The vaccines | vaxxed boosted unvaxxed? New poll

[Suedesi]

Got my jab today, JNJ - so theoretically I should be inoculated in two weeks. Time to book that overdue vacation I suppose.

 

[Suedesi]

Yeh by basically fecking over everyone else and hoarding their own vaccines, while other vaccine producing countries like EU are supplying the rest of the world.

Nothing good about what the US and UK have done. They've taken the path of vaccine nationalism and forgotten about the rest of the world.

I'm sorry, but the EU really dropped a fecking bollock last summer during contract negotiations:

https://www.economist.com/leaders/2021/03/31/how-europe-has-mishandled-the-pandemic

Some quotes:

Europe had “lacked ambition” in its vaccine efforts from the outset, no less a source than Mr Macron told a Greek television programme on March 24th. He admitted being among those sceptical at the bluster coming from Donald Trump about a vaccine being available before American elections in early November. Thus Europe had focused its efforts—the “whatever it takes”, he said, recycling a phrase from the euro crisis—on salvaging its economy. Britain, having done a worse job than most of Europe at containing the first wave of the epidemic, and America, which never got back to a low rate of new cases after that first wave, went all out on the vaccine.[/QUOTE]

It made sense to pool the research effort of 27 countries and their funds for pre-purchasing vaccines, just as Operation Warp Speed in America brought together 50 states. However, the EU’s bureaucracy mismanaged the contract negotiations, perhaps because national governments generally oversee public health. The project was handled chiefly by the commission president, Ursula von der Leyen, who gleefully called the decision to expand her empire a “European success story”.

Hardly. Her team focused too much on price and too little on security of supply. They haggled pointlessly over liability should vaccines cause harm. Europe dithered in the August holidays. It was as if the Monnet-like forging of an ever-closer union was the real prize and the task of actually running vaccination a sideshow. Subsequent bickering, point-scoring and the threatened blockade of vaccine exports have done more to undermine faith in vaccination than restore the commission’s reputation. Were she still a member of a national government it is hard to see how Mrs von der Leyen could stay in her post.

And once the decision to centralise procurement had been taken there was little by way of follow through. After negotiating the details of the economic package in July, exhausted diplomats and EU officials were ready for a break. The incidence of covid-19 was low, and expert advice disagreed on whether there would be a second wave. In a typical month there may be some 300 meetings of national diplomats aimed at moving the union’s business forward. In August 2020 there were ten. A summit held on August 19th discussed Mali, the eastern Mediterranean and Belarus, but the pandemic was not on the agenda. There was no update on vaccine procurement.

What the effort seemed to lack in urgency it made up for in penny pinching. Britain and America had thrown money at the problem: given the cost of lockdowns any alternative seemed worth spending money on, and speculative research was funded without much concern about cost. The commission, though, endlessly fears being fingered for misspending its budget. The culture in Brussels is one of being able to prove to internal auditors that one has ticked the right boxes.

 

[Suedesi]

This is what annoys me about the media there, people like to claim Biden is going to be different from Trump in that he won't be a nationalist and will try to help other countries rather than bully them like Trump. He's continued what Trump did regarding the vaccines and not a word is being said, if this was Trump and it was released that he is stopping other companies from exporting any vaccines, he would be bashed in the media. Because it's Biden, people are ignoring this.



This is not true, Pfizer clarified that the US government didn't contribute to their vaccine development at all, while Germany gave a lot of money for development given that BionTech is a German company. There was also a bit of annoyance from Germany when Israel got a lot more doses from Pfizer than Germany did because they paid a price higher than other countries, Germany said they gave a lot of money for it's development but apparantely that didn't figure against Israel paying a high price.

The EU were blindsided by what the UK did most, don't think the USA deal would've impacted them by a lot, but it's still really disgraceful that the US are only focusing on vaccinating their population and leaving the load of supporting other countries on someone else, when it's clear that you need to vaccinate the whole population to avoid variants from developing from unvaccinated areas.

I do criticize the EU for being too apprehensive regarding the Oxford vaccine (the negative press regarding its efficacy from the start and then banning it in the middle). Although it seems even the UK is going to ban the vaccine for under 50s. I don't criticize them for not being selfish and only focusing on themselves, but rather thinking of helping other countries as well.

EU Procurement is to blame - hopefully this sheds some light on the story:

https://www.economist.com/briefing/2021/03/31/why-the-eus-covid-19-vaccination-programme-went-wrong

Why the EU’s covid-19 vaccination programme went wrong
The commission should have done much better

MUCH OF EUROPE’s battle against covid-19 has been fought at a national level, or in federal countries below it. It was there that decisions were made about when to confine people, how to allocate resources, what to do about tracking and isolation requirements.

