Coronavirus

[jonbxx]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

I think the EU stance is based on covering von der loony's ponderous arse.

So the suggestion is that the nations (not the EU BTW, this decision is down to individual countries, the EMA has approved for all over 18) are deliberately withholding a vaccine from the most vulnerable for political gain? That’s the kind of thing that brings down governments..

Here’s the EMA approval by the way - https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documen...rsement_en.pdf Interestingly, Oxford Biomedica in the UK is an approved manufacturer but not Cobra Biomanufacturing.

Originally Posted by jonbxx

So the suggestion is that the nations (not the EU BTW, this decision is down to individual countries, the EMA has approved for all over 18) are deliberately withholding a vaccine from the most vulnerable for political gain? That’s the kind of thing that brings down governments..

Here’s the EMA approval by the way - https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documen...rsement_en.pdf Interestingly, Oxford Biomedica in the UK is an approved manufacturer but not Cobra Biomanufacturing.

Yes and no. They are withholding approval for something they don’t actually have, so they are not really preventing them from getting it. What they are doing is spinning their poor political decisions as safety-conscious caution.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Chris

Yes and no. They are withholding approval for something they don’t actually have, so they are not really preventing them from getting it. What they are doing is spinning their poor political decisions as safety-conscious caution.

I think we're bordering upon the murky realm of conspiracy theories here. Has every medical approval body in the EU really been instructed to pend approval of the use of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine in elderly people so as to make the EU's purhasing decisions look somewhat better? Perhaps every scientist has been given hush money and given a secret £200k pension to keep quiet about this matter?

Like most conspiracy theories, the truth is rather more boring. There is insufficient data available at the moment that provides these scientists with the confidence they seek.

[1andrew1]

Here's an interesting chart from today's FT which shows how far ahead AstraZeneca is in its orders, globally.

The unsuccessful Sanofi/GSK vaccine has quite a lot of orders but none from the EU. Curevac's orders seem to be nearly all from the EU but I believe the UK has now ordered 50m doses from the company.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

I think we're bordering upon the murky realm of conspiracy theories here. Has every medical approval body in the EU really been instructed to pend approval of the use of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine in elderly people so as to make the EU's purhasing decisions look somewhat better? Perhaps every scientist has been given hush money and given a secret £200k pension to keep quiet about this matter?

Like most conspiracy theories, the truth is rather more boring. There is insufficient data available at the moment that provides these scientists with the confidence they seek.

So our scientists and the EMA are wrong and the countries' scientists are right?

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

So our scientists and the EMA are wrong and the countries' scientists are right?

In Andrews opinion, it would seem so.

Have a read : https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/55919245

[jfman]

Another puff piece from the state broadcaster. I am stunned.

I'm not sure it's correct to categorise it as "right vs wrong" - in the absence of data it becomes a risk based approach which as I'd said previously varies from country to country depending on what is (or isn't) available.

The United States similarly haven't approved the vaccine at all until ongoing trials are complete. Is it really a conspiracy against Great Britain? I suspect not. However it keeps people talking about something other than the death toll I suppose.

Interestingly there are no signs (yet) of a difference in case reduction in the over 80s vs the population at large and the ONS survey has the over 70s flatlining at prevalence around 1% for weeks now.

It's certainly going to be a big couple of weeks coming up for the UK experiment.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

So our scientists and the EMA are wrong and the countries' scientists are right?

No, the different countries regulatory bodies have reached different conclusions from the data available - that is their job, to reach independent conclusions rather than just follow others (otherwise, what are they there for).

The challenge for all bodies involved is trying to reach a decision of what data is available - the USA has different criteria from the U.K. which has different criteria from other countries.

For a related example, my brother in law is trying to get a treatment for FOP (Fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva) approved in various countries - he has had it approved by the FDA, but the U.K., EU, Japan, and some other countries haven’t approved it yet, because they want more evidence on certain aspects.

It’s not binary, it’s shaded.

[Mad Max]

Originally Posted by jfman

Another puff piece from the state broadcaster. I am stunned.

I'm not sure it's correct to categorise it as "right vs wrong" - in the absence of data it becomes a risk based approach which as I'd said previously varies from country to country depending on what is (or isn't) available.

The United States similarly haven't approved the vaccine at all until ongoing trials are complete. Is it really a conspiracy against Great Britain? I suspect not. However it keeps people talking about something other than the death toll I suppose.

Interestingly there are no signs (yet) of a difference in case reduction in the over 80s vs the population at large and the ONS survey has the over 70s flatlining at prevalence around 1% for weeks now.

It's certainly going to be a big couple of weeks coming up for the UK experiment.

Do we have one...

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Hugh

No, the different countries regulatory bodies have reached different conclusions from the data available - that is their job, to reach independent conclusions rather than just follow others (otherwise, what are they there for).

The challenge for all bodies involved is trying to reach a decision of what data is available - the USA has different criteria from the U.K. which has different criteria from other countries.

For a related example, my brother in law is trying to get a treatment for FOP (Fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva) approved in various countries - he has had it approved by the FDA, but the U.K., EU, Japan, and some other countries haven’t approved it yet, because they want more evidence on certain aspects.

It’s not binary, it’s shaded.

It's political.

---------- Post added at 19:58 ---------- Previous post was at 19:56 ----------

Originally Posted by Mad Max

Do we have one...

Yes but it mostly broadcasts on behalf of the EU.

Originally Posted by papa smurf

It's political.

---------- Post added at 19:58 ---------- Previous post was at 19:56 ----------



Yes but it mostly broadcasts on behalf of the EU.

So are you saying that the FOP treatment my Brother in Law is trying to get approved in the U.K. (already approved in the USA) is being held up for political reasons?

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Hugh

So are you saying that the FOP treatment my Brother in Law is trying to get approved in the U.K. (already approved in the USA) is being held up for political reasons?

It's not relevant to the debate.

[Mad Max]

Got a phone call from a very nice lady this morning asking if I wanted to get my Covid jab on Monday, which I gratefully accepted of course.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Paul

In Andrews opinion, it would seem so.

Have a read : https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/55919245

Can you indicate to me where I've expressed this opinion?

---------- Post added at 20:59 ---------- Previous post was at 20:58 ----------

Oxford/AstraZeneca Covid jab far less effective against S African strain, study shows

Preliminary findings show no protection against mild and moderate disease caused by variant

The Oxford/AstraZeneca Covid-19 vaccine does not appear to offer protection against mild and moderate disease caused by the viral variant first identified in South Africa, according to a study due to be published on Monday.

Although none of the more than 2,000 patients in the study died or was hospitalised, the findings could complicate the race to roll out vaccines as new strains emerge.

https://www.ft.com/content/e9bbd4fe-...3-be64140a3f36

[spiderplant]

Originally Posted by Chris

They are withholding approval for something they don’t actually have

They do have it now
https://www.brusselstimes.com/news/1...and-in-europe/