The vaccines | vaxxed boosted unvaxxed? New poll

[Kasper]

People need to get a grip with their outrage over the pauses. Even if it are diminishing numbers you can`t argue with a pure utilitarian perspective that "more would die with Covid" anyway when you`re trying to convince people - and a vaccine shouldn`t be designed that way. I`d take AZ tomorrow if offered but it`s a right thing they`re looking into stuff like that.

You can`t go around and tell anti-vaxxers that health authorities and regulators are to be trusted in vaccine approvals and then turn around and cry that health authorities are suddenly playing a political game "over a few deaths" when statistical unregularities occur. It has to work both ways and actually should verify the process that the general vaccine regulation is save. Plenty of media outlets haven`t helped comparing the issue with general issues/side effects of thromboembolic events when its a specific version so far outside the mean.

The fact that Britain, who have by far vaccinated the most with the AZ vaccine, has not had any irregularities indicates for me that it's batch specific but I have no idea at all how production regulations etc. even works. I hope they can evaluate the situation quickly, but just from a statistical perspective it seems very hard to evaluate something which such rare occurance. Hmmm.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

I can't see what they'd have to gain. Some EU countries are looking very silly right now

Especially Thailand, Indonesia and the Congo, not forgetting Iceland and Norway.

Each individual country decides what to do, it's only political in the UK brainwashing press. Pausing for a few days seems fairly sensible, there are other vaccines and the problems seem to relate to specific batches.

France has given the 2nd dose to three times many people as the UK, does that mean the UK is failing.

 

[redshaw]

The Italian teacher that died turned out that he had a heart problem and nothing related to the vaccine.

 

[F-Red]

France has given the 2nd dose to three times many people as the UK, does that mean the UK is failing.

Where is that data coming from? All I can see is France vaccinating 2,256,385 in terms of second dose as of Monday, and 1,663,646 in the UK.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

Where is that data coming from? All I can see is France vaccinating 2,256,385 in terms of second dose as of Monday, and 1,663,646 in the UK.

They were from last week, I see from your table there has been a massive increase in 2nd doses in the last few days in the UK.

This is just my point, seems to be some kind of competition.

 

[F-Red]

They were from last week, I see from your table there has been a massive increase in 2nd doses in the last few days in the UK.

Not really in the overall pictures of total vaccinations, there's only been around 500k in the past week, and in reality with the UK operating on the 12 week gap between jabs it was only ever going to begin increasing from the beginning of March.

 

[Mickeza]

They were from last week, I see from your table there has been a massive increase in 2nd doses in the last few days in the UK.

This is just my point, seems to be some kind of competition.

Yeah we’ve been looking at the 2nd dose figures in France and thought “shit we’d better do some second doses to catch up”. It’s nothing to do with the fact those who had their first jab way back in Jan would now be due their second.

Interesting stuff from Germany. 7 cases of this clotting type - all in women aged from 20-50. Statistically looking at the age group and number of AZ given you’d expect one such case. One thing I haven’t seen mentioned is we wouldn’t have given a lot of AZ to younger age groups because the U.K. predominantly used Pfizer on health/social care workers and we haven’t got to that age band yet. Outside of shielding/the moderate risk we are now going through anyone that age would in most cases have been given Pfizer.

 

[Ecstatic]

Dude. Read the thread. This isn’t about the headline numbers of thromboembolic events overall. It’s about specific clusters of events. With their own distinct and unusual characteristics. Which is a different type of concern.

I’ve never heard about Tom Clark but it’s a worry that anyone who calls himself the science editor at a national broadcaster has such a scanty grasp of the actual science.

You are talking to the guy who created this thread

 

[F-Red]

Interesting stuff from Germany. 7 cases of this clotting type - all in women aged from 20-50. Statistically looking at the age group and number of AZ given you’d expect one such case. One thing I haven’t seen mentioned is we wouldn’t have given a lot of AZ to younger age groups because the U.K. predominantly used Pfizer on health/social care workers and we haven’t got to that age band yet. Outside of shielding/the moderate risk we are now going through anyone that age would in most cases have been given Pfizer.

I was given AZ on Friday (mid 30's here). No clots yet.

 

[Mickeza]

I was given AZ on Friday (mid 30's here). No clots yet.

My mate had it last week too and he’s 32. Still alive but as a hypochondriac he’s very much enjoying me keeping him updated

Speaking of potential side effects:

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Yeah we’ve been looking at the 2nd dose figures in France and thought “shit we’d better do some second doses to catch up”. It’s nothing to do with the fact those who had their first jab way back in Jan would now be due their second.

