Astrazeneca/Oxford vaccine approved

[slowsider]

"EU threatens export controls on Covid vaccines..."

The EU is threatening export controls. I.e. the EU, not Brexit, is causing this problem.

Do you even read what you post?

'Export' in terms of countries 'outside the EU'.

'Swot I said, innit.

The EU are threatening export controls, the UK (as far as I know) are not. Therefore, it's the EU that is causing the problem, not Brexit. Unless, of course, you think any barrier to trade introduced by the EU is the fault of the UK for having the temerity to leave.

i'm acknowledging the agency of the uk which chose to place itself outside the 'perimeter' (for want of a better word). Export controls only apply to those outside. The eu didn't put the UK outside.

[Docca]

I don’t mean to suggest this is limited to Europe. It should be shared; no life is worth more than another.

I vehemently disagree with the obtuse suggestion that if you feel we should share to those in need, you surrender your turn. However, again, the 9 categories in the JCVI are a good foundation. If you are otherwise of good health and outside of those categories, you should be better placed to wait.

Here's the problem with your vehement disagreement. I might agree.

I agree "we" should share to those in need and I agree that should not include me just because I am suggesting the idea. I which case I volunteer you to give up your vaccine so that "we" can "share" something during this zero sum period of the game.

On a more serious note, I disagree with the idea of selecting ALL those who should receive the jab first. The problem with a pandemic is not the mortality for each unfortunate victim. The problem is the rate of infection with such a highly transmissible virus and the effect that has on the health system and the function of a complex society.

Despite your second paragraph, I simply don’t believe you have understood the reasoning behind the JCVI guidance. If everyone in the UK right now was to have Covid, the vast majority who would end up in hospital would be the elderly, the infirm and those with underlying health conditions..and so on. That’s why you prioritise the vaccination of those groups first.

With regards to your first paragraph; I am a healthcare worker ( nurse), have been part of the vaccine clinic administering vaccinations and also working on the frontline- not the ICU, but on mental health wards, including dementia and also supporting care homes. It’s quite tricky to confine patients with Covid to a confined space when they are delirious ( read: you can’t).

Here is the list again for reference:


• Residents in a care home for older adults and their carers
• All those 80 years of age and over and frontline health and social care workers
• All those 75 years of age and over
• All those 70 years of age and over and clinically extremely vulnerable individuals
• All those 65 years of age and over.
• All individuals aged 16 years to 64 years with underlying health conditions which put them at higher risk of serious disease and mortality
• All those 60 years of age and over
• All those 55 years of age and over
• All those 50 years of age and over

Excess deaths will be higher amongst all ages, but highest amongst the above groupings. My view is cover that list, then share with other nations until they’ve also got that covered. There will be deaths in other ages, but these will be much less likely.

As for Angola and other ridiculous and Ill-thought comparison; that lands squarely in the camp of ‘whataboutisms’ and you’ll never shift people’s opinions when they get that entrenched/not shake off the past. This isn’t about history, or politics, but about principles. Why this doesn’t land with people here ( BUT JERRY BUMMED MY GRANDMOTHeR DURING THE WAR-NEVAR FurGET!!) is not beyond me.

[irie]

... My view is cover that list, then share with other nations until they’ve also got that covered ...

OK SdF, please identify which nations you would or would not include in the above, and the reasons why or why not.

[Kneerly Down]

The EU's Stella doesn't seem to understand why giving the commitment to AstraZeneca 3 months after the UK should make a difference.
The CEO of AstraZeneca does.
He said that after the commitments were made AZ was able to start putting in place the complicated supply chains and thence the process of optimising the production. The 3 month delay of the EU was, according to AZ, the reason why supply to the EU is more difficult.
When presented with the comment from Stella that the EU should be given a fair and equal share of the vaccine, the AZ CEO/Spokesperson (missed who as I was going over Rannoch Moor at the time) mentioned that the EU with 5% population share was due to get 15% of the vaccine supply!

