Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 31
 
94717
Posts: 2789
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:38 am

Re: European Commission Vaccination Strategy News and Discussion Thread

Mon Feb 01, 2021 8:30 pm

DTVG wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
Dano1977 wrote:

Pfizer failed to supply the 12.5 million doses they had promised the EU in 2020
Moderna are reducing supplies in February by 20%
Sanofi aren't even in a position to come one line with production until the summer
Curevac - who knows - you tell me.


They did best reasonable effort, AZ committed fraud by lying about other obligations in the contract. If other companies also did funny business it will come out in time, the only company we know to have committed fraud is AZ.

Best regards
Thomas


You are very vocal when it comes to claiming AZ committed fraud.
I haven’t read all of the contract, but read a few legal opinions, and nobody came up with the word fraud.
Do you have any (solid) facts to support your claim?



Considering that AZ seems to have found jabs over weekend that did not exist last friday I read this as some lawyers has explained a few things. What have they explained?
 
User avatar
BaconButty
Posts: 931
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 3:42 pm

Re: European Commission Vaccination Strategy News and Discussion Thread

Mon Feb 01, 2021 9:02 pm

JJJ wrote:
BaconButty wrote:

Secondly it focusses on EU anger at vaccines being sent abroad without pointing out the fact it can be legitimate. Unlike other vaccines the AZ one is produced at cost (as per the contract),


Only the first batch is produce at cost as repayment for EU investment in the vaccine development.

It's a pretty standard clause for cost-sharing development agreements.


All 400m at cost. Section 7.4 of the contract. Please supply a source for the EU funding development of the Oxford Vaccine? An upfront payment for production facilities in the EU is not the same.

This thread has a remarkable aversion to facts, especially with so many in the public domain.
 
User avatar
Dano1977
Posts: 759
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 2:49 pm

Re: European Commission Vaccination Strategy News and Discussion Thread

Mon Feb 01, 2021 9:11 pm

BaconButty wrote:
JJJ wrote:
BaconButty wrote:

Secondly it focusses on EU anger at vaccines being sent abroad without pointing out the fact it can be legitimate. Unlike other vaccines the AZ one is produced at cost (as per the contract),


Only the first batch is produce at cost as repayment for EU investment in the vaccine development.

It's a pretty standard clause for cost-sharing development agreements.


All 400m at cost. Section 7.4 of the contract. Please supply a source for the EU funding development of the Oxford Vaccine? An upfront payment for production facilities in the EU is not the same.

This thread has a remarkable aversion to facts, especially with so many in the public domain.



The UK Govt funded 90% of the Oxford/AZ Vaccine.
 
User avatar
BaconButty
Posts: 931
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 3:42 pm

Re: European Commission Vaccination Strategy News and Discussion Thread

Mon Feb 01, 2021 9:25 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
[
They did best reasonable effort, AZ committed fraud by lying about other obligations in the contract. If other companies also did funny business it will come out in time, the only company we know to have committed fraud is AZ.

Best regards
Thomas


There's only so many ways to explain this. Section 5.1 of the contract says that the (300m) "Initial Europe Dose" is to be made in the EU. So any claims on the UK supply chain can't be competing. It's not hard.
 
94717
Posts: 2789
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:38 am

Re: European Commission Vaccination Strategy News and Discussion Thread

Mon Feb 01, 2021 10:23 pm

Dano1977 wrote:
BaconButty wrote:
JJJ wrote:

Only the first batch is produce at cost as repayment for EU investment in the vaccine development.

It's a pretty standard clause for cost-sharing development agreements.


All 400m at cost. Section 7.4 of the contract. Please supply a source for the EU funding development of the Oxford Vaccine? An upfront payment for production facilities in the EU is not the same.

This thread has a remarkable aversion to facts, especially with so many in the public domain.



The UK Govt funded 90% of the Oxford/AZ Vaccine.


How much have they paid?

DW consider that EU has paid AZ pretty much;

The EU is particularly irritated because it had paid AstraZeneca hundreds of millions of euros in advance in order to expedite production ahead of the vaccine's official approval. European Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen said that "Europe invested billions to help develop the world's first COVID-19 vaccines and create a global demand." The onus, she said, was now on the companies to "deliver and honor their obligations." There is currently no independent information available to explain AstraZeneca's delivery bottlenecks in Europe.

https://www.dw.com/en/fact-check-is-ast ... a-56360480
 
cledaybuck
Posts: 1930
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2016 6:07 pm

Re: European Commission Vaccination Strategy News and Discussion Thread

Mon Feb 01, 2021 10:24 pm

Dano1977 wrote:
BaconButty wrote:
JJJ wrote:

Only the first batch is produce at cost as repayment for EU investment in the vaccine development.

It's a pretty standard clause for cost-sharing development agreements.


All 400m at cost. Section 7.4 of the contract. Please supply a source for the EU funding development of the Oxford Vaccine? An upfront payment for production facilities in the EU is not the same.

This thread has a remarkable aversion to facts, especially with so many in the public domain.



The UK Govt funded 90% of the Oxford/AZ Vaccine.

Do you have a source for this?
 
JJJ
Posts: 4109
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 5:12 pm

Re: European Commission Vaccination Strategy News and Discussion Thread

Mon Feb 01, 2021 10:26 pm

BaconButty wrote:
JJJ wrote:
BaconButty wrote:

Secondly it focusses on EU anger at vaccines being sent abroad without pointing out the fact it can be legitimate. Unlike other vaccines the AZ one is produced at cost (as per the contract),


Only the first batch is produce at cost as repayment for EU investment in the vaccine development.

It's a pretty standard clause for cost-sharing development agreements.


All 400m at cost. Section 7.4 of the contract. Please supply a source for the EU funding development of the Oxford Vaccine? An upfront payment for production facilities in the EU is not the same.

This thread has a remarkable aversion to facts, especially with so many in the public domain.


400m is just the first batch.

AZ will be selling Covid vaccines for many years to come.
 
94717
Posts: 2789
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:38 am

Re: European Commission Vaccination Strategy News and Discussion Thread

Mon Feb 01, 2021 10:30 pm

BaconButty wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
[
They did best reasonable effort, AZ committed fraud by lying about other obligations in the contract. If other companies also did funny business it will come out in time, the only company we know to have committed fraud is AZ.

Best regards
Thomas


There's only so many ways to explain this. Section 5.1 of the contract says that the (300m) "Initial Europe Dose" is to be made in the EU. So any claims on the UK supply chain can't be competing. It's not hard.


But the EU factories paid by EU taxpayers shall be delivering to both EU but first to UK? Is that what you saying?
 
User avatar
Dano1977
Posts: 759
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 2:49 pm

Re: European Commission Vaccination Strategy News and Discussion Thread

Mon Feb 01, 2021 10:59 pm

cledaybuck wrote:
Dano1977 wrote:
BaconButty wrote:

All 400m at cost. Section 7.4 of the contract. Please supply a source for the EU funding development of the Oxford Vaccine? An upfront payment for production facilities in the EU is not the same.

This thread has a remarkable aversion to facts, especially with so many in the public domain.



The UK Govt funded 90% of the Oxford/AZ Vaccine.

Do you have a source for this?


https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2020-05-18-fu ... -programme

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/fund ... -programme

https://www.biopharma-reporter.com/Arti ... nding-push
 
cledaybuck
Posts: 1930
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2016 6:07 pm

Re: European Commission Vaccination Strategy News and Discussion Thread

Tue Feb 02, 2021 12:26 am

Dano1977 wrote:
cledaybuck wrote:
Dano1977 wrote:


The UK Govt funded 90% of the Oxford/AZ Vaccine.

Do you have a source for this?


https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2020-05-18-fu ... -programme

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/fund ... -programme

https://www.biopharma-reporter.com/Arti ... nding-push

I don’t see where that says the UK funded 90%. I have seen reports of the US investing over $1 billion, which is why I found it hard to believe the UK funded 90%.
https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/05/21/cor ... ccine.html
 
User avatar
BaconButty
Posts: 931
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 3:42 pm

Re: European Commission Vaccination Strategy News and Discussion Thread

Tue Feb 02, 2021 1:41 am

olle wrote:
It seems like a lot of production in EU actually went to UK;

MEP Peter Liese, a health spokesman for the Group of European People's Party in the European Parliament, says the company's explanations are implausible. "According to the company, the supply chains are separate entities. But that's not true. Until a few days ago, the vaccine destined for the UK was still being bottled in the German city of Dessau. Conversely, two production sites in the UK are explicitly mentioned in the contract it signed with the EU." Liese added that AstraZeneca should make up its mind whether it wants to act like an international company or a British one.


