Yes I also remember some posts from some expressing concerns. Cant remember who sadly, sorry.
1 Like
No, not all at her feet. Kyriakides, Michel, Gallina and a number of others within the EU institutions, let alone EU member states (with a few exceptions).
Cologne-Liverpool definitely wasn’t a fan of hers.
We are going to drop it completely I think. I have no faith in re-commencing, I think the last jab of Az in Norway have been done. Too many deaths (for us) in young people, I can’t envision our regulatory body accepting it. Modus Operandi here for our regulatory bodies when it comes to medicines is that a medicine does not give serious or critical bi-effects in otherwise healthy people. That weak or those with underlying conditions may die, this is accepted usually if the medicine is good, but not if otherwise healthy people die. Certainly not so many. But maybe I am wrong. But I really don’t think I am.
In any case, it is a tragedy, because we are in dire need of vaccines.
2 Likes
Gave you a like for the very high quality of your post, which I appreciated reading, though I do only agree fully with parts of it.
I agree 100% with the extremely sub-par vaccine procruration of the EU (and also Norway, though we are less powerful and less free to go out on our own I will note). It is massively worthy to criticise. Following this, there has been mildly stating bizarre statements from, in particular, the political leadership in France (mostly Macron, who according to himself, is a vaccine expert), some of it not just politically unwise, but also directly harmful.
When it comes to COVAX, WHO was just out today, it is not working, only about 30 million doses have been distributed to the 50 countries that is taking part in that program. That is a completely insignificant amount on a macro level. However, both the US and others are refusing to release vaccines. It is how it is.
The UK have done incredibly well when it comes to both funding and procurement of vaccines, no doubt about it. However, the UK like most powerful countries, are refusing export of vaccine, as you know. This is the same as the EU is being accused of (which I find hypocritical when it comes from the UK). By the end of summer, very, very many people in other countries will be dead from the virus and I will note that it is much easier to be magnanimous when your own population have been inoculated, which I am sure you will agree with. Never the less, it is great that the UK will then export life saving vaccines,but let’s not exaggerate, the UK is not sacrificing lives doing so, which is what the EU will do if vaccines are exported out of the EU, a very stark difference to the UK, and one I note that you and others ignore.
As for what you write about the regulator, this I just can’t really agree with. The UK took a chance because it had to, because infection rates were spiraling through the roof (medical communities, including the British ones, noted that it was a risk at the time). I am certainly happy we didn’t do that and that EMA didn’t do that, it is not responsible in my view, the situation at the time was not similar of that in the UK. In hindsight, sure, it was wise. But that’s hindsight which always looks good, if there were massive damaging bi-effects to one of the vaccines that the UK regulatory body approved with emergency-speed, it would have gone bad. There were not, at least not in scale.
2 Likes
It’s too late for me to respond to your post. If others haven’t made the points I wish to make in the interim I’ll do so tomorrow.
1 Like
Have a good night, Kopstar !
1 Like
No, you have picked me up wrong. Couldn’t give a shite about theft or vaccine nationalism,
Nobody’s life should be put at risk as a matter of principle.
3 Likes
That is nowhere near the truth!
Ask an ethical question and you’ll get an unethical answer!
Given Israel are leading the world its pointing out the reasons they were successful.
- Paid twice the price of EU (23 euro vs 12 euro per dose)
- Took on full liability vs EU which was keen for Phizer to retain liability
- Provided full transparency on data to Phizer (weekly breakdown on age, gender, etc)
3 Likes
Israel effectively agreed to act as a real life trial for Pfizer. It basically agreed to be the company’s shop window.
https://mobile.twitter.com/EuroBriefing/status/1374267796427784193
Even in a pandemic, still got to be first to the sun loungers 
1 Like
I’ve heard that it doesn’t go down well with parts of the population. Nobody likes to be used as guinea pig for a big pharma company. Also, I’d like to know what ‘sharing the medical data’ means in detail. Do they respect and preserve medical secret of the vaccinated citizens?
Also, the state holding liability for any potential dangerosity of a vaccine is a bit… well… lighthearted, isn’t it?
1 Like
I think this is the main reason Israel was approached for this. A well-developed healthcare system, good data information and weaker privacy rights.
1 Like
Also, paying the double for each vaccine dose to get in first… at the end of the day, it’s the peoples’ money they are squandering there. Not that I complain btw: for us all, it’s great to have a nation of guinea pigs experimenting with the vaccine at big scale. But I wouldn’t be happy if I was living in Israel, that’s for sure. Especially as they have already implemented a system of discrimination with their green badges. Anyone wearing the badge can go to concerts etc. The other ones are excluded for the time being (notably most Muslim and Christian Israelis, but that is for another thread).
5 Likes
1 Like
So, this is Sandra Gallina, the EU’s vaccine negotiator, still lying about what their contract with AZ stipulates.