Interesting stuff from Germany. 7 cases of this clotting type - all in women aged from 20-50. Statistically looking at the age group and number of AZ given you’d expect one such case. One thing I haven’t seen mentioned is we wouldn’t have given a lot of AZ to younger age groups because the U.K. predominantly used Pfizer on health/social care workers and we haven’t got to that age band yet. Outside of shielding/the moderate risk we are now going through anyone that age would in most cases have been given Pfizer.

Interesting. The exact opposite of a lot of European countries (including those that paused) where AZ is reserved for the young and Pfizer for the elderly. It’s a bit counter-intuitive though. Hard to think of a physiological reason young people might be more at risk than elderly. Unless it’s a drug interaction? Maybe with contraceptive pill? Haven’t heard anything about the gender of the Norwegian cases. Would be curious to know.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

Not really in the overall pictures of total vaccinations, there's only been around 500k in the past week, and in reality with the UK operating on the 12 week gap between jabs it was only ever going to begin increasing from the beginning of March.

Yes, of course the figures I saw were 700k v 2m France but yes the figures will change. My point wasn't about France or the UK winning or losing but turning the whole saga into a competition.

Yes France are way behind on vaccinations, Uk are way ahead on deaths. Who won?

Why is the Uk like this.

 

[Port Vale Devil]

My mate had it last week too and he’s 32. Still alive but as a hypochondriac he’s very much enjoying me keeping him updated

Speaking of potential side effects:

Must have been the Pfizer jab.

Some much needed light relief

 

[F-Red]

Why is the Uk like this.

You might have to be a bit more specific here if you was after a serious answer? Who specifically within the UK do you mean?

 

[Paul the Wolf]

Yeah we’ve been looking at the 2nd dose figures in France and thought “shit we’d better do some second doses to catch up”. It’s nothing to do with the fact those who had their first jab way back in Jan would now be due their second.

Interesting stuff from Germany. 7 cases of this clotting type - all in women aged from 20-50. Statistically looking at the age group and number of AZ given you’d expect one such case. One thing I haven’t seen mentioned is we wouldn’t have given a lot of AZ to younger age groups because the U.K. predominantly used Pfizer on health/social care workers and we haven’t got to that age band yet. Outside of shielding/the moderate risk we are now going through anyone that age would in most cases have been given Pfizer.

I wish I'd never mentioned the second dose, it was just a point to make that the UK see themselves in competition with the EU.

It seems to be a batch problem. All everyone wants is the truth without political prejudices.

 

[11101]

Yes, of course the figures I saw were 700k v 2m France but yes the figures will change. My point wasn't about France or the UK winning or losing but turning the whole saga into a competition.

Yes France are way behind on vaccinations, Uk are way ahead on deaths. Who won?

Why is the Uk like this.

You know the answer to that.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

You might have to be a bit more specific here if you was after a serious answer? Who specifically within the UK do you mean?

Serious answer about what, I was responding to posts about the EU.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

You know the answer to that.

Yes we all do.

 

[F-Red]

Serious answer about what, I was responding to posts about the EU.

A serious answer as to 'Why is the Uk like this'. However we'll keep the diatribe to the Brexit thread.

At most this will probably (and hopefully) be a batch issue, and once this has concluded everyone needs every nation to start pushing their vaccine rollouts at speed for us all to resume to some form of normality this year.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

A serious answer as to 'Why is the Uk like this'. However we'll keep the diatribe to the Brexit thread.

At most this will probably (and hopefully) be a batch issue, and once this has concluded everyone needs every nation to start pushing their vaccine rollouts at speed for us all to resume to some form of normality this year.

Why it has to be a competition. The vaccines are nothing at all to do with Brexit. Johnson took a chance which he could have done within the EU and it paid off to start vaccination earlier.

As I also said it probably is a batch issue, so pausing for a few days to make sure is better being safe than sorry. All countries are vaccinating as soon as they can and all have their own different methods of doing the rollout.

 

[Brwned]

Yes, of course the figures I saw were 700k v 2m France but yes the figures will change. My point wasn't about France or the UK winning or losing but turning the whole saga into a competition.

Yes France are way behind on vaccinations, Uk are way ahead on deaths. Who won?

Why is the Uk like this.

Definitely agree with you that the British press have played a pivotal role in the politicisation of the issue over here, they have taken it either as a personal attack ("as if we're using an unsafe vaccine, wtf are they implying") or an excuse ("they can't get their vaccination campaign right so they've got to blame someone else").

