour, but if it did turn out the AZ doesn’t work well for the elderly we could find ourselves in a hole.
At this rate, some EU countries will only be using it on 18-21 year olds.
We wait with bated breath for the NHS clinical data. Shouldn't be too many weeks before effectiveness in the elderly can be more accurately assessed. Now,
1. We must hope that we don't get the infamous 8% figure, or anywhere close. I know there's been some dispute on the site today as to how much of a role vaccination has or hasn't played in the especially steep drop off in cases seen in our oldest citizens, but early indications appear encouraging to me 2. Assuming that AZ is good enough to pass muster, it will be fascinating to see how long it takes some of these more sceptical national authorities to perform U-turns, if they do at all
If there is no doubt about the efficacy of AZ for over 65s I am genuinely struggling to understand why these European medical agencies are deliberately not approving it for that age group. What is there to be gained? The decisions are made by medical and scientific professionals not politicians.
I think the explanation could be this. Of any country with a population larger than about 10 million, we have the lowest rating. France, Italy and Germany all have fairly or very high ratings.
"Uncertainty avoidance deals with a society’s tolerance for uncertainty and ambiguity"
Warwick eggheads say even best case scenario with vaccinations, lockdown until end of May and then back to last September restrictions for the rest of the year.....
Warwick eggheads say even best case scenario with vaccinations, lockdown until end of May and then back to last September restrictions for the rest of the year.....
They're guesstimating like the rest of us, of course, but that's probably not a million miles away from the way things will pan out. Personally I think that, even without a major vaccine resistance setback, we're going to be stuck with some degree of mask use and social distancing until Spring of next year.
That said, if we can get the country back into something approximating to Tier 2, so that society is basically functional again except for certain larger gatherings, then I think most people can learn to live with that for a while.
Johnson and HMG having the moral high ground in the first spat with the EU? After constant predictions that it'd be the UK that would tear up international agreements etc., who'd have thunk it?
Warwick eggheads say even best case scenario with vaccinations, lockdown until end of May and then back to last September restrictions for the rest of the year.....
Is that headline intended to assuage or inflame the readership?
If it's true, it's a good PR step by the government.
As a number of posters on here have said, helping out Ireland would be good PR and the right thing to do. No point sending any spares to the anti-vaxxer mini-Trump on the other side of the channel, as they won't use them anyway.
Warwick eggheads say even best case scenario with vaccinations, lockdown until end of May and then back to last September restrictions for the rest of the year.....
Warwick eggheads say even best case scenario with vaccinations, lockdown until end of May and then back to last September restrictions for the rest of the year.....
They're guesstimating like the rest of us, of course, but that's probably not a million miles away from the way things will pan out. Personally I think that, even without a major vaccine resistance setback, we're going to be stuck with some degree of mask use and social distancing until Spring of next year.
That said, if we can get the country back into something approximating to Tier 2, so that society is basically functional again except for certain larger gatherings, then I think most people can learn to live with that for a while.
Doesn't make sense, does it? "Best case scenario with vaccinations lead to ongoing restrictions for rest of the year? Best case is that vaccinations are robust and effective, and there is no particular need for significant restrictions at all.
Warwick eggheads say even best case scenario with vaccinations, lockdown until end of May and then back to last September restrictions for the rest of the year.....
Is that headline intended to assuage or inflame the readership?
If it's true, it's a good PR step by the government.
If the EU keeps the tension dialled down and doesn't commit any more silly mistakes, then an opportunity to improve relations exists later in the year, of course. The Government can't justify to the country helping anyone else until Phase 1 is complete. But after that there may be a little more room for manoeuvre.
Is it a surprise how rapidly the case numbers (and the 7-day average) are falling, when we combine supposedly much more transmissible variant with not-quite-as-tight-or-well-observed-lockdown as March?
Deaths in England, being a more reliable but lagging indicator, appear to have peaked on 19 January. Looking at the data it looks like they peaked here in Kent, where the new variant originated, roughly a week prior to that. Cases here peaked at about New Year, but Kent has effectively been in lockdown since the start of November.
Based on an IFR of 1% I’ve worked out that 20% of the county has had COVID-19. In some areas, like Folkestone, it maybe well over 30%, possibly touching 50%. So, if we say a fifth or more of Kent had it over the course of the year, more in localities, we can hypothesise that an awful lot of the people in groups in risky occupations etc have now been exposed to the virus and have a degree of immunity - so it has to look elsewhere for people (homeworkers etc) who are more able to hide. So to my mind there may be a sort of lockdown assisted herd immunity lite going on that makes up for the relative laxness this time around.
