| Bit of protectionism from the EU here then. on 19:23 - Jan 26 with 1579 views | MattinLondon |
| Bit of protectionism from the EU here then. on 18:58 - Jan 26 by Herbivore |
Same old Glassers, being abusive and showing the kind of hypocrisy so typical of the blue team. |
He’s obviously an intelligent guy as well as well versed in politics. But despite all this, he gets so much wrong.
Just an observation that’s all. [Post edited 26 Jan 2021 19:23]
|  | |  |
| Bit of protectionism from the EU here then. on 19:29 - Jan 26 with 1558 views | giant_stow |
Thanks mr. Interesting to see the price paid is the same. Hopefully, the EU snaps out of this fast. |  |
| |
| Bit of protectionism from the EU here then. on 19:30 - Jan 26 with 1557 views | Durovigutum |
| Bit of protectionism from the EU here then. on 12:27 - Jan 26 by Churchman |
I think the point you make is very interesting. Pfizer is an American company. If the EU start pressuring them to drop supplies in favour of EU countries I can see the EU running into all sorts of problems in all sorts of ways and not just with Pfizer.
The thing I find odd about the AstraZeneca argument is that the EU hasn’t even approved the vaccine and it’s toys are already being thrown out of the pram. The Germans now seem to be pumping rubbish info out on it to prepare the population with ‘well the vaccine doesn’t work anyway’ snow job.
The EU approvals process has proven slow, unwieldy and inadequate. They claim that they’re slower because they’re taking more care of their citizens. Yeah, right. Their procurement has been slow, inadequate and badly organised. Yet they’re heaping blame on the very companies that could provide salvation to the pandemic or at least help it and looking to putting it bluntly, queue jump.
These companies are large multinationals, their interests global. Even Sanofi is a multi national and is working in partnership with GSK, another huge company. It’s they, at this moment in time, that hold the cards. Not the EU. [Post edited 26 Jan 2021 12:38]
|
If you've ever worked anywhere that follows the OJEU rules you would realise that not participating in the EU vaccine program was the right thing to do.
As a remainer the ability to get rid of this would almost have been enough for a leave vote. ... |  | | |
| Bit of protectionism from the EU here then. on 19:34 - Jan 26 with 1548 views | GlasgowBlue |
From the horses mouth.
"Anyway, we didn't commit with the EU, by the way. It's not a commitment we have to Europe: it’s a best effort, we said we are going to make our best effort. The reason why we said that is because Europe at the time wanted to be supplied more or less at the same time as the UK, even though the contract was signed three months later. So we said, “ok, we're going to do our best, we’re going to try, but we cannot commit contractually because we are three months behind UK”.
https://www.repubblica.it/cronaca/2021/01/26/news/interview_pascal_soriot_ceo_as |  |
| |
| Bit of protectionism from the EU here then. on 19:40 - Jan 26 with 1529 views | Herbivore |
| Bit of protectionism from the EU here then. on 18:59 - Jan 26 by GlasgowBlue |
You were out of order. You're quite happy to call people a c@nt if you believe they are deserving of it. You were deserving of it with that post. Bang out of order. |
Doubling down (and not being very truthful in the process), there's a surprise. Have a day off, ffs. |  |
| |
| Bit of protectionism from the EU here then. on 22:31 - Jan 26 with 1498 views | StokieBlue |
Head of AZ is saying that he won't divert the UK's doses to the EU as they were the first people to place orders and Oxford university helped create the vaccine:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/26/head-of-astrazeneca-confirms-uk-ha
This is a really weird complaint to make from the French:
"Amid a growing row, Pascal Soriot, the French head of the pharmaceutical giant, said the UK was benefiting from being early to sign a contract for 100m doses."
The EU is now asking for doses produced in the UK to be sent to EU whilst also managing the flow of doses produced in the EU to outside countries.