That ITV segment referenced above was regurgitated almost exactly by my parents: there's fewer blood clots than would be expected in the population, AZ is no worse than Pfizer so why are they only talking about one and notthe other, not vaccinating people for a few days will kill thousands, the EU's decision is either political or misinformed. The details about it particularly affecting demographics that have a much lower incidence of blood clots, the links to particular batches, the oddity of the proximity of these cases...they seem to have been glossed over to make it a very simple story that could only be interpreted one way: the EU's decision makes no sense, and the UK's sense of priorities continues to be vindicated.

It's a little disingenuous to ask "why is the UK like this?", though. Throughout the pandemic the UK was held up as one of the worst examples of pandemic responses, with regular references to cases and deaths statistics. They were losing the international competition. There's no shortage of references to that in the covid thread, and it started from about this time last year. It is natural to get defensive to such a constant onslaught, especially in a time of heightened international tensions and on a subject of such significance. And people were revving up to do the same thing at the start of the vaccine campaigns: they didn't approve it properly, then they didn't plan the procurement properly, classic UK, could only happen there

Not a good news story for the UK:

BBC News - Dr Fauci: The UK 'was not as careful' as US in vaccine approval
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-55177948

Anybody remember me saying how the UK put all its eggs in one basket with the Oxford vaccine?

There are enough doses of the Pfizer vaccine to last until the end of January. The next shipment won't come until March. The rushed order from Moderna won't come until Spring either.

If the Oxford vaccine isn't approved there will be a 2 month pause in vaccinations

The UK would have Moderna coming in January if they hadnt ordered it so late, and why did we only order enough Pfizer doses to last until January if we knew the next lot wouldnt arrive until March.

It's easy to say in hindsight, but a government planning a mass vaccination campaign should plan for all eventualities. Nobody else is facing these delays.

@africanspur Pfizer delay - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55372743. It's been reported all over that Moderna wont deliver to the UK until Spring 2021.

In the EU, the Pfizer vaccine is ready to go from December 27th and Moderna will be ready to begin delivery from the beginning of next year.

Taken as a direct response to that, the UK attitude shouldn't seem that unusual. The UK approved it first and diverged from its two main peers on how it did so, which raised some questions about risk assessment: that issue is raising its head once again, and the implication in both cases was that the EU are taking a safer approach. That isn't a small claim to make given the fact safety is a critical element of a vaccine: if they can't evaluate that properly then they're not only incompetent but dangerous. The idea that the UK threw all their eggs in one basket is an undercurrent here too, given the vaccine in question.

In the face of those questions, explicit and implicit, it is not unreasonable to make the point that as a result of those two key decisions - "putting all its eggs in one basket" and "not being as careful in vaccine approval" - the UK has managed to roll out an incredibly successful campaign, by any measure, with obvious and dramatic effects on the pandemic. That performance is worth celebrating, and stories that attempt to undermine the significance of that need to be strongly contested based on the evidence. For that point to be made in terms of statistics is just a continuation of the pattern, a direct response to the criticisms in months passed.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

Definitely agree with you that the British press have played a pivotal role in the politicisation of the issue over here, they have taken it either as a personal attack ("as if we're using an unsafe vaccine, wtf are they implying") or an excuse ("they can't get their vaccination campaign right so they've got to blame someone else").

That ITV segment referenced above was regurgitated almost exactly by my parents: there's fewer blood clots than would be expected in the population, AZ is no worse than Pfizer so why are they only talking about one and notthe other, not vaccinating people for a few days will kill thousands, the EU's decision is either political or misinformed. The details about it particularly affecting demographics that have a much lower incidence of blood clots, the links to particular batches, the oddity of the proximity of these cases...they seem to have been glossed over to make it a very simple story that could only be interpreted one way: the EU's decision makes no sense, and the UK's sense of priorities continues to be vindicated.

It's a little disingenuous to ask "why is the UK like this?", though. Throughout the pandemic the UK was held up as one of the worst examples of pandemic responses, with regular references to cases and deaths statistics. They were losing the international competition. There's no shortage of references to that in the covid thread, and it started from about this time last year. It is natural to get defensive to such a constant onslaught, especially in a time of heightened international tensions and on a subject of such significance. And people were revving up to do the same thing at the start of the vaccine campaigns: they didn't approve it properly, then they didn't plan the procurement properly, classic UK, could only happen there




Taken as a direct response to that, the UK attitude shouldn't seem that unusual. The UK approved it first and diverged from its two main peers on how it did so, which raised some questions about risk assessment: that issue is raising its head once again, and the implication in both cases was that the EU are taking a safer approach. That isn't a small claim to make given the fact safety is a critical element of a vaccine: if they can't evaluate that properly then they're not only incompetent but dangerous. The idea that the UK threw all their eggs in one basket is an undercurrent here too, given the vaccine in question.

