So far today you’ve barely posted anything that is objectively true and yet you’re calling others biased?!
The distinction really needs to be made between criticism and bashing. I don’t think the criticism of the US or UK were unfair in the slightest last spring and summer. I think we were all waiting on Sweden with the expectation that it would head South, which it did, and they received criticism as well. The handling of the first 9 months of the pandemic in these 3 countries was appalling.
And Germany deserved that praise. They were a country somehow bucking the trend of having semi-open borders and low levels of cases, on the back of an effective test and tracing regime. They didn’t buck that trend the second time around this winter, and it goes to show that even though they made an attempt to protect their citizens, unlike some others, whichever way you cut it they still lost out as they chose the wrong path initially (border closures vs ‘living with it’). But just having made an effort in that first wave at least saved tens of thousands of their citizens which should still be applauded.
Some of the criticisms on here about the vaccination rollout have been unfounded IMO. From a German newspaper supposedly representing the views of the German government, to the entire EU being labelled critical of the AZ vaccine on the back of one leader’s opinion - Macron’s. His bitter comments, clearly influenced by the outcome of Brexit, were particularly disgusting given how his country has a vaccine scepticism problem, but to then extrapolate the word of one bad leader to suggest its the EU institution’s fault that there has been a problem with vaccine uptake in the EU does not sit right with me.
My biggest gripes with the comments of the EU on here have been the painting of them as somehow being the only nation undertaking in vaccine nationalism. Do I personally have a problem with the EU stopping vaccines (IMO the EU backed the Italian block with their silence) that could be administered to my folks in Australia? Sure. In the grand scheme of things, is an 80yo with co-morbidities in Australia for example any different to a 80yo with co-morbidities in the EU? No. If they are competing for the same vaccine vial, and the EU have a contract which prioritises them over the 80yo in Australia, then that’s their right no?
I see the discussion in this thread has been about how the EU says one thing and then does another. I am struggling to differentiate between pretending not to be a vaccine arsehole then showing that you are (EU), or showing from the start you are a vaccine arsehole (UK).
The UK have punishment clauses in their contract with Astrazeneca which allows them to take action if ‘any party tries to force or persuade Astrazeneca or its subcontractors to do anything that could hold up supply of the vaccine doses’ (1). They are as big a perpetrator in vaccine nationalism as the EU. It would also take a brave man to suggest that NZ, Australia, Canada and South Africa would open the doors to exporting their vaccine before their own vulnerable citizens are fully vaccinated first, in the same way UK and EU have.
I have said for a while that I wished that governments had centralized vaccine rollout through WHO even if I knew it was never going to happen. The EU, US, UK and every other country have prioritised their own citizens. Its disappointing but its also human nature. It would have been nice if the EU had said from the start that they were going to take care of their own first instead of the ‘all for one and one for all’ they were suggesting earlier, but actions are the only thing that matters to a country thats waiting on vaccines. Not whether UK were honest about vaccine nationalism and EU were dishonest. At the end of the day the actions of both the UK and EU are equally limiting their ability to protect their most vulnerable.
I think its pretty obvious that this thread triggers me. I think its because opinions too often are getting masqueraded as fact. I know you often provide a source for your information @ISMF and thank you for that, but some others very rarely do and when data is given but never sourced its often dangerous to take that data at face value especially when it is common, particularly in this thread, for snippets to feed into a wider agenda being pushed.
I think I might still follow this thread from the periphery and not engage as I don’t think the conflict is necessary in my life right now.
5 Likes
The UK undoubtedly took early and proactive steps to ensure it had a reliable supply in the event that the vaccine that it substantially funded was viable. It had to act quickly, it was one of the worst affected nations in the world. It engaged positively and collaboratively with the vaccine developers, manufacturers, distributers and regulator.
But it ALSO did two other things that, I believe, mitigates what might otherwise be considered a vaccine nationalistic approach.
-
It led on establishing and funding COVAX. Up until February of this year it was the single largest funder of that program and was the lead voice in setting it up. At the G7 summit in February, of which the UK is president this year, the other G7 nations (including, importantly, the US), agreed to increase their funding (in some cases more than double it) for COVAX.
-
It developed the AZ vaccine in conjunction with Oxford University on the condition that it was made available to supply worldwide at cost. As a result, it is BY FAR the most widely available and cheapest vaccine in the world.
Those two measures alone, I believe, allows the UK to retain an element of the moral high ground it would otherwise have lost if it had insisted on keeping both the vaccines produced and the knowledge as to their production (licensing) to itself. This is what distinguishes it from the US and also the export measures recently imposed by (an) EU member state(s) pursuant to EU rules imposed post hoc.
I can supply links to substantiate everything I’ve written above, if you’d like. Alternatively you can read this thread where I have already provided them. I am a prolific poster of information from reliable, expert and objective sources though so understandable if you (or others) have missed some.