[Hoonercat]

Reading some Euro media reports this morning which claim the EU will ask AZ to publish the contract in full, and suggest that the UK vaccine sites are mentioned as primary suppliers to the EU in the contract. If that is the case, given the money the EU has contributed to the development of the vaccine as well as having paid a large upfront payment, I can understand why they might be just a bit pissed off to see the UK getting its full consignment from AZ while EU deliveries are struggling.

[Docca]

... My view is cover that list, then share with other nations until they’ve also got that covered ...

OK SdF, please identify which nations you would or would not include in the above, and the reasons why or why not.

What criteria would you use to exclude anyone ?

[Yorick]

I'm usually in favour of Britain over the EU, but not in this case.

I want Spain to get plenty so I can have mine.

[Wreckless Rat]

Reading some Euro media reports this morning which claim the EU will ask AZ to publish the contract in full, and suggest that the UK vaccine sites are mentioned as primary suppliers to the EU in the contract. If that is the case, given the money the EU has contributed to the development of the vaccine as well as having paid a large upfront payment, I can understand why they might be just a bit pissed off to see the UK getting its full consignment from AZ while EU deliveries are struggling.

Slight correction, the EU invested in the BioNTech development... i.e. the Pfizer one not the AZ one. Just because I invest in microsoft, it doesn't mean I get the profits from Apple inc.

[Kneerly Down]

If we are going to start diverting UK vaccines out of charity then there are probably far more deserving recipients than the EU.

There are, which is why the UK donates to the COVAX AMC facility, for providing Covid-19 vaccines to the developing world.
The UK has committed by far the largest amount - over $700m, compares with $120m from Germany and $20m from Italy...not sure France or Belgium have given anything.*

Through this the developing world are getting an initial 100 million doses of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine.
The UK has so far funded c. 350 million vaccine doses to the developing world.
Also, this year, assuming Biden makes good on his WHO commitment, the UK will be the second biggest donor to the WHO.

If he doesn't, the UK will be the biggest donor to the WHO.


* oh, most recent report has 'Team Europe' as biggest donor at €850m, of which €400m is a loan from the EIB.

[Mr. Dazzle]

Astrazeneca have already committed to supplying the vaccine to third world countries at cost price (cost price borne by the UK in part?) for as long as the pandemic lasts. I think have given themselves the authority to decide when the pandemic is over though.

BTW I thought Bill Gates was the second biggest WHO funder?

[Wreckless Rat]

Astrazeneca have already committed to supplying the vaccine to third world countries at cost price (cost price borne by the UK in part?) for as long as the pandemic lasts. I think have given themselves the authority to decide when the pandemic is over though.

BTW I thought Bill Gates was the second biggest WHO funder?

I read that it is supplying all covid vaccines at cost price, UK and EU included. Of course it gets the investment in production facilities, but what will happen to these once the pandemic is over? Will the remain, be mothballed, or disposed of... dunno.

[weeksy]

Astrazeneca have already committed to supplying the vaccine to third world countries at cost price (cost price borne by the UK in part?) for as long as the pandemic lasts. I think have given themselves the authority to decide when the pandemic is over though.

BTW I thought Bill Gates was the second biggest WHO funder?

I read that it is supplying all covid vaccines at cost price, UK and EU included. Of course it gets the investment in production facilities, but what will happen to these once the pandemic is over? Will the remain, be mothballed, or disposed of... dunno.

That wouldn't make a lot of sense in many ways. There's not a massive incentive there if that's the case

[Kneerly Down]

My understanding is that during the pandemic AZ have committed not to make a profit on the supply of ALL AZ Covid-19 vaccine.
Once the pandemic is over (presumably the WHO, in charge of declaring it a pandemic, will also be the body that declared when it is no longer a pandemic) AZ have committed to continue to supply the vaccine to the developing world on a no-profit basis.