OK First thing. Peter Liese is lying in that quote. The two UK plants were NOT mentioned in the published APA.

But let's assume he's not lying about the doses coming here. As I've said already, that may well be legitimate. I'll explain one more time, but it's getting tiresome. Right. So, when AZ has doses available for delivery, it must notify the EU states (not the commission) within 5 days. The states can then either arrange delivery to their nominated distribution centres, or ask AZ to store them with the member state paying the costs, insurance etc. Now we know from Irelands contretemps with the EU of the 17th Jan, the EU wouldn't let member states take delivery until the vaccine was approved! (The vaccine was only approved three days ago). So the vaccines remained with AZ. Now here's the fun part (from section 8.5 of the APA): To the extent that either party does not agree to continue to store the doses AstraZenaca may sell the Doses to a third party :o :shock:

In black and white my friend. Now, I'm not saying that is what actually happened, but it's a scenario that fits the known facts in the case. So let's say Member State X, through some bureaucratic blunder, doesn't request AZ to store the doses, since we know they couldn't take delivery. Or they don't pay up. Whatever. So AZ, who is running the project at cost, will be losing money. So as they are entitled to, they ship the doses somewhere else. The Germans, who have no visibility of X's blunder, see doses flying out of their Fill and Finish facility at the same time as AZ is telling them they will face shortages! No wonder they're furious. But they're angry at the wrong people. They should be angry first of all at Member State X, but also whichever moron negotiated para 8.5 of the APA. Why they didn't have it so that such doses are distributed among, or offered to, the remaining 26 states I've no idea. In fact, my reading of it ("either party") is the AZ can unilaterally decide they don't want to store the doses and send them to a third party! Shoot the contract negotiator. :tombstone:

olle wrote:
BaconButty wrote:
There's only so many ways to explain this. Section 5.1 of the contract says that the (300m) "Initial Europe Dose" is to be made in the EU. So any claims on the UK supply chain can't be competing. It's not hard.


But the EU factories paid by EU taxpayers shall be delivering to both EU but first to UK? Is that what you saying?


I have no idea how you got that from what I said.

cledaybuck wrote:
I don’t see where that says the UK funded 90%. I have seen reports of the US investing over $1 billion, which is why I found it hard to believe the UK funded 90%.
https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/05/21/cor ... ccine.html


By the time this happened the vaccine had been through pre clinical trials, and the phase 1/2 trials had been running for a month. The phase 2/3 trials were already funded and started the day after.

I don't know what the $1bn was for, but I assume it was for the US phase 3 trials (you have some specific requirements that our trials don't meet) and building the supply chain, much like the 300 odd million euros the EU spent.

JJJ wrote:
400m is just the first batch.

AZ will be selling Covid vaccines for many years to come.


I just don't get the relevance. Right now there is one firm order, and it's being produced at cost. There may be more, there may not.

Going to take a step back from this now. I think the likes of Olle, Tommy1108, sebanapilot et al are living in a different reality from the one I inhabit. It feels like debating with Flat Earthers, Anti Vaxers or the religious. Or maybe I'm the flat earther. Either way it's incredibly frustrating and doesn't seem to achieve much.
 
94717
Posts: 2789
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:38 am

Re: European Commission Vaccination Strategy News and Discussion Thread

Tue Feb 02, 2021 2:16 am

Peter Liese lying?

He is an heavy MEP. If he was lying would that not become known.

I suppose that he should be better informed then any of us here.

The quotes is from DW and do you think DW would not make one correction, special considering their weight in Europe news if a fact checking article was found having incorrect info?

For example DW mentiin numbers of EU investments in AZ vaccine production higher then the quoted UK investment.

But still UK has invested 90%? Is that in both research and production?
 
User avatar
BaconButty
Posts: 931
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 3:42 pm

Re: European Commission Vaccination Strategy News and Discussion Thread

Tue Feb 02, 2021 3:29 am

olle wrote:
Peter Liese lying?

He is an heavy MEP. If he was lying would that not become known.



FFS Olle. The contract has been published. You can fact check him. Section 5 is about manufacturing. Not there. No space in the redacted text. And on the contrary 5.1 says initial doses in the EU, sites to be notified later. So he's lying. Yes, even shit-don't-stink European politicians occasionally tell porkies.
 
JJJ
Posts: 4109
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 5:12 pm

Re: European Commission Vaccination Strategy News and Discussion Thread

Tue Feb 02, 2021 6:31 am

BaconButty wrote:
I just don't get the relevance. Right now there is one firm order, and it's being produced at cost. There may be more, there may not.


The relevance is this company got a massive leg up with a big cash injection in order to develop and scale up production of a vaccine.

If the company isn't living up to the obligations of the aid package the partner can and will use all means available because this is literally a case of life and death.
 
94717
Posts: 2789
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:38 am

Re: European Commission Vaccination Strategy News and Discussion Thread

Tue Feb 02, 2021 7:50 am

BaconButty wrote:
olle wrote:
Peter Liese lying?

He is an heavy MEP. If he was lying would that not become known.



FFS Olle. The contract has been published. You can fact check him. Section 5 is about manufacturing. Not there. No space in the redacted text. And on the contrary 5.1 says initial doses in the EU, sites to be notified later. So he's lying. Yes, even shit-don't-stink European politicians occasionally tell porkies.


OK ;-)

And the part of production from Germany sent to UK?

What about session 5.4 what does tat session actually mean?

I think the critical here is this for EU, Was there jabs or supplies to make jabs sent from EU to UK and then nothing comes back?;

According to the company, the supply chains are separate entities. But that's not true. Until a few days ago, the vaccine destined for the UK was still being bottled in the German city of Dessau.
 
Boeing74741R
Posts: 1528
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 5:44 am

Re: European Commission Vaccination Strategy News and Discussion Thread

Tue Feb 02, 2021 9:23 am

olle wrote:
Peter Liese lying?

He is an heavy MEP. If he was lying would that not become known.


I'm not saying Peter Liese is lying, but you would have to be naive to think that all politicians only tell the truth all the time. Some politicians have a canny ability to mislead, twist the truth or outright lie, yet still get away with it. That's before we get to spin doctors.
 
94717
Posts: 2789
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:38 am

Re: European Commission Vaccination Strategy News and Discussion Thread

Tue Feb 02, 2021 11:29 am

Boeing74741R wrote:
olle wrote:
Peter Liese lying?

He is an heavy MEP. If he was lying would that not become known.


I'm not saying Peter Liese is lying, but you would have to be naive to think that all politicians only tell the truth all the time. Some politicians have a canny ability to mislead, twist the truth or outright lie, yet still get away with it. That's before we get to spin doctors.


I think we need to understand that when confusing and lack of transparency rules the risk of error increases.

Decisions to protect EU citizens was forced thru fast, because of public pressure actually partly because of Brexit UK press and No 10 used a situation to gain short term points, not understand that the gun easily could be turned against UK very fast.

I am pretty convinced while the export control is still in place and that special AZ has changed behavior something was found and AZ consider it better to change.

I sadly while AZ have a major presence in my home suburb of Stockholm, Södertälje it will effect AZ relationship with EU authorizes making their presence in EU more complicated.

I still it is very much strange tears from DUP and Tories to cry over the article 16 that both of them has spent the last 4 years avoid putting in place and now constantly want to erase. Even it seems like (I suppose) DUP voters being connected to threats against customs controls in NI connecting NI with the rest of UK.
 
94717
Posts: 2789
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:38 am

Re: European Commission Vaccination Strategy News and Discussion Thread

Tue Feb 02, 2021 12:29 pm

VDL talks about the vaccination program;

----------------------------------------

In the face of heavy criticism, including from her predecessor, Jean-Claude Juncker, Von der Leyen said she was committed to her role and should be judged at the end of her term in 2024.

“Some countries started to vaccinate a little before Europe, it is true,” she said, asked about the UK. “But they resorted to emergency, 24-hour marketing authorisation procedures.

“The commission and the member states agreed not to compromise with the safety and efficacy requirements linked to the authorisation of a vaccine. Time had to be taken to analyse the data, which, even minimised, takes three to four weeks.

