Current Affairs Coronavirus Thread - Serious stuff !!!

[tsubaki]

Okay mate, that's fine. But right now, there are definitely people getting it sooner.

It's all depending on availability, even seems area differs too. My mate got a text telling him when and where to go - and then he got told his second date once he got his first jab.

My mum and dad have both had letters with codes to go and book both of their dates online (dad has a 10 week gap, mum has a 9).

So, I think the 'confusion' will be that those early people who got jabbed and then moved to 12 weeks' spacing will obviously at the time, by and large, not have been given an exact date. The onus on the logistics is ensuring those are now getting the second jab - and they all will get one.

However, probably because of manufacture/availability, the likelihood is that most will have to wait the full 12 weeks. Whereas, people getting the first jab now or in the last/next few weeks - they probably know with much more certainty that there are going to be the certain amounts at certain times, so they can reduce that spacing if possible, which is a good thing.

Oh there absolutely are people getting it sooner - that was my point, and I think its far better than the default 12 weeks position was. I am just interested as to why they've done it, and whether its based on any findings.

 

[Neiler]

Pete, it isn't a matter of manufacturing or production - it is a matter of language.

The word "best" means the highest standard, the greatest amount achieveable etc. A company's "best efforts" cannot by definition be "our best Q1 efforts are X" when they subsequently (when challenged) say "actually, our best Q1 efforts are Y".

I mean, even you acknowledge this in that post - if it was possible to do that, then that they didn't do it when they were putting "best efforts" in mean that the first answer cannot have been their "best efforts". If it was, then it wouldn't have been possible to deliver the extra 9 million doses.

I’ll help you out here mate.

AstraZeneca's vaccine contract with the UK is based on 'best efforts,' just like its deal with a frustrated EU

AstraZeneca's contract to supply the UK with Covid-19 vaccines commits it to making "best reasonable efforts," the same language used in its deal with the European Union, which critics blamed for the bloc's faltering inoculation program.

edition.cnn.com

 

[tsubaki]

I’ll help you out here mate.

AstraZeneca's vaccine contract with the UK is based on 'best efforts,' just like its deal with a frustrated EU

AstraZeneca's contract to supply the UK with Covid-19 vaccines commits it to making "best reasonable efforts," the same language used in its deal with the European Union, which critics blamed for the bloc's faltering inoculation program.

edition.cnn.com

make that two beers, pete

 

[Leylo]

@Leylo sad to here that. The issue seems to be that at the start of this process it really wasn't at all like it is now. It was all done over the phone/invitation, whereas now people book in - by and large - themselves online and also book their second jab at the same time. For example, my nana got her first in mid-January. She's 80, got dementia, and needed my auntie to take her to the clinic. She couldn't have booked online. So my aunt took her and, as it was the end of the day, my aunt also got a jab as they had spare Pfizer which would have gone to waste if not. Those two still need to receive their second date, but should be getting the appointment any time soon.

on the other hand, my dad's gap is 10.5 weeks (Feb 21st to May 14th), my mum's gap is 9 (March 16th to the start of June) (as they've already got their second ones booked in).

But, I appreciate the anger, it's not good to make sweeping statements like 'they aren't sticking to 12 weeks'.

The logistics are incredible for this. The issue will be ensuring people who had their jabs at the start when it was more about getting old/vulnerable people (who also may rely on others to get them there, and those others may also have been jabbed too) get theirs. It won't be an 'issue' on a wider scale, but there will be glitches. They'll get it sorted though. It's what they do.

Appreciate your point, but cutting it fine with the most vulnerable imo .

 

[Neiler]

make that two beers, pete

And the U.K. contract with AZ actually signed the day after the EU one.

 

[BlueToff]

Apparently things are getting mixed up when you go through the gp is what they have been told trying to get it sorted for next week that will be 14 weeks then I reckon .

Yeah I real shame - that shouldn't be happening.

I really think it's a case of the people who had it done first (as in early on in the process) - the system was very different to what it is now. It's crap that there's glitches but probably is bound to be some. But by and large the majority will be getting done max 12 weeks - not that that makes it any better for you I know.

 

[tsubaki]

And the U.K. contract with AZ actually signed the day after the EU one.

Indeed, though the contract point is a red herring - AZ understand (with the EU but especially with the UK) what would happen if "best efforts" was their defence in court; they'd get smashed once it became clear they had more than one contract.

 

[BlueToff]

Appreciate your point, but cutting it fine with the most vulnerable imo .