[Kneerly Down]

BTW I thought Bill Gates was the second biggest WHO funder?

Last year, yes, but Boris is upping the UK contributions to the WHO by 30% to make the UK the 2nd biggest donor.

[Wreckless Rat]

Astrazeneca have already committed to supplying the vaccine to third world countries at cost price (cost price borne by the UK in part?) for as long as the pandemic lasts. I think have given themselves the authority to decide when the pandemic is over though.

BTW I thought Bill Gates was the second biggest WHO funder?

I read that it is supplying all covid vaccines at cost price, UK and EU included. Of course it gets the investment in production facilities, but what will happen to these once the pandemic is over? Will the remain, be mothballed, or disposed of... dunno.

That wouldn't make a lot of sense in many ways. There's not a massive incentive there if that's the case

Dunno mate, it was something I read last week. I could well be wrong, I was once before, although that was some time ago....

[Mr. Dazzle]

He's clearly a rich wanker though, donating more money than all but one (now two) state governments.

[wheelnut]

I don’t mean to suggest this is limited to Europe. It should be shared; no life is worth more than another.

[DEADPOOL]

Despite your second paragraph, I simply don’t believe you have understood the reasoning behind the JCVI guidance. If everyone in the UK right now was to have Covid, the vast majority who would end up in hospital would be the elderly, the infirm and those with underlying health conditions..and so on. That’s why you prioritise the vaccination of those groups first.

You misunderstand my position. As I said, my main concern is not the directly attributable deaths but the pandemic causing huge numbers of infected people to overwhelm the health system and cause havoc within a complex society.

The strategy therefore is not to attempt to affect the death rate directly by protecting those at the highest risk but to bring down the R number to a sustainable level, allow the health system to better cope and protect the economy from collapsing due to absenteeism.

While is is prudent to vaccinate those most at risk from death, the eldest group on that list are already closest to it. The benefit of treatment is, not to put too fine a point on it, short lived.

Contrast with the possibility for a fit, active 20-30 year old to contract long covid where they spend the next 50 years suffering those potentially avoidable effects.

I am not suggesting it is a black or white issue but there is a grey area when there is a choice to be made as to how society as a whole benefits most in the longer term. In addition, having the vaccine distributed more randomly among the general population and not in the (more easily managed) cluster groups of the elderly and infirm would be a much better way to reduce the transmission rate. That would benefit the elderly and infirm too but also significantly reduce the number of long term health issues within the active population.

[weeksy]

As for Angola and other ridiculous and Ill-thought comparison; that lands squarely in the camp of ‘whataboutisms’ and you’ll never shift people’s opinions when they get that entrenched/not shake off the past. This isn’t about history, or politics, but about principles. Why this doesn’t land with people here ( BUT JERRY BUMMED MY GRANDMOTHeR DURING THE WAR-NEVAR FurGET!!) is not beyond me.

Oh, I thought you were making the point that all human beings are equal, right now, today, regardless of location and politics.
But you meant as long as they're not brown people that live outside the EU.

easy boys...

[Wreckless Rat]

FWIW, I can see why the EU would want to try and force the hand of the supplier, but... why does the EU assume EU citizens are more deserving than anyone else. Would it be that they are duty bound to think of their own before they think of others. Clearly they do, they think EU citizens trump UK citizens. They know that for their deliveries to be increased, someone else's have to decrease. Who are they choosing for this, or is it, they just don't care as long as they get what they see as "theirs", even though they do not have any legal rights to it.

For too long we have had to listen to the UK death count being the highest, the UK economy impacted the deepest, the UK Government WANTS to kill its people, and other such vile rhetoric and yet now the UK government has been shown to have done the right thing, shrewdly negotiated supply deals directly putting its population first, as is the responsibility for any government, it should now yield to let more of its people die, so someone in another country doesn't.

It's a bit like what the pro-eu lot have been saying about the issues caused by Brexit, tough shit.