Indeed, early on the response started to seem not merely national, but disturbingly so; by the end of April 2020, 17 countries in the supposedly border-control-free Schengen area had notified the European Commission, the EU’s executive, that they had in fact reintroduced controls. Some were stopping the export of protective equipment. Italians, when polled, were more likely to see China as helpful in their hour of need than the EU.

To counteract these centrifugal tendencies Angela Merkel, the chancellor of Germany, and Emmanuel Macron, the president of France, pushed for the EU’s central institutions to be granted impressive new powers with which to keep their members together. As in 2012, when the euro crisis saw the European Central Bank (ECB) take a more expansive view of its powers, and in 2015, when a surge in immigration bolstered the EU-wide frontier force, a crisis was taken as an opportunity to centralise.

The first centralisation was economic. Seeing some countries hit harder than others the EU Set up a common fund to help the worst-affected among them back on their feet. The second centralisation was programmatic. The commission was put in charge of procuring vaccines for a population of 450m.

Whereas “groundbreaking” is the term usually used to describe the new fund, the vaccine efforts tend to suggest “fiasco”. America has administered over 148m doses of vaccine already; 38% of adult Americans have had at least one shot, and 20% their second one. Britain, which is delaying people’s second vaccinations, has given 58% of its adults their first shot. The EU’s 70m doses administered so far, around twice Britain’s total, have provided only 14% of the adult population with a first shot.

It is true that some European countries have high levels of vaccine hesitancy when it comes to adult vaccination and that some suffer from inefficient public institutions. But the fact that all the bloc’s members are doing badly compared with peers elsewhere strongly suggests a shared procurement problem.

Europe had “lacked ambition” in its vaccine efforts from the outset, no less a source than Mr Macron told a Greek television programme on March 24th. He admitted being among those sceptical at the bluster coming from Donald Trump about a vaccine being available before American elections in early November. Thus Europe had focused its efforts—the “whatever it takes”, he said, recycling a phrase from the euro crisis—on salvaging its economy. Britain, having done a worse job than most of Europe at containing the first wave of the epidemic, and America, which never got back to a low rate of new cases after that first wave, went all out on the vaccine.

A need for new competences slowed things down, too. Health in Europe is the responsibility of national or local governments. Other than a centralised European Medicines Agency (EMA), which approves new drugs, the bulk of decision-making as regards health happens in member states. The EU is limited to “complementing” their actions.

But when it came to buying vaccines at speed and in very large quantities, leaving governments to do their own thing looked like a problem. The big ones, and those which actually had vaccine production facilities within their borders, might do fine; in the spring of 2020 France, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands signed a contract for up to 400m doses of vaccine with AstraZeneca, the Anglo-Swedish pharmaceutical company backing the jab developed at Oxford University. But what about the smaller states? And what about the risk that some would do much better than others? How could the EU be said to be a union if Czechs wangled vaccines but Slovaks did not, or if a well-vaccinated country started to worry about visitors from a much less-vaccinated neighbour?

Like a setting sun
It was thus agreed that procurement would be passed to Brussels, with the initial four-country AstraZeneca deal grandfathered in. It sounded fair, and the commission liked the extra responsibility. But whereas Paris, Berlin and Rome all have officials well accustomed to buying anything from a new type of frigate to a railway line, Brussels has little experience managing large-scale procurement, certainly not at speed in a shifting landscape. And because health is not usually the purview of the EU, the brightest Eurocrats typically prefer other briefs. The health commissioner in recent years has hailed from relative minnows such as Cyprus, Lithuania or Malta.

And once the decision to centralise procurement had been taken there was little by way of follow through. After negotiating the details of the economic package in July, exhausted diplomats and EU officials were ready for a break. The incidence of covid-19 was low, and expert advice disagreed on whether there would be a second wave. In a typical month there may be some 300 meetings of national diplomats aimed at moving the union’s business forward. In August 2020 there were ten. A summit held on August 19th discussed Mali, the eastern Mediterranean and Belarus, but the pandemic was not on the agenda. There was no update on vaccine procurement.

What the effort seemed to lack in urgency it made up for in penny pinching. Britain and America had thrown money at the problem: given the cost of lockdowns any alternative seemed worth spending money on, and speculative research was funded without much concern about cost. The commission, though, endlessly fears being fingered for misspending its budget. The culture in Brussels is one of being able to prove to internal auditors that one has ticked the right boxes.

