European Union's vaccination performance

humberklog

Deleted User wrote: »

I think the Germans would have done a great job of it if they had gone alone. Instead they are slowed down by the politics bureaucracy side of the EU.

What makes you say that? I would've thought Germany would be slow out of that traps and some of the sluggishness of the roll-out is partly, at least, down to Germans.

Beechwoodspark

Bit cynical wrote: »

But they are not really on-topic for either of those threads and the points tend to be lost fairly quickly.

For example there's a thread about AstraZenica but the EU's issues with that company are only a small part of why it is behind in vaccinations.

Similarly on the testing and procedures thread, possibly the EU's approach to testing and procedures is a factor but again it is likely to be only a small part of the bigger picture. To bring up the EU in this thread is again to detract from the main purpose of that thread.

Sure, if we go back to say 56 days, the drop in daily deaths for the UK becomes more precipitous and is would be among the lowest of the EU countries were it still a member.



I fully agree that the UK has had high deaths by European standards but this goes to show the importance of vaccines and what they have achieved with their vaccination programme.

Jasus, the UK death rate was SO HIGH

PMBC

What grabs my eye is the date in the 1st graph where UK and EU cross over, thats where the UK 'takes off'.

Perhaps thats very obvious to others.

A lot of us would like to have the same percentage of population vaccinated as but not their deaths.

Beechwoodspark

PMBC wrote: »

What grabs my eye is the date in the 1st graph where UK and EU cross over, thats where the UK 'takes off'.

Perhaps thats very obvious to others.

A lot of us would like to have the same percentage of population vaccinated as but not their deaths.

So that chart shows all EU deaths vs UK deaths???

My god, the UK were really, really bad in terms of deaths

Danzy

The UK and US didn't take the viral spread part seriously enough.

They took the vaccine development and rollout very serious though.

The EU didn't take it seriously and still don't to a degree to be a problem.

Across much of the continent there is currently a giant experiment going on, ignore the new variant, go easy on vaccines and hope it works out.

It's probably going to be messy for a few months.

humberklog

humberklog wrote: »

What makes you say that? I would've thought Germany would be slow out of that traps and some of the sluggishness of the roll-out is partly, at least, down to Germans.

Because their own German company Pfizer had offered to supply hundreds of millions of vaccines, but their offer was declined because politically the EU insisted that half of the vaccines must come from the French company Sanofi. Only problem is Sanofi won't have a vaccine ready until later in the year. So this slowed everything down. If Germany went alone they could have vaccinated their entire population with the Pfizer vaccine.

astrofool

astrofool wrote: »

There's a few reasons for the slower EU rollout:

• There wasn't a need to take as many risks as the death count and infection rates were lower than countries like the UK and US (which was one of the reasons UK travel was stopped to the continent due to the Kent variant)

So in a list of reasons for the EU rolling out slowly the first one you think of is that they didn't feel any need to hurry? Christ.

Bit cynical

Countries ahead of the EU in terms of vaccinations administered per capita to date.

sameoldname

Deleted User wrote: »

Because their own German company Pfizer had offered to supply hundreds of millions of vaccines, but their offer was declined because politically the EU insisted that half of the vaccines must come from the French company Sanofi. Only problem is Sanofi won't have a vaccine ready until later in the year. So this slowed everything down. If Germany went alone they could have vaccinated their entire population with the Pfizer vaccine.

I actually don't think anything you just said is true, Firstly, Pfizer is an American company, not German. Secondly, the initial orders were;

600m Pfizer/BioNTech
400m AZ
400m J&J
300m Sanofi/GSK

Then later deals were;

405m CureVac
160m Moderna

So they ordered double the amount of Pfizer than Sanofi, neither of which were anywhere near half of the total order.

Nermal

astrofool wrote: »

The EU did not go the US route of ringfencing all vaccines until they were done, which should be applauded, unless we think that an Irish person not getting to go on holiday for a while is worth more than someone dead in a non EU country.

The EU's duty is to its own citizens first. By not banning exports, it failed that duty.

sameoldname

Nermal wrote: »

The EU's duty is to its own citizens first. By not banning exports, it failed that duty.

The EU is still exporting vaccines.

Padre_Pio

sameoldname wrote: »

The EU is still exporting vaccines.

They're not exporting 2/3 of their vaccines.
The EU is failing compared to the US and UK.

sameoldname

Padre_Pio wrote: »

They're not exporting 2/3 of their vaccines.