But again, they didn't mean to do that. The vaccine efficacy won't drop off a cliff. They know that now, have actual evidence of it. But unfortunately it seems that - depending on the surgery or clinic or whatever - there's glitches. Irony is, people getting it done now (by and large less vulnerable) will have their dates sealed in early because of supply etc and how it's done. But, let's face it, it's easier for a 50-year-old to book online and sort themselves out than it is an 85-year-old in a care home, and everything that comes with that.

 

[BlueToff]

Indeed, though the contract point is a red herring - AZ understand (with the EU but especially with the UK) what would happen if "best efforts" was their defence in court; they'd get smashed once it became clear they had more than one contract.

We've been through this. I'm sure AZ are also in the wrong, but that EU contract is bizarre as well. Can't believe it took them so long to come up with it (both sides).

 

[BlueToff]

Oh there absolutely are people getting it sooner - that was my point, and I think its far better than the default 12 weeks position was. I am just interested as to why they've done it, and whether its based on any findings.

I genuinely think it's just availability.

If everybody was getting it on say, 8 weeks or something, then it might have been on findings. But, my mate (24, no conditions - well, except he's put on loads of weight the lazy slob) is down at 12 weeks (I've just asked him to be sure), my dad at 10 and 3 days, and my mum around 9.

Could just be different areas having different levels of availability based on population, distribution etc?

 

[tsubaki]

We've been through this. I'm sure AZ are also in the wrong, but that EU contract is bizarre as well. Can't believe it took them so long to come up with it (both sides).

I know we've been through this, and the point made then still stands - AZ have to honour their contracts.

 

[BlueToff]

I know we've been through this, and the point made then still stands - AZ have to honour their contracts.

I agree. I do.

I just also think the Commission cocked up.

 

[tsubaki]

I agree. I do.

I just also think the Commission cocked up.

they did, but the same cockup (expecting firms to deliver) is something all governments make, all the time

in fact its not punishing that which has led to a lot of the problems we (and the EU) have experienced this past year

as an unrelated aside: https://www.theguardian.com/busines...top-two-executives-handed-74m-in-pay-for-2020

 

[peteblue]

The U.K. has exported 0% of vaccines mate, they are taking anything produced in the U.K. its a de facto ban on exporting, US doing the same. While the EU are producing 75% of the UKs AZ supply and 50% of vaccine doses overall.

If the EU took whatever it produced like the U.K. and had a de facto ban on exports and exported nothing to the U.K., then the U.K. is in trouble on supply and its roll out.

Neither the USA nor the U.K. have a ban on vaccine export. You cannot show me that they have, nor can you show me how the U.K. is stopping AZ from shipping product. AZ have their manufacturing schedules and fulfil their output based on contracts. Whether you like it or not manufacturers supply based on contracts and they are doing exactly that. The only government intervention preventing supply via contract is from Italy and approved by the EU. The only ban has come from the EU. You may not like it, you may think it unfair, but the USA and U.K. and the manufacturers are just doing what they signed up to do, while the EU prattled around negotiating prices, wasted three months, and ended up at the back of the queue.

You keep referring to ‘consequences’ and ’never forgetting’, yet instead of addressing the real issue, the failure of Brussels, you would rather have a go at two countries and various manufacturers who are just doing what they signed up for.....

 

[ramacca]

That's a repackaging (your repackaging) of what these government spokesmen have been saying since the vaccines were rolled out. They have underscored that even if the vaccines dont give 100% protection from contracting the virus a level of safety from serious illness would be assured (and others have repeated these claims...and we see the effect it has on forum's like this).

Now, I obviously understand that cant be an assurance that every single vulnerable person who gets a vaccine can be guaranteed not to die; however, Whitty's comment implied strongly that - in any surge - we could expect tens of thousands of deaths amongst not only those who hadn't taken a vaccine, but also those who had but the vaccine 'hadn't taken' to them.

As said: goalposts shifted. There is no question of that. It was an attempt to slide some new position in there and get away without elaborating. That Parliamentary sub-committee failed to do its job. Whitty should be made to spell out exactly what he meant.

Whitty's remarks about '30 000 deaths' and the 'vaccine not working for everyone'( a bit like why there are 11 000 flu deaths roughly each year when people have been vaccinated) are what has been presented to SAGE by Imperial and Warwick modelling. His '30 000 deaths' would be extra than what is being modelled if restrictions were lifted earlier than what has been proposed. Even under the current timescale for lifting lockdown, the modelling indicates Covid deaths, from March 2012 to July 2022, roughly around 50 000 - 55 000. That is why Whitty said 'what we have to accept' for lifting the lockdown.

Imperial College London: Unlocking roadmap scenarios for England, 18 February 2021

University of Warwick: Roadmaps for relaxation of NPIs, 15 February 2021