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

Just wikid Rob Roberts - a real looker.

FPT

Fairliered said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

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.

""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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

another_richard said:

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.

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"

Casino_Royale said:

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

Thank you.

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.

DODGY DAVE

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.

FPT

Casino_Royale said:

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

TheScreamingEagles said:

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.

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

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?

A heterogenous mix of vaccinations through the population might be best. Don't want something springing up that belts through one particular vaccination type.

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?

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

Flatlander 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?

Nah you crack on with Pfizer if you're New Zealand, oldest & healthcare 1st.

Flatlander 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'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.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Gallowgate 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?

Redact, the policies I've seen is that any indirect hints of the institution you attended is a blackball.

Thank you!

Sunil_Prasannan said:

FPT

Casino_Royale said:

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

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.

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/

TheScreamingEagles said:

Gallowgate 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?

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!

Casino_Royale said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

FPT

Casino_Royale said:

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

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.

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.

Leon said:

Flatlander 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.

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

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_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Casino_Royale said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

FPT

Casino_Royale said:

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

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.

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?

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?

Luckyguy1983 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.

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.

Andy_JS said:

Casino_Royale said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

FPT

Casino_Royale said:

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

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.

Flatlander 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?

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.

Anabobazina said:

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.

Stuartinromford said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Casino_Royale 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.

Anabobazina said:

Pulpstar said:

Leon said:

Flatlander 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.

FF43 said:

Stuartinromford said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Casino_Royale 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.

LostPassword said:

Flatlander 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?

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

Benpointer 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.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Casino_Royale said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

FPT

Casino_Royale said:

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

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.

MaxPB said:

Benpointer 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.

GarethoftheVale2 said:

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.

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.

FF43 said:

Stuartinromford said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Casino_Royale 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.