Warwick eggheads say even best case scenario with vaccinations, lockdown until end of May and then back to last September restrictions for the rest of the year.....
Warwick eggheads say even best case scenario with vaccinations, lockdown until end of May and then back to last September restrictions for the rest of the year.....
Is that headline intended to assuage or inflame the readership?
If it's true, it's a good PR step by the government.
If the EU keeps the tension dialled down and doesn't commit any more silly mistakes, then an opportunity to improve relations exists later in the year, of course. The Government can't justify to the country helping anyone else until Phase 1 is complete. But after that there may be a little more room for manoeuvre.
Personally I think we should teach them not to play silly buggers and put some teeth in it....
You threatened your nato allies with a vaccine blockade...do anything like it again and we will expel you from Nato and you can rely on the french to defend you from Putin
At this rate, some EU countries will only be using it on 18-21 year olds.
We wait with bated breath for the NHS clinical data. Shouldn't be too many weeks before effectiveness in the elderly can be more accurately assessed. Now,
1. We must hope that we don't get the infamous 8% figure, or anywhere close. I know there's been some dispute on the site today as to how much of a role vaccination has or hasn't played in the especially steep drop off in cases seen in our oldest citizens, but early indications appear encouraging to me 2. Assuming that AZ is good enough to pass muster, it will be fascinating to see how long it takes some of these more sceptical national authorities to perform U-turns, if they do at all
If there is no doubt about the efficacy of AZ for over 65s I am genuinely struggling to understand why these European medical agencies are deliberately not approving it for that age group. What is there to be gained? The decisions are made by medical and scientific professionals not politicians.
The evidence is akin to a polling subsample. It’s probably OK but there’s a wide MoE and a chance it might be a fair bit less effective. So the decision to go ahead means weighing the usual strict approach to assessment with the pressing nature of the crisis. That’s a judgment different experts may call differently.
The odds are in our favour, but if it did turn out the AZ doesn’t work well for the elderly we could find ourselves in a hole.
That is the risk when you try to create vaccines at warp speed - however, it is a risk balanced against more excess deaths from doing nothing and the government has at least 5 vaccines with which to work to repair any hitches. That is pretty phenomenal forward planning by any standard. I am actually very confident that the AZN risk will pay off pretty well for all ages.
Warwick eggheads say even best case scenario with vaccinations, lockdown until end of May and then back to last September restrictions for the rest of the year.....
Warwick eggheads say even best case scenario with vaccinations, lockdown until end of May and then back to last September restrictions for the rest of the year.....
They're guesstimating like the rest of us, of course, but that's probably not a million miles away from the way things will pan out. Personally I think that, even without a major vaccine resistance setback, we're going to be stuck with some degree of mask use and social distancing until Spring of next year.
That said, if we can get the country back into something approximating to Tier 2, so that society is basically functional again except for certain larger gatherings, then I think most people can learn to live with that for a while.
Doesn't make sense, does it? "Best case scenario with vaccinations lead to ongoing restrictions for rest of the year? Best case is that vaccinations are robust and effective, and there is no particular need for significant restrictions at all.
It may not be that simple. Consider:
1. Will take quite a long time to get everybody jabbed. Until we get close to the completion of the programme there will be dark warnings that younger patients, who aren't critically ill but still sick enough to need admitting, will start clogging the hospitals again. I also expect the Government and its advisers will emphasise reducing cases of Long Covid, and the need to give medical staff a bit of a break from the madness and start making progress on clearing huge treatment backlogs 2. Vaccinations may slow down anyway after the end of phase 1, when the Government may come under more international pressure to slow down and help others 3. The possibility of new variants making life difficult (and the desire to keep some restrictions in place as a consequence, to suppress any new nasties and give test and trace a chance to shut them down) 4. Vaccines are not 100% effective, some silly buggers will refuse them and a small section of the population can't take them. This plus the cumulative threat of Winter Covid and Winter Flu will encourage Government to keep some suppression measures in force all through next Winter. I've thought that likely for a while (and there'll probably be a new round of updated Covid jabs to be delivered, for the more vulnerable half of the population at least, as well come the Autumn)
I'll be delighted to be proven wrong - that we can get away with torching the Coronavirus Act and going back to something resembling normality by August or September - but I do think we're going to be lumbered with some restrictions for quite a long time. It's going to be a little like what Sweden has tried to do, with a lighter touch system that people can live with for a while, but that ultimately failed without vaccines. With the vaccines it should become possible.
