What exactly is happening with AstraZeneca?

PCeeeee

HalfAndHalf wrote: »

Ah so it was a tee up to a dig! Nice one!

So because I’ve got criticisms of how some of this has been handled by the EU you don’t know what point I’m making.

I’ve not used long complicated words so it’s difficult to understand how you’re confused, but then if you don’t get sarcasm then not much more I can do. Good luck.

Its not a dig. Perhaps you're correct. I'm afraid i honestly failed to spot the sarcasm. And yes I have understood the words you've used. Its just that the fashion in which they're assembled doesn't really make it clear to me what your point is.

HalfAndHalf

...Ghost... wrote: »

finding the research and funding the research are different, correct? I think it's only proper to correct typos wherever possible.



Riiight. Good counter-argument.



Not quite. Let me help you out.

Suspicion (noun)
"a feeling or thought that something is possible, likely, or true"



If you can't handle it, don't dish it out.

You quite rudely suggested (incorrectly) that I believed everything a politician says. That was an attack on my intelligence and was deserving of a response. On the contrary, I have very little trust for politicians, but there are cultures and patterns that can be expected from politicians based in different countries. The Brits are full of bravado and the EU are tight lipped and far more composed.

You win, you’ve beaten me with too many words. Good luck.

noodler

silverharp wrote: »

good news for "younger" people I guess

Well, our first port of call for the GP/Pharmacist administering route was heavy use of Astra to vaccinate the over 70s.

What do we do now?

Skip them? Ask them to go to mass vaccination centres where the Pfizer one can be stored? Wait an age for Moderna to be available on sufficient supplies.

HalfAndHalf

PCeeeee wrote: »

Its not a dig. Perhaps you're correct. I'm afraid i honestly failed to spot the sarcasm. And yes I have understood the words you've used. Its just that the fashion in which they're assembled doesn't really make it clear to me what your point is.

Ok so my posts have quite clearly criticised the EU’s handling of the procurement and approval of Covid vaccines.

What’s your point? Other than saying you don’t understand I’m criticising them.

MrMusician18

Beasty wrote: »

AZ didn't make it's submission to the EU until after the UK had approved it. My suspicion would be they were under some influence to get the UK rollout moving quickly

At the time it felt a lot like the MHRA was moving under political pressure. There was a huge political need at the time to beat the EU to market.

fly_agaric

Danzy wrote: »

Your email subscriptions aside, it is in more than the Express.

Care to link me up.
I found this:

https://www.newstalk.com/news/astrazeneca-vaccine-supplies-wont-arrive-in-ireland-until-mid-february-taoiseach-1137919

but it is somewhat more bland than the Daily Express in that it doesn't quite say

IRELAND has been BARRED from ordering up doses of the Oxford coronavirus vaccine in an apparent EU bid to pay the UK back for Brexit, a former Irish diplomat (Ray Basset) has said.

which seems to contain 2...distortions or maybe mistakes being charitable.

I'm afraid I am not a member or a supporter of the Irish Freedom Party or the National Party or whatever they are called, and am not on their mailing lists either. Care to post such emails here for us if you receive them yourself?

Anyway, one thing I do believe is that all 27 of the EU members bidding against each other and putting up warchests to pay off their favourite drug companies to research & manufacture a vaccine for them would have been an absolute shít show.

Now we might have done well out of that as we are quite wealthy, and the drug companies would have done very, very well but someone would have been unlucky or gotten screwed over.

edit: I found this too:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/astrazeneca-tells-hse-vaccine-deliveries-can-be-expected-by-mid-february-1.4462656

Again there is a bit less fire and brimstone here:

In response to queries from The Irish Times, a European Commission spokesman said: “Vaccines cannot be delivered before EMA [European Medicines Agency] delivers its recommendation for authorisation and the commission then grants marketing authorisation. This is a requirement as per the Advance Purchase Agreement.

HalfAndHalf

blackcard wrote: »

What countries have approved AZ to date apart from the UK?

10-12 so far, can’t find the list at the moment but it was posted yesterday.

noodler

HalfAndHalf wrote: »

Ok so my posts have quite clearly criticised the EU’s handling of the procurement and approval of Covid vaccines.

What’s your point? Other than saying you don’t understand I’m criticising them.

The EU has part funded vaccines months ago and signed several APAs in September, October and November despite EMA approval for those vaccines being months away in most cases.

The EMA isn't a political institution. Do you feel it's inherently slower because it is EU based or what?

gmisk

HalfAndHalf wrote: »

10-12 so far, can’t find the list at the moment but it was posted yesterday.

