Current Affairs Coronavirus Thread - Serious stuff !!!

[tsubaki]

On point A, maybe, they’d need to prove that. On point B, they can only make what they can make. AZ have nothing to gain from this.

On point A, that is why they're bringing in export controls (which is not a ban). As for the rest, the issue is what they've contractually agreed to supply.

 

[BlueToff]

It doesn't make "perfect sense", at all - for AZ it might (although even then we really need to see what was actually learned), but Pfizer have been really explicit that they do not know if their vaccination will still work with the delay.

Doing it against their advice raises a load of ethical and legal issues that cannot be brushed away, especially when the people who got that dose are the most high risk people.

The trials of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine did include different spacing between doses, finding that a longer gap (two to three months) led to a greater immune response, but the overall participant numbers were small. In the UK study 59% (1407 of 2377) of the participants who had two standard doses received the second dose between nine and 12 weeks after the first. In the Brazil study only 18.6% (384 of 2063) received a second dose between nine and 12 weeks after the first. The combined trial results, published in the Lancet,4 found that vaccine efficacy 14 days after a second dose was higher in the group that had more than six weeks between the two doses (65.4%) than in the group that had less than six weeks between doses (53.4%).

From here: https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2020/11/23/oxford-az-vaccine-efficacy-data

The only doubt is that only 1407 were in the trial in the UK, and 384 in Brazil. But still, in the UK, 59% were given that spacing and the efficiacy was higher.

I fully agree on Pfizer.

But weighing up the risk of ensuring more people have some protection, or less people have '80-90%', whatever it ends up being - well, at a time like the country is in, because of the government, they're going to have to take risks. So far, it seems to be working. We'll know for sure further down the line.

 

[BlueStevie35]

Mostly one jab.

We all hope that it has the effect of keeping people out of hospitals, of course. But it's not how the roll out was supposed to happen. And questions still abound about the efficacy of AZ for older people.

There’s been no reports as yet of any side effects in older people after getting the AZ vaccine. I don’t wholeheartedly trust Germany or France anymore than I do Bozo and the rest of the clown school but the latter have at least got the ball moving efficiently on getting the public vaccinated

 

[wainy]

On point A, that is why they're bringing in export controls (which is not a ban). As for the rest, the issue is what they've contractually agreed to supply.

I agree, they may have contractually agreed to it. I work in pharma and I know they may be really struggling to produce even a fraction of that. I don’t see how they can moan.

 

[Blues Harp]

Seems abit sensationalist mate, like me saying I got Newcastle, Aberdeen.... and huyton.

so what you moaning for then? The uk appears to be fine in terms of vaccine stock.

Agree but look at the past years of tory austerity ..bozo will claim victory and all the sad voters will agree ..
Another 10 years of Nazi poitics,,,

 

[BlueToff]

the point is that they believe (a) that EU produced AZ vaccine was shipped to the UK and that (b) AZ are contractually obliged to deliver them vaccines on a certain schedule, but AZ are instead supplying other people

they are probably right on both counts

Have you seen the article Neiler shared earlier?

That contract from the overview provide genuinely looks like a joke. I am astounded the EU Commission took 2 months - after taking it out of the hands of four member states for no reason - to agree to a contract with 15 uses of one of the most woolliest "commitments" imaginable.

 

[tsubaki]

I agree, they may have contractually agreed to it. I work in pharma and I know they may be really struggling to produce even a fraction of that. I don’t see how they can moan.

thats true, but again the issue is they've apparently contractually agreed that - its for them (AZ) to rectify it

 

[NilSatisOptimum]

Agree but look at the past years of tory austerity ..bozo will claim victory and all the sad voters will agree ..
Another 10 years of Nazi poitics,,,

Not sure about that, we have a terrible virus death toll. And let's not forget many people are dying because the NHS has basically ceased to exist outside the pandemic, the effects of handling this pandemic by the government will continue to take away loved ones way before their time for years to come...

 

[ForeverBlue92]

Like your hero bozo...Oxford educated twunt.
Tory scouse?
Come up to a home game and discuss your politics face to face with me
Don't think you have been here in many years.

I love the sexual tension between @Blues Harp & @peteblue

You could actually picture them sat on opposite sides in the house of commons heckling one another lol

 

[davek]

There’s been no reports as yet of any side effects in older people after getting the AZ vaccine. I don’t wholeheartedly trust Germany or France anymore than I do Bozo and the rest of the clown school but the latter have at least got the ball moving efficiently on getting the public vaccinated

They've completely torn up the rule book on Pfizer;'s jab schedule and they have made the UK effectivley a giant lab to test the AZ vaccine as far as older groups are concerned.

