9,735 posts in this topic

Thanks FF. I'm delighted too. Doc told her of course to assume the vaccination has failed and to keep following the guidelines which is common sense.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, murphaph said:

I'm still glad the EU took an approach based on solidarity with one another but I have a selfish reason. My mum is getting vaccinated today in Ireland. It's unlikely Ireland or any of the smaller countries would have been able to outbid the larger ones. It would have been a bloodbath between the member states.

I understood the pharma cos are doing it on a non-profit basis. Where does bidding come into it?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Countries are  still in competition for the vaccines and are not paying the same for them. Not for profit drugs made in the EU for example would cost way more than not for profit drugs made in India, because staff cost less in India. Bigger orders would also likely be favoured, so if Germany had come in and said to say Moderna, we'll take everything you've got, then Ireland or Estonia or wherever would be left waiting for anything.

 

The EU is talking virtually all the blame as well for anything that is going wrong in the EU. National politicians are happy to take a step back and let poor VdL be the lightning rod for their failings too. The EU has made mistakes, but not all the mistakes made were made by the EU.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, penchanski said:

I understood the pharma cos are doing it on a non-profit basis. Where does bidding come into it?

 

think that from what has been published in the BMJ, the EU, UK, and US are paying different prices for vaccines - for example, the BMJ article that was linked on here a while ago had the EU paying not that far off half per vaccine what the UK did. There was something said about Oxford agreeing to work with AstraZeneca if developing nations were supplied on a non-profit basis.

 

By December last year the UK had thrown €`14B at seven difference vaccines, just over half are not in use (yet?). So there is still a lot of money in play here. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, murphaph said:

I have no major problem with manufacturing those vaccines in the EU under licence and paying the going rate for them (assuming they get approval) but it would be very destabilising for us if shipments came directly from Moscow or Beijing with strings attached.

 

This whole business has hopefully taught us a lesson. A FEMA style agency for the EU should be on the agenda for future catastrophes that affect us all. 

 

Didn't Italy receive some Russian-manufactured Sputnik doses prior to the agreement to manufacture it locally? Or was that for certification / trial purposes?

 

I think with SinoPharm, there would be some kind of string attached. 

 

It will be interesting to see how things play out with Hungary and Slovakia going it alone.

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Over 60 countries are using/testing Chinese vaccines. I believe they have five.

 

Difficult to find the efficacy stats on them but, for many countries, better than nothing.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bild (yeah I know, sorry) saying merkel is pushing for all states with >200 schools and kitas shut, also ausgangsbeschrankungen

 

>100, only schools/kitas that can guarantee 2 x a week schnelltests (staff and kids) can stay open.

 

https://www.rnd.de/politik/lockdown-regeln-sollen-bis-18-april-verlangert-werden-ADJVNX2ZHVG4RKFMVD6TVVRL4Y.html

 

how can leipzig and dresden, the 2 large, relatively densely populated cities, be the only places in saxony <100 per 100,000?

 

Counterintuitive (IMO). Cities are more white collar workers who can work from home?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, keith2011 said:

It is entirely fair to blame the person at the top of this cockup, that's what they get paid for!

No, you can´t blame someone for something beyond their control. That would be stupid.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems vaccinations somewhat recovered after the ban lift.

Friday was 25% lower than previous week, Saturday was 13%, Sunday was 3%.

Overall the week was 21% below previous.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Az claim that the UK has priority written in the contracts

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/covid-vaccine-eu-boris-johnson-b1793652.html

 

But AZ insisted that its contracts made clear that the UK had first claim on vaccines produced domestically, and said its agreement with the European Commission was based on a promise to make “best efforts” to deliver the doses, but did not commit the company to a specific 

 

If that's true then the uk, should get the vaccine before the EU from a legal and moral position, the law should take the used

 

I want the vaccine now, but if the EU did not make the right contract , then we will have to wait, unfortunate the law is the law

 

If the EU start blocking vaccine expor r so is just wrong, as they did not make the right contracts, it's just sad, general I support the EU but on this one, I just cannot. If the EU block vaccine exports it will not help anyone

 

 

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, yesterday said:

If that's true then the uk, should get the vaccine before the EU from a legal and moral position, the law should take the used

Moral?  How can you say that UK vaccinating faster by withholding vaccines is morally correct?? Morally would be equal distribution, as production is also +/- equally distributed. In fact, production is even more on EU side.

