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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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?

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

JJJ wrote:

400m is just the first batch.

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

olle wrote:

Peter Liese lying?

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

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.

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.

olle wrote:

Peter Liese lying?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

Arion640 wrote:

Why hasn’t the EU bought the russian vaccine?

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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