SB [Post edited 26 Jan 2021 22:34]
|  | | |
| Bit of protectionism from the EU here then. on 22:47 - Jan 26 with 1480 views | Churchman |
| Bit of protectionism from the EU here then. on 19:30 - Jan 26 by Durovigutum |
If you've ever worked anywhere that follows the OJEU rules you would realise that not participating in the EU vaccine program was the right thing to do.
As a remainer the ability to get rid of this would almost have been enough for a leave vote. ... |
No, I haven’t worked directly in connection with OJEU rules, but I did work for a cross government team on Brexit for a couple of years, so have a little insight on what some EU regs are (mostly high level, some detail - they’re considerable!!) and more important, are operated. Cant really say more than that, but I do get what you are saying.
For the record I did vote remain because as somebody who’s done a little economics Brexit didn't from that perspective make any sense. Despite what I think is a positive outlook outside the EU in 10 years time, I’d still choose to be in the tent fighting to reform it than outside competing with it.
Yes, not being in the EU from a vaccine procurement perspective has been a godsend. [Post edited 26 Jan 2021 22:53]
|  | | |
| Bit of protectionism from the EU here then. on 23:16 - Jan 26 with 1460 views | Churchman |
| Bit of protectionism from the EU here then. on 18:45 - Jan 26 by Herbivore |
And yet still fewer deaths per capita than the UK, which puts into context just how terribly we've handled it. |
I would agree if you exclude Belgium, Slovenia, the differences in counting, the fact that the latest version is far more transmissible.
I am all for kicking the govt for what they’ve got wrong, from its dreadful centralised track and trace to its lateness in lockdowns, failure to secure enough PPE early on and to factor in what could happen after the SARS outbreak a few years ago as Southern Hemisphere countries did. That latter is understandable. All in govt were focussed on Brexit at the time.
But writing things that have gone right such as vaccination (to date), testing capability to purely the actions of others isn’t right. If the government is accountable for what has gone wrong, it is also accountable for what little has gone right.
I would love to have seen a national government dealing with this from last April to take the politics out. Too much energy has been wasted on blame and trying to catch people out. That should have been for a post COVID independent review and general election. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Bit of protectionism from the EU here then. on 23:28 - Jan 26 with 1441 views | giant_stow |
| Bit of protectionism from the EU here then. on 22:31 - Jan 26 by StokieBlue |
Head of AZ is saying that he won't divert the UK's doses to the EU as they were the first people to place orders and Oxford university helped create the vaccine:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/26/head-of-astrazeneca-confirms-uk-ha
This is a really weird complaint to make from the French:
"Amid a growing row, Pascal Soriot, the French head of the pharmaceutical giant, said the UK was benefiting from being early to sign a contract for 100m doses."
The EU is now asking for doses produced in the UK to be sent to EU whilst also managing the flow of doses produced in the EU to outside countries.
SB [Post edited 26 Jan 2021 22:34]
|
Nice link, ta. This bit stoud out:
"AstraZeneca’s first supply contract was signed with the UK in May last year. Ministers were keen to ensure that a UK company commercialised the Oxford University technology, rejecting an alternative deal with US giant Merck.
Insiders at the time were worried that Donald Trump, the former US president, might put pressure on Merck to halt supplies to the UK. “What we didn’t expect was the EU might end up going down this path,” a former UK government official said." | |
| |
| Bit of protectionism from the EU here then. on 00:47 - Jan 27 with 1390 views | J2BLUE |
| Bit of protectionism from the EU here then. on 23:28 - Jan 26 by giant_stow |
Nice link, ta. This bit stoud out:
"AstraZeneca’s first supply contract was signed with the UK in May last year. Ministers were keen to ensure that a UK company commercialised the Oxford University technology, rejecting an alternative deal with US giant Merck.
Insiders at the time were worried that Donald Trump, the former US president, might put pressure on Merck to halt supplies to the UK. “What we didn’t expect was the EU might end up going down this path,” a former UK government official said." |
Fair play to the government. I think they deserve some real credit for the vaccine management.
I always feel the need to mention the massive list of stuff they've got wrong through corruption and incompetence but this is one where they do deserve some credit.