 

Quote

 

I want the vaccine now, but if the EU did not make the right contract , then we will have to wait, unfortunate the law is the law

Not so simple, the law is the law on each country. EU countries can make a law to withheld vaccines in EU.

 

Boris is playing a dangerous game here. He wants to please his internal audience by speeding up vaccination and "save summer", but he might face a strong backlash from EU on trade negotiations. He made his strong point, if he is smart, he will now compromise while holding something that is worth a lot to EU.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our company, like other big companies, seem to be dealing with the government to get us vaccinated before and jumping the queue.   It seems that they allow it if the company deals with the logistics and provides the medical team to do it.  This is in Berlin.  We might get vaccinated around May with J&J if we accept it.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, MikeMelga said:

Moral?  How can you say that UK vaccinating faster by withholding vaccines is morally correct?? Morally would be equal distribution, as production is also +/- equally distributed. In fact, production is even more on EU side.

 

Not so simple, the law is the law on each country. EU countries can make a law to withheld vaccines in EU.

 

Boris is playing a dangerous game here. He wants to please his internal audience by speeding up vaccination and "save summer", but he might face a strong backlash from EU on trade negotiations. He made his strong point, if he is smart, he will now compromise while holding something that is worth a lot to EU.

 

 

The UK signed a contract with az_ to get priority in vaccine deliveries, the EU did not

 

That's why the EU has little vaccine, fair is what each country signed, not changing your mind once the ink is dry on the contract

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, yesterday said:

 

 

The UK signed a contract with az_ to get priority in vaccine deliveries, the EU did not

 

That's why the EU has little vaccine, fair is what each country signed, not changing your mind once the ink is dry on the contract

According to what I read the EU signed it´s contract with AZ 3 days before the UK. Apart from that swhich are disadvantaging third parties without their consent are binding to those third parties. Same as if you have a debtor promise to one of their lenders that they will be paid first. That doesn´t mean that lender will be protected from the bailiff confiscating what might have been earmarked to be used to paying him back.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jeba said:

According to what I read the EU signed it´s contract with AZ 3 days before the UK. Apart from that swhich are disadvantaging third parties without their consent are binding to those third parties. Same as if you have a debtor promise to one of their lenders that they will be paid first. That doesn´t mean that lender will be protected from the bailiff confiscating what might have been earmarked to be used to paying him back.

Jaba please read the post from a well respected newspapier that I provided

 

Where is says the uk has priority on vaccine deliverys, this has a higher priority than who signed the contract first. So when problems came with vaccine production the uk kept their production and the took a cut

What's funny, is that while demanding the az vaccine the EU has  questioned at every point that the vaccine will work or not and has had bans on it over safety grounds

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, yesterday said:

Where is says the uk has priority on vaccine deliverys, this has a higher priority than who signed the contract first. So when problems came with vaccine production the uk kept their production and the took a cut

Did the EU agree to that? If not, they shouldn´t be bound to it.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, jeba said:

Did the EU agree to that? If not, they shouldn´t be bound to it.

They are 2 separate contract

It's not normally to show all contracts with all parties

 

The UK  had it in there contract that they have priority the EU did mot

 

I only ask you follow the law, is that too much to expect from the eu

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, MikeMelga said:

Moral?  How can you say that UK vaccinating faster by withholding vaccines is morally correct?? Morally would be equal distribution, as production is also +/- equally distributed. In fact, production is even more on EU side.

 

Not so simple, the law is the law on each country. EU countries can make a law to withheld vaccines in EU.

 

Boris is playing a dangerous game here. He wants to please his internal audience by speeding up vaccination and "save summer", but he might face a strong backlash from EU on trade negotiations. He made his strong point, if he is smart, he will now compromise while holding something that is worth a lot to EU.

 

I would say that 126K+  and still rising deaths in the UK gives a lot of justification. What would you suggest is "morally correct", sharing the vaccines out evenly or treating the sickest  "patient" first???

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now