The trial of a new drug treatment against Covid-19 appears to have been so successful it has been stopped early.
According to GSK and Vir Biotechnology, the pharmaceutical companies behind the monoclonal antibody treatment called VIR-7831, it has reduced hospitalisation or death by 85%.
The drug was tested on 583 patients in US, Brazil and Spain who were all at high risk of being admitted to hospital with Covid – but we have little more information.
The full data on the trial has not yet been published, making it difficult to judge exactly how effective it is.
This kind of treatment holds real promise against Covid and several types of monoclonal antibodies have already been authorised for use.
They provide artificial immunity to patients by making antibodies for them in a bioreactor.
Vaccines, on the other hand, trigger the body to make their own antibodies to fight off disease from the virus.
Despite the existence of vaccines, there is still a need for good and effective treatments – particularly for those who have weaker immune systems.
Please do tell.
I mean Pasteur is independant and worked on the project with Merck so shouldn’t that be levelled at Germany?
Also rather disingenious after going on about R&D and how it works.
Even so Pasteur has still 2 projects on the go, one a very nice one involving a nasal spay vaccin (in conjonction with a Paris based innovative company), very promising for the future.
Data up to the beginning of this week indicates that there may be a slightly higher risk of fatality from the AstraZeneca vaccine than Pfizer. There have been 227 deaths following people vaccinated with Pfizer in the UK compared with 275 from AstraZeneca. These are all cause deaths so not necessarily attributable to the vaccine itself.
Given that in excess of 10 million people have had each of those jabs, and they are mostly elderly and vulnerable, the vaccines remain incredibly safe. But certainly worth monitoring whether there are any reasons why there are approximately 34% more fatalities among those who have taken AstraZeneca than those who have taken Pfizer. It may well be because AstraZeneca has been given to the more vulnerable in greater proportion than Pfizer (hypothetically, I don’t know the breakdown)?
The full breakdowns are available here:
AstraZeneca
https://t.co/vvLVWSpvPf?amp=1
And here:
2 Likes
Something to watch. There will I’m sure be some who will point to lack of over 65s in the trial period but hopefully this will be quickly scuppered if it has just be a coincidence.
More worryingly would be if those extra deaths were among younger population.
1 Like
Yes. Or related to particular conditions. I might go through and compare whether AZ produced a markedly greater number of cases in any particular condition but there’s a lot of data there and I may not have time.
Just imagine how the response to this pandemic may have been different if only somebody else had been elected leader of the Conservatives…
1 Like
Due to how narrow the production chain is in some places for vaccine manufacturing, most of the contracts related to Covid vaccine distribution were signed with very heavy contingencies. For instance, there is literally one manufacturer in the US that produces the glass vials that the 2 mRNA vaccines had to be stored in, and they already run at capacity to fulfil their existing orders for other drugs/biologics. The contracts they signed with both vaccine companies were contingent on them being approved first to avoid the absurd situation of the first approved vaccine not getting into arms because the vials needed were being used for an unapproved vaccine. Almost all of the contracts in this space were structured in this way and that leaves massive room for interpretation into how any of them will have to be delivered on.
3 Likes
Ummm…do you have a link to subtantiate everything that you’re saying here? Otherwise, you know, it’s just your opinion 
Shit, now I’m posting a reply without providing any source information. That’s now 77 posts from me this month in here with only 70 supporting links. Tsk, tsk. 
2 Likes
Fucking scandalous ratio that, how on earth can we take you seriously with such blatantly shoddy numbers like that.
2 Likes
It doesn’t matter anyway. I keep forgetting to post boobs so nobody’s reading them anyway (as has been amply demonstrated today although not sure the promise of boobs will make much of a difference here…)!
2 Likes
This reminds me of the old days back on TIA, with the birds and boobs thread? Think it was @chung who started it?
1 Like
This thread has certainly been flooded with every detail of EU (and EU member) failings. I’m not going to defend the EU, i don’t know all the facts (i wish i had the time that some on here have to google it all and hold down a job at the same time) and i don’t think they’ve covered themselves in glory, but it almost seems like a subset of a brexit thread where we’re being gleefully bombarded overwhelmed with every negative post possible about the EU.
Surprised there’s not a union jack draped behind some of the threads.
3 Likes
Shit. I made a mistake posting the good news about the EMA approving the Janssen vaccine (before the MHRA). My mask must have momentarily slipped
This is the impression I am getting, no wonder some of the EU based posters have left this thread/site.
2 Likes
So the EU gets justifiably criticised in one thread and posters leave the site?
1 Like
I’d say most lads don’t check your links so for all we know theymay not really be legitimate links
1 Like
You know very well that you enjoy bashing the EU.
It’s all a little unfair as by the rules for union bashing that you have, the ratio is set at 27 to 4, giving you much more opportunities to bash than your fellow posters from EU countries and maybe that’s why they left.
1 Like