Celebrating the UKs vaccine approach "versus" the EU is about as premature as celebrating a goal while it is under VAR review. The vaccine process is nowhere near finished and as yet has had minimal impact on preventing us having the highest number of deaths in Europe.
But if every country had gone for itself it would have just resulted in a bidding war for a limited product. Poorer countries would have been left without. Now I'm not saying the EU has done it perfectly, but those who would have profited from said bidding war might not be the perfect judge to ask.
Obviously I mean the nations in the bloc, what other purpose would being in a bloc have!?
The truth is the UK is the only country with a government that was willing to gamble on a vaccine first. Is it really that much of a surprise that that government is made up of the same people who were willing to gamble their careers on the brexit referendum?
It's not about altruism, it's simple economics. The European countries would have gained nothing from entering a bidding war with each other over a limited supply, and those in the bloc with the least resources would have been left behind.
The timing of priming and booster vaccine administration varied between studies. As protocol amendments to add a booster dose took place when the trials were underway, and owing to the time taken to manufacture and release a new batch of vaccine, doses could not be administered at a 4-week interval. 1459 (53·2%) of 2741 participants in COV002 in the LD/SD group received a second dose at least 12 weeks after the first (median 84 days, IQR 77—91) and only 22 (0·8%) received a second dose within 8 weeks of the first. The median interval between doses for the SD/SD group in COV002 was 69 days (50–86). Conversely, the majority of participants in COV003 in the SD/SD group (2493 [61·0%] of 4088) received a second dose within 6 weeks of the first (median 36 days, 32–58; appendix 1 p 11).
For our secondary analysis of cases occurring more than 21 days after the first standard dose in participants who received only standard doses, there were 192 included cases with a vaccine efficacy of 64·1% (95% CI 50·5–73·9; table 4; figure)
More than 21 days after their first dose, ten participants were hospitalised due to COVID-19 (defined as WHO clinical progression score ≥4), two of whom were assessed as having severe COVID-19 (WHO score ≥6), including one fatal case. All ten cases were in the control group (table 5).
In participants who received two standard doses, efficacy against primary symptomatic COVID-19 was consistent in both the UK (60·3% efficacy) and Brazil (64·2% efficacy), indicating these results are generalisable across two diverse settings with different timings for the booster dose (with most participants in the UK receiving the booster dose more than 12 weeks after the first dose and most participants in Brazil receiving their second dose within 6 weeks of the first). Exploratory subgroup analyses included at the request of reviewers and editors also showed no significant difference in efficacy estimates when comparing those with a short time window between doses (<6 weeks) and those with longer (≥6 weeks), although further detailed exploration of the timing of doses might be warranted.
It’s a difficult position for Ireland to be in. The EU-Ireland ferry routes likely won’t have the capacity to take the strain off for a few years. And there would be disputes with Brussels if Ireland decides to ease up on applying the letter of the EU customs rules on imports from Britain so soon after Brexit.
If you struggle to get past the first few words of a post, maybe that is why you have missed it?
It's almost like he's incredibly wealthy so basically nothing can affect him, stands to benefit further financially from Brexit and is both wildly out of touch with the people of the UK and doesn't give the slightest feck about anyone who isn't of his vaunted peer group other than Mary Poppins, who is his nemesis.
But they're taking that risk to try and smash down that curve right now. I mean, the main downside is needing more vaccines. If that means no overpopulated hospitals and everything that follows from that, then I see how that can be considered worth it. In any case, I would still say that it's not a gamble, it's an action that carries a considered risk.
But they're taking that risk to try and smash down that curve right now. I mean, the main downside is needing more vaccines. If that means no overpopulated hospitals and everything that follows from that, then I see how that can be considered worth it. In any case, I would still say that it's not a gamble, it's an action that carries a considered risk.
Maybe it's a terminology thing at this point; working at the government might have done this to me.
You better not be Jacob Rees Mogg or whatever the Canadian equivalent is.But they're taking that risk to try and smash down that curve right now. I mean, the main downside is needing more vaccines. If that means no overpopulated hospitals and everything that follows from that, then I see how that can be considered worth it. In any case, I would still say that it's not a gamble, it's an action that carries a considered risk.
Maybe it's a terminology thing at this point; working at the government might have done this to me.
But they're taking that risk to try and smash down that curve right now. I mean, the main downside is needing more vaccines. If that means no overpopulated hospitals and everything that follows from that, then I see how that can be considered worth it. In any case, I would still say that it's not a gamble, it's an action that carries a considered risk.
Maybe it's a terminology thing at this point; working at the government might have done this to me.
I didn't say I worked in politics!
Ah, you're a part of a government death squad. Say no more.
I can't or I'd have to kill you. Them's the rules.