Regulation was also an issue. And while America and Britain used fast-track approvals which limited the providers’ liability when the vaccines were ready, the EMA kept to slower procedures. These were painted as a way to limit public concerns about a rush job.

Divisions within Europe did not help. Some poorer European countries balked at the price of mRNA vaccines, like the one developed by BioNTech, a German biotechnology company, in partnership with Pfizer, an American pharmaceutical company. Other diplomats suspected that France and Germany, the EU’s pharmaceutical heartlands, were supporting their home industries; a large vaccine order went to Sanofi, a French drugmaker.

As winter neared and a second wave did indeed materialise, the boss of Moderna, an American mRNA-vaccine maker, warned that Europe was dragging out negotiations. That would not stop it getting the doses it had ordered—but it would get them later than others, he explained. Europe took more notice, though, when a leaked list of prices it was paying for vaccines showed it getting a much better deal than America.

It was only in January that the extent of Europe’s vaccine misfire started coming to light. The Sanofi vaccine had been badly set back by trial results in December, blowing a huge hole in the planned supply. Then AstraZeneca announced it would be able to deliver only a fraction of the doses it had promised, pointing out it had offered only its “best reasonable efforts” to supply them early. The commission’s lack of procurement experience came into full relief as AstraZeneca provided relatively more vaccine to Britain. Other suppliers also warned the commission of delays or interruptions in supply.
Things were made worse by the fact that, around this time, covid-19 cases on the continent began to rise again. The highly infectious B.1.1.7 variant of SARS-CoV-2, first seen in Britain, has turbocharged a third wave of cases, prompting new lockdowns across the continent, some better observed than others. As Britons, who had suffered B.1.1.7’s effects earlier, began to see un-locked-down light at the end of their increasingly inoculated tunnel, Europe’s prospects looked dim.
The EU, in part because it is seen as a bulwark against protectionism, has since come under fire for fuelling “vaccine nationalism”, trying to throttle exports to Britain (Australia has also had EU-made vaccine withheld). As a broad-brush accusation this is unfair: the EU allows the export of covid-19 vaccines on a large scale (see International). But it has had to speak more bluntly about putting itself first over others. On March 25th European leaders tentatively agreed to further control exports.
The bloc’s vaccination drive has also suffered from some hesitancy. Of almost 85m doses delivered, some 15m are still to be used. The biggest surplus is of the AstraZeneca vaccine, which some politicians helped undermine. In January Mr Macron described it as being “quasi-ineffective” in over-65s, which had an impact. Subsequent worries spurred by fear of a particular type of very rare blood clot in young people have led to an inverse concern, with France and Germany now administering the vaccine only to older patients.
After the gold rush
At times the centralised approach to vaccination seemed to be on the ropes. Some central European countries, many of them hard hit, threatened to break ranks and procure Chinese or Russian jabs regardless of the fact that the EMA has not signed off on them. Serbia, which is outside the EU, is using those vaccines in an impressive vaccination effort, and has a big enough stock that it is inviting foreign neighbours to drive over the border for a jab. The prospect of being cut off from the EU’s supply, though, has so far deterred all but Hungary—which enjoys goading Brussels—from turning to the east.

The worst is probably now over. A spate of expected deliveries, which are now tracked closely, means that the EU should soon be receiving 100m doses a month. Officials say they now expect Europe to end up just a few months behind Britain and America—perhaps less. The commission says 70% of adults will be fully vaccinated by the end of summer.

For all the frustration at the vaccine shortages, the joint-procurement approach is still defended by the member states. The counterfactual of internecine vaccine filching is considered too terrible to even consider. And their leaders have shouldered plenty of the blame for the vaccine misfire: poll numbers from across the continent show the public went from thinking things were being well managed to poorly so.

But “Somebody, at some point, will find it convenient to blame Brussels,” sighs one senior commission official. The most exposed and identifiable target will be the commission’s president, Ursula von der Leyen. Hopes were high that as a medical doctor, and with the ear of Mrs Merkel, her former boss, she could seize the opportunity given to Europe. Now critics stress her centralised style, with few responsibilities delegated to anyone outside a tight inner circle of her aides.

Denizens of Brussels see the economic component of their response as an achievement worthy of the crisis the bloc has lived through and hope that the borderline-lackadaisical approach to procuring vaccine will soon be forgotten. And so it may. For now, though, Europeans with no clear sense of how long the emergency of the third wave will last have plenty of time to spend considering the question. ■

 

[SinNombre]

Got my first shot of the Pfizer vaccine today.

The US is doing a fantastic job of the rollout so far, my county is at 20% fully vaccinated and 20% who have gotten one dose.