“So, yes, Europe left it later, but it was the right decision. I remind you that a vaccine is the injection of an active biological substance into a healthy body. We are talking about mass vaccination here, it is a gigantic responsibility.”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/ ... ine-safety
 
Boeing74741R
Posts: 1528
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 5:44 am

Re: European Commission Vaccination Strategy News and Discussion Thread

Tue Feb 02, 2021 1:02 pm

olle wrote:
Decisions to protect EU citizens was forced thru fast, because of public pressure actually partly because of Brexit UK press and No 10 used a situation to gain short term points, not understand that the gun easily could be turned against UK very fast.


At the end of the day, the Commission only have themselves to blame for the mess they've found themselves in, from negotiating the deal they did with AstraZeneca to the botched redaction of publicly releasing said contract and to winding up both a former and a current EU member by moving to trigger Article 16 in the manner that they did. There's no point blaming others as nobody from outside the EU was forcing Von Der Leyen and the Commission to do what they did. Somebody within the Commission needs to own it as constant attempts to blame others is really not helpful to the millions of people still waiting for vaccinations.
 
94717
Posts: 2789
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:38 am

Re: European Commission Vaccination Strategy News and Discussion Thread

Tue Feb 02, 2021 2:47 pm

Sweden joins germany to only give AZ vaccine to younger then 65 years old;

----------------------
Astra Zeneca becomes a youth vaccine

The Swedish Public Health Agency does not recommend that Astra Zeneca's vaccine be given to people aged 65 and over.

- There is not enough data documenting protection in the older age groups, says Sören Andersson, unit manager for the Swedish Public Health Agency.

Astra Zeneca is the third covid-19 vaccine to be approved. But it will not be given to people over 65 years of age. Instead, other approved vaccines should primarily be reserved for them.

The reason is that there are not enough data on how Astra Zeneca's vaccine protects the elderly.

- From EMA's point of view, there is not enough data that documents protection in the older age groups, says Sören Andersson, unit manager for the Swedish Public Health Agency, at today's press conference.

Charlotta Bergquist, vaccine coordinator at the Medical Products Agency, says that Astra Zeneca's vaccine has a protective effect of 60 percent in people who have received two doses and are 18 years and up.

- In clinical studies, 64 people have developed covid-19 in the vaccine group against 154 in the placebo group, which means a protective effect of 60 percent.

Can not calculate the effect on those over 55 years
According to Bergquist, it is not possible to calculate the protective effect in people over 55 years of age.

- There are too few cases in the study to be able to calculate a protective effect. On the other hand, we believe that the vaccine also has a protective effect in the elderly based on antibody responses.

From previous flu vaccines, it is known that the protective effect decreases with increasing age.

- But where that limit goes, we can not comment on, she says.

As people over the age of 65 will not receive the vaccine, the Swedish Public Health Agency will review the priority order this week.

- There will be no major revolutionary changes in the order of priority, but a little clearer help to use available vaccines. It is still the case that age has the highest priority, but it is conceivable that healthcare professionals can use the Astra Zeneca vaccine, says Sören Andersson, at the Swedish Public Health Agency.

Astra Zeneca's vaccine is now awaiting approval from the Medical Products Agency before the Swedish population can access it. A product information will soon be available on the Medical Products Agency's website.

Vaccine coordinator Charlotta Bergquist says that the Medical Products Agency monitors adverse reaction reporting and effects at both national and EU level.

- Predominant reactions are related to the injection itself, that they hurt at the injection site, you can feel sick as a result of the immune system being activated.





https://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/a/WO ... domsvaccin
 
rob66
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun Jan 05, 2020 4:21 am

Re: European Commission Vaccination Strategy News and Discussion Thread

Wed Feb 03, 2021 3:48 am

sabenapilot wrote:
Arion640 wrote:
EU’s fault for not ordering enough.


The EU ordered more than enough Arion640; it's A-Z which doesn't want to deliver them, claiming sudden production issues at one plant...

In a nutshell:
The EU ordered 100m initial doses from A-Z, coming from 4 plants (2 of which in the UK), none of which had any previous obligations according to A-Z (it's litterally in the contract)
The moment the EU calls upon A-Z to start to deliver these doses, A-Z suddenly says it can't deliver them, because there's a production issue in 1 plant in Belgium.
"Oh, dear", said the EU, "then tell us what the new delivery schedule will be, based on production from the 3 remaining plants'.
"No", said A-Z, "it's all just going to come from the other single EU plant".
And after a week of dodging questions from and meetings with the EU, it emerges the 2 British plants suddenly seem to have an obligation to produce for Britain first, despite having explicitly stated such was not the case in the contract with the EU....

As has been said: not only has A-Z signed up to something it knew was not correct (since the UK deal was signed some 3 weeks ahead of the deals it signed with the rest of Europe); but also -and this is something the British press vehemently refuses to discuss so far because it knows it is not going to make the UK look good at all- has the UK government clearly engaged in vaccine nationalism in the sole contract for doses it could source domestically, while at the same time having to rely and strongly push for international solidarity for the multitude of doses it had to source from the EU at the same time....

Luckily the new measures taken by the EU will quickly correct the unfair consequences, because at least in my country we're now expecting the contracted doses as from early next week which will bring us ahead of our target vaccination sheme, and as 'olle' reported, the Swedish government is also now saying the problem is now solved.


Interesting Article showing how the UK prepared for getting vaccines in the numbers required, fo once Hancock seems to have been competent in making a decision. The supply chain is the challenge, maybe the EU ignored that element? https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-rej ... y-12204044
 
flyguy89
Posts: 3424
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 6:43 pm

Re: European Commission Vaccination Strategy News and Discussion Thread

Wed Feb 03, 2021 4:32 am

An interesting look at the EU's vaccine procurement. Hopefully it’s not paywalled:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wsj.co ... 1612293218

Some of the key points include that the institutional inexperience of the EU in procurement leading them to approach vaccine purchases like trade negotiations, prolonging the process:
The commission named Sandra Gallina, a veteran trade official, as its negotiator. Beyond keeping vaccines inexpensive, her goal was to ensure companies would retain liability should the shots cause side effects, according to officials and industry executives involved. Unlike the U.S. and the U.K., the EU and its member states offered limited subsidies to vaccine developers to speed up research, expand manufacturing and lock in priority deliveries. The U.S.’s Operation Warp Speed, led by a four-star general and a pharmaceutical executive, had a budget of $18 billion and started paying out subsidies in March, including to European companies. The U.S. signed its purchasing contracts between May and July. The EU, by contrast, signed its main contracts between late August and November.


Leaning too much on orders for vaccines not far enough in development:
Besides being slower in signing contracts, the EU has drawn criticism for large orders it placed with several manufacturers that, in some cases, are months away from publishing efficacy data on their vaccine candidates.

After months of negotiations, the EU signed a deal on Nov. 11 to purchase 200 million doses from BioNTech and Pfizer, with the option for a further 100 million. The two had by then presented promising data that made it likely that they would become the first Western pharmaceutical companies to seek approval for a Covid-19 shot.

On Nov. 17, the EU bought twice as many doses from CureVac AG , a German company that was also pursuing a sophisticated messenger RNA vaccine. It had no study showing the efficacy of its product and no manufacturing partner.

The U.K., U.S. and EU authorized the BioNTech-Pfizer product in December. Curevac, which has since formed a partnership with Bayer AG , might seek approval in May at the earliest, according to a German government assessment seen by The Wall Street Journal.


Protracted negotiations for top-up orders:
As it became clear that a large chunk of the EU’s orders wouldn’t materialize in the first half of the year, threatening the region’s vaccination campaign, the EU began follow-up talks to boost existing orders. These too have been slow. In December, it called an option on an extra 100 million doses from BioNTech and Pfizer and started negotiating for an additional 300 million doses. The talks are continuing.


In a bid to reboot the vaccination process, the EU has apparently now brought in Moncef Slaoui, chief scientist behind US Operation Warp Speed which I was unaware.
 
94717
Posts: 2789
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:38 am

Re: European Commission Vaccination Strategy News and Discussion Thread

Wed Feb 03, 2021 6:54 am

It seems that Russia will push sputnik to get accepted in EU and it also seems that until better numbers are shown AZ will in most countries be used for population below 65.

The Sputnik finally seems to be one of the best results of all vaccines.
 