Obviously the rollout is mainly down to the excellent of the armed forces and the NHS but making sure we had secure access to vaccines was a job well done. |  |
| |
| Bit of protectionism from the EU here then. on 00:56 - Jan 27 with 1385 views | Churchman |
| Bit of protectionism from the EU here then. on 00:47 - Jan 27 by J2BLUE |
Fair play to the government. I think they deserve some real credit for the vaccine management.
I always feel the need to mention the massive list of stuff they've got wrong through corruption and incompetence but this is one where they do deserve some credit.
Obviously the rollout is mainly down to the excellent of the armed forces and the NHS but making sure we had secure access to vaccines was a job well done. |
Yes, NHS and the Armed Forces who deservedly get the headlines, but also massive credit to an awful lot of other people behind the scenes to get this going. A real national effort. | | | |
| Bit of protectionism from the EU here then. on 07:21 - Jan 27 with 1319 views | GlasgowBlue |
| Bit of protectionism from the EU here then. on 23:16 - Jan 26 by Churchman |
I would agree if you exclude Belgium, Slovenia, the differences in counting, the fact that the latest version is far more transmissible.
I am all for kicking the govt for what they’ve got wrong, from its dreadful centralised track and trace to its lateness in lockdowns, failure to secure enough PPE early on and to factor in what could happen after the SARS outbreak a few years ago as Southern Hemisphere countries did. That latter is understandable. All in govt were focussed on Brexit at the time.
But writing things that have gone right such as vaccination (to date), testing capability to purely the actions of others isn’t right. If the government is accountable for what has gone wrong, it is also accountable for what little has gone right.
I would love to have seen a national government dealing with this from last April to take the politics out. Too much energy has been wasted on blame and trying to catch people out. That should have been for a post COVID independent review and general election. |
Herbie isn’t interested in facts. He just sees death numbers like points in a football league table.
It’s worth noting that half of all official COVID-19 deaths since the pandemic started in Britain have taken place since 11th November. And a quarter of all deaths since the pandemic started in Britain have taken place since 3rd January.
This is down to the new variant that first came to light in Kent. | |
| |
| Bit of protectionism from the EU here then. on 07:45 - Jan 27 with 1295 views | GlasgowBlue |
| Bit of protectionism from the EU here then. on 19:34 - Jan 26 by GlasgowBlue |
From the horses mouth.
"Anyway, we didn't commit with the EU, by the way. It's not a commitment we have to Europe: it’s a best effort, we said we are going to make our best effort. The reason why we said that is because Europe at the time wanted to be supplied more or less at the same time as the UK, even though the contract was signed three months later. So we said, “ok, we're going to do our best, we’re going to try, but we cannot commit contractually because we are three months behind UK”.
https://www.repubblica.it/cronaca/2021/01/26/news/interview_pascal_soriot_ceo_as |
This should also put to bed the debate over the UK changing the length between doses.
“I think the UK one-dose strategy is absolutely the right way to go, at least for our vaccine. I cannot comment about the Pfizer vaccine, whose studies are for a three-week interval. In our case, the trial we're talking about was conducted by Oxford University. We AZ are conducting the US trial, which we think is going to be ready very soon. Oxford University conducted the so-called Oxford trial in UK and Brazil, and we have data for patients who received the vaccine in one-month interval, 2 or 3 months interval. First of all, we believe that the efficacy of one dose is sufficient: 100 percent protection against severe disease and hospitalisation, and 71-73 percent of efficacy overall. The second dose is needed for long term protection. But you get a better efficiency if you get the 2nd dose later than earlier. We are going to do a study in the US and globally to use two-month dose interval to confirm that this is indeed the case, there are many reasons to believe it is the case with our vaccine. We have a different technology. First of all, when you look at level of antibody production, this is higher if you give the second dose three months or two months later than one month later.“ | |
| |
| Bit of protectionism from the EU here then. on 08:21 - Jan 27 with 1266 views | Herbivore |
| Bit of protectionism from the EU here then. on 07:45 - Jan 27 by GlasgowBlue |
This should also put to bed the debate over the UK changing the length between doses.