 

[edcunited1878]

Why is it so hard for some people to acknowledge the fact that the U.S. and their 50 states (not sure about territories) have had an impressive rollout when compared to entire countries?

 

[Tony Babangida]

Getting vaccinated tomorrow morning. Can’t wait- really hopes it means I can travel back to the UK soon.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

I'm sorry, but the EU really dropped a fecking bollock last summer during contract negotiations:

https://www.economist.com/leaders/2021/03/31/how-europe-has-mishandled-the-pandemic

Some quotes:

Europe had “lacked ambition” in its vaccine efforts from the outset, no less a source than Mr Macron told a Greek television programme on March 24th. He admitted being among those sceptical at the bluster coming from Donald Trump about a vaccine being available before American elections in early November. Thus Europe had focused its efforts—the “whatever it takes”, he said, recycling a phrase from the euro crisis—on salvaging its economy. Britain, having done a worse job than most of Europe at containing the first wave of the epidemic, and America, which never got back to a low rate of new cases after that first wave, went all out on the vaccine.

It made sense to pool the research effort of 27 countries and their funds for pre-purchasing vaccines, just as Operation Warp Speed in America brought together 50 states. However, the EU’s bureaucracy mismanaged the contract negotiations, perhaps because national governments generally oversee public health. The project was handled chiefly by the commission president, Ursula von der Leyen, who gleefully called the decision to expand her empire a “European success story”.

Hardly. Her team focused too much on price and too little on security of supply. They haggled pointlessly over liability should vaccines cause harm. Europe dithered in the August holidays. It was as if the Monnet-like forging of an ever-closer union was the real prize and the task of actually running vaccination a sideshow. Subsequent bickering, point-scoring and the threatened blockade of vaccine exports have done more to undermine faith in vaccination than restore the commission’s reputation. Were she still a member of a national government it is hard to see how Mrs von der Leyen could stay in her post.

And once the decision to centralise procurement had been taken there was little by way of follow through. After negotiating the details of the economic package in July, exhausted diplomats and EU officials were ready for a break. The incidence of covid-19 was low, and expert advice disagreed on whether there would be a second wave. In a typical month there may be some 300 meetings of national diplomats aimed at moving the union’s business forward. In August 2020 there were ten. A summit held on August 19th discussed Mali, the eastern Mediterranean and Belarus, but the pandemic was not on the agenda. There was no update on vaccine procurement.

What the effort seemed to lack in urgency it made up for in penny pinching. Britain and America had thrown money at the problem: given the cost of lockdowns any alternative seemed worth spending money on, and speculative research was funded without much concern about cost. The commission, though, endlessly fears being fingered for misspending its budget. The culture in Brussels is one of being able to prove to internal auditors that one has ticked the right boxes.

Some more quotes. From the same article.

The worst is probably now over. A spate of expected deliveries, which are now tracked closely, means that the EU should soon be receiving 100m doses a month. Officials say they now expect Europe to end up just a few months behind Britain and America—perhaps less. The commission says 70% of adults will be fully vaccinated by the end of summer.

For all the frustration at the vaccine shortages, the joint-procurement approach is still defended by the member states. The counterfactual of internecine vaccine filching is considered too terrible to even consider.

The painfully slow roll-out of the last few months hinged on AZ’s undelivering by a spectacular amount. Had they come even close to their Q1 promises this wouldn’t be a big deal at all. Despite the slow start chances are the EU will have every member state (including the poorest) supplied with enough vaccines to catch up with the UK within 2 or 3 months.

Not to mention that the UK has been walking a tightrope by being a) incredibly reliant on one specific vaccine (if AZ clotting issues had caused the drug to fail in Phase 3 and Sanofi had ended up coming to market then the UK would be far worse off than the EU is now) and b) pushing out the dosing intervals of Pfizer/Moderna contrary to the vaccine license. We’re seeing fantastic data coming out of Israel about how effective this vaccine is in real life but can’t be certain these results will be repeated in the UK, which is a pity.

The margins between success and failure here are incredibly slim and - just like the tactics used to suppress the virus in the first and second waves - initial success doesn’t always translate into the best long term outcomes. We’ll have a much better idea how everyone compares by the end of this year.

Most important of all, as the article points out, the alternative of the wealthiest individual EU states copying the US/UK nativist approach would have been catastrophic. For the whole world.

 

[Wibble]

Getting vaccinated tomorrow morning. Can’t wait- really hopes it means I can travel back to the UK soon.