They are huge risks they are taking.

You might applaud them for it, but I wont.

 

[tsubaki]

Have you seen the article Neiler shared earlier?

That contract from the overview provide genuinely looks like a joke. I am astounded the EU Commission took 2 months - after taking it out of the hands of four member states for no reason - to agree to a contract with 15 uses of one of the most woolliest "commitments" imaginable.

TBF the decision to take it over was probably correct, given what's happened since - if they hadn't we would probably have ended up with AZ delivering to Germany in full, whilst France, Spain and Italy got progressively less because of "production issues with their batches", whilst the rest of the EU scrambled to sign individual deals.

 

[BlueToff]

I agree, they may have contractually agreed to it. I work in pharma and I know they may be really struggling to produce even a fraction of that. I don’t see how they can moan.

Thing is, they didn't actually commit to a number. This is the issue. The EU Commission are insisting they did. But the contract is really, really woolly, and all it says is a "best effort".

I feel both parties are at fault but there isn't actually any commitment to a number. There's a commitment to 'try their best' to hit a number. Which, in my book, is absolutely mental for the EU Commission to have agreed to?

Also, there is a clause about taking stocks from 'other EU nations' (I'm paraphrasing) to stock up the EU stocks if needed - clearly meaning the UK. However, the UK is no longer an EU nation, and surely when the contract was signed in August, the EU would have known that the UK would no longer be an EU nation by the time the vaccine roll out began in earnest?

 

[BlueToff]

TBF the decision to take it over was probably correct, given what's happened since - if they hadn't we would probably have ended up with AZ delivering to Germany in full, whilst France, Spain and Italy got progressively less because of "production issues with their batches", whilst the rest of the EU scrambled to sign individual deals.

I have no issue with the Commission taking over for their other member states, but why not just say to the four countries to crack on and then use their deal as a basis?

Also, the contract they did sign after two months of negotiations is the very thing which has enabled AZ to reduce and actually have a legal battle to fight.

Amid a deepening row, the [heavily redacted] EU-AstraZeneca contract has been published

The contract contains over a dozen uses of the phrase “best reasonable efforts”, and has redacted any mention of costs.

www.thejournal.ie

AstraZeneca has defended its announcement that it wouldn’t be able to deliver as many vaccines to the EU in the first quarter of the year by saying that the contract only committed it to making its “best effort” to deliver.

The published contract cites fifteen uses of the term “Best Reasonable Efforts”.

In the contract, it states that as part of the scale-up, AstraZeneca has committed “to use its Best Reasonable Efforts to build capacity to manufacture 300 million doses of the vaccine”, with an option for the Commission to order an additional 100 million doses.

It also states in the contract that “Best Reasonable Efforts” is defined as: “the activities and degree of effort that a company of similar size with a similarly-sized infrastructure and similar resources as AstraZeneca would undertake or use in the development and manufacture of a Vaccine at the relevant stage of development”.

This phrasing is used regularly throughout the document and is a key part of the row between the pharma company and the European Union.

How did they take 2 months to agree a contract which is basically based on semantics?

 

[random]

and surely when the contract was signed in August, the EU would have known that the UK would no longer be an EU nation by the time the vaccine roll out began in earnest?

Well considering we left the EU at 11pm on 31st January 2020 which was 7 months previous to this, you would have thought someone would have noticed

 

[wainy]

Thing is, they didn't actually commit to a number. This is the issue. The EU Commission are insisting they did. But the contract is really, really woolly, and all it says is a "best effort".

I feel both parties are at fault but there isn't actually any commitment to a number. There's a commitment to 'try their best' to hit a number. Which, in my book, is absolutely mental for the EU Commission to have agreed to?

Also, there is a clause about taking stocks from 'other EU nations' (I'm paraphrasing) to stock up the EU stocks if needed - clearly meaning the UK. However, the UK is no longer an EU nation, and surely when the contract was signed in August, the EU would have known that the UK would no longer be an EU nation by the time the vaccine roll out began in earnest?

That’s my point, the EU are playing games when they needn’t. I know it’s desperate times but they don’t need to go down this road when there a number of alternative vaccines available. I’m pro EU but they can lick our spuds when it comes to this and I hope we tell them that.