Is that emergency use only or full use?
Big difference

gmisk

noodler wrote: »

Well, our first port of call for the GP/Pharmacist administering route was heavy use of Astra to vaccinate the over 70s.

What do we do now?

Skip them? Ask them to go to mass vaccination centres where the Pfizer one can be stored? Wait an age for Moderna to be available on sufficient supplies.

Or target the under 65 with the oxford one and get them back to work, and start opening things up again....

HalfAndHalf

noodler wrote: »

The EU has part funded vaccines months ago and signed several APAs in September, October and November despite EMA approval for those vaccines being months away in most cases.

The EMA isn't a political institution. Do you feel it's inherently slower because it is EU based or what?

I’m saying it’s inherently slower because it is proving to be slower. I’m not the only one saying this and it’s even being said themselves that it could have been faster.

Why would I be happy that a vaccine that would enable a more normal is taking longer than it could have taken? Are you happy to be stuck in perpetual states of lockdown for longer than necessary?

HalfAndHalf

gmisk wrote: »

Is that emergency use only or full use?
Big difference

Please feel free to check yourself, I’m not a research service. Thanks.

Donald Trump

What I can't understand about the EU and your man Ray Bassett is why they keep telling him all this secret inside information that they apparently don't even tell their own insiders!

noodler

HalfAndHalf wrote: »

I’m saying it’s inherently slower because it is proving to be slower. I’m not the only one saying this and it’s even being said themselves that it could have been faster.

Why would I be happy that a vaccine that would enable a more normal is taking longer than it could have taken? Are you happy to be stuck in perpetual states of lockdown for longer than necessary?

Do you have any reason to feel the EMA isn't taking the appropriate amount of time to approve it?



Other than because Astra's home country approved it first?

What is it about the EMA that you think is so uniquely EU that is causing it to be so slow?

HalfAndHalf

noodler wrote: »

Do you have any reason to feel the EMA isn't taking the appropriate amount of time to approve it?



Other than because Astra's home country approved it first?

What is it about the EMA that you think is so uniquely EU that is causing it to be so slow?

Listen, you think it’s acceptable to have taken so long, I don’t. You’re trying to steer the narrative to paint me as an EU hater, the EMA is a decentralised agency of the EU and works on behalf of the EU27. That’s all there is.

The fact is, we’re still waiting and others aren’t. If you’re happy with that then so be it, I’m not.

PCeeeee

HalfAndHalf wrote: »

Ok so my posts have quite clearly criticised the EU’s handling of the procurement and approval of Covid vaccines.

What’s your point? Other than saying you don’t understand I’m criticising them.

I have read all your posts in this thread again. The first was one about grabbing popcorn and brexit bashing. After that you made several references to the EMA's slowness in approving the vaccine. And engaged in various back and forths with a theme that could be crudely described as EU bad, UK good.

I hope both the UK and the EU have successful and speedy vaccination rollout. Its not some kind of competition. That's my point.

noodler

HalfAndHalf wrote: »

Listen, you think it’s acceptable to have taken so long, I don’t. You’re trying to steer the narrative to paint me as an EU hater, the EMA is a decentralised agency of the EU and works on behalf of the EU27. That’s all there is.

The fact is, we’re still waiting and others aren’t. If you’re happy with that then so be it, I’m not.

You just seem angry but you aren't sure why.

dubrov

[QUOTE=PCeeeee;Its not some kind of competition. That's my point.[/QUOTE]

I am afraid it certainly is.
Let's see how long vaccines take to roll out in west Africa

HalfAndHalf

PCeeeee wrote: »

I have read all your posts in this thread again. The first was one about grabbing popcorn and brexit bashing. After that you made several references to the EMA's slowness in approving the vaccine. And engaged in various back and forths with a theme that could be crudely described as EU bad, UK good.

I hope both the UK and the EU have successful and speedy vaccination rollout. Its not some kind of competition. That's my point.

Well the thread started as AZ bashing as representatives of the EU have come out with snide remarks that they don’t believe AZ’s explanation of the delays, and then plenty of comments that they’ve given it to the Brits or the Brits made them do it.

My references to the EMA being slow is because they are still deciding yet it’s been signed off in other countries and has been rolled out for weeks.
This is slower then other countries, therefore, slower.

EU countries approval and rollout of vaccines is 1.97% = slow = bad.

U.K. approval and rollout of vaccines is 10.4% = faster = good.

This isn’t a Brit vs us thing, this is a get back to normal, save lives thing.

PCeeeee

HalfAndHalf wrote: »

Well the thread started as AZ bashing as representatives of the EU have come out with snide remarks that they don’t believe AZ’s explanation of the delays, and then plenty of comments that they’ve given it to the Brits or the Brits made them do it.