You're the one

 

[christinaa]

Preemptively took some Acetaminophen around 7:30/8:00 pm last night. Woke up around 2am hurting all over and shivering/shaking with the beginnings of a headache. I didn't sleep well, but I took more Acetaminophen and Ibuprofen around 7 and slept a couple more hours. Once the meds kicked in, I felt pretty much fine with only minor aches and a slight headache. As it's worn off, I'm starting to feel worse (mostly aches and chills) again.

Recommendation: Take Acetaminophen and/or Ibuprofen before going to bed after the shot and as needed afterwards.

Thanks for the feedback - doesn't bode well!

 

[Tony Babangida]

You're the one

I know- I feel pretty lucky!

 

[africanspur]

Most important of all, as the article points out, the alternative of the wealthiest individual EU states copying the US/UK nativist approach would have been catastrophic. For the whole world.

I'll try to find the article again later on but this is an interesting point that I've also been making over the past year.

That is until I read that the initial negotiation efforts (France, Germany, Netherlands and I believe Italy) were being done on a collective basis anyway. That is the national governments of those countries were negotiating directly with the companies on behalf of the entire bloc and inviting other countries to join if they wished, as opposed to individually.

I'm not sure this doomsday scenario we keep on mentioning where Germany vaccinates its entire population while Bulgaria languishes is actually a realistic one.

 

[11101]

EU Procurement is to blame - hopefully this sheds some light on the story:

https://www.economist.com/briefing/2021/03/31/why-the-eus-covid-19-vaccination-programme-went-wrong

The article is correct but glosses over the reasons why.

The premise of the EU is that all countries within it are equal and open. Can you imagine the mess if all 27 countries went off negotiating on their own? What happens when Germany vaccinates it's population 6 months before it's neighbour Poland, for example? Assuming you accept that all countries have to get access together, you then have to consider the commercial side. Whilst Germany can afford to pay whatever the cost, Bulgaria can't. The EU needed to negotiate prices that all member states could afford.

The order process was not such a problem, roughly 300-400m doses of each vaccine candidate were ordered. That was a good way to hedge the bets rather than going all in on any one type. The only mistake they really made was to assume that all countries would take the same approach to global vaccination. Had the EU followed the US/UK lead and refused to export the almost 100m doses they have done so far, there would be no problem.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

I'll try to find the article again later on but this is an interesting point that I've also been making over the past year.

That is until I read that the initial negotiation efforts (France, Germany, Netherlands and I believe Italy) were being done on a collective basis anyway. That is the national governments of those countries were negotiating directly with the companies on behalf of the entire bloc and inviting other countries to join if they wished, as opposed to individually.

I'm not sure this doomsday scenario we keep on mentioning where Germany vaccinates its entire population while Bulgaria languishes is actually a realistic one.

I don’t think it’s realistic, no. And countries like Germany deserve huge credit for it never being on the table. The fact that they are so utterly committed to the EU project helped us avoid the worst possible outcome. There was nothing stopping them taking a “Germany first” approach though. They certainly flirted with the idea during peak AZ frustration but thankfully stuck with a collectivist approach.

 

[11101]

I'll try to find the article again later on but this is an interesting point that I've also been making over the past year.

That is until I read that the initial negotiation efforts (France, Germany, Netherlands and I believe Italy) were being done on a collective basis anyway. That is the national governments of those countries were negotiating directly with the companies on behalf of the entire bloc and inviting other countries to join if they wished, as opposed to individually.

I'm not sure this doomsday scenario we keep on mentioning where Germany vaccinates its entire population while Bulgaria languishes is actually a realistic one.

The EU published the contracting process to answer that question. There are 7 countries, appointed by all 27, who lead the negotiations on behalf of all of them. Once all the contracts are agreed and doses reserved, it's then up to member states to select which vaccines they want to buy.

https://ec.europa.eu/info/live-work...ons-and-answers-covid-19-vaccination-eu_en#16

 

[massi83]

How many extra doses do you guys think there would be in the world if EU decided to pay 5-10 times more? I doubt it would be a huge difference. 99% of the talk is focused on how to divide the cake, which is the wrong discussion.

 

[Ødegaard]

Where would this leave people who’ve already had the first AZ whilst under 30!?

You only get one shot, do not miss your chance to blow.

 

[horsechoker]

You only get one shot, do not miss your chance to blow.

After your palms will be sweaty, knees weak, arms are heavy.

 

[F-Red]

How many extra doses do you guys think there would be in the world if EU decided to pay 5-10 times more? I doubt it would be a huge difference. 99% of the talk is focused on how to divide the cake, which is the wrong discussion.