I think I have a way out of this diplomatic spat for the EU and UK.
Clearly the EU needs many millions more vaccines in the near term, however there is pressure on the UK to start supplying it's spare doses from April onwards to developing nations and let the EU fend for itself because it's rich and can afford to build output.
There's a very good chance that from April we won't need ~20m Pfizer doses or ~50m AZ doses. That would be an invaluable boost to the European vaccination drive. We're going to be covered by supplies from Novavax and Moderna and long term we'll have J&J (up to 52m) + Valneva (60m) available for mutations.
The way out of this is to offer the EU our spare capacity on the basis that it funds COVAX to the same level we have. Our funding is equivalent of €4.5bn scaled to the EU vs ~€750m it has currently pledged via EU and national governments. The EU won't have anywhere it can get 70m vaccine doses from in the short term from April onwards and it will make a big difference to them and making our gift to them contingent on them properly funding COVAX makes a much, much bigger difference to developing nations than 70m doses ever could as it could be used to purchase 1.5bn additional doses of AZ vaccine or 1bn additional Novavax doses both of which are in the CEPI programme.
This way the EU gets its doses, it gets its "win" against the UK by getting UK vaccine supply it covets and the developing world gets funding for 1-1.5bn additional doses it doesn't currently have.
Anyone see any downsides?
Sorry - This will sound selfish but until people here have been vaccinated - and I don't just mean those in groups 1 - 4 - and our economy reopened, we should not be giving vaccines away. It's not just the clinically vulnerable who are suffering but also those whose jobs and businesses and personal/social lives are on the line or on hold because of a shuttered society and economy. Like my children and the children of many others.
There is no good reason why we should prolong the agony for them. Once we've done our population (all of it) then by all means we can - and should - share - with the developed world etc. But not until then.
Comments
It is dishonest from a former Guardian journalist....he will have known. This isn't some regional journalist from another European country who won't have paid any attention to the UK vaccine programme until this week.
And explained with an example how perceptions come to be lived as fact. And used a metaphor of how we ain’t danger of being perceived if we don’t act to dispel it.
I am saying U.K. government cannot be liaisse faire, does have to manage this perception before it takes hold.
There isn't a single financial reason it ought to be $395. It probably shouldn't even be worth $3.95
But then a Bitcoin should be worth about £0.00 not £24,898.96
If BTC can be worth >20k then there's little reason why GME can't be worth £500
AstraZeneca would make up to 30 million doses available by September for people in the UK.
Neither of those things has happened: it’s now January 2021 and we have nowhere near 30 million doses of AstraZeneca vaccine
The government says 530,000 doses of AstraZeneca vaccine is available for use from this Monday (January 4),
https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-qa-how-much-coronavirus-vaccine-do-we-have
This journalism fact checking is dead hard.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFjr_P_Mp8U
No surer than I am that our government would do the same if it suited them but the fact is they have seen sense very quickly and rectified their mistakes. That is in all our interests except those who still want the EU to be the big bad ogre that all our problems can be blamed on.
Keep hearing that small fry will be "runined".
But is it ruination IF some geek in a basement "invests" say $500, which is temporarily/theoretically worth a king's ransom BUT ends up (in the end) losing their five hundred bucks?
Whereas for most folks it WOULD be ruinous if they'd put in $50,000.
Politics is corrupting this. If they had an abundance of vaccines there's not a chance they'd be saying its not appropriate.
Oops. I see the looming problem here....
Except they aren't saying that at all, they are questioning the efficacy of the AZ vaccine for over 65s.
It's no biggie, I cannot think what the 'right' word would have been, but it's hardly unusual for newspapers to use more or less inflammatory desriptors depending on if it involves sides they hate or love. Unless its supporting an alternative Tory faction the Telgraph would never describe a Boris cock up as strongly as it might.
And then we can probably agree on what we can do about it. Emergency summits. Agreements headed “ The world is watching us, and everyone knows it is only through international collaboration that we will beat this pandemic.” A few win win agreements, where it looks like we are in fact sending some of our jabs to EU,
that’s actually the headline U.K. would want so tackle perceptions,
in fact it’s further down the line, or in exchange for something now for a stake of future gear that has potential to be even better, so we are actually just balancing our options and getting our fingers in future pies
That the sort of thing I think we really need to do, but seem a million miles away, with everyone convinced it’s politically impossible to do,
but I think the voters would go for it.
I think belligerence would have been more appropriate.
Though perhaps he was just a proto-apologist for the EU . . .
If asked, the quote was from "that gobby bloke on the internet".