My references to the EMA being slow is because they are still deciding yet it’s been signed off in other countries and has been rolled out for weeks.
This is slower then other countries, therefore, slower.

EU countries approval and rollout of vaccines is 1.97% = slow = bad.

U.K. approval and rollout of vaccines is 10.4% = faster = good.

This isn’t a Brit vs us thing, this is a get back to normal, save lives thing.

I guess time will tell what the best strategy was.

HalfAndHalf

noodler wrote: »

You just seem angry but you aren't sure why.

I did post why but deleted it as didn’t seem the right place but if you’re like that then:

My Dad lived over in Essex. He got a small skin cancer last Feb, his March consult was cancelled, Covid hit, he never got another one. By August it had eaten him alive. I haven’t been able to get over to collect his ashes due to travel restrictions, safety concerns of catching Covid while travelling or in the U.K. as it’s been a mess there and I don’t see anytime soon that I can due to more travel restrictions, new variants etc.

The sooner I and we can get a vaccine and a possible vaccine passport the sooner I can get him and bury him!

So thanks but I do know why I’m angry, and for all the ‘biggest trade Union in the world’ they took too long negotiating the cost of the vaccines and now too long to approve. In my humble opinion.

Thanks

Donald Trump

HalfAndHalf wrote: »

Well the thread started as AZ bashing as representatives of the EU have come out with snide remarks that they don’t believe AZ’s explanation of the delays, and then plenty of comments that they’ve given it to the Brits or the Brits made them do it.

My references to the EMA being slow is because they are still deciding yet it’s been signed off in other countries and has been rolled out for weeks.
This is slower then other countries, therefore, slower.

EU countries approval and rollout of vaccines is 1.97% = slow = bad.

U.K. approval and rollout of vaccines is 10.4% = faster = good.

This isn’t a Brit vs us thing, this is a get back to normal, save lives thing.

Would you change your interpretation of those stats if the AZ vaccine is indeed shown to be less effective and lot of those in the UK have received it before it was tested correctly?


Hopefully, if it is true, the only side effect is that they need another jab and that the not-properly-tested one wasn't actually harmful to them

HalfAndHalf

Donald Trump wrote: »

Would you change your interpretation of those stats if the AZ vaccine is indeed shown to be less effective and lot of those in the UK have received it before it was tested correctly?


Hopefully, if it is true, the only side effect is that they need another jab and that the not-properly-tested one wasn't actually harmful to them

Perhaps, if it proves to be true, however I find the timing of the release extremely suspect, and for all the faults the U.K. scientists are some of the best in the world, they’ve seen the data and they’ve had weeks or rollout data to confirm.

You’ve got to question why the EU have been stamping their feet so hard at only getting 30 million doses of it’s not even good enough to use on 20% of the EU population.

Hurrache

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It falls upon germany and EMA to produce the data to support the 8% figure then

Neither have made the claim, just "sources", so nothing falls upon them to produce any data.

HalfAndHalf

Hurrache wrote: »

Neither have made the claim, just "sources", so nothing falls upon them to produce any data.

So it’s a non story then. Sources have said it and AZ have said it’s rubbish so end of story.

Hurrache

HalfAndHalf wrote: »

So it’s a non story then. Sources have said it and AZ have said it’s rubbish so end of story.

It is a story, a big one.

HalfAndHalf

Hurrache wrote: »

It is a story, a big one.

How so? If it’s just sources with no data to back it up then it’s just a game being played to discredit AZ due to their inability to deliver the amount they wanted. A nasty and underhand story but not a big one.

CrabRevolution

Donald Trump wrote: »

What I can't understand about the EU and your man Ray Bassett is why they keep telling him all this secret inside information that they apparently don't even tell their own insiders!

I know the Telegraph have a poor reputation, but you'd imagine they'd at least try and fake having more sources when they want an "expert" to criticise the EU. Ray Bassett gets wheeled out at every opportunity to criticise everything about the EU from a purportedly Irish perspective. Telegraph readers must think he is some form of all powerful megacelebrity in Ireland given how they seek his in depth expertise on everything Irish.

HalfAndHalf

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Its far from end.....this needs explaining....if its not effective on vunerable,whats point in bothering with it

Exactly why this ‘story’ has been published tonight...

Hurrache

HalfAndHalf wrote: »

How so? If it’s just sources with no data to back it up then it’s just a game being played to discredit AZ due to their inability to deliver the amount they wanted. A nasty and underhand story but not a big one.

Lol, yeah, bad EU.

I never said the sources had no data to back it up.