The price per dose is even the wrong discussion on output in my opinion, it may prioritise allocation of supply but nothing more. The issue now is production capacity and investment early on would of helped in production of extra doses, there are stories out there (from NOS) that Netherlands didn't take up on investment into the Halix plant back in April last year, where Oxford/AZ highlighted the need to ramp up production capacity there.

 

[massi83]

The price per dose is even the wrong discussion on output in my opinion, it may prioritise allocation of supply but nothing more. The issue now is production capacity and investment early on would of helped in production of extra doses, there are stories out there (from NOS) that Netherlands didn't take up on investment into the Halix plant back in April last year, where Oxford/AZ highlighted the need to ramp up production capacity there.

That does sound like a mistake. Did AZ revisit the idea or try another EU country after April or just thought nah.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

That does sound like a mistake. Did AZ revisit the idea or try another EU country after April or just thought nah.

 

[F-Red]

That does sound like a mistake. Did AZ revisit the idea or try another EU country after April or just thought nah.

To suit the angle of the discussion and rhetoric here, they just thought 'nah'.

 

[Raoul]

Can I just say that the USA have really upped their game since Trumps administration fecked off?

Definitely. There's been a very noticeable difference in the urgency and pace of getting people vaccinated over the past few months.

 

[Sassy Colin]

4,000 people died in Brazil yesterday of Covid.

We are are fannying around in country where 1 in 2.5M people taking the vaccine may have died because of it.

I'll take my chances with the vaccine, thank you very much.

 

[Brwned]

4,000 people died in Brazil yesterday of Covid.

We are are fannying around in country where 1 in 2.5M people taking the vaccine may have died because of it.

I'll take my chances with the vaccine, thank you very much.

That’s not really how the maths works as you’ve left out two key variables: an individual’s health profile and chances of exposure.

There is a 100% chance you will be exposed to the vaccine if you choose to get a vaccine, there is a much smaller chance you will be exposed to coronavirus if you choose not to. If you don’t use that as a multiplier your numbers are off by multiples.

But more importantly, the profile of people dying from covid (older and / or health issues) are almost entirely separate from the profile of people dying from the blood clots (younger and healthy).

If you look at the number of healthy people under 30 dying from COVID, you’ll probably be surprised just how low it is. The 4,000 people in Brazil have so little connection to that figure.

Coronavirus has dramatically different effects on different segments of the population, so the risk assessment is dramatically different. Suggesting otherwise is silly.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

That’s not really how the maths works as you’ve left out two key variables: an individual’s health profile and chances of exposure.

There is a 100% chance you will be exposed to the vaccine if you choose to get a vaccine, there is a much smaller chance you will be exposed to coronavirus if you choose not to. If you don’t use that as a multiplier your numbers are off by multiples.

But more importantly, the profile of people dying from covid (older and / or health issues) are almost entirely separate from the profile of people dying from the blood clots (younger and healthy).

If you look at the number of healthy people under 30 dying from COVID, you’ll probably be surprised just how low it is. The 4,000 people in Brazil have so little connection to that figure.

Coronavirus has dramatically different effects on different segments of the population, so the risk assessment is dramatically different. Suggesting otherwise is silly.

Generally agree but risk vs benefit calculations are a bit different for vaccines than for most medicines. The benefit for the population as a whole needs to also be taken into account. That’s why many countries are actively considering vaccinating children, where the individual risk of a bad outcome from covid is pretty close to zero so you’re arguably causing net harm to that cohort.

 

[Brwned]

Generally agree but risk vs benefit calculations are a bit different for vaccines than for most medicines. The benefit for the population as a whole needs to also be taken into account. That’s why many countries are actively considering vaccinating children, where the individual risk of a bad outcome from covid is pretty close to zero so you’re arguably causing net harm to that cohort.

Oh yeah absolutely, I was just picking up on Colin’s point which was exclusively about individual risk, hence the last line. It’s been the consistent thread of pro-UK views since the clots issue first appeared: mocking people for worrying about the risk of a vaccine, when the risk of covid is obviously so much higher.

Which was odd given this mocking tone started in the UK press and fed into the UK public, all of whom were mocking people at the EMA who are actual experts in risk assessment...

For me, the main motivation to get vaccinated is the societal value more than the individual value. I am not remotely worried about dying from covid because I am not remotely likely to die from covid. That’s different for people of different age groups and health conditions. The narrative from folks like Colin seem to either ignore or misunderstand that.

 

[Sassy Colin]

Obviously, there's no point in arguing with someone like you, who is always right.

How do you feel about thousands of people dying every day in Europe whilst they 'pause' the roll out of the vaccine due to a tiny amount of people, possibly, having an adverse reaction?

