Wreckless Rat wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 9:56 am
Boris is a shit show in many ways, but he has seen the UK through to being miles ahead. Two reasons.
1) Allowed the regulators to start test B before test A has completed. A risk of wasting money if test A failed - the benefit of licencing for use fast if test A passed.
2) By not joining the EU vaccine program - allowing the UK to negotiate directly with the manufacturers. Probably cost a few quid extra. Meh... who cares. The sums COVID has and is costing are astronomical.
Of course, some, owing to nothing but politics are unable to praise when it's due.
When its due...
1. approvals are by MHRA, how does Boris influence their decision?
2. EU regulations permit member states to issue temporary approval in an emergency.
The MHRA acted in line with EU regulations, and any other EU country could have done the same
The speed at which the vaccine has been developed and licensed comes after the UK Government elected not to follow the processes set out by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) for licensing.
The EMA will decide on a licence for the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine by 29 December. The UK has adopted its own process, via amendments to the Human Medicine Regulations (HMR) 2012 after the Human Medicines (Coronavirus and Influenza) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 (SI 2020/1125) (HMCIR) came into force on 16 October 2020 following a three-week Government consultation.
Amendments to the HMR has allowed a speedier licensing process, using the UK regulator the MHRA.
DEADPOOL wrote: ↑Thu Jan 28, 2021 12:49 pm
Wow. So the jury is, in some ways, still out on whether not not the EU did the right thing? Reading through that lot you have to wonder what Boris has agreed regarding liability if the vaccine goes tits up. My guess is he'd probably just wing it.
Good call though (albeit another guess!)
The amendments to the HMR also include extending immunity from civil liability to companies producing the vaccine, rather than just protecting healthcare workers and manufacturers.
The EU secured some of the lowest prices in the world. At what cost?
This account is based on dozens of interviews with diplomats, Commission officials, pharma industry representatives and national government aides. It details how the European Commission overcame a disorganized start to lead reluctant member countries in a successful effort to reserve an arsenal of vaccines that’s the envy of the world when it comes to cost and the diversification of smart bets.
It also shows how a vaccine strategy that was supposed to be a forceful show of European solidarity, an assertion of the single market’s buying power and a moral stand against Trumpian “vaccine nationalism” resulted in a rollout that has left the EU lagging behind the United Kingdom and the United States
Interesting read, almost like a soap opera script.
My take away is they are harping on about the AstraZeneca vaccine mainly because it's much cheaper and all the EU has left to hang onto is that it managed to get cheaper deals than anyone else.
It seems they know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.
Mussels wrote: ↑Thu Jan 28, 2021 1:24 pm
Interesting read, almost like a soap opera script.
My take away is they are harping on about the AstraZeneca vaccine mainly because it's much cheaper and all the EU has left to hang onto is that it managed to get cheaper deals than anyone else.
It seems they know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.
Also makes you wonder if the vaccine makers are hedging their bets a bit too. They were pressured into the fastest development and delivery of these vaccines, with massively compressed timelines, which of course come with some level of risk of use. The EU has forced greater liability into the contracts, good for the people if it turns out there is a massive issue with them, really bad for the manufacturers.
The locations which have accepted a bigger risk, with less direct liability if it goes a bit Pete Tong would naturally be the best places to deliver large amounts first. So... the UK.
The way I see it is there was a good chance, owning to my existing conditions, that CV19 might well kill me, so might the vaccine, but then so might many things and thus I deemed the risk a good odds punt.
I'm all for ploughing ahead and vaccinating all of the UK. The JVCI order of vaccine admin make sense, but it doesn't account for the newer strains affecting younger and fitter people, which is what we're being told is happening. It also doesn't really account for transmission by the superspreader kids and we're told no vaccine is 100% effective, so to not carry on with our program of vaccinating all of the UK is to put the UK residents at further risk.