Donald Trump

HalfAndHalf wrote: »

Perhaps, if it proves to be true, however I find the timing of the release extremely suspect, and for all the faults the U.K. scientists are some of the best in the world, they’ve seen the data and they’ve had weeks or rollout data to confirm.

You’ve got to question why the EU have been stamping their feet so hard at only getting 30 million doses of it’s not even good enough to use on 20% of the EU population.

Well the thing about the rollout is that we were told that you need the first dose, plus a top-up and then a follow up a few weeks later and then after that it reaches maximum efficacy.


There was also something at one stage that the UK were going to delay the second dose so as to get more people the first dose.




So they might still not have a "theoretically fully vaccinated" sample to test yet.

Donald Trump

CrabRevolution wrote: »

I know the Telegraph have a poor reputation, but you'd imagine they'd at least try and fake having more sources when they want an "expert" to criticise the EU. Ray Bassett gets wheeled out at every opportunity to criticise everything about the EU from a purportedly Irish perspective. Telegraph readers must think he is some form of all powerful megacelebrity in Ireland given how they seek his in depth expertise on everything Irish.

Well to be fair, he is a former Ambassador to Canada.


It's well known that even compared to other former Ambassadors, former Ambassadors to Canada are particularly expert on infectious diseases.

HalfAndHalf

Hurrache wrote: »

Lol, yeah, bad EU.

I never said the sources had no data to back it up.

No you said they don’t have to back it up, you’d think they would in the scheme of things seeing as these are peoples lives they’re talking about but I guess we’ll see then. You seriously don’t think the timing is suspect no? Mass stamping of feet earlier now the Bilt ‘understand that the EMA in four days time will only approve for use in under 65’s.’

Maybe I’m a cynic but to me that’s very suspect.

Danzy

HalfAndHalf wrote: »

The fact is, we’re still waiting and others aren’t. If you’re happy with that then so be it, I’m not.

This is it.

The EU is currently on track to hit 70% of population done by 2024.

Many others are aiming for that, at current rates, for end of this Summer.

It's not that the EU is a bit behind or hampered by external challenges. It's a profound difference now and no level of Jingoism will distract from the metrics if those who have been dosed and what that tells.

We all surely agree that the EU is a rich and powerful block globally and that Covid 19 and its impact have presented the most stark economic crisis in decades, probably since the end of WW2.

Pity that urgency isn't manifest in Brussels.

Donald Trump

HalfAndHalf wrote: »

No you said they don’t have to back it up, you’d think they would in the scheme of things seeing as these are peoples lives they’re talking about but I guess we’ll see then. You seriously don’t think the timing is suspect no? Mass stamping of feet earlier now the Bilt ‘understand that the EMA in four days time will only approve for use in under 65’s.’

Maybe I’m a cynic but to me that’s very suspect.

What are you suspicious of?


If they don't approve it for over 65's it will still be valid for most of the population and they can prioritise the other ones for over 65's. They still have the same amount of people to vaccinate.

Hurrache

HalfAndHalf wrote: »

No you said they don’t have to back it up, you’d think they would in the scheme of things seeing as these are peoples lives they’re talking about but I guess we’ll see then. You seriously don’t think the timing is suspect no? Mass stamping of feet earlier now the Bilt ‘understand that the EMA in four days time will only approve for use in under 65’s.’

Maybe I’m a cynic but to me that’s very suspect.

I didn't say that either.

My post was very simple, I said Germany or the EMA don't need to provide data to back up the story.

HalfAndHalf

Donald Trump wrote: »

Well the thing about the rollout is that we were told that you need the first dose, plus a top-up and then a follow up a few weeks later and then after that it reaches maximum efficacy.


There was also something at one stage that the UK were going to delay the second dose so as to get more people the first dose.




So they might still not have a "theoretically fully vaccinated" sample to test yet.

Well according to this AZ tested the highest percentage of over 70’s.

https://www.thejournal.ie/factfind-vaccine-trial-age-efficacy-older-people-5286119-Dec2020/

Only those in the know will really know so time will tell.

Hurrache

On one hand It's terrible that the EU are stamping their feet about not getting what they financed and ordered, but

Danzy wrote: »

Pity that urgency isn't manifest in Brussels.

?!?

HalfAndHalf

Donald Trump wrote: »

What are you suspicious of?


If they don't approve it for over 65's it will still be valid for most of the population and they can prioritise the other ones for over 65's. They still have the same amount of people to vaccinate.

Ive made that clear. The timing of this Bild unknown source story the evening of a massive falling out with AZ over delivery amounts.

That’s like me kicking off that my Ferrari is gonna be 3 months late and then telling people they’re rubbish anyway and don’t even go as fast as they say it does.