So you agree, the EU is still exporting vaccines?

Padre_Pio wrote: »

The EU is failing compared to the US and UK.

The UK and US are failing compared to Israel and the UAE.

Danzy

sameoldname wrote: »

The UK and US are failing compared to Israel and the UAE.

All levels of desperation in this post.

Development and rollout is where the EU vaccination programme became a farce.

No reason it couldn't have vaccinated itself and exported in a timely fashion.

astrofool

Deleted User wrote: »

So in a list of reasons for the EU rolling out slowly the first one you think of is that they didn't feel any need to hurry? Christ.

Is that really what you got out of that line? Really?

The EU didn't need to take as many risks as the UK has because the EU death rate was less than half of that of the UK, the UK was heading into an uncontrollable tipping point, so they had to take risks.

The EU is being as fast and as safe as it can be, it's also helped by monitoring all vaccine exports, which should have been done prior to AstraZeneca's mess, as it would have highlighted the exports to the UK sooner, which should have been going to the EU (and again, even if we took all the UK exports away from them, the EU would only be 3-4% better off because of the larger number of people in the EU bloc, there are 40% more people in the EU than the USA, 448M vs. 328M).

sameoldname

Danzy wrote: »

All levels of desperation in this post.

It's amazing that it's my post you have a problem with but not the post I was replying to which was equally desperate.

Danzy wrote: »

Development and rollout is where the EU vaccination programme became a farce.

No reason it couldn't have vaccinated itself and exported in a timely fashion.

A few weeks ago you said it was because the EU didn't sign it's contracts quickly enough, until we found out they signed before the UK. Now you've moved on to this angle. I wonder what position you'll be holding next week?

astrofool

Danzy wrote: »

All levels of desperation in this post.

Development and rollout is where the EU vaccination programme became a farce.

No reason it couldn't have vaccinated itself and exported in a timely fashion.

See, this is horse manure, you're essentially saying f*ck the world, we're alright, on you go and die. The EU exported vaccines outside of the EU happening right now will save more lives per vaccine than any future "timely" exports. The US and UK used to be world leaders, now they're being completely bypassed by the EU, China and Russia, and they'll wonder in the future how they lost their place in the world, right now is why, they have an opportunity to help, and they're not doing so.

Beechwoodspark

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Jasus, the UK death rate was SO HIGH

Ireland and the UK have just come out of the wave mainland Europe is now getting in to.

That’s my belief anyway.

Nermal

astrofool wrote: »

See, this is horse manure, you're essentially saying f*ck the world, we're alright, on you go and die.

Not at all. Exporting vaccines is great, with one caveat: one only does it after one's own citizens have been vaccinated first.

We're aware that policy would lead to more deaths in global terms: so what? Being in the club is supposed to have benefits. Otherwise, what's the point?

Padre_Pio

astrofool wrote: »

See, this is horse manure, you're essentially saying f*ck the world, we're alright, on you go and die. The EU exported vaccines outside of the EU happening right now will save more lives per vaccine than any future "timely" exports. The US and UK used to be world leaders, now they're being completely bypassed by the EU, China and Russia, and they'll wonder in the future how they lost their place in the world, right now is why, they have an opportunity to help, and they're not doing so.

That's not it at all.

Export away, but why is the EU absolutely miles behind the US and UK. There's no comparison.

US is near 50 doses per capita.
EU countries range between 15 and 25.

You can't explain this away as "exports".

Is the EU exporting half or 2/3 of its vaccines? Definitely not.
Also, the excuse of UK and US having higher death rate so they're more enthusiastic about vaccination is bullsh*t.

So what's the reason, other than they're doing something wrong.

sameoldname wrote: »

So you agree, the EU is still exporting vaccines?
The UK and US are failing compared to Israel and the UAE.

Israel and the UAE are not comparable to the EU. Pop. maybe 10 million each. Also, it's public knowledge they paid a hefty premium for jabs, and Israel offered its population as a control sample for pharma. UAE is using Sinopharm, which isn't available in Europe.

astrofool

Padre_Pio wrote: »

That's not it at all.

Export away, but why is the EU absolutely miles behind the US and UK. There's no comparison.

US is near 50 doses per capita.
EU countries range between 15 and 25.

You can't explain this away as "exports".