In the face of those questions, explicit and implicit, it is not unreasonable to make the point that as a result of those two key decisions - "putting all its eggs in one basket" and "not being as careful in vaccine approval" - the UK has managed to roll out an incredibly successful campaign, by any measure, with obvious and dramatic effects on the pandemic. That performance is worth celebrating, and stories that attempt to undermine the significance of that need to be strongly contested based on the evidence. For that point to be made in terms of statistics is just a continuation of the pattern, a direct response to the criticisms in months passed.

Strangely enough the UK wasn't that criticized in France and was actually lauded for the vaccination rollout. If there was any criticism it would be about the French government but wasn't so much about the EU and certainly wasn't made into a contest.

I've stayed mainly out of this thread and would rather listen to the experts and medical people on here with knowledge for the simple reason that I want to know what the efficacity and risks of all the vaccines and that everything is tested and approved correctly. Not trying to score points as some posters seem to want to because it's being drummed into their heads day in day out . Each country has made its own decisions as to whether they pause use of AZ. Here it's the Pfizer vaccine so there are no delays in my area, other than if there are supply problems.

Seems that they are upset because AZ is part British and is a possible sleight on the UK. The risk was taken by Johnson on the Pfizer , if things hadn't gone correctly I wonder who would have been blamed.

 

[Dirty Schwein]

Hmm.. if the vaccine makes you a blud clut, I really want to take it.

 

[Brwned]

Strangely enough the UK wasn't that criticized in France and was actually lauded for the vaccination rollout. If there was any criticism it would be about the French government but wasn't so much about the EU and certainly wasn't made into a contest.

I've stayed mainly out of this thread and would rather listen to the experts and medical people on here with knowledge for the simple reason that I want to know what the efficacity and risks of all the vaccines and that everything is tested and approved correctly. Not trying to score points as some posters seem to want to because it's being drummed into their heads day in day out . Each country has made its own decisions as to whether they pause use of AZ. Here it's the Pfizer vaccine so there are no delays in my area, other than if there are supply problems.

Seems that they are upset because AZ is part British and is a possible sleight on the UK. The risk was taken by Johnson on the Pfizer , if things hadn't gone correctly I wonder who would have been blamed.

Sure, maybe in your area, in this context, there was no evidence of placing the UK in an international competition and assessing them poorly. There is a world outside of that in fairness. I've given you a couple of examples of how the UK was assessed in the vaccination competition at the initial approval phase. They aren't isolated examples.

If you were to look in the covid thread you would find countless examples of people commenting on how poorly the UK were doing in comparison to its neighbours in the pandemic response. Most prominently from people living in Italy, declaring how the Italian approach was better and both the government measures and public response were the reason they were better. This was going on while Italy's struggles were not substantially different to the UK's...but people are quick to highlight the positives of their area, explain away the negatives, and view others through a critical lens. That's been the norm. That is not a UK-specific thing, nor is it something limited to this topic.

Put simply, the reason the UK are being compared against other nations on some set of pandemic statistics is because the UK has consistently been compared against other nations on some set of pandemic statistics. When those statistics painted a negative light on the UK, you were nowhere to be seen. When those statistics painted the UK in a positive light, you wade in with "why is the UK always like this". It's a bit detached from the reality of the situation, if you dig into the detail.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

Sure, maybe in your area, in this context, there was no evidence of placing the UK in an international competition and assessing them poorly. There is a world outside of that in fairness. I've given you a couple of examples of how the UK was assessed in the vaccination competition at the initial approval phase. They aren't isolated examples.

If you were to look in the covid thread you would find countless examples of people commenting on how poor the UK were doing in comparison to its neighbours in the pandemic response. Most prominently from people living in Italy, declaring how the Italian approach was better and both the government measures and public response were the reason they were better. This was going on while Italy's struggles were not substantially different to the UK's...but people are quick to highlight the positives of their area, explain away the negatives, and view others through a critical lens. That's been the norm. That is not a UK-specific thing, nor is it something limited to this topic.

