Re: Coronavirus
 

They certainly are. Merkel is still refusing the Oxford vaccine because she’s in the older age group! Not setting a very good example, is she?

---------- Post added at 19:17 ---------- Previous post was at 19:12 ----------

I doubt there will be a delay to the easing of the lockdown. There is an extremely small number of that variant over here and we are coming down hard on it wherever we find new cases.

At the very least, the existing vaccines should prevent people from getting so ill they end up in hospital, so there’s no reason to adjust the ‘roadmap’.

By the autumn, the successor vaccine will be able to tackle the variants much more effectively.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Seriously - of all the arguments you could have put forward on the things Germany have got wrong about the COVID pandemic (and, like most countries, there have been quite a few), you went with the one where in fact our COVID death rate is much higher than theirs?

Germany, population 84 million, COVID deaths 72,000 (1 in 1177)

U.K., population 68 million, COVID deaths 123,000 (1 in 553)

Our COVID death rate is more than twice Germany’s...

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Did Covid actually cause all of those deaths? I know that Covid is mentioned on the death certificate but I'm not convinced that Covid was the actual cause, also, do other countries count their deaths in the same way as we do?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Misleading figures of course. What is the comparative death rate for the number of hospitalisations?
Plenty of countries will have lower death rates, but they will tend to be ones that had a LOWER number of infections and hospitalisations in the first place.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Misleading only because they don't portray the UK in the best light on this crucial issue or another reason?

Persuade us that it is an unfair comparison.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Already in my post. If you have a lower number of infections in the first place, then you are almost certainly going to have a lower death rate per head of population.:rolleyes:

Parts of World have had very few or no cases. They haven't done anything special to have lower death rates.
If there are a lot of big gatherings at funerals, marriages, parties, religious gatherings, etc, then there are going to be a lot of cases, and therefore deaths. Eg In the UK and New York(and perhaps more generally in the world), Orthodox Jews have been disproportionately affected. That is because they insist on constantly having big gatherings, not wearing masks, and not social distancing. Their fault, not any governments.
Ethiopia has a death rate a fraction of that of most countries. Why is that? A better health system? Extremely unlikely, or would it be fewer cases, and fewer people spreading it around.

Re: Coronavirus
 

But this is the point isn’t it. We’re in an emergency, but apparently not enough of an emergency for some governments. The science is what it is and doesn’t change regardless of which government is looking at it. There was ample evidence to infer efficacy in over 65s; for some, in an emergency, the inference was enough. For some it wasn’t.

Everyone followed the science, right up to the point when a political decision had to be taken. Which is why “they followed the science” is an inadequate explanation for the decisions that have been made.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Is the "science" not that they have (or at least were due) more of the Pfizer vaccine and we do not?

All things being equal based on the data available there'd be no reason to risk the AZ vaccine on groups it hadn't been tested on when you could offer them Pfizer, concentrating AZ on groups it had been tested on.

As it stands both suppliers let the EU down, but that doesn't make it an unsound judgement based on the circumstances. Despite the emergency the United States haven't approved the AZ vaccine at all. South Africa have handed theirs to neighbouring countries instead of distributing them. It seems somewhat bizarre that the UK are seeking vindication for their own decisions from the EU of all people.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Correct - given that they were likely to have had a bigger supply of the Pfizer vaccine they could afford to restrict the use of AstraZeneca. As a simple logistical measure it makes sense.

Of course, they may also have thought it was politically helpful to be able to talk down the British vaccine thereby enhancing the status of the German one. There is no doubt the EU’s procurement shortcomings reflect poorly on member states who supported it - especially those that abandoned their own promising procurement programmes in order to take part.

Whatever’s the case, they failed to calculate was the lasting damage they were doing to the reputation of the AstraZeneca vaccine and how this would start to compromise their vaccination programme among younger adults who would still be offered it. This is what senior experts in Germany are now starting to acknowledge.

Re: Coronavirus
 

This is the most cogent explanation you will receive from anyone, if you don’t/won’t/can’t understand after reading this, you’re either stupid, or just stupid........it happens.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Germany is in the unique position (I think) of some states offering a choice to individuals. If uptake is that much of a concern they should simply withdraw the choice.

AstraZeneca’s own press release from December is enough that (again all things being equal) a rational individual would pick the higher performing vaccine. There’s no individual benefit in taking a lesser performing vaccine - it’s a collective one.

---------- Post added at 22:26 ---------- Previous post was at 22:23 ----------

Any explanation that doesn’t include the availability of alternative vaccines is omitting an important element of “emergency” decision making. For the UK the choice was easy. For the United States, EU, others...

Had emerging data gone the other way they’d have to redo everyone given an AZ vaccine with a Pfizer one, essentially wasting tens of millions of doses in the process slowing down the vaccination programme and leaving the most vulnerable at risk for longer.

It’s taken what, a month for data to come from the UK? It’s hard to see the political benefit of u-turning after 4 weeks, which if it was the unambiguous science they would have known to be inevitable.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Apologies, I struggled to hear that above the whinge, whinge, whinge, and the realisation there is no cogent counter point or argument, therefore the need to take a more outlayer stance that will just look daft in in a few short weeks.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Forgive me if this has already been posted today but the Public Health England data published today agrees with that already published in Scotland a week or so ago. Either the Pfizer or AZ jab reduces hospitalisations amongst those aged over 80 by more than 80%; after a single dose the AZ jab is more effective than the Pfizer one.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56240220

Rejoice at that news.

Unless of course we’re still being conned by the propaganda apparatus of the British State. :dozey:

Re: Coronavirus
 

A lower number of infections is not a matter of luck. Key things like swiftly implementing socialising and travel restrictions swiftly are key. Areas which the UK has not excelled in.