“I think the UK one-dose strategy is absolutely the right way to go, at least for our vaccine. I cannot comment about the Pfizer vaccine, whose studies are for a three-week interval. In our case, the trial we're talking about was conducted by Oxford University. We AZ are conducting the US trial, which we think is going to be ready very soon. Oxford University conducted the so-called Oxford trial in UK and Brazil, and we have data for patients who received the vaccine in one-month interval, 2 or 3 months interval. First of all, we believe that the efficacy of one dose is sufficient: 100 percent protection against severe disease and hospitalisation, and 71-73 percent of efficacy overall. The second dose is needed for long term protection. But you get a better efficiency if you get the 2nd dose later than earlier. We are going to do a study in the US and globally to use two-month dose interval to confirm that this is indeed the case, there are many reasons to believe it is the case with our vaccine. We have a different technology. First of all, when you look at level of antibody production, this is higher if you give the second dose three months or two months later than one month later.“ |
The main debate around the length of the second doses relates to the Pfizer vaccine, there's been little dissent regarding the AZ vaccine so you're rather strawmanning there to try and defend the blue team again. | |
| |
| Bit of protectionism from the EU here then. on 08:32 - Jan 27 with 1247 views | GlasgowBlue |
| Bit of protectionism from the EU here then. on 08:21 - Jan 27 by Herbivore |
The main debate around the length of the second doses relates to the Pfizer vaccine, there's been little dissent regarding the AZ vaccine so you're rather strawmanning there to try and defend the blue team again. |
But Johnson.
The decision was made by The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation with the support of the 4 Chief Medical Officers from the devolved nations.
It would appear I’m strawmanning in order to defend the SNP, Welsh Labour and the DUP/ Sinn Féin governments.
Ffs herbie. You’ve become the left wing version of [redacted]. You’re prejudice has seen you completely lose the plot. | |
| |
| Bit of protectionism from the EU here then. on 08:37 - Jan 27 with 1225 views | Herbivore |
| Bit of protectionism from the EU here then. on 08:32 - Jan 27 by GlasgowBlue |
But Johnson.
The decision was made by The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation with the support of the 4 Chief Medical Officers from the devolved nations.
It would appear I’m strawmanning in order to defend the SNP, Welsh Labour and the DUP/ Sinn Féin governments.
Ffs herbie. You’ve become the left wing version of [redacted]. You’re prejudice has seen you completely lose the plot. |
Go blue team! | |
| |
| Bit of protectionism from the EU here then. on 08:41 - Jan 27 with 1216 views | GlasgowBlue |
| Bit of protectionism from the EU here then. on 08:37 - Jan 27 by Herbivore |
Go blue team! |
That’s your reply? Pathetic. But well done for proving my point. Completely lost the plot and bankrupt of balanced independent thought.
A Poundland [redacted and nit worth a second more of my time]. [Post edited 27 Jan 2021 8:42]
| |
| |
| Bit of protectionism from the EU here then. on 08:43 - Jan 27 with 1215 views | StokieBlue |
| Bit of protectionism from the EU here then. on 07:45 - Jan 27 by GlasgowBlue |
This should also put to bed the debate over the UK changing the length between doses.
“I think the UK one-dose strategy is absolutely the right way to go, at least for our vaccine. I cannot comment about the Pfizer vaccine, whose studies are for a three-week interval. In our case, the trial we're talking about was conducted by Oxford University. We AZ are conducting the US trial, which we think is going to be ready very soon. Oxford University conducted the so-called Oxford trial in UK and Brazil, and we have data for patients who received the vaccine in one-month interval, 2 or 3 months interval. First of all, we believe that the efficacy of one dose is sufficient: 100 percent protection against severe disease and hospitalisation, and 71-73 percent of efficacy overall. The second dose is needed for long term protection. But you get a better efficiency if you get the 2nd dose later than earlier. We are going to do a study in the US and globally to use two-month dose interval to confirm that this is indeed the case, there are many reasons to believe it is the case with our vaccine. We have a different technology. First of all, when you look at level of antibody production, this is higher if you give the second dose three months or two months later than one month later.“ |
Why would that put the debate to bed?