Arion640
Posts: 3261
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:15 pm

Re: European Commission Vaccination Strategy News and Discussion Thread

Wed Feb 03, 2021 8:51 am

olle wrote:
It seems that Russia will push sputnik to get accepted in EU and it also seems that until better numbers are shown AZ will in most countries be used for population below 65.

The Sputnik finally seems to be one of the best results of all vaccines.


AZ seems to be one of the best vaccines for stopping transmission however.

Is any of western europe going to want to use a russian vaccine?
 
94717
Posts: 2789
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:38 am

Re: European Commission Vaccination Strategy News and Discussion Thread

Wed Feb 03, 2021 1:48 pm

Arion640 wrote:
olle wrote:
It seems that Russia will push sputnik to get accepted in EU and it also seems that until better numbers are shown AZ will in most countries be used for population below 65.

The Sputnik finally seems to be one of the best results of all vaccines.


AZ seems to be one of the best vaccines for stopping transmission however.

Is any of western europe going to want to use a russian vaccine?


It seems like at least Germany is not negative;

----------------------------

Russia's coronavirus vaccine could be used in the EU if it receives regulatory approval, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said on Tuesday.

"Every vaccine is welcome in the European Union," Merkel told German public broadcaster ARD, praising the "good data" related to Russia's Sputnik V product.

Merkel added that she spoke recently with Russian President Vladimir Putin about the vaccine.

The Sputnik V vaccine was found to be over 91% effective against COVID-19, according to trial results that were published in medical journal The Lancet on Tuesday.

Previously, Russia drew skepticism and criticism for releasing the vaccine to the general population before publishing the phase III trial data.

https://www.dw.com/en/angela-merkel-say ... a-56432676
 
Arion640
Posts: 3261
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:15 pm

Re: European Commission Vaccination Strategy News and Discussion Thread

Wed Feb 03, 2021 2:05 pm

olle wrote:
Arion640 wrote:
olle wrote:
It seems that Russia will push sputnik to get accepted in EU and it also seems that until better numbers are shown AZ will in most countries be used for population below 65.

The Sputnik finally seems to be one of the best results of all vaccines.


AZ seems to be one of the best vaccines for stopping transmission however.

Is any of western europe going to want to use a russian vaccine?


It seems like at least Germany is not negative;

----------------------------

Russia's coronavirus vaccine could be used in the EU if it receives regulatory approval, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said on Tuesday.

"Every vaccine is welcome in the European Union," Merkel told German public broadcaster ARD, praising the "good data" related to Russia's Sputnik V product.

Merkel added that she spoke recently with Russian President Vladimir Putin about the vaccine.

The Sputnik V vaccine was found to be over 91% effective against COVID-19, according to trial results that were published in medical journal The Lancet on Tuesday.

Previously, Russia drew skepticism and criticism for releasing the vaccine to the general population before publishing the phase III trial data.

https://www.dw.com/en/angela-merkel-say ... a-56432676


All the best to them. I personally wouldn’t take it, but if the Germans feel it’s the right thing to do then they should go for it.

Not sure how the EU commission would view this though? Why hasn’t the EU bought the russian vaccine?
 
tommy1808
Posts: 14662
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: European Commission Vaccination Strategy News and Discussion Thread

Wed Feb 03, 2021 2:29 pm

Arion640 wrote:
Why hasn’t the EU bought the russian vaccine?


Same reason Germany didn´t. No data provided for verification, no approval application until Jan. 20th. Now both are happening.

best regards
Thomas
 
astuteman
Posts: 7439
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Re: European Commission Vaccination Strategy News and Discussion Thread

Wed Feb 03, 2021 3:13 pm

olle wrote:
Sweden joins germany to only give AZ vaccine to younger then 65 years old;

----------------------
Astra Zeneca becomes a youth vaccine

The Swedish Public Health Agency does not recommend that Astra Zeneca's vaccine be given to people aged 65 and over.

- There is not enough data documenting protection in the older age groups, says Sören Andersson, unit manager for the Swedish Public Health Agency.

Astra Zeneca is the third covid-19 vaccine to be approved. But it will not be given to people over 65 years of age. Instead, other approved vaccines should primarily be reserved for them.

The reason is that there are not enough data on how Astra Zeneca's vaccine protects the elderly.

- From EMA's point of view, there is not enough data that documents protection in the older age groups, says Sören Andersson, unit manager for the Swedish Public Health Agency, at today's press conference.

Charlotta Bergquist, vaccine coordinator at the Medical Products Agency, says that Astra Zeneca's vaccine has a protective effect of 60 percent in people who have received two doses and are 18 years and up.

- In clinical studies, 64 people have developed covid-19 in the vaccine group against 154 in the placebo group, which means a protective effect of 60 percent.

Can not calculate the effect on those over 55 years
According to Bergquist, it is not possible to calculate the protective effect in people over 55 years of age.

- There are too few cases in the study to be able to calculate a protective effect. On the other hand, we believe that the vaccine also has a protective effect in the elderly based on antibody responses.

From previous flu vaccines, it is known that the protective effect decreases with increasing age.

- But where that limit goes, we can not comment on, she says.

As people over the age of 65 will not receive the vaccine, the Swedish Public Health Agency will review the priority order this week.

- There will be no major revolutionary changes in the order of priority, but a little clearer help to use available vaccines. It is still the case that age has the highest priority, but it is conceivable that healthcare professionals can use the Astra Zeneca vaccine, says Sören Andersson, at the Swedish Public Health Agency.

Astra Zeneca's vaccine is now awaiting approval from the Medical Products Agency before the Swedish population can access it. A product information will soon be available on the Medical Products Agency's website.

Vaccine coordinator Charlotta Bergquist says that the Medical Products Agency monitors adverse reaction reporting and effects at both national and EU level.

- Predominant reactions are related to the injection itself, that they hurt at the injection site, you can feel sick as a result of the immune system being activated.





https://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/a/WO ... domsvaccin


I know what happened when Covid finally broke out in my wife's care home, one week AFTER receiving the AZ vaccine.
Residents aged 84-94, all with underlying issues.

Most of those that tested positive were asymptomatic - just over a week after receiving the 1st dose AZ.
2 residents briefly "under the weather"
The 94 year old who was already on end of life care sadly passed away, and will no doubt be considered a Covid statistic

The AZ vaccine absolutely works on over 65's - hell, it works on over 85's.

This resistance is all political BS in my view.
EU states are deliberately risking the lives of their most vulnerable people to make a political statement IMO

Rgds
 
94717
Posts: 2789
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:38 am

Re: European Commission Vaccination Strategy News and Discussion Thread

Wed Feb 03, 2021 5:20 pm

astuteman wrote:
olle wrote:
Sweden joins germany to only give AZ vaccine to younger then 65 years old;

----------------------
Astra Zeneca becomes a youth vaccine

The Swedish Public Health Agency does not recommend that Astra Zeneca's vaccine be given to people aged 65 and over.

- There is not enough data documenting protection in the older age groups, says Sören Andersson, unit manager for the Swedish Public Health Agency.

Astra Zeneca is the third covid-19 vaccine to be approved. But it will not be given to people over 65 years of age. Instead, other approved vaccines should primarily be reserved for them.

The reason is that there are not enough data on how Astra Zeneca's vaccine protects the elderly.

- From EMA's point of view, there is not enough data that documents protection in the older age groups, says Sören Andersson, unit manager for the Swedish Public Health Agency, at today's press conference.

Charlotta Bergquist, vaccine coordinator at the Medical Products Agency, says that Astra Zeneca's vaccine has a protective effect of 60 percent in people who have received two doses and are 18 years and up.

- In clinical studies, 64 people have developed covid-19 in the vaccine group against 154 in the placebo group, which means a protective effect of 60 percent.

Can not calculate the effect on those over 55 years
According to Bergquist, it is not possible to calculate the protective effect in people over 55 years of age.

- There are too few cases in the study to be able to calculate a protective effect. On the other hand, we believe that the vaccine also has a protective effect in the elderly based on antibody responses.

From previous flu vaccines, it is known that the protective effect decreases with increasing age.

- But where that limit goes, we can not comment on, she says.

As people over the age of 65 will not receive the vaccine, the Swedish Public Health Agency will review the priority order this week.

- There will be no major revolutionary changes in the order of priority, but a little clearer help to use available vaccines. It is still the case that age has the highest priority, but it is conceivable that healthcare professionals can use the Astra Zeneca vaccine, says Sören Andersson, at the Swedish Public Health Agency.