Put simply, the reason the UK are being compared against other nations on some set of pandemic statistics is because the UK has consistently been compared against other nations on some set of pandemic statistics. When those statistics painted a negative light on the UK, you were nowhere to be seen. When those statistics painted the UK in a positive light, you wade in with "why is the UK always like this". It's a bit detached from the reality of the situation, if you dig into the detail.

You are reacting the same way. Why so defensive about the UK. I didn't wade in with "always like this" - it's not a competition.

I hadn't made a comment about the way the UK had handled the virus previously. You want me to dig into the detail, you want me to say how badly the UK handled lockdowns, how badly people behaved, how the UK death toll is streets ahead of other countries in Europe and that's with the government hiding the real figures behind the 28 day rule then if you want me to say congratulations to the UK, congratulations, well done, brilliant job.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Sure, maybe in your area, in this context, there was no evidence of placing the UK in an international competition and assessing them poorly. There is a world outside of that in fairness. I've given you a couple of examples of how the UK was assessed in the vaccination competition at the initial approval phase. They aren't isolated examples.

If you were to look in the covid thread you would find countless examples of people commenting on how poorly the UK were doing in comparison to its neighbours in the pandemic response. Most prominently from people living in Italy, declaring how the Italian approach was better and both the government measures and public response were the reason they were better. This was going on while Italy's struggles were not substantially different to the UK's...but people are quick to highlight the positives of their area, explain away the negatives, and view others through a critical lens. That's been the norm. That is not a UK-specific thing, nor is it something limited to this topic.

Put simply, the reason the UK are being compared against other nations on some set of pandemic statistics is because the UK has consistently been compared against other nations on some set of pandemic statistics. When those statistics painted a negative light on the UK, you were nowhere to be seen. When those statistics painted the UK in a positive light, you wade in with "why is the UK always like this". It's a bit detached from the reality of the situation, if you dig into the detail.

I think you’re spinning some comments from a couple of regulars in this thread into an EU vs the UK narrative that wasn’t really that big a deal. Most of the really fierce criticism of Boris et al throughout 2020 was coming from British caftards anyway. Other than that the main theme was Sweden vs everyone else

The more intense nationalist bickering only really kicked into gear with the vaccine roll-out. In the media and on here.

 

[Brwned]

You are reacting the same way. Why so defensive about the UK. I didn't wade in with "always like this" - it's not a competition.

I hadn't made a comment about the way the UK had handled the virus previously. You want me to dig into the detail, you want me to say how badly the UK handled lockdowns, how badly people behaved, how the UK death toll is streets ahead of other countries in Europe and that's with the government hiding the real figures behind the 28 day rule then if you want me to say congratulations to the UK, congratulations, well done, brilliant job.

I mean...you did. Right here.

Yes France are way behind on vaccinations, Uk are way ahead on deaths. Who won?

Why is the Uk like this.

You asked why does it need to be a competition, and why the UK - specifically - made it like this. And it was echoed by one of the people who has consistently been comparing the UK to other countries, on vaccines and other things, happily pointing out where the UK is inferior.

The point, backed up by an absolute load of evidence if you decide to read the thread, was that the UK didn't suddenly make it a competition after their vaccination rollouts. They were placed in a competition throughout the entirety of the pandemic, along with other nations, and judged poorly. You just found the comparisons easier to stomach when the UK was placed in a negative light. It's how you prefer it. Now the UK is seen in a positive light, you need to make the comparison itself somehow reflect poorly on the UK. As if it's distasteful to point out that the vaccination campaign has been more successful, but somehow it wasn't distasteful to point out that the cases and deaths statistics were "better" in other countries.

I think you’re spinning some comments from a couple of regulars in this thread into an EU vs the UK narrative that wasn’t really that big a deal. Most of the really fierce criticism of Boris et al throughout 2020 was coming from British caftards anyway. Other than that the main theme was Sweden vs everyone else.

The more intense nationalist bickering only really kicked into gear with the vaccine roll-out. In the media and on here.

I wasn't talking about any EU vs. UK narrative. I was talking about the UK being placed in an international competition, and assessed poorly. It's something you commented on frequently, and something that there's literally thousands of comments on in that thread. The UK handled it badly. It handled it worse than many other countries. Look how bad it's doing. Look what's happening elsewhere, why isn't that being done. Rinse and repeat. That wasn't exclusive to the UK, it just happened to be the centre of the conversation given the nationalities here.

