Coronavirus

Originally Posted by Pierre

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...-ema-expensive

Great isn’t it! ?

I can hear Lord Percy of Percy behind me saying, we don’t like gloaters here..........

But I can’t help myself.

Another Brexit scare story expunged.

Grauniad be like:

This means (the UK) will no longer be part of the EU’s regulatory regime, which allows for “accelerated assessment” of products developed by drugs companies during a pandemic.

ACCELERATED

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Pierre

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...-ema-expensive

Great isn’t it! ?

I can hear Lord Percy of Percy behind me saying, we don’t like gloaters here..........

But I can’t help myself.

Another Brexit scare story expunged.

US election threads have been closed for less out of date commentary but I think in fairness you should provide some context.

We pay more for the Pfizer vaccine than the EU and do have a slower delivery schedule. We are off label prescribing, for emergency use only, the AstraZeneca vaccine developed here, at a dosage that I'm still unsure of the efficacy level is 62%, 70% or 90% based on the data available. (And that was against the old variants.)

As someone desperately keen to get the economy going and the end of lockdown restrictions I'd not yet be counting those chickens.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by jfman

If we've a sound contract we owe them nothing but the financial settlement agreed for purchase of the product offered.

Our political capital shouldn't be wasted on their incompetence if, as I suspect, they've got themselves into two contracts they cannot fulfill.

You're just being argumentative for the sake of it.

It's not about protecting AZ from the EU - that's a by-product of the retribution I'm proposing.

But retribution is necessary. We must not lie down with our legs in the air while the EU craps on us.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

You're just being argumentative for the sake of it.

It's not about protecting AZ from the EU - that's a by-product of the retribution I'm proposing.

But retribution is necessary. We must not lie down with our legs in the air while the EU craps on us.

I'm not being argumentative for the sake of it. I've always tried to frame it in my head without flags. While the UK obviously has an interest in the outcome - the race to vaccination is obviously the new Operation Moonshot - however contract law is contract law. And while few (none?) of us are experts in contract law it doesn't appear that the EU were told that UK supplies came first and theirs second. The UK contract is indicated to suggest to that effect, however that's irrelevant if as the EU are suggesting that AZ are in breach of contract with them.

It looks like AZ will have to breach a contract somewhere as the terms of neither contract can be fulfilled in the context of sub-optimal production performance.

Originally Posted by jfman

US election threads have been closed for less out of date commentary but I think in fairness you should provide some context.

We pay more for the Pfizer vaccine than the EU and do have a slower delivery schedule. We are off label prescribing, for emergency use only, the AstraZeneca vaccine developed here, at a dosage that I'm still unsure of the efficacy level is 62%, 70% or 90% based on the data available.

As someone desperately keen to get the economy going and the end of lockdown restrictions I'd not yet be counting those chickens.

My but you’ve been awfully quiet these past 2 days while the EU vaccine procurement programme has unravelled so spectacularly. And now here you are desperately trying to argue that black is white, day is night and that we are are somehow, contrary to the opinion of almost everyone, messing things up.

A couple of things that have been lost in the noise over the last day or two that are worth picking out here:

First, in the La Repubblica interview with Pascal Soirot, he was extremely supportive of the long-gap dose strategy presently being followed in the UK - for both the Pfizer and the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccines. He believes that the data shows that the first dose of either vaccine eliminates serious disease in virtually 100% of cases. Let’s say that again: a near-100% elimination of serious disease. That is a prize worth having. He also states that with the AstraZeneca vaccine there is reason to believe the longer gap actually improves the rate at which it prevents any disease at all, though obviously there isn’t conclusive data for that yet.

Second, there is a suggestion the UK has paid more for vaccines. And so what if we have? We have a pretty significant problem with spread of the virus in this country, not all of which can be put down to government policy. If we can’t force people to stop infecting each other by social means, then the vaccine is our only major weapon. Every serious disease prevented is tens of thousands of £££s saved in intensive care costs. I bet, eventually, paying even double per vaccine dose that in the case of Oxford-AstraZeneca is maybe £3 per person, will be proven to have been a canny investment indeed.

Related to the second point, we are now seeing in the UK the establishment and improvement of some of the world’s leading life sciences capability, paid for by that up-front government investment and higher per-shot vaccine price, and as covid is not going away any time soon, that is a very good place for British science and industry to be.

The facts on the ground are that we are light years ahead of almost every country on earth with our vaccination programme, and particularly light years ahead of any European nation, because they all put their faith in a slow, bureaucratic process that was more interested in saving pennies than lives. There, but for the grace of Brexit, might have gone us.

LOL - just seen this said:-

There are Remainers on here who could walk in on the EU shagging their wife and they'd offer to fetch it a beer and light its cigarette.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Chris

My but you’ve been awfully quiet these past 2 days while the EU vaccine procurement programme has unravelled so spectacularly. And now here you are desperately trying to argue that black is white, day is night and that we are are somehow, contrary to the opinion of almost everyone, messing things up.