To try and attach some sort of morality to this is also wrong. Other Govts can answer to their own people for their lack of organisation of securing appropriate numbers of the various vaccines. We shouldn't feel any obligation, for any reason, to divvy up our vaccine booty. Our Govt is charged with looking after us first as are other Govt's charged with looking after their peoples first too. I certainly cant see the likes of Macron loading up his deux chevaux with vaccines and bringing them here if the boot was on the other foot. Besides, most of the 1st world lacks benevolence to the rest of it, so to try and out the UK as being mercenary with the vaccines is a hypocrisy too far.
German expert panel recommends giving AstraZeneca shot only to under 65s
BERLIN, Jan 28 (Reuters) - AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine should only be given to people aged under 65, Germany’s vaccine committee said in an update to its vaccine recommendation, citing a lack of sufficient data to recommend use in older age groups.
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people." - Giordano Bruno
Taipan wrote: ↑Thu Jan 28, 2021 2:15 pm
To try and attach some sort of morality to this is also wrong. Other Govts can answer to their own people for their lack of organisation of securing appropriate numbers of the various vaccines.
The EU secured some of the lowest prices in the world. At what cost?
This account is based on dozens of interviews with diplomats, Commission officials, pharma industry representatives and national government aides. It details how the European Commission overcame a disorganized start to lead reluctant member countries in a successful effort to reserve an arsenal of vaccines that’s the envy of the world when it comes to cost and the diversification of smart bets.
It also shows how a vaccine strategy that was supposed to be a forceful show of European solidarity, an assertion of the single market’s buying power and a moral stand against Trumpian “vaccine nationalism” resulted in a rollout that has left the EU lagging behind the United Kingdom and the United States
Interesting read, almost like a soap opera script.
My take away is they are harping on about the AstraZeneca vaccine mainly because it's much cheaper and all the EU has left to hang onto is that it managed to get cheaper deals than anyone else.
It seems they know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.
Indeed, the EU's multi month delay saved money but is almost certain to cost many lives.
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people." - Giordano Bruno
Thought this strain was also dangerous to younger folk some expert said, If so, once every man, women and child in the UK has been jabbed, I'm all for helping other countries.
Taipan wrote: ↑Thu Jan 28, 2021 2:15 pm
To try and attach some sort of morality to this is also wrong. Other Govts can answer to their own people for their lack of organisation of securing appropriate numbers of the various vaccines. We shouldn't feel any obligation, for any reason, to divvy up our vaccine booty. Our Govt is charged with looking after us first as are other Govt's charged with looking after their peoples first too. I certainly cant see the likes of Macron loading up his deux chevaux with vaccines and bringing them here if the boot was on the other foot. Besides, most of the 1st world lacks benevolence to the rest of it, so to try and out the UK as being mercenary with the vaccines is a hypocrisy too far.
depends on your sense of devolution doesn't it?
Are you focusing on -
- humankind
- europe
- uk
- england
- essex
- your town
- your street
- your kin
?
Choosing the UK as where the buck stops is just convenient.
How would we feel if the there was regional disparity within the UK because Essex 'had done a better deal' than, say, Yorkshire?
Taipan wrote: ↑Thu Jan 28, 2021 2:15 pm
To try and attach some sort of morality to this is also wrong. Other Govts can answer to their own people for their lack of organisation of securing appropriate numbers of the various vaccines. We shouldn't feel any obligation, for any reason, to divvy up our vaccine booty. Our Govt is charged with looking after us first as are other Govt's charged with looking after their peoples first too. I certainly cant see the likes of Macron loading up his deux chevaux with vaccines and bringing them here if the boot was on the other foot. Besides, most of the 1st world lacks benevolence to the rest of it, so to try and out the UK as being mercenary with the vaccines is a hypocrisy too far.
depends on your sense of devolution doesn't it?
Are you focusing on -
- humankind
- europe
- uk
- england
- essex
- your town
- your street
- your kin
?
Choosing the UK as where the buck stops is just convenient.
How would we feel if the there was regional disparity within the UK because Essex 'had done a better deal' than, say, Yorkshire?
Using that logic, we just stop right now, give it all away to mankind and watch all our friends and family die.
weeksy wrote: ↑Thu Jan 28, 2021 2:30 pm
Using that logic, we just stop right now, give it all away to mankind and watch all our friends and family die.