So the fact that the UK is being compared to other nations on its vaccination rollout is just par for the course. It's not something created by people in the UK to demonstrate how much better they are. It's just one of the few times that in these comparisons, people can say something positive about the UK, which brings in arguments from other sides.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

I mean...you did. Right here.


You asked why does it need to be a competition, and why the UK - specifically - made it like this.

The point, backed up by an absolute load of evidence, was that the UK didn't suddenly make it a competition after their vaccination rollouts. They were placed in a competition throughout the entirety of the pandemic, along with other nations, and judged poorly. You just found the comparisons easier to stomach when the UK was placed in a negative light. It's how you prefer it.



I wasn't talking about any EU vs. UK narrative. I was talking about the UK being placed in an international competition, and assessed poorly. It's something you commented on frequently, and something that there's literally thousands of comments on in that thread. The UK handled it badly. It handled it worse than many other countries. Look how bad it's doing. Look what's happening elsewhere, why isn't that being done. Rinse and repeat. That wasn't exclusive to the UK, it just happened to be the centre of the conversation given the nationalities here.

So the fact that the UK is being compared to other nations on its vaccination rollout is just par for the course. It's not something created by people in the UK to demonstrate how much better they are. It's just one of the few times that in these comparisons, people can say something positive about the UK, which brings in arguments from other sides.

You are twisting everything, read the posts and you will see. The UK were in a much more negative light before the vaccine rollout, where was I. The UK rollout happened quicker because Johnson took a chance and I want an answer from you who would have been blamed had it all gone pear-shaped. It certainly wouldn't have been Johnson or the UK, would it.

 

[massi83]

I mean...you did. Right here.


You asked why does it need to be a competition, and why the UK - specifically - made it like this. And it was echoed by one of the people who has consistently been comparing the UK to other countries, on vaccines and other things, happily pointing out where the UK is inferior.

The point, backed up by an absolute load of evidence if you decide to read the thread, was that the UK didn't suddenly make it a competition after their vaccination rollouts. They were placed in a competition throughout the entirety of the pandemic, along with other nations, and judged poorly. You just found the comparisons easier to stomach when the UK was placed in a negative light. It's how you prefer it. Now the UK is seen in a positive light, you need to make the comparison itself somehow reflect poorly on the UK. As if it's distasteful to point out that the vaccination campaign has been more successful, but somehow it wasn't distasteful to point out that the cases and deaths statistics were "better" in other countries.



I wasn't talking about any EU vs. UK narrative. I was talking about the UK being placed in an international competition, and assessed poorly. It's something you commented on frequently, and something that there's literally thousands of comments on in that thread. The UK handled it badly. It handled it worse than many other countries. Look how bad it's doing. Look what's happening elsewhere, why isn't that being done. Rinse and repeat. That wasn't exclusive to the UK, it just happened to be the centre of the conversation given the nationalities here.

So the fact that the UK is being compared to other nations on its vaccination rollout is just par for the course. It's not something created by people in the UK to demonstrate how much better they are. It's just one of the few times that in these comparisons, people can say something positive about the UK, which brings in arguments from other sides.

There is a bit of a difference between saying UK is doing well and several UK posters saying stopping the vaccination is some weird political conspiracy.

 

[Brwned]

You are twisting everything, read the posts and you will see. The UK were in a much more negative light before the vaccine rollout, where was I. The UK rollout happened quicker because Johnson took a chance and I want an answer from you who would have been blamed had it all gone pear-shaped. It certainly wouldn't have been Johnson or the UK, would it.

I don't really understand the question. What do you mean by it all going pear-shaped? To engage in the hypothetical, you have to start from a premise that the UK regulator might have approved a vaccine for the entire population without knowing whether it was safe. Is that really where we're at? I'm happy to answer but let's be clear on what's being asked...

If I'm twisting it, just put it more plainly. When you say "Why is the UK like this", were you asking why do people in the UK make things like this into a competition? Because the only answer to that can be "because they're just like people in other nations, who've done the exact same thing, just at a different stage in the pandemic". The question then becomes why you want to make that into a UK-specific thing. Comparing vaccination rollout in your country vs. others has been typical in many countries, and judging one to be doing better or worse than peers or targets is also normal. I can pull up some articles in Germany talking about how they're not doing as well as they should be, based on international comparisons, or multiple articles in the US talking about how they're doing worse, then better...none of this is unusual.

 

[africanspur]

You are twisting everything, read the posts and you will see. The UK were in a much more negative light before the vaccine rollout, where was I. The UK rollout happened quicker because Johnson took a chance and I want an answer from you who would have been blamed had it all gone pear-shaped. It certainly wouldn't have been Johnson or the UK, would it.