One of the contra indications on the packet of Ibuprofen I brought from Sainsbury's might interest you: "very rarely kidney failure". This is for a pain killer that you don't really need and the benefits are variable, such that you probably wouldn't be any worse off if you didn't take it at all.

How about, on the same leaflet: small increased risk of heart attack, heart failure.

The vaccine is saving, and will save, thousands of lives. It's common sense, I don't need to watch sensationalist news reports to work that one out for myself.

In fact, you have been far more influenced than me, if you think that the risk of taking the vaccine is in any way on a par with not taking it.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Oh yeah absolutely, I was just picking up on Colin’s point which was exclusively about individual risk, hence the last line. It’s been the consistent thread of pro-UK views since the clots issue first appeared: mocking people for worrying about the risk of a vaccine, when the risk of covid is obviously so much higher.

Which was odd given this mocking tone started in the UK press and fed into the UK public, all of whom were mocking people at the EMA who are actual experts in risk assessment...

For me, the main motivation to get vaccinated is the societal value more than the individual value. I am not remotely worried about dying from covid because I am not remotely likely to die from covid. That’s different for people of different age groups and health conditions. The narrative from folks like Colin seem to either ignore or misunderstand that.

Ok, yeah, you’re dead right then. The other classic Uk-centric dismissal of this issue is to pretend that all clots are the same and talk about incidence of DVTs/PEs.

 

[groovyalbert]

Yeh by basically fecking over everyone else and hoarding their own vaccines, while other vaccine producing countries like EU are supplying the rest of the world.

Nothing good about what the US and UK have done. They've taken the path of vaccine nationalism and forgotten about the rest of the world.

I think, despite the narrative being spun elsewhere, this simply isn't the case here in the UK. The government really backed one vaccine over the rest, and it's still to be seen if that will have been the right move.

We've vaccinated a high proportion of our society, but there are still very real concerns over AZ's efficacy against certain strains, not to mention the potential issue with blood-clots which seems to be mounting in evidence.

There was always going to be degree of political and trade risk when it came to the initial rolling out of the vaccines. The economies that can vaccinate the widest and the fastest will recover first. It was inevitable that there would be a race to be first in line, and certain countries signed smatter deals than others.

Personally, I wish there'd been greater international collaboration on this front, and it will probably be something taken into consideration in any future global pandemic outbreak. It's in nobodies best interest for territories such as Brazil to be churning out variations that could undermine the efficacy of vaccines being used worldwide. But I don't think it's a case that Europe is suffering (relatively) due to having taken the high-line, but more due to the deals they signed/the issues of working in such a convoluted arena/being a slow-moving body.

 

[africanspur]

I don’t think it’s realistic, no. And countries like Germany deserve huge credit for it never being on the table. The fact that they are so utterly committed to the EU project helped us avoid the worst possible outcome. There was nothing stopping them taking a “Germany first” approach though. They certainly flirted with the idea during peak AZ frustration but thankfully stuck with a collectivist approach.

https://www.government.nl/latest/ne...t-for-possible-coronavirus-vaccine-for-europe

I'm at work currently so will have to be next couple of days when I'm more free that I look properly but a quick Google shows this, which is what I was thinking of. The article I'm talking about goes in more depth.

Essentially those four countries were always negotiating on a collective basis and were never really going to leave the other EU countries behind, just as much for selfish reasons as for altruistic ones.

I don't say this in criticism because it is what I have been saying as well and for reference, I was furious that we didn't join the EU vaccine procurement scheme a year ago.

 

[711]

I think, despite the narrative being spun elsewhere, this simply isn't the case here in the UK. The government really backed one vaccine over the rest, and it's still to be seen if that will have been the right move.

We've vaccinated a high proportion of our society, but there are still very real concerns over AZ's efficacy against certain strains, not to mention the potential issue with blood-clots which seems to be mounting in evidence.

There was always going to be degree of political and trade risk when it came to the initial rolling out of the vaccines. The economies that can vaccinate the widest and the fastest will recover first. It was inevitable that there would be a race to be first in line, and certain countries signed smatter deals than others.

Personally, I wish there'd been greater international collaboration on this front, and it will probably be something taken into consideration in any future global pandemic outbreak. It's in nobodies best interest for territories such as Brazil to be churning out variations that could undermine the efficacy of vaccines being used worldwide. But I don't think it's a case that Europe is suffering (relatively) due to having taken the high-line, but more due to the deals they signed/the issues of working in such a convoluted arena/being a slow-moving body.

The UK has ordered over 400m vaccine doses from 7 different manufacturers. The AZ is less than a quarter.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55045639

 

[africanspur]

Obviously, there's no point in arguing with someone like you, who is always right.