As EU leaders are set to convene in a few days time I’m reminded of this article in the FT:
EU member states squabble over vaccine distribution Group of countries warn of heavy disparities in shipments across Europe
Sam Fleming and Michael Peel in Brussels MARCH 14 2021
A row has broken out between EU member states over coronavirus vaccine allocation in the latest fallout from AstraZeneca’s worsening supply shortfalls to the bloc.
Leaders of a group of European states wrote to the presidents of the European Council and European Commission complaining of “huge disparities” in the allocations of vaccines between member states. The letter, which was signed by Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Latvia and Slovenia, calls for a debate at leaders’ level.
However, other member states countered that the six member states are complaining about the adverse results of their own procurement decisions. The commission defended the system, saying the allocation of doses had followed a “transparent process”.
The EU is grappling with the consequences of a fresh round of shortfalls in AstraZeneca deliveries as it struggles to get its vaccination drive on track. The British-Swedish company has confirmed to member states that it will only deliver 30m doses in the first quarter of the year, less than the 40m figure expected. That number was itself a big cut from the 100m or more shots the EU had originally expected by the end of March.
The company says it is now planning to deliver only 70m doses in the second quarter of the year, instead of 180m. This is in part because it has not been able to source supply from outside the EU because of restrictions on exports being operated around the world. Covid-19 and the business of vaccines
The vaccine rollout in Europe took a further knock on Sunday when Ireland became the latest EU country to suspend the use of the AstraZeneca vaccine.
Ireland’s National Immunisation Advisory Committee said it took the decision following three new reports of serious blood clots or brain haemorrhages in younger people after vaccination flagged by the Norwegian Medicines Agency on Saturday. The NMA said it had not found any causal link with the vaccine but it was investigating.
The European Medicines Agency has launched its own investigation into clotting incidents but has said the vaccine’s benefits outweigh the risks.
In a statement on Sunday, AstraZeneca said it had reviewed the available evidence and found no indication of heightened risk.
The delivery shortfalls have once again focused attention on the systems under which vaccines are shared out between member states under the auspices of the EU’s vaccine procurement strategy. The current dispute is coalescing around the distribution of an accelerated delivery of 4m BioNTech/Pfizer doses, diplomats said, as member states scramble to get vaccines as quickly as possible.
While all EU countries have the right to pro-rata population-based shares of every vaccine bought by the European Commission, they can opt to buy more or less of each jab as they wish. Any unused shares can then be purchased by other member states.
A number of countries decided earlier in the process to weight their portfolios towards the AstraZeneca jab and buy less of the BioNTech/Pfizer and Moderna products, the first two to receive EU regulatory approval. They are now lagging on deliveries because of AstraZeneca’s production problems.
Their original reasons for going long on AstraZeneca include that the company had a big international supply network and its vaccine seemed likely to come to market quickly, said one diplomat from a country that bet on the jab. Other attractions are that the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine is much cheaper than the other two and does not require the ultra-low temperature storage they do.
“At the time of contracting they seemed to be the fastest in development and [to have] the biggest capacity,” the diplomat said of AstraZeneca.
But the consequence of AstraZeneca’s supply problems is that those countries have received fewer vaccines to date proportionally than member states weighted towards the Pfizer and Moderna drugs.
In their letter, the six countries complained that deliveries of vaccine “are not being implemented on an equal basis following the pro rata population key,” adding: “If this system were to carry on, it would continue creating and exacerbating huge disparities among Member States by this summer, whereby some would be able to reach herd immunity in a few weeks while others would lag far behind.”
Sebastian Kurz, the Austrian chancellor and one of the signatories, tweeted that if the current distribution continues “it would result in significant unequal treatment — which we must prevent.”
However, the commission said it was the member states themselves that had agreed to allow departures from the pro rata of population allocation system that Brussels favours. “It would be up to the Member States to find an agreement if they wished to return to the pro rata basis,” it said.
There is “full transparency between Member States as to who gets what” on vaccines, since the allocations are decided by a procurement steering board on which they all sit, an EU official stressed.
Countries that went heavy on Pfizer rather than AstraZeneca and are enjoying the benefits in the form of more timely deliveries are likely to look askance at efforts to reshuffle the distribution key.
“Some countries did not buy all they could. They chose another strategy betting on other vaccines that was cheaper and easier to transport to be available for them,” said one EU diplomat. “It is not fair nor has it anything to do with solidarity to change the allocation system as has been agreed. It would not be fair to those who for months have enforced strong measures and lockdown.”
The question of vaccine strategy is set to be debated at an upcoming EU summit on 25 and 26 March
This paragraph, in particular, stood out…
“Some countries did not buy all they could. They chose another strategy betting on other vaccines that was cheaper and easier to transport to be available for them,” said one EU diplomat. “It is not fair nor has it anything to do with solidarity to change the allocation system as has been agreed. It would not be fair to those who for months have enforced strong measures and lockdown."
Got to sign up to read but put it here as it could cost AZ in the US.