What was the chance that Johnson took with the rollout?

If you're talking about the decision to extend the vaccination intervals, that decision wouldn't have been taken by Johnson or any other politician but by a panel of public health experts, based on a balance of different factors at the time.

If its the vaccines purchased and the spread of them, there's been no issue at all with that, despite what people thought.

If its not joining in with the EU vaccine procurement scheme, thats not turned out badly, despite a lot of negative reaction at the time (including from me).


This isn;t aimed at you specifically because you're right, I don't remember you saying anything like this. But there has definitely been a bit of an undercurrent here (and weirdly by some public figures in USA and the rest of Europe) of dismissal towards the processes taken with the vaccines in the UK. The UK regulators aren't as thorough, they cut corners, they're desperate to still roll out the AZ vaccine despite the apparent problems and their decisions are influenced by the government, whereas the FDA and EMA are totally rigorous and independent. Its not surprising there is going to be some pushback from some on here.

At this point talking about deaths in a silly league table amongst European countries is such a stupid game. Most of the countries have appalling death rates, the big ones tens of thousands, many of the smaller ones have a similar per capita death rate. Its like being proud you've cut off your arm cos your friend has cut off their leg. You're both fecking idiots and you've both done an appalling job, despite warning after warning.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

I don't really understand the question. What do you mean by it all going pear-shaped? To engage in the hypothetical, you have to start from a premise that the UK regulator might have approved a vaccine for the entire population without knowing whether it was safe. Is that really where we're at? I'm happy to answer but let's be clear on what's being asked...

If I'm twisting it, just put it more plainly. When you say "Why is the UK like this", were you asking why do people in the UK make things like this into a competition? Because the only answer to that can be "because they're just like people in other nations, who've done the exact same thing, just at a different stage in the pandemic". The question then becomes why you want to make that into a UK-specific thing.

So the UK regulator approved the vaccine whilst the rest of the world, not just the EU, was waiting for more data or did everyone else deliberately delay the rollout?
Which other nations have done the same thing, as I said there is very little criticism from France of the UK. Have other nations criticised the UK, I don't know. Yes I was asking why they were making it into a competition and the only reason I even posted in the first place was because of numerous comments regarding this ridiculous political Brexit conspiracy.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

What was the chance that Johnson took with the rollout?

If you're talking about the decision to extend the vaccination intervals, that decision wouldn't have been taken by Johnson or any other politician but by a panel of public health experts, based on a balance of different factors at the time.

If its the vaccines purchased and the spread of them, there's been no issue at all with that, despite what people thought.

If its not joining in with the EU vaccine procurement scheme, thats not turned out badly, despite a lot of negative reaction at the time (including from me).


This isn;t aimed at you specifically because you're right, I don't remember you saying anything like this. But there has definitely been a bit of an undercurrent here (and weirdly by some public figures in USA and the rest of Europe) of dismissal towards the processes taken with the vaccines in the UK. The UK regulators aren't as thorough, they cut corners, they're desperate to still roll out the AZ vaccine despite the apparent problems and their decisions are influenced by the government, whereas the FDA and EMA are totally rigorous and independent. Its not surprising there is going to be some pushback from some on here.

At this point talking about deaths in a silly league table amongst European countries is such a stupid game. Most of the countries have appalling death rates, the big ones tens of thousands, many of the smaller ones have a similar per capita death rate. Its like being proud you've cut off your arm cos your friend has cut off their leg. You're both fecking idiots and you've both done an appalling job, despite warning after warning.

I have been reading your posts as I know you are in the medical profession and am interested to know any truthful information. Your point about the regulators is exactly what I'm getting at and if the UK regulators aren't thorough and are influenced by the government, that is extremely worrying.

The statistics league table is a stupid game and should have resisted the temptation to being drawn into it.

 

[Brwned]

So the UK regulator approved the vaccine whilst the rest of the world, not just the EU, was waiting for more data or did everyone else deliberately delay the rollout?
Which other nations have done the same thing, as I said there is very little criticism from France of the UK. Have other nations criticised the UK, I don't know. Yes I was asking why they were making it into a competition and the only reason I even posted in the first place was because of numerous comments regarding this ridiculous political Brexit conspiracy.

Oh, so we're really back to the point where we're questioning whether the UK regulators went through a thorough approval process. That's mad.