There is no issue with 12 weeks between Oxford vaccines, there is an issue with Pfizer given there is no research for it, nobody else in the world is really taking that approach and the company themselves advise heavily against it.
Saying the JCVI recommended it isn't actually evidence. There are countless other vaccination bodies globally who haven't recommended it because the studies simply didn't have the data.
Conflating two totally different vaccines isn't helpful.
SB [Post edited 27 Jan 2021 8:45]
| | | |
| Bit of protectionism from the EU here then. on 08:44 - Jan 27 with 1209 views | Herbivore |
| Bit of protectionism from the EU here then. on 08:43 - Jan 27 by StokieBlue |
Why would that put the debate to bed?
There is no issue with 12 weeks between Oxford vaccines, there is an issue with Pfizer given there is no research for it, nobody else in the world is really taking that approach and the company themselves advise heavily against it.
Saying the JCVI recommended it isn't actually evidence. There are countless other vaccination bodies globally who haven't recommended it because the studies simply didn't have the data.
Conflating two totally different vaccines isn't helpful.
SB [Post edited 27 Jan 2021 8:45]
|
I expect you'll get the same "But Boris" response that I got for pointing this out to Glassers. | |
| |
| Bit of protectionism from the EU here then. on 08:48 - Jan 27 with 1202 views | Herbivore |
| Bit of protectionism from the EU here then. on 08:41 - Jan 27 by GlasgowBlue |
That’s your reply? Pathetic. But well done for proving my point. Completely lost the plot and bankrupt of balanced independent thought.
A Poundland [redacted and nit worth a second more of my time]. [Post edited 27 Jan 2021 8:42]
|
Take a look in the mirror. Your main contributions to this thread have been replying to perfectly reasonable points with a glib "But Boris" and then calling me a c**t for pointing out your glibness. You're a dishonest and thoroughly unpleasant individual so please feel free to not "waste your time" on me. I've generally tried to ignore you for a fair while but when you respond to my posts acting like a dick then I'm going to bite back. Just ignore me and I'll gladly do the same in return. | |
| |
| Bit of protectionism from the EU here then. on 09:23 - Jan 27 with 1145 views | Churchman |
| Bit of protectionism from the EU here then. on 08:43 - Jan 27 by StokieBlue |
Why would that put the debate to bed?
There is no issue with 12 weeks between Oxford vaccines, there is an issue with Pfizer given there is no research for it, nobody else in the world is really taking that approach and the company themselves advise heavily against it.
Saying the JCVI recommended it isn't actually evidence. There are countless other vaccination bodies globally who haven't recommended it because the studies simply didn't have the data.
Conflating two totally different vaccines isn't helpful.
SB [Post edited 27 Jan 2021 8:45]
|
No, but from what I hear, vaccines all tend to work the same way. The way people like JVT and Whitty have explained the decision makes perfect sense to me. It’s simple maths that even I can understand.
That Pfizer don’t recommend it because they’ve not tested it may be more down to fear of litigation than anything else, though that’s very much idle speculation. Yes, I think it’s a gamble, but not taking it certainly condemns even more people to die on the basis of what is known.
What I’d be interested to know is that if you have the Pfizer vaccine and it’s effectiveness wears off after say 3 months, can you safely have the AZ one? | | | |
| Bit of protectionism from the EU here then. on 09:30 - Jan 27 with 1133 views | hype313 |
| Bit of protectionism from the EU here then. on 09:23 - Jan 27 by Churchman |
No, but from what I hear, vaccines all tend to work the same way. The way people like JVT and Whitty have explained the decision makes perfect sense to me. It’s simple maths that even I can understand.
That Pfizer don’t recommend it because they’ve not tested it may be more down to fear of litigation than anything else, though that’s very much idle speculation. Yes, I think it’s a gamble, but not taking it certainly condemns even more people to die on the basis of what is known.