Far from.

A couple of things that have been lost in the noise over the last day or two that are worth picking out here:

First, in the La Repubblica interview with Pascal Soirot, he was extremely supportive of the long-gap dose strategy presently being followed in the UK - for both the Pfizer and the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccines. He believes that the data shows that the first dose of either vaccine eliminates serious disease in virtually 100% of cases. Let’s say that again: a near-100% elimination of severe disease. That is a prize worth having. He also states that with the AstraZeneca vaccine there is reason to believe the longer gap actually improves the rate at which it prevents any disease at all, though obviously there isn’t conclusive data for that yet.

Pascal Soirot says this but does the peer-reviewed scientific data say it? If it does, fantastic. If it proves to be true, fantastic.

However, as I indicated previously a CEO batting for their product isn't new or necessarily representative of real world performance. Statements around evidence can often be selectively framed.

Second, there is a suggestion the UK has paid more for vaccines. And so what if we have? We have a pretty significant problem with spread of the virus in this country, not all of which can be put down to government policy. If we can’t force people to stop infecting each other by social means, then the vaccine is our only major weapon. Every serious disease prevented is tens of thousands of £££s saved in intensive care costs. I bet, eventually, paying even double per vaccine dose that in the case of Oxford-AstraZeneca is maybe £3 per person, will be proven to have been a canny investment indeed.

I didn't say there was a problem with paying more I was simply framing the discussion around the article posted by Pierre. As Israel are trying to demonstrate paying a hefty price premium for the top product in the marketplace and getting it out there ASAP reaps should yield significant rewards.

As you rightly say the costs per vaccine, for any vaccine, are tiny compared to the ongoing economic costs in any case.

Related to the second point, we are now at the centre of some of the world’s leading life sciences capability, paid for by that up-front government investment and higher per-shot vaccine, and as covid is not going away any time soon, that is a very good place for British science and industry to be.

The facts on the ground are that we are light years ahead of almost every country on earth with our vaccination programme, and particularly light years ahead of any European nation, because they all put their faith in a slow, bureaucratic process that was more interested in saving pennies than lives. There, but for the grace of Brexit, might have been us.

As I say the race to herd immunity is a marathon, not a sprint. There's a lot we don't know about vaccine effectiveness in known mutations, let alone those unknown or still to happen.

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by Mick

LOL - just seen this said:-

All this nationalism crap again. Humanity is on one side, the virus on the other. Together we win, divided we lose.Our choice.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Mr K

All this nationalism crap again. Humanity is on one side, the virus on the other. Together we win, divided we lose.Our choice.

Ach it's just Mick stuck in 2016. One decision you made in 2016 makes every future opinion absolutely irrelevant. God save the queen.

Originally Posted by Mr K

All this nationalism crap again. Humanity is on one side, the virus on the other. Together we win, divided we lose.Our choice.

I think the EU missed that email. Maybe phone them and ask them to check their spam folder.

Originally Posted by Mr K

All this nationalism crap again. Humanity is on one side, the virus on the other. Together we win, divided we lose.Our choice.

Bark up the corrupted EU tree - not mine, I am glad I live in a country that can maximise vaccination rollout while the corrupted EU stamps it's feet because it doesn't like UK Success.

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by Mick

Bark up the corrupted EU tree - not mine, I am glad I live in a country that can maximise vaccination rollout while the corrupted EU stamps it's feet because it doesn't like UK Success.

Success= the highest no of deaths in Europe, not really...

We really are in this together, as some pratt called Cameron said. Doesn't matter in which country you live.

EU has managed to unite the DUP and Sinn Fein. Both parties now feel EU's initiation in implementing Article 16 of the Northern Ireland Protocol that has now seen after just 29 days since the end of the Brexit transition period, a hard border on the Island of Ireland, and it is a grave error that is dealing with people's lives.

---------- Post added at 21:07 ---------- Previous post was at 21:06 ----------

Anyone asked what U.S President Joe Biden has said on the EU's stance on potentially wrecking the Good Friday Agreement, asking for a friend... ???

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by jfman

US election threads have been closed for less out of date commentary but I think in fairness you should provide some context.

We pay more for the Pfizer vaccine than the EU and do have a slower delivery schedule. We are off label prescribing, for emergency use only, the AstraZeneca vaccine developed here, at a dosage that I'm still unsure of the efficacy level is 62%, 70% or 90% based on the data available. (And that was against the old variants.)

As someone desperately keen to get the economy going and the end of lockdown restrictions I'd not yet be counting those chickens.

Of course we have a slower delivery schedule.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by pip08456

Of course we have a slower delivery schedule.

I specifically said the Pfizer vaccine., not all vaccines. The fact we've invested in the AZ one and produce it here removes this from the equation, but that wasn't the point of the article - although the article (perhaps selectively) omitted this possibility.