The reason the UK approved the AZ vaccine before the EU is the same reason the EU approved the AZ vaccine before the US. If you believe that's because the EU didn't do a thorough job on approval, I really wonder how you judge the safety of any of the vaccines at this point.

Yes the UK were placed in a competition with other countries throughout the pandemic. They were frequently compared with Italy, Germany, Spain, the US...the list would be quite long. If you don't believe it, fair enough. All I can say is it wouldn't be hard to find references to pandemic league tables, and commentary on where the UK sit in that table. Lots of explanations were put forward for why the UK found themselves in that position, with sweeping claims made. Vaccines being another metric in that table is not a big change, and it wasn't created as a way for the UK to put themselves ahead of other countries. It just happens that they are ahead of other countries, and people are commenting on it just like they were commenting on comparative cases and deaths for months prior.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

Oh, so we're really back to the point where we're questioning whether the UK regulators went through a thorough approval process. That's mad.

The reason the UK approved the AZ vaccine before the EU is the same reason the EU approved the AZ vaccine before the US. If you believe that's because the EU didn't do a thorough job on approval, I really wonder how you judge the safety of any of the vaccines at this point.

I'm not talking about the AZ vaccine. The EU approved the Moderna vaccine before the UK, so what, the vaccines didn't start in the UK with either of those.

 

[africanspur]

I have been reading your posts as I know you are in the medical profession and am interested to know any truthful information. Your point about the regulators is exactly what I'm getting at and if the UK regulators aren't thorough and are influenced by the government, that is extremely worrying.

The statistics league table is a stupid game and should have resisted the temptation to being drawn into it.

Apologies, I wasn't saying thats what I think about the UK regulators, I was saying thats what people on here seem to think.

Some people have genuinely seemingly convinced themselves that the MHRA is full of quacks and government hacks who cut corners, while other regulators are thorough, independent and on a different level. This is what Brwned is talking about. Its really a bit mad that people, in their desire to pile on the Tories/ the UK in general, have pushed themselves into thinking this.

It isn't true at all, the MHRA is an excellent organisation, as is the EMA and the FDA. They all have amazing scientists and structures.

Interesting, there was a grand total of 9 days between when the UK approved the pfizer vaccine and when the USA approved it. And then another 10 days from the USA to the EU.

You'd think there'd been about a year or at least a few months between the authorisation dates reading how people talk about it on here.

 

[Brwned]

I'm not talking about the AZ vaccine. The EU approved the Moderna vaccine before the UK, so what, the vaccines didn't start in the UK with either of those.

Ok...which vaccine are you talking about?

So the UK regulator approved the vaccine whilst the rest of the world, not just the EU, was waiting for more data or did everyone else deliberately delay the rollout?

 

[Paul the Wolf]

Ok...which vaccine are you talking about?

As I said in my post, the Pfizer and I have a sensible answer above from @africanspur

 

[Bosws87]

There is a bit of a difference between saying UK is doing well and several UK posters saying stopping the vaccination is some weird political conspiracy.

The leader of one of the biggest powers in the EU said the AZ Vaccine is quasi-ineffective in 65 and above which is completely false if that isn't playing politics what is.

He could of said there's not enough data currently available which would of been a lot closer to the truth, but your gonna tell me that such sayings from the leader of a country mean nothing and no one pays attention.

 

[Brwned]

As I said in my post, the Pfizer and I have a sensible answer above from @africanspur

Oh, well then to answer your question, no the rest of the world was not waiting for more data when the UK approved the vaccine. The UK and the US approved the vaccine based on the same data. The UK did it slightly quicker because they followed a different procedure, and Fauci explained the reason for different procedures was principally to do with vaccine hesitancy, not vaccine safety. Nothing about following that different procedure could have led to things going pear-shaped in that way, if things went pear-shaped, it would have been for entirely separate reasons that equally applied in the UK and the US approval processes. And that would have to be something significant like serious errors in the trial data collection, because the trial data was exceptional, it wasn't a risk to approve the Pfizer vaccine based on the evidence they had. So it doesn't really work as a hypothetical given it's based on a fallacy.

It's that kind of thing that makes people in the UK defensive...the implication that the UK rushed the approval process, and the idea that because the EU did things slower they did things more safely. That attitude permeates a lot of the discussion as we go through each stage of this vaccination rollout and it is not a minor implication. And in this very simple case, it's demonstrably false. So maybe the better answer to "why is the UK like this" is "people say these things about the UK and they're compelled to respond in kind (i.e. with fallacious arguments driven by some weird form of nationalism, bordering on conspiracies)".