Is the EU exporting half or 2/3 of its vaccines? Definitely not.
Also, the excuse of UK and US having higher death rate so they're more enthusiastic about vaccination is bullsh*t.

So what's the reason, other than they're doing something wrong.

There is physically not enough vaccines produced to have gone any faster, Pfizer who is doing the heavy lifting hadn't meant to be the primary vaccine but huge failure on the ramp up of the AZ vaccine left a huge gap in expected supply. Since Pfizer has proved successful, it is now doing the heavy lifting and new manufacturing and other producers have been brought online.

humberklog

astrofool wrote: »

Is that really what you got out of that line? Really?

The EU didn't need to take as many risks as the UK has because the EU death rate was less than half of that of the UK, the UK was heading into an uncontrollable tipping point, so they had to take risks.

The EU is being as fast and as safe as it can be, it's also helped by monitoring all vaccine exports, which should have been done prior to AstraZeneca's mess, as it would have highlighted the exports to the UK sooner, which should have been going to the EU (and again, even if we took all the UK exports away from them, the EU would only be 3-4% better off because of the larger number of people in the EU bloc, there are 40% more people in the EU than the USA, 448M vs. 328M).

This post comes across more like thinking of the crisis in a political or emotional manner. It doesn't come across as understanding what's required to handle the virus with a vaccine in effective scientific manner.

This situation reminds me of the instruction your given on an airline flight if the cabin decompresses- put you oxygen mask on first and then assist others.
Israel, UAE, UK and the USA are in my opinion doing the right thing. The EU is scrabbling about the cabin looking for their kids.

sameoldname

Padre_Pio wrote: »

That's not it at all.

Export away, but why is the EU absolutely miles behind the US and UK. There's no comparison.

US is near 50 doses per capita.
EU countries range between 15 and 25.

You can't explain this away as "exports".

Is the EU exporting half or 2/3 of its vaccines? Definitely not.
Also, the excuse of UK and US having higher death rate so they're more enthusiastic about vaccination is bullsh*t.

So what's the reason, other than they're doing something wrong.

The EU has exported 77 million doses and received 88 million. So nearly half.

Padre_Pio wrote: »

Israel and the UAE are not comparable to the EU. Pop. maybe 10 million each. Also, it's public knowledge they paid a hefty premium for jabs, and Israel offered its population as a control sample for pharma. UAE is using Sinopharm, which isn't available in Europe.

I never compared the EU to those countries.

sameoldname

humberklog wrote: »

This post comes across more like thinking of the crisis in a political or emotional manner. It doesn't come across as understanding what's required to handle the virus with a vaccine in effective scientific manner.

This situation reminds me of the instruction your given on an airline flight if the cabin decompresses- put you oxygen mask on first and then assist others.
Israel, UAE, UK and the USA are in my opinion doing the right thing. The EU is scrabbling about the cabin looking for their kids.

If the EU were to have done as you suggested then Israel would have zero vaccines as their entire supply came from the EU and the UK would have less than half. If we went about it in a scientific manner then vaccines would be distributed to the areas most in need regardless of which nation they are manufactured or who paid what or signed when. But that's not what's happened, thus it is very much political and emotional.

HalfAndHalf

astrofool wrote: »

Is that really what you got out of that line? Really?

The EU didn't need to take as many risks as the UK has because the EU death rate was less than half of that of the UK, the UK was heading into an uncontrollable tipping point, so they had to take risks.

The EU is being as fast and as safe as it can be, it's also helped by monitoring all vaccine exports, which should have been done prior to AstraZeneca's mess, as it would have highlighted the exports to the UK sooner, which should have been going to the EU (and again, even if we took all the UK exports away from them, the EU would only be 3-4% better off because of the larger number of people in the EU bloc, there are 40% more people in the EU than the USA, 448M vs. 328M).

Sorry but the death rate comment just isn’t true.

The EU as of today have had 615,000 deaths and the U.K. 127,000.

So adjusting to equate between the EU and U.K. populations the EU have approx 102,000

Hardy half, and Italy with a 10% smaller population than the U.K. have 109,000 deaths on its own.

boege

Some surprising views in this thread.

Vaccines are made by companies not countries. Countries get vaccines by negotiating supply agreements with companies that make the vaccines. The EU negotiated their supply agreement a good 6 months or more after the UK and US.

The EU reaction now is to attempt to control exports out of the EU because rightly or wrongly the UK and US did priority deals with the vaccine companies that succeeded. Those priority deals are being supplied from sites all over the world because its legal.