Astra Zeneca's vaccine is now awaiting approval from the Medical Products Agency before the Swedish population can access it. A product information will soon be available on the Medical Products Agency's website.

Vaccine coordinator Charlotta Bergquist says that the Medical Products Agency monitors adverse reaction reporting and effects at both national and EU level.

- Predominant reactions are related to the injection itself, that they hurt at the injection site, you can feel sick as a result of the immune system being activated.





https://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/a/WO ... domsvaccin


I know what happened when Covid finally broke out in my wife's care home, one week AFTER receiving the AZ vaccine.
Residents aged 84-94, all with underlying issues.

Most of those that tested positive were asymptomatic - just over a week after receiving the 1st dose AZ.
2 residents briefly "under the weather"
The 94 year old who was already on end of life care sadly passed away, and will no doubt be considered a Covid statistic

The AZ vaccine absolutely works on over 65's - hell, it works on over 85's.

This resistance is all political BS in my view.
EU states are deliberately risking the lives of their most vulnerable people to make a political statement IMO

Rgds


As I understand it is a question of number of tests in that group.

The other suppliers seems to be delivering above target and at least here in sweden the most weak people will have the jabs this week and after that +70 starts. My parents got notice to book time a few days ago and they are above 80 but in very good health.

So probably it will not effect very much while the group after that will be above 60.

As I understand it is AZ that has not provided the numbers of test result needed. Why is this political?

I am pretty sure that if possible both germany and sweden would have used AZ on the oldest as well, but germany, sweden, norway austria and France so far has taken their own decision not EMA.

If it was political why would sweden while AZ still is considered Brittish Swedish not support swedish medical industry?
 
94717
Posts: 2789
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:38 am

Re: European Commission Vaccination Strategy News and Discussion Thread

Wed Feb 03, 2021 5:23 pm

Swiss bans AZ for all citizen;

‐------
Switzerland bans AstraZeneca vaccine for ALL citizens as Europe declares war on UK jab
SWITZERLAND has made a shock move not to approve the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine for use in its roll out of Covid jabs.



https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics ... -uk-latest
 
94717
Posts: 2789
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:38 am

Re: European Commission Vaccination Strategy News and Discussion Thread

Wed Feb 03, 2021 5:33 pm

astuteman wrote:
olle wrote:
Sweden joins germany to only give AZ vaccine to younger then 65 years old;

----------------------
Astra Zeneca becomes a youth vaccine

The Swedish Public Health Agency does not recommend that Astra Zeneca's vaccine be given to people aged 65 and over.

- There is not enough data documenting protection in the older age groups, says Sören Andersson, unit manager for the Swedish Public Health Agency.

Astra Zeneca is the third covid-19 vaccine to be approved. But it will not be given to people over 65 years of age. Instead, other approved vaccines should primarily be reserved for them.

The reason is that there are not enough data on how Astra Zeneca's vaccine protects the elderly.

- From EMA's point of view, there is not enough data that documents protection in the older age groups, says Sören Andersson, unit manager for the Swedish Public Health Agency, at today's press conference.

Charlotta Bergquist, vaccine coordinator at the Medical Products Agency, says that Astra Zeneca's vaccine has a protective effect of 60 percent in people who have received two doses and are 18 years and up.

- In clinical studies, 64 people have developed covid-19 in the vaccine group against 154 in the placebo group, which means a protective effect of 60 percent.

Can not calculate the effect on those over 55 years
According to Bergquist, it is not possible to calculate the protective effect in people over 55 years of age.

- There are too few cases in the study to be able to calculate a protective effect. On the other hand, we believe that the vaccine also has a protective effect in the elderly based on antibody responses.

From previous flu vaccines, it is known that the protective effect decreases with increasing age.

- But where that limit goes, we can not comment on, she says.

As people over the age of 65 will not receive the vaccine, the Swedish Public Health Agency will review the priority order this week.

- There will be no major revolutionary changes in the order of priority, but a little clearer help to use available vaccines. It is still the case that age has the highest priority, but it is conceivable that healthcare professionals can use the Astra Zeneca vaccine, says Sören Andersson, at the Swedish Public Health Agency.

Astra Zeneca's vaccine is now awaiting approval from the Medical Products Agency before the Swedish population can access it. A product information will soon be available on the Medical Products Agency's website.

Vaccine coordinator Charlotta Bergquist says that the Medical Products Agency monitors adverse reaction reporting and effects at both national and EU level.

- Predominant reactions are related to the injection itself, that they hurt at the injection site, you can feel sick as a result of the immune system being activated.





https://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/a/WO ... domsvaccin


I know what happened when Covid finally broke out in my wife's care home, one week AFTER receiving the AZ vaccine.
Residents aged 84-94, all with underlying issues.

Most of those that tested positive were asymptomatic - just over a week after receiving the 1st dose AZ.
2 residents briefly "under the weather"
The 94 year old who was already on end of life care sadly passed away, and will no doubt be considered a Covid statistic

The AZ vaccine absolutely works on over 65's - hell, it works on over 85's.

This resistance is all political BS in my view.
EU states are deliberately risking the lives of their most vulnerable people to make a political statement IMO

Rgds


So why do the swiss ban AZ totally and Norway over 65? Last time i verified swiss is not under EMA and Norway non EU member. Germany france, poland, austria, sweden has above 65 and belgium 55.
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 11480
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

Re: European Commission Vaccination Strategy News and Discussion Thread

Wed Feb 03, 2021 5:34 pm

I suspect it is "political" because it is political will that would allow the shots to be given to a wider group without direct tests of a group while also considering the global real world results being experienced.

Pure science "rules" cannot be an absolute. Politics (i.e. real world immediate public need or wants) is sometimes important and needs to be considered. Not saying to be politics is more important than the science, but it is a consideration in situations like this.

Tugg
 
94717
Posts: 2789
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:38 am

Re: European Commission Vaccination Strategy News and Discussion Thread

Wed Feb 03, 2021 5:41 pm

Tugger wrote:
I suspect it is "political" because it is political will that would allow the shots to be given to a wider group without direct tests of a group while also considering the global real world results being experienced.

Pure science "rules" cannot be an absolute. Politics (i.e. real world immediate public need or wants) is sometimes important and needs to be considered. Not saying to be politics is more important than the science, but it is a consideration in situations like this.

Tugg


I totally agree. USA and UK emergency approval is also a political move.

Only giving one jab and allow more then 28 days that is recommended between shots is also political.

It is also political as EU do wait until proper documentation is also political.

Everything includes risks.
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 11480
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

Re: European Commission Vaccination Strategy News and Discussion Thread

Wed Feb 03, 2021 5:50 pm

olle wrote:
Tugger wrote:
I suspect it is "political" because it is political will that would allow the shots to be given to a wider group without direct tests of a group while also considering the global real world results being experienced.

Pure science "rules" cannot be an absolute. Politics (i.e. real world immediate public need or wants) is sometimes important and needs to be considered. Not saying to be politics is more important than the science, but it is a consideration in situations like this.

Tugg


I totally agree. USA and UK emergency approval is also a political move.

Only giving one jab and allow more then 28 days that is recommended between shots is also political.

It is also political as EU do wait until proper documentation is also political.

Everything includes risks.

But so far those risk have been proving out.

So it is good DECISIONS that are being made, not just "politics". Politics just can focus where decisions, different decisions need to be made.

And to look at the delay between shots aspect, it needs to be remembered that with anything like this, and this new, the guidance the manufacturer provides is just that: Guidance. It is not an absolute, it does not mean "failure" if not followed. The benefits of not following the guidance, if looked at intelligently, can exceed any detriment. In this case probably the most important thing IS to get the vaccine into as many arms as possible which in turn vastly reduces the impact on medical systems and transmission (R value).


Tugg
 
Arion640
Posts: 3261
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:15 pm

Re: European Commission Vaccination Strategy News and Discussion Thread

Wed Feb 03, 2021 6:23 pm

olle wrote:
Tugger wrote:
I suspect it is "political" because it is political will that would allow the shots to be given to a wider group without direct tests of a group while also considering the global real world results being experienced.

Pure science "rules" cannot be an absolute. Politics (i.e. real world immediate public need or wants) is sometimes important and needs to be considered. Not saying to be politics is more important than the science, but it is a consideration in situations like this.

Tugg


I totally agree. USA and UK emergency approval is also a political move.