How do you feel about thousands of people dying every day in Europe whilst they 'pause' the roll out of the vaccine due to a tiny amount of people, possibly, having an adverse reaction?

One of the contra indications on the packet of Ibuprofen I brought from Sainsbury's might interest you: "very rarely kidney failure". This is for a pain killer that you don't really need and the benefits are variable, such that you probably wouldn't be any worse off if you didn't take it at all.

How about, on the same leaflet: small increased risk of heart attack, heart failure.

The vaccine is saving, and will save, thousands of lives. It's common sense, I don't need to watch sensationalist news reports to work that one out for myself.

In fact, you have been far more influenced than me, if you think that the risk of taking the vaccine is in any way on a par with not taking it.

Those side effects are totally spot on. I would very much avoid giving ibuprofen in patients who have kidney failure or heart failure bedside it can make things much worse. Similarly, Paracetamol is a horrible drug in overdose and very good at messing up your liver and possibly killing you if you take it in overdose (which isn't as much as some people might think).

You've built a bit of a straw man there with that final paragraph. Literally nobody is saying the risk of taking the vaccine is more than not taking it, in general. That'd the important thing.

But the risk of a 25 year old woman dying from covid is minimal. That isn't to minimise the seriousness of the disease or anything like that, but it's fact. The risk of an 80 year old with diabetes and heart failure is much higher.

So the question we must ask ourselves, especially in a world where we have three vaccines already authorised in tjr West, a very good one from Russia, at least another 2 coming, is whether the risk benefit analysis is the same for everyone and for every vaccine.

So if AZ increases your risk of clots by 100 as a young woman, even if that risk is still minimal, does it make sense to give young women that vaccine? Or should we save them for older people, who so far don't seem to have that reaction and save Pfizer, sputnik and moderna for the younger?

We don't know yet. There are outstanding scientists working on this as we speak.

Which brings me to the last point. People need to stop politicising this shit. Macron, Johnson, Michel et al are all total buffoons and they politicise. The scientists at the MHRA, EMA and FDA are not and do not.

Their decisions are not political and I trust them to make the decisions that are right. So if thr MHRA make a decision, that isn't because they're shit. And if the EMA make a decision, it isn't because of brexit. Both of them are making decisions based on the evidence available to them at the moment.

 

[Jacko21]

 

[11101]

EMA has changed it's stance slightly to say blood clotting is a very rare side effect of the AZ vaccine, but the benefits still greatly outweigh the risks. Doctors will be further informed of what to look out for and countries may restrict use based on their own situations.

If any medical people want to see the detailed discussion going on now.

 

[jojojo]

EMA continues to believe that the benefits of AZ outweigh the risks. No conclusive data on who is at higher risk of major adverse reactions at present.

 

[jojojo]

MHRA/JCVI briefing seems to be slightly delayed - presumably to allow EMA a little time to do their opening statements.

 

[zing]

Obviously, there's no point in arguing with someone like you, who is always right.

How do you feel about thousands of people dying every day in Europe whilst they 'pause' the roll out of the vaccine due to a tiny amount of people, possibly, having an adverse reaction?

One of the contra indications on the packet of Ibuprofen I brought from Sainsbury's might interest you: "very rarely kidney failure". This is for a pain killer that you don't really need and the benefits are variable, such that you probably wouldn't be any worse off if you didn't take it at all.

How about, on the same leaflet: small increased risk of heart attack, heart failure.

The vaccine is saving, and will save, thousands of lives. It's common sense, I don't need to watch sensationalist news reports to work that one out for myself.

In fact, you have been far more influenced than me, if you think that the risk of taking the vaccine is in any way on a par with not taking it.

I feel like you’re talking at cross purposes here with Brwned. One is about individual risk and another about public health. The guardian reports that the incidence rate in women is 1 in 50k. I don’t get the incentive for a young woman to get the az vaccine if the probability of getting COVID and dying is much less than 1 in 50k. Every single one of the 45 persons who died thought they were getting a vaccine - their death was deterministic, there’s no probabilistic outcome there.

 

[11101]

EMA continues to believe that the benefits of AZ outweigh the risks. No conclusive data on who is at higher risk of major adverse reactions at present.

No, but of the 222 cases to date the highest number were under 60 females. Not enough information to say anything beyond that, although AZ has been told to investigate (which should be fun).

 

[Jacko21]

 

[zing]

No, but of the 222 cases to date the highest number were under 60 females. Not enough information to say anything beyond that, although AZ has been told to investigate (which should be fun).

Do you know how many?