You ready to die?
Will I die or will I just have to stay locked up longer?
We've decided that the government have control at a national level and have feck all control over what they do at a regional level (other than whinging) so arguably they are making regional live or die decisions on our behalf.
This is only an issue because it seems you/I might get less than, what is currently, more than our fair share?
If Russia suddenly offered a bazillion of their sputnik vaccines presumably we'd all say yes please.
Last edited by DefTrap on Thu Jan 28, 2021 2:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
weeksy wrote: ↑Thu Jan 28, 2021 2:30 pm
Using that logic, we just stop right now, give it all away to mankind and watch all our friends and family die.
You ready to die?
Will I die or will I just have to stay locked up longer?
We've decided that the government have control at a national level and have feck all control over what they do at a regional level (other than whinging) so arguably they are making regional live or die decisions on our behalf.
This is only an issue because it seems you/I might get less?
weeksy wrote: ↑Thu Jan 28, 2021 2:30 pm
Using that logic, we just stop right now, give it all away to mankind and watch all our friends and family die.
You ready to die?
The only logical way out is to let market forces work. Sell vaccines to the highest bidder, both in bulk and individually.
weeksy wrote: ↑Thu Jan 28, 2021 2:30 pm
Using that logic, we just stop right now, give it all away to mankind and watch all our friends and family die.
You ready to die?
The only logical way out is to let market forces work. Sell vaccines to the highest bidder, both in bulk and individually.
Ah, we just let the poor die then. Sure, I'm ok with that
German expert panel recommends giving AstraZeneca shot only to under 65s
BERLIN, Jan 28 (Reuters) - AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine should only be given to people aged under 65, Germany’s vaccine committee said in an update to its vaccine recommendation, citing a lack of sufficient data to recommend use in older age groups.
German expert panel recommends giving AstraZeneca shot only to under 65s
BERLIN, Jan 28 (Reuters) - AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine should only be given to people aged under 65, Germany’s vaccine committee said in an update to its vaccine recommendation, citing a lack of sufficient data to recommend use in older age groups.
Given the most at risk are 65+ you wonder why they tested it on them the least?
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 ?
Answering a question with a question is something I can do too.
Given that over 12% of world population of about 7.7bn is over 60 years old, would you exclude any of the ~920m in the 60+ group, and if so why?
Actually I don’t believe you ask pertinent questions and then try to over qualify them with more of the same. My answer is no; I wouldn’t seek to reason to exclude anyone from that cohort. If pushed, I’d work through a triage of most to least at risk groups. Under the JCVI that places >50 and then >60 in that camp.
Anyone who is in their 50s or 60s with underlying health conditions, becomes a higher priority.
So again, what criteria would you chose to exclude people from getting a vaccine?
Last edited by Docca on Thu Jan 28, 2021 3:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Taipan wrote: ↑Thu Jan 28, 2021 2:15 pm
To try and attach some sort of morality to this is also wrong. Other Govts can answer to their own people for their lack of organisation of securing appropriate numbers of the various vaccines. We shouldn't feel any obligation, for any reason, to divvy up our vaccine booty. Our Govt is charged with looking after us first as are other Govt's charged with looking after their peoples first too. I certainly cant see the likes of Macron loading up his deux chevaux with vaccines and bringing them here if the boot was on the other foot. Besides, most of the 1st world lacks benevolence to the rest of it, so to try and out the UK as being mercenary with the vaccines is a hypocrisy too far.
depends on your sense of devolution doesn't it?
Are you focusing on -
- humankind
- europe
- uk
- england
- essex
- your town
- your street
- your kin
?
Choosing the UK as where the buck stops is just convenient.
How would we feel if the there was regional disparity within the UK because Essex 'had done a better deal' than, say, Yorkshire?
Using that logic, we just stop right now, give it all away to mankind and watch all our friends and family die.
You ready to die?
I’m not sure that’s what he suggested, although it wasn’t the approach I would have taken.