Only giving one jab and allow more then 28 days that is recommended between shots is also political.

It is also political as EU do wait until proper documentation is also political.

Everything includes risks.


It is not political. Stats came out today that said you were protected for a certain time period under one dose - giving people some immunity and following up with a booster later will save lives.

AZ vaccine turning out to be one of the best as it’s now confirmed it significantly reduces transmission.
 
astuteman
Posts: 7439
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Re: European Commission Vaccination Strategy News and Discussion Thread

Wed Feb 03, 2021 6:29 pm

Tugger wrote:
But so far those risk have been proving out.

So it is good DECISIONS that are being made, not just "politics". Politics just can focus where decisions, different decisions need to be made.

And to look at the delay between shots aspect, it needs to be remembered that with anything like this, and this new, the guidance the manufacturer provides is just that: Guidance. It is not an absolute, it does not mean "failure" if not followed. The benefits of not following the guidance, if looked at intelligently, can exceed any detriment. In this case probably the most important thing IS to get the vaccine into as many arms as possible which in turn vastly reduces the impact on medical systems and transmission (R value).


Tugg

Great post my friend. :highfive:

My wife as a care provider supports social media groups of care home providers who offer mutual support in these appalling times (to be a care provider)

The AZ vaccine, due to its ease of distribution, has been offered to 10 000 care homes across the UK
Hundreds of thousands have had the 1st shot of the AZ vaccine.
Like my wife's home, many have been ambushed by the infectiousness of the new variants, after 10 months of taking the utmost care.
Thousands of positive tests/cases in over 80's, most of which, like my wife's home, have been asymptomatic.
Only a few sad cases of deaths occurring, and usually in those near the end of life.
At least 40% to 50% would have died horrible deaths prior to the vaccine.

My firm (a major OEM) works with the local health organisations, and receives data on the current situation.
The NHS in our region has seen the impact of care home residents with Covid on the NHS fall off a cliff
(Heaven knows how bad todays awful situation would have otherwise been)

So not only is there an abundance of evidence. In UK care homes there is an abundance of fact.
Fact which, if available to my business, must be available to health administrators tasked with making those decisions.

So I don't really care which political bloc these countries belong to.
They are putting their citizen's life at unnecessary risk.
And the only reason I can see is to make a point.

Rgds
 
astuteman
Posts: 7439
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Re: European Commission Vaccination Strategy News and Discussion Thread

Wed Feb 03, 2021 6:32 pm

Arion640 wrote:
olle wrote:
Tugger wrote:
I suspect it is "political" because it is political will that would allow the shots to be given to a wider group without direct tests of a group while also considering the global real world results being experienced.

Pure science "rules" cannot be an absolute. Politics (i.e. real world immediate public need or wants) is sometimes important and needs to be considered. Not saying to be politics is more important than the science, but it is a consideration in situations like this.

Tugg


I totally agree. USA and UK emergency approval is also a political move.

Only giving one jab and allow more then 28 days that is recommended between shots is also political.

It is also political as EU do wait until proper documentation is also political.

Everything includes risks.


It is not political. Stats came out today that said you were protected for a certain time period under one dose - giving people some immunity and following up with a booster later will save lives.

AZ vaccine turning out to be one of the best as it’s now confirmed it significantly reduces transmission.


Missed your post as I was composing my previous reply, my friend.

Absolutely saves the lives of over 80's, never mind over 60's.
And reduces transmission.

Trouble is you'll now see an emotional attachment to the negative position, both from certain A-net posters, and certain countries.
Whatever the facts.
Trump would be proud..........

Rgds
 
Dupli
Posts: 39
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2018 4:29 pm

Re: European Commission Vaccination Strategy News and Discussion Thread

Wed Feb 03, 2021 6:45 pm

There were scientist in the news here stating that there is not enough data to support giving az to 65+. No politician is going to decide otherwise after this. But this has nothing to do with uk-eu politics.
Vaccine programs now have to adjust to the new situation. They were planning to vaccinate 65+ with az, but now those plans to have to be revised. I think politicians and governments would rather have avoided this.
 
94717
Posts: 2789
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:38 am

Re: European Commission Vaccination Strategy News and Discussion Thread

Wed Feb 03, 2021 7:06 pm

Tugger wrote:
olle wrote:
Tugger wrote:
I suspect it is "political" because it is political will that would allow the shots to be given to a wider group without direct tests of a group while also considering the global real world results being experienced.

Pure science "rules" cannot be an absolute. Politics (i.e. real world immediate public need or wants) is sometimes important and needs to be considered. Not saying to be politics is more important than the science, but it is a consideration in situations like this.

Tugg


I totally agree. USA and UK emergency approval is also a political move.

Only giving one jab and allow more then 28 days that is recommended between shots is also political.

It is also political as EU do wait until proper documentation is also political.

Everything includes risks.

But so far those risk have been proving out.

So it is good DECISIONS that are being made, not just "politics". Politics just can focus where decisions, different decisions need to be made.

And to look at the delay between shots aspect, it needs to be remembered that with anything like this, and this new, the guidance the manufacturer provides is just that: Guidance. It is not an absolute, it does not mean "failure" if not followed. The benefits of not following the guidance, if looked at intelligently, can exceed any detriment. In this case probably the most important thing IS to get the vaccine into as many arms as possible which in turn vastly reduces the impact on medical systems and transmission (R value).


Tugg


But only do one shot is a calculated risk. If it actually pays off we as I understand it will only know when we see that there is no new versions of virus that the vaccines cannot handle.

Many experts see a risk with the UK approach.

Balance risk against gain is politics.

2022 we will know which experts gave the right advices.
 
Arion640
Posts: 3261
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:15 pm

Re: European Commission Vaccination Strategy News and Discussion Thread

Wed Feb 03, 2021 9:56 pm

olle wrote:
Tugger wrote:
olle wrote:

I totally agree. USA and UK emergency approval is also a political move.

Only giving one jab and allow more then 28 days that is recommended between shots is also political.

It is also political as EU do wait until proper documentation is also political.

Everything includes risks.

But so far those risk have been proving out.

So it is good DECISIONS that are being made, not just "politics". Politics just can focus where decisions, different decisions need to be made.

And to look at the delay between shots aspect, it needs to be remembered that with anything like this, and this new, the guidance the manufacturer provides is just that: Guidance. It is not an absolute, it does not mean "failure" if not followed. The benefits of not following the guidance, if looked at intelligently, can exceed any detriment. In this case probably the most important thing IS to get the vaccine into as many arms as possible which in turn vastly reduces the impact on medical systems and transmission (R value).


Tugg


But only do one shot is a calculated risk. If it actually pays off we as I understand it will only know when we see that there is no new versions of virus that the vaccines cannot handle.

Many experts see a risk with the UK approach.

Balance risk against gain is politics.

2022 we will know which experts gave the right advices.


Better to risk it and try and save more lives than sit on your hands and wait.
 
CranfordBoy
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2017 7:42 pm

Re: European Commission Vaccination Strategy News and Discussion Thread

Wed Feb 03, 2021 11:09 pm

Dupli wrote:
There were scientist in the news here stating that there is not enough data to support giving az to 65+. No politician is going to decide otherwise after this. But this has nothing to do with uk-eu politics.
Vaccine programs now have to adjust to the new situation. They were planning to vaccinate 65+ with az, but now those plans to have to be revised. I think politicians and governments would rather have avoided this.


Despite what you say, the EMA approved it for ALL ages, ie they came to the same conclusion that the UK MHRA arrived at several weeks earlier.

Right now I'm struggling to see what the point of the EMA is. Why have a pan-EU organisation which is going to analyse the data and come up with a recommendation if individual countries are then going to do their own thing anyway? If that's not politics then what is it?

I'm no supporter of the UK Government and the way it's handled the pandemic and neither am I a Brexiteer. But it seems there is a whole lot of butt-hurt in the EU because the UK chose not to partake in the EU vaccination procurement program. As a result, mostly because it was able to move quicker but also due to good luck in making the right bets, the UK finds itself in a better position than the EU right now. Perhaps because this doesn't fit with the "broken Britain", "shot itself in the foot", "too small to go it alone", "better off in a larger bloc" narrative that has preceding the years leading up to Brexit that explains why there is so much anti-UK invective coming from certain EU politicians.
 