It it’s just my opinion, clearly I’m more suspicious.

Also, I can’t afford a Ferrari

Donald Trump

HalfAndHalf wrote: »

Well according to this AZ tested the highest percentage of over 70’s.

https://www.thejournal.ie/factfind-vaccine-trial-age-efficacy-older-people-5286119-Dec2020/

Only those in the know will really know so time will tell.

Yeah, there's no real point me and you arguing over it.



I understand the desire to possibly take a calculated risk on one side, and the desire to check and check and check again before giving the go ahead on the other side.


Let the boffins do their stuff. If they make a bollix of it then sure they make a bollix of it. But there is less of a chance of them making a bollix of it than you or I spinning the wheel and taking a guess.

Hurrache

HalfAndHalf wrote: »

Ive made that clear. The timing of this Bild unknown source story the evening of a massive falling out with AZ over delivery amounts.

Der Bild had nothing to do with the falling out between the EU and AZ being a story.

HalfAndHalf

Hurrache wrote: »

Der Bild had nothing to do with the falling out between the EU and AZ being a story.

No one said they did, why would you even say that! Bild printed the story on the over-65s.

Donald Trump

HalfAndHalf wrote: »

Ive made that clear. The timing of this Bild unknown source story the evening of a massive falling out with AZ over delivery amounts.

That’s like me kicking off that my Ferrari is gonna be 3 months late and then telling people they’re rubbish anyway and don’t even go as fast as they say it does.

It it’s just my opinion, clearly I’m more suspicious.

But I don't see any real impact if it is not approved for over 65's.


They can use it on the under 65's.


If they are right (they may or may not be) then suppose the UK gave 500k doses to over 65's, sure that's effectively 500k doses wasted. Because they'd need to go back and give them a different one and those 500k could have protected a heap of under 65's.


I mean even if they restrict it to u65's they don't have "enough". They still need what they ordered and more. The just need to make sure that they keep back enough of the other ones for over 65s now.

HalfAndHalf

Donald Trump wrote: »

But I don't see any real impact if it is not approved for over 65's.


They can use it on the under 65's.


If they are right (they may or may not be) then suppose the UK gave 500k doses to over 65's, sure that's effectively 500k doses wasted. Because they'd need to go back and give them a different one and those 500k could have protected a heap of under 65's.


I mean even if they restrict it to u65's they don't have "enough". They still need what they ordered and more. The just need to make sure that they keep back enough of the other ones for over 65s now.

Agreed, if the story had come out last week I’d have taken it a lot more seriously than tonight after all the giving out.

Danzy

HalfAndHalf wrote: »

Well according to this AZ tested the highest percentage of over 70’s.

https://www.thejournal.ie/factfind-vaccine-trial-age-efficacy-older-people-5286119-Dec2020/

Only those in the know will really know so time will tell.

The Astra Zeneca study also said that immune response was comparable in the two older groups as it was in the youngest.

So the 8% Claim needs to be viewed skeptically at the moment, until proof given.

average_runner

Boris trying to pull one over Europe. Time to hit the uk hard.

Pigeon Chaser

Ah, time to forget about AZ and invest in Sputnik...

HalfAndHalf

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Reads like your a shill for AZ shouting down any/all critism and dismissing the biggest emerging story in the eu tonight out of hand based simply on their word




Something stinks about all involved conduct here...i wouldnt be encouraging anyone to take this until its ironed out....fighting over distribution,clear implications of improprity of astra,now claims as low as 8% effective in over 65s

Well that isn’t what I’m going for, to be honest I’m amazed I seem to be the only one saying this is suspect at best timing.

How would it explain the U.K. scientists completely missing this data.
How would it explain AZ getting away with submitting false data
How would it explain the EMA taking until today to discover the data submitted was incorrect.

Something doesn’t add up. Surely it’s not just me who thinks that?!?

Widdensushi

I doubt if it suddenly becomes less efficient on your 65th birthday, I doubt many over 40 would be volunteering for that vaccine when they could wait for another.

Danzy

Hurrache wrote: »

On one hand It's terrible that the EU are stamping their feet about not getting what they financed and ordered, but


?!?

Did you mean to quote some one else?

My only concern is that the EU is falling so far in the vaccine problem.

It's not just occurred this week or with Astra Zeneca.

It's refreshing to see some anger tonight, badly needed and hopefully a sign that there will be a Volte-face in attitudes and seriousness on this.

There is a growing risk now that the EU will be facing another wave next Autumn or longer restrictions than others due to the mess now developing and that isn't down to just Astra Zeneca.