In this case, it has been widely reported many many times, what the UK ordered, what they were promised when and what they got. And we aren't arguing over them getting 29 million rather than 30 million. The "miss" was by an more than an order of magnitude.
The regulators who have not approved it for the elderly are doing so out of rigorously following rules rather than using judgment needed in an emergency.
I had mine last week.
But then I'm older than you.
Mine was the expensive one---Pfizer I think it's called.
My arm was just a little bit sore for a while, but my session on the turbo trainer went well.
Was that psychological?
Good, anyway.
I guess it hasn't made me more prolix.
Was there a man dismayed?
Not though the PBer knew
Someone had bundered.
This link (from the start of January) was posted somewhere further down thread. Explains, as Mr Soriot from AZ insisted, that the UK had the same kinds of production teething problems that the EU plants are now experiencing. Available vaccine doses were therefore a small fraction of what was scheduled to have been delivered by that point.
You have obviously been duped by the fact that I never ever make tyops.
"Uncertainty avoidance deals with a society’s tolerance for uncertainty and ambiguity"
https://clearlycultural.com/geert-hofstede-cultural-dimensions/uncertainty-avoidance-index/
France: 86
Italy: 75
Germany: 65
UK: 35
"AstraZeneca may not apply for a US FDA Emergency Use Authorization until the spring. The data from their UK trial was "odd" and had one "pretty serious error" in it, a US vaccine expert said".
I am genuinely hoping there is nothing to be concerned about because I am likely to be getting that vaccine in a few days time. On the other hand I am not willing to dismiss Germany, France and Italy not approving it for over 65s simply on the grounds that that it's just the stupid Europeans trying to revenge for Brexit.
https://twitter.com/BBCHelena/status/1355634502241017856?s=20
Day 3, that moon’s shining indiscriminately on the EU, get the fecker!
The europhile Observer is calling out that the EU's made a mess of this; I'd have thought you'd be happy with that tbh. (I know I would be if the Telegraph called out any of the Tory government's many blunders.)
The odds are in our favour, but if it did turn out the AZ doesn’t work well for the elderly we could find ourselves in a hole.
That said, if we can get the country back into something approximating to Tier 2, so that society is basically functional again except for certain larger gatherings, then I think most people can learn to live with that for a while.
Based on an IFR of 1% I’ve worked out that 20% of the county has had COVID-19. In some areas, like Folkestone, it maybe well over 30%, possibly touching 50%. So, if we say a fifth or more of Kent had it over the course of the year, more in localities, we can hypothesise that an awful lot of the people in groups in risky occupations etc have now been exposed to the virus and have a degree of immunity - so it has to look elsewhere for people (homeworkers etc) who are more able to hide. So to my mind there may be a sort of lockdown assisted herd immunity lite going on that makes up for the relative laxness this time around.
You threatened your nato allies with a vaccine blockade...do anything like it again and we will expel you from Nato and you can rely on the french to defend you from Putin
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/must-not-pin-hopes-covid-vaccines-alone/
https://twitter.com/BBCHelena/status/1355639672970629122?s=20
1. Will take quite a long time to get everybody jabbed. Until we get close to the completion of the programme there will be dark warnings that younger patients, who aren't critically ill but still sick enough to need admitting, will start clogging the hospitals again. I also expect the Government and its advisers will emphasise reducing cases of Long Covid, and the need to give medical staff a bit of a break from the madness and start making progress on clearing huge treatment backlogs
2. Vaccinations may slow down anyway after the end of phase 1, when the Government may come under more international pressure to slow down and help others
3. The possibility of new variants making life difficult (and the desire to keep some restrictions in place as a consequence, to suppress any new nasties and give test and trace a chance to shut them down)
4. Vaccines are not 100% effective, some silly buggers will refuse them and a small section of the population can't take them. This plus the cumulative threat of Winter Covid and Winter Flu will encourage Government to keep some suppression measures in force all through next Winter. I've thought that likely for a while (and there'll probably be a new round of updated Covid jabs to be delivered, for the more vulnerable half of the population at least, as well come the Autumn)
I'll be delighted to be proven wrong - that we can get away with torching the Coronavirus Act and going back to something resembling normality by August or September - but I do think we're going to be lumbered with some restrictions for quite a long time. It's going to be a little like what Sweden has tried to do, with a lighter touch system that people can live with for a while, but that ultimately failed without vaccines. With the vaccines it should become possible.
There is no good reason why we should prolong the agony for them. Once we've done our population (all of it) then by all means we can - and should - share - with the developed world etc. But not until then.