DTVG
Posts: 104
Joined: Sat Aug 17, 2019 10:06 pm

Re: European Commission Vaccination Strategy News and Discussion Thread

Thu Feb 04, 2021 12:56 am

CranfordBoy wrote:
I'm no supporter of the UK Government and the way it's handled the pandemic and neither am I a Brexiteer. But it seems there is a whole lot of butt-hurt in the EU because the UK chose not to partake in the EU vaccination procurement program. As a result, mostly because it was able to move quicker but also due to good luck in making the right bets, the UK finds itself in a better position than the EU right now. Perhaps because this doesn't fit with the "broken Britain", "shot itself in the foot", "too small to go it alone", "better off in a larger bloc" narrative that has preceding the years leading up to Brexit that explains why there is so much anti-UK invective coming from certain EU politicians.


Correct. Not a fan of Brexit and Bojo, but the EU has been butthurt that the UK is leaving the club while state media has been painting doomsday scenarios for Britain. Self criticism was and still is non-existent, as we can see from the vaccine fiasco...
 
Dupli
Posts: 39
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2018 4:29 pm

Re: European Commission Vaccination Strategy News and Discussion Thread

Thu Feb 04, 2021 2:42 am

CranfordBoy wrote:
Dupli wrote:
There were scientist in the news here stating that there is not enough data to support giving az to 65+. No politician is going to decide otherwise after this. But this has nothing to do with uk-eu politics.
Vaccine programs now have to adjust to the new situation. They were planning to vaccinate 65+ with az, but now those plans to have to be revised. I think politicians and governments would rather have avoided this.


Despite what you say, the EMA approved it for ALL ages, ie they came to the same conclusion that the UK MHRA arrived at several weeks earlier.

Right now I'm struggling to see what the point of the EMA is. Why have a pan-EU organisation which is going to analyse the data and come up with a recommendation if individual countries are then going to do their own thing anyway? If that's not politics then what is it?


I agree this is not the best moment for the EMA. But if political pressure was involved, it is more likely to be towards approval for elderly. Being in the middle of a pandemic, hospitals overcrowding with those elderly, and with a vaccine shortage being blamed on politicians, a full approval is really to the advantage of those politicians.
And for countries not able to handle the cold chain distribution, az is really the only option for now. Yes I can see political pressure.

The alternative explanation of some here, not approving because of the UK, seems rather unlikely. What are the political incentives for that?

CranfordBoy wrote:
I'm no supporter of the UK Government and the way it's handled the pandemic and neither am I a Brexiteer. But it seems there is a whole lot of butt-hurt in the EU because the UK chose not to partake in the EU vaccination procurement program. As a result, mostly because it was able to move quicker but also due to good luck in making the right bets, the UK finds itself in a better position than the EU right now. Perhaps because this doesn't fit with the "broken Britain", "shot itself in the foot", "too small to go it alone", "better off in a larger bloc" narrative that has preceding the years leading up to Brexit that explains why there is so much anti-UK invective coming from certain EU politicians.


When it comes to vaccination strategy, I don't see this strong anti-uk sentiment you describe amoung politicians, at least where I live. Perhaps we read different newspapers.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 14662
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: European Commission Vaccination Strategy News and Discussion Thread

Thu Feb 04, 2021 5:53 am

olle wrote:
Tugger wrote:
I suspect it is "political" because it is political will that would allow the shots to be given to a wider group without direct tests of a group while also considering the global real world results being experienced.

Pure science "rules" cannot be an absolute. Politics (i.e. real world immediate public need or wants) is sometimes important and needs to be considered. Not saying to be politics is more important than the science, but it is a consideration in situations like this.

Tugg


I totally agree. USA and UK emergency approval is also a political move.

Only giving one jab and allow more then 28 days that is recommended between shots is also political.


Apparently that is a move backed by good data, and the short interval was chosen to get certification data faster, not because anyone figured that is the most effective interval. Especially considering that the first shot seems to do most of the work, waiting allows to vaccinate a lot more people with a much quicker immunity build up. Doc wrote something about it up thread.

It is also political as EU do wait until proper documentation is also political.


If following established procedure is political and not following is as well, then suddenly absolutely everything is ....

CranfordBoy wrote:
Dupli wrote:
There were scientist in the news here stating that there is not enough data to support giving az to 65+. No politician is going to decide otherwise after this. But this has nothing to do with uk-eu politics.
Vaccine programs now have to adjust to the new situation. They were planning to vaccinate 65+ with az, but now those plans to have to be revised. I think politicians and governments would rather have avoided this.


Despite what you say, the EMA approved it for ALL ages, ie they came to the same conclusion that the UK MHRA arrived at several weeks earlier.

Right now I'm struggling to see what the point of the EMA is. Why have a pan-EU organisation which is going to analyse the data and come up with a recommendation if individual countries are then going to do their own thing anyway? If that's not politics then what is it?


Despite the noise of the last couple of years EU member states can still make their own decisions on lots of items, even if at most times they won´t. EMA pretty much follows WHO guidelines, if it is 50%+ effective and safe, approve. Member countries will consider which other vaccines they have coming in and at what schedule. Germany for example gets 85.8 million doses of Biontech/Pfizer (55.8 via the EU, 30 via own order) and may just decide the overall results will be better if older folks get the Biontech vaccine and the AZ vaccine is used to speed up vaccination of the younger at risk population. If the AZ vaccine is especially good at preventing transmission, using it to vaccinate people that walk in and out of retirement homes/care facilities seems logical.
It also just happens that the currently approved vaccine deliveries for this year between Biontech and AZ are exactly enough to vaccinate everyone over the age of 16. So that seems to be a multi variable calculation that changes every time new data is dumped in.

best regards
Thomas
 
94717
Posts: 2789
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:38 am

Re: European Commission Vaccination Strategy News and Discussion Thread

Thu Feb 04, 2021 6:43 am

tommy1808 wrote:
olle wrote:
Tugger wrote:
I suspect it is "political" because it is political will that would allow the shots to be given to a wider group without direct tests of a group while also considering the global real world results being experienced.

Pure science "rules" cannot be an absolute. Politics (i.e. real world immediate public need or wants) is sometimes important and needs to be considered. Not saying to be politics is more important than the science, but it is a consideration in situations like this.

Tugg


I totally agree. USA and UK emergency approval is also a political move.

Only giving one jab and allow more then 28 days that is recommended between shots is also political.


Apparently that is a move backed by good data, and the short interval was chosen to get certification data faster, not because anyone figured that is the most effective interval. Especially considering that the first shot seems to do most of the work, waiting allows to vaccinate a lot more people with a much quicker immunity build up. Doc wrote something about it up thread.

It is also political as EU do wait until proper documentation is also political.


If following established procedure is political and not following is as well, then suddenly absolutely everything is ....

CranfordBoy wrote:
Dupli wrote:
There were scientist in the news here stating that there is not enough data to support giving az to 65+. No politician is going to decide otherwise after this. But this has nothing to do with uk-eu politics.
Vaccine programs now have to adjust to the new situation. They were planning to vaccinate 65+ with az, but now those plans to have to be revised. I think politicians and governments would rather have avoided this.


Despite what you say, the EMA approved it for ALL ages, ie they came to the same conclusion that the UK MHRA arrived at several weeks earlier.

Right now I'm struggling to see what the point of the EMA is. Why have a pan-EU organisation which is going to analyse the data and come up with a recommendation if individual countries are then going to do their own thing anyway? If that's not politics then what is it?


Despite the noise of the last couple of years EU member states can still make their own decisions on lots of items, even if at most times they won´t. EMA pretty much follows WHO guidelines, if it is 50%+ effective and safe, approve. Member countries will consider which other vaccines they have coming in and at what schedule. Germany for example gets 85.8 million doses of Biontech/Pfizer (55.8 via the EU, 30 via own order) and may just decide the overall results will be better if older folks get the Biontech vaccine and the AZ vaccine is used to speed up vaccination of the younger at risk population. If the AZ vaccine is especially good at preventing transmission, using it to vaccinate people that walk in and out of retirement homes/care facilities seems logical.
It also just happens that the currently approved vaccine deliveries for this year between Biontech and AZ are exactly enough to vaccinate everyone over the age of 16. So that seems to be a multi variable calculation that changes every time new data is dumped in.

best regards
Thomas


I think that is correct. That in Swiss that not part of EU ban AZ totally without a vaccine on its own cannot be connected to any EU UK bashing.

Probably the consideration is that there is a number of below 65 or in some cases below 55 that anyway need a vaccine early meaning that the first batches anyway will be used.