The UK funded huge amounts (€70m) of vaccine research in Oxford University and even blocked Oxford licensing the vaccine technology to a US pharma company - I assume because they guessed Trump would control supply out of US. There is a lot of 'side-talk' that the Oxford licence agreement with Az requires Az to give priority supply to UK. (My job involves licensing technology). This is probably why the EU went public on their supply agreement.

The EU funded huge amounts (€100m) of vaccine research in BioNTech but did not block or mandate EU supply provisions in the licensing agreement with Pfizer, a US company. EU has now accused US and UK of having 'systems in place that effectively blocked the export of COVID-19 vaccines'.

Moderna, Pfizer and J&J will all hit US supply agreement targets in March with 240m vaccines supplied by the end of the month. Pfizer alone will supply between 100-120m vaccines in the US.

If you come late to the table, you get served last and if you don't even book a seat then you have to wait even longer. One role of government is to look after the well being of their people. The UK and US seem to be doing that well.

sameoldname

boege wrote: »

Some surprising views in this thread.

Vaccines are made by companies not countries. Countries get vaccines by negotiating supply agreements with companies that make the vaccines. The EU negotiated their supply agreement a good 6 months or more after the UK and US.

The EU reaction now is to attempt to control exports out of the EU because rightly or wrongly the UK and US did priority deals with the vaccine companies that succeeded. Those priority deals are being supplied from sites all over the world because its legal.

The UK funded huge amounts (€70m) of vaccine research in Oxford University and even blocked Oxford licensing the vaccine technology to a US pharma company - I assume because they guessed Trump would control supply out of US. There is a lot of 'side-talk' that the Oxford licence agreement with Az requires Az to give priority supply to UK. (My job involves licensing technology). This is probably why the EU went public on their supply agreement.

The EU funded huge amounts (€100m) of vaccine research in BioNTech but did not block or mandate EU supply provisions in the licensing agreement with Pfizer, a US company. EU has now accused US and UK of having 'systems in place that effectively blocked the export of COVID-19 vaccines'.

Moderna, Pfizer and J&J will all hit US supply agreement targets in March with 240m vaccines supplied by the end of the month. Pfizer alone will supply between 100-120m vaccines in the US.

If you come late to the table, you get served last and if you don't even book a seat then you have to wait even longer. One role of government is to look after the well being of their people. The UK and US seem to be doing that well.

Except the EU signed their contract with AstraZeneca the day before the UK signed theirs. The same contract that stated that AstraZeneca had no competing contracts that would hinder deliveries to the EU. Haven't we been through all of this?

Padre_Pio

astrofool wrote: »

There is physically not enough vaccines produced to have gone any faster.

But that's not true, since the US is vaccinating like crazy with the Pfizer vaccine. They are vaccinating three times more people per week than the EU.
So clearly there is plenty to go around, but the EU aren't getting them.

sameoldname wrote: »

The EU has exported 77 million doses and received 88 million. So nearly half.

Well now isn't that atrocious.

selectamatic

Beasty wrote: »

I think one of the biggest issue with the European Medicines Agency was pre-Brexit it was based in the UK. Hence the UK inherited a large amount of expertise in this area. Add to that the EU just takes longer to agree things. Hence the UK politicians wee pressing for rapid approval of vaccines while the EU were prevaricating, asking additional questions of the vaccine makers leaving EU member states behind the likes of particularly the UK

Hence to some extent it's a quirk of history and in particular Brexit, but it also highlights the inefficient way the EU can operate with virtually no visibility of EU leaders, and no EU-wide direction at crucial times during this pandemic

Another main part of the delay came from Astrazeneca themselves.

Vaccine approved in uk on the 30th of December 20 Astrazeneca didn't even send a cma to the EMA until the 12th of January 21.


https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/ema-receives-application-conditional-marketing-authorisation-covid-19-vaccine-astrazeneca

sameoldname

Padre_Pio wrote: »

But that's not true, since the US is vaccinating like crazy with the Pfizer vaccine. They are vaccinating three times more people per week than the EU.
So clearly there is plenty to go around, but the EU aren't getting them.

But the US isn't exporting, so how can there be plenty to go around when the US is using all of them?

Padre_Pio wrote: »

Well now isn't that atrocious.

What's atrocious is you being "sure" that they weren't exporting that much about an hour ago. Google isn't hard.