What I’d be interested to know is that if you have the Pfizer vaccine and it’s effectiveness wears off after say 3 months, can you safely have the AZ one? |
They have nothing to fear from litigation as they have have all been absolved from that threat. |  |
| |
| Bit of protectionism from the EU here then. on 09:34 - Jan 27 with 1124 views | StokieBlue |
| Bit of protectionism from the EU here then. on 09:23 - Jan 27 by Churchman |
No, but from what I hear, vaccines all tend to work the same way. The way people like JVT and Whitty have explained the decision makes perfect sense to me. It’s simple maths that even I can understand.
That Pfizer don’t recommend it because they’ve not tested it may be more down to fear of litigation than anything else, though that’s very much idle speculation. Yes, I think it’s a gamble, but not taking it certainly condemns even more people to die on the basis of what is known.
What I’d be interested to know is that if you have the Pfizer vaccine and it’s effectiveness wears off after say 3 months, can you safely have the AZ one? |
A car and a train work "the same way" but that doesn't mean they are equivalent.
The Pfizer vaccine is the first ever mRNA vaccine and works by "programming" the body to create spike proteins that they can then recognise. The AZ vaccine is an modified adenovirus which contains a small piece of the C19 virus (in DNA form) which then gets the body to produce the spike proteins. So whilst they are similar they are also very different, that is why they have different efficacies and why they have to be handled in different ways (temperature for storage for instance).
As you say, Pfizer haven't tested the dosages we are using but would you generally accept a medicine which hadn't been tested in the way it was being used? Do we think that other regulators and experts around the world are incompetent and only ours understand the issues? There is definitely a debate to be had here and just saying "JVCI" to shut it down isn't valid. They may prove to be correct but it won't have been based on thorough testing.
It may well work but saying it's "simple" maths obfuscates a lot of complexity underneath that maths.
"What I’d be interested to know is that if you have the Pfizer vaccine and it’s effectiveness wears off after say 3 months, can you safely have the AZ one?"
If it wears off after 3 months then we have wasted millions of doses and made the most vulnerable once again prime targets for C19 given they are the ones who were getting Pfizer as it's the first vaccine we had. Don't you think that's more of an issue than whether we can switch to a different vaccine?
SB [Post edited 27 Jan 2021 9:50]
| | | |
| Bit of protectionism from the EU here then. on 09:34 - Jan 27 with 1124 views | Pinewoodblue |
| Bit of protectionism from the EU here then. on 09:23 - Jan 27 by Churchman |
No, but from what I hear, vaccines all tend to work the same way. The way people like JVT and Whitty have explained the decision makes perfect sense to me. It’s simple maths that even I can understand.
That Pfizer don’t recommend it because they’ve not tested it may be more down to fear of litigation than anything else, though that’s very much idle speculation. Yes, I think it’s a gamble, but not taking it certainly condemns even more people to die on the basis of what is known.
What I’d be interested to know is that if you have the Pfizer vaccine and it’s effectiveness wears off after say 3 months, can you safely have the AZ one? |
In three months there is likely to be a much wider options as other vaccines come on line, assuming of course they are approved.
This pandemic has shown what can be achieved by science when given full financial support. When this is all over we need to look at how cancer research is funded. Not just treatment but looking at ways to identify it sooner. |  |
| |
| Bit of protectionism from the EU here then. on 09:50 - Jan 27 with 1093 views | Durovigutum |
| Bit of protectionism from the EU here then. on 00:56 - Jan 27 by Churchman |
Yes, NHS and the Armed Forces who deservedly get the headlines, but also massive credit to an awful lot of other people behind the scenes to get this going. A real national effort. |
I find it interesting that the organisations excelling in rising to the occasion are those who (attempt to) pursue excellence rather than profit or cost savings as their primary goal, yet those who have fallen short are those who tend to take a shorter term (bonus period) view of the world.
I wonder if the dots will be joined.... | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