EU seems to get much bigger deliverance of the other vaccines so probably the +70 anyway is covered.

This is handling risk against gain.

Also many experts are not happy with extending the time between the first and second shot. I am in no position to understand enough to have any oppinion about this, but in most northern EU and Norway except Finland vaccines are saved for the second shot meaning that soon the weak people will actually be fully vaccinated. Italy today seems to be the country with highest part of fully vaccinated people in EU also more then UK.
 
Arion640
Posts: 3261
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:15 pm

Re: European Commission Vaccination Strategy News and Discussion Thread

Thu Feb 04, 2021 11:03 am

olle wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
olle wrote:

I totally agree. USA and UK emergency approval is also a political move.

Only giving one jab and allow more then 28 days that is recommended between shots is also political.


Apparently that is a move backed by good data, and the short interval was chosen to get certification data faster, not because anyone figured that is the most effective interval. Especially considering that the first shot seems to do most of the work, waiting allows to vaccinate a lot more people with a much quicker immunity build up. Doc wrote something about it up thread.

It is also political as EU do wait until proper documentation is also political.


If following established procedure is political and not following is as well, then suddenly absolutely everything is ....

CranfordBoy wrote:

Despite what you say, the EMA approved it for ALL ages, ie they came to the same conclusion that the UK MHRA arrived at several weeks earlier.

Right now I'm struggling to see what the point of the EMA is. Why have a pan-EU organisation which is going to analyse the data and come up with a recommendation if individual countries are then going to do their own thing anyway? If that's not politics then what is it?


Despite the noise of the last couple of years EU member states can still make their own decisions on lots of items, even if at most times they won´t. EMA pretty much follows WHO guidelines, if it is 50%+ effective and safe, approve. Member countries will consider which other vaccines they have coming in and at what schedule. Germany for example gets 85.8 million doses of Biontech/Pfizer (55.8 via the EU, 30 via own order) and may just decide the overall results will be better if older folks get the Biontech vaccine and the AZ vaccine is used to speed up vaccination of the younger at risk population. If the AZ vaccine is especially good at preventing transmission, using it to vaccinate people that walk in and out of retirement homes/care facilities seems logical.
It also just happens that the currently approved vaccine deliveries for this year between Biontech and AZ are exactly enough to vaccinate everyone over the age of 16. So that seems to be a multi variable calculation that changes every time new data is dumped in.

best regards
Thomas


I think that is correct. That in Swiss that not part of EU ban AZ totally without a vaccine on its own cannot be connected to any EU UK bashing.

Probably the consideration is that there is a number of below 65 or in some cases below 55 that anyway need a vaccine early meaning that the first batches anyway will be used.

EU seems to get much bigger deliverance of the other vaccines so probably the +70 anyway is covered.

This is handling risk against gain.

Also many experts are not happy with extending the time between the first and second shot. I am in no position to understand enough to have any oppinion about this, but in most northern EU and Norway except Finland vaccines are saved for the second shot meaning that soon the weak people will actually be fully vaccinated. Italy today seems to be the country with highest part of fully vaccinated people in EU also more then UK.


Fully vaccinated won’t matter, lives saved will. The science proves the Az Vaccine is okay for a few weeks without the second shot.
 
94717
Posts: 2789
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:38 am

Re: European Commission Vaccination Strategy News and Discussion Thread

Thu Feb 04, 2021 12:20 pm

Arion640 wrote:
olle wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:

Apparently that is a move backed by good data, and the short interval was chosen to get certification data faster, not because anyone figured that is the most effective interval. Especially considering that the first shot seems to do most of the work, waiting allows to vaccinate a lot more people with a much quicker immunity build up. Doc wrote something about it up thread.



If following established procedure is political and not following is as well, then suddenly absolutely everything is ....



Despite the noise of the last couple of years EU member states can still make their own decisions on lots of items, even if at most times they won´t. EMA pretty much follows WHO guidelines, if it is 50%+ effective and safe, approve. Member countries will consider which other vaccines they have coming in and at what schedule. Germany for example gets 85.8 million doses of Biontech/Pfizer (55.8 via the EU, 30 via own order) and may just decide the overall results will be better if older folks get the Biontech vaccine and the AZ vaccine is used to speed up vaccination of the younger at risk population. If the AZ vaccine is especially good at preventing transmission, using it to vaccinate people that walk in and out of retirement homes/care facilities seems logical.
It also just happens that the currently approved vaccine deliveries for this year between Biontech and AZ are exactly enough to vaccinate everyone over the age of 16. So that seems to be a multi variable calculation that changes every time new data is dumped in.

best regards
Thomas


I think that is correct. That in Swiss that not part of EU ban AZ totally without a vaccine on its own cannot be connected to any EU UK bashing.

Probably the consideration is that there is a number of below 65 or in some cases below 55 that anyway need a vaccine early meaning that the first batches anyway will be used.

EU seems to get much bigger deliverance of the other vaccines so probably the +70 anyway is covered.

This is handling risk against gain.

Also many experts are not happy with extending the time between the first and second shot. I am in no position to understand enough to have any oppinion about this, but in most northern EU and Norway except Finland vaccines are saved for the second shot meaning that soon the weak people will actually be fully vaccinated. Italy today seems to be the country with highest part of fully vaccinated people in EU also more then UK.


Fully vaccinated won’t matter, lives saved will. The science proves the Az Vaccine is okay for a few weeks without the second shot.


I totally agree. My point is that I read different opinions from different experts in different countries.

Some countries like UK says it totally fine let us go for it. UK seems to have a higher apetite for risk while accepting emergency approval for different vaccines.

In the oposite corner we have Swiss that will not accept AZ vaccine at all. Neither UK nor Swiss is EU members so EU politics should not be involved.

EU EMA has actually accepted AZ vaccine for all ages. But now Sweden, Belgium, France, Italy, Poland, Denmark, Germany counting as EU members and Norway non EU member but I believe EMA member has put 55 or 65 age as limit.

I do not have anything close to a knowledge level in this matter to say if it is UK, Swiss, EU or different EMA members has a correct opinion.

What do you base your opinion on Arion640?
 
Sokes
Posts: 2773
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: European Commission Vaccination Strategy News and Discussion Thread

Thu Feb 04, 2021 12:38 pm

astuteman wrote:
I know what happened when Covid finally broke out in my wife's care home, one week AFTER receiving the AZ vaccine.
Residents aged 84-94, all with underlying issues.

Most of those that tested positive were asymptomatic - just over a week after receiving the 1st dose AZ.
2 residents briefly "under the weather"
The 94 year old who was already on end of life care sadly passed away, and will no doubt be considered a Covid statistic

The AZ vaccine absolutely works on over 65's - hell, it works on over 85's.

This resistance is all political BS in my view.
EU states are deliberately risking the lives of their most vulnerable people to make a political statement IMO

Rgds

Thanks for this info.
If I want to give the vaccine to low risk population and those with many years life left I don't take risk. If I want to vaccine those above 80 I take more risk.
Nothing beats experience. That's why democracy with lot of idiots allowed to vote still works better than 5 year plans by smart academics. I take your experience any day above statistics that don't differentiate between different levels of symptoms.

Since I'm German:
Why was my joke about Ursula deleted?
 
Arion640
Posts: 3261
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:15 pm

Re: European Commission Vaccination Strategy News and Discussion Thread

Thu Feb 04, 2021 12:45 pm

Interesting article: https://order-order.com/2021/02/04/von- ... onference/

The EU is against misinformation about vaccines, yet macron is out promoting them.
 
User avatar
Dano1977
Posts: 759
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 2:49 pm

Re: European Commission Vaccination Strategy News and Discussion Thread

Thu Feb 04, 2021 1:04 pm

My parents who are in their early 70's received there vaccination papers today, two minutes on the Govt website and they are booked in for there jabs tomorrow morning 2 miles from there house.

The Conservative Govt may have got a lot wrong during this pandemic which hopefully will be investigated by a public inquiry at a later date, but the Govt and NHS have got the vaccination roll out absolutely spot on.

From early purchase rights of the then still in development vaccines in great numbers to using the army for logistical support in the rollout, with at one point over 600,000 vaccinated in one day.

I believe this success will be used as a scapegoat for the previous errors made by BoJo and Co.
Last edited by Dano1977 on Thu Feb 04, 2021 1:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 31

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: alberchico and 26 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos