covid-19

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

That's seems like quite a serious loss for AZN. Granted, the punishment isn't as bad as it could have been, but the ruling defines 'best efforts' in a way entirely not compatible with the current practices.

In making azn liable for 30% of the court fees, the court clearly does not give any kind of win to azn. The commission gets a slap on the wrist for being sloppy making this deal.

---

I'm not even sure they get much of a slap on the wrist for being sloppy. The ruling gives a clear indication of AZN's culpability from the perspective of Belgian law. The court found that AZN's actions were extremely blameworthy and in no way excused by any provisions of the contract. Indeed, it reasons at some length about how specific actions seemingly constitute clear violations of AZN's contractual "best reasonable efforts" obligations as well as violations of their general obligation to be faithful to the letter and spirit of the contract wrt truthfulness, transparency, etc (afaict the same reasoning I have laid out previously wrt article 13 of the APA among others).

The interesting thing is that English media is trying to portray the reasoning re. the EU's contracts not having priority over other contracts as a win for AZN. While it isn't a material win for the EU, the reasoning indicates that AZN is at fault, even though there can be no adequate remedy for the EU—because of conflicts with other contracts, over which the court lacks jurisdiction. This is a reaffirmation of something that has been pointed out repeatedly in the public, media and forum debate: valid contracts don't take priority over conflicting valid contracts unless that priority is specifically provided for by the contracts in question; you must honor your contracts—and contractually stipulate what priority they have wrt other contracts if you intend to prioritize between them. There is no "first come, first served" unless that condition is explicitly stipulated in the signed contract. Only incompetent jokers whose word means nothing—and who cannot be taken seriously in business matters—have difficulties understanding that businesses must, in principle, honor their contracts.

In legal circles it counts as a slap on the wrist. But it's obvious that AZN didn't come out as the winner.

It's at the least a stern warning for the near future. If AZN doesn't clean up its act it could become very expensive.

In pharma, anything you can get away with is a win then and there :o and anything you can't get away with is cost of doing business. Sad state of affairs—and so incredibly unnecessary in light of Pfizer/BioNTech's much more amicable relationship with the Commission despite major issues earlier this year. The English culture contagion corrupts everything it touches; AZN has wasted everyone's time, energy, and money, out of a compulsion to put on a show for the benefit of the English tabloid reader.

But, did they get away with it? One of the biggest buyers of Corona vaccines officially got confirmed that they were hoodwinked by a supplier of vaccines.

I don't have the idea that vaccination will be done any time soon. Not even in countries with high numbers of vaccinated people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

In pharma, anything you can get away with is a win then and there :o and anything you can't get away with is cost of doing business. Sad state of affairs—and so incredibly unnecessary in light of Pfizer/BioNTech's much more amicable relationship with the Commission despite major issues earlier this year. The English culture contagion corrupts everything it touches; AZN has wasted everyone's time, energy, and money, out of a compulsion to put on a show for the benefit of the English tabloid reader.

---

The European Union has lost a court case in a Belgian court versus a Swedish company, AstraZeneca AB.

Only in your hatefilled eyes would the English have anything to do with it. Nobody English was involved here. :haha:

But sure, keep your hate campaign up against the Swedish company making vaccines not for profit rather than addressing the fact that your politicians fucked this up royally.

Its not just Reuters and every other mainstream news agency, even the Grauniad is acknowledging that the EU lost its court case today: https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...-covid-vaccine

That some are so Trumpian that they wish to portray this as a victory for the EU politicians, and that the Swedish company producing lifesaving vaccines not for profit is at fault here, is as perverted as Trumpians saying that 6 January was a false flag.

The EU's contract with Sweden's AstraZeneca AB has delivered 70 million doses already. Given that European nations have rightly albeit belatedly switched to a one dose strategy, and given that one dose is 75% effective against hospitalisation, that's probably saved tens of thousands of lives and not for profit. But keep shovelling your scorn on the company saving lives not for profit rather than questioning politicians spin and lies. Proper GOP-level delusions there.

EDIT: Also the BBC confirming the EU lost the case. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-57531064

Incidentally Aimless keeps mistakenly quoting the hack before who claimed that the judgement said that AZN AB had failed to provide reasonable efforts, actually the judgement didn't settle this. It just says they may have, which is not the same thing, a further court case potentially in September would be required to determine that it wasn't a part of this judgement. Not that the Trumpians who twist everything to suit their agenda will acknowledge this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

The cultists are the people who think post-vaccines that masks etc are still required. Vaccines have done the job, the risk of collapse of healthcare is over. Not all countries have rolled out vaccines yet, but those that have, it is time to get back to normal - and let it be on businesses and customers what they want to do. I wouldn't visit that shop, but if others want to that's a free society.

Its farcical that they're still required here by law. The government here is doing a terrible job in still infringing civil liberties months after the threats of the NHS being overwhelmed were dealt with and eliminated. :rolleyes: :down:

---

I never used a mask, but if I am sincere I love the ability to prevent other diseases. People washing hands prevent "digestive problems", so to speak, and also flu is harder to get. I am not surrounded by the political absurdity of very changing mandatory ludicrousness that other nations have. In the past when someone coughed and you sprayed alcohol, for some reason spitting virus was not seen as rude but spaying alcohol that is clean is. I have enjoyed lockdowns a lot. Commuting was a hassle and the idea of having to deal with aggressive drivers on the street made me roll eyes. Staying at home is the best.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

But, did they get away with it? One of the biggest buyers of Corona vaccines officially got confirmed that they were hoodwinked by a supplier of vaccines.

I don't have the idea that vaccination will be done any time soon. Not even in countries with high numbers of vaccinated people.

---

Well, they've gotten away with it—for the time being—in the sense that there is no adequate remedy for their breach of contract, so all they have to do is carry on. The other lawsuit will be kinda post festum—even with an ongoing need for vaccines globally—and any future fines aren't likely to be commensurate to the magnitude of their transgression; it'll just be cost of doing business. Once the pandemic proper is declared to be "over", AZN will be able to charge more, and will have scaled up production enough to recoup any fines that might come their way. Even if the court hadn't found that AZN was at fault, the EU wouldn't have ordered any additional vaccines from them anyway. At most, they're making less money than they might've made otherwise, but it's money they couldn't have counted on anyway. Not really too bothered—just pleased that the court arrived at the same conclusions as others who'd recognized AZN's breach of contract, using essentially the same reasoning, while rejecting asinine arguments implying businesses don't have to honor their contracts. I can't begin to describe how repulsive that perspective was, to me—the notion that one can negotiate a contract to deliver a product... and then welch on it because one overpromised in a contract with another customer, like a worthless bullshitter whose word means nothing. Hopefully, this will be confirmed in the other lawsuit :up:

What a great outcome all around it seems.

The company generating life-saving vaccines and distributing them at cost price can claim victory because the court found it was in the right and all the requested sanctions against it were entirely dismissed in full.

The politicians who fucked up their procurement and chose to obfuscate have had all the sanctions they were claiming should be enforced rejected in full, but they can still pretend they won.

Everyone's a winner! Everyone can be happy. What a nice story to end on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

Well, they've gotten away with it—for the time being—in the sense that there is no adequate remedy for their breach of contract, so all they have to do is carry on. The other lawsuit will be kinda post festum—even with an ongoing need for vaccines globally—and any future fines aren't likely to be commensurate to the magnitude of their transgression; it'll just be cost of doing business. Once the pandemic proper is declared to be "over", AZN will be able to charge more, and will have scaled up production enough to recoup any fines that might come their way. Even if the court hadn't found that AZN was at fault, the EU wouldn't have ordered any additional vaccines from them anyway. At most, they're making less money than they might've made otherwise, but it's money they couldn't have counted on anyway. Not really too bothered—just pleased that the court arrived at the same conclusions as others who'd recognized AZN's breach of contract, using essentially the same reasoning, while rejecting asinine arguments implying businesses don't have to honor their contracts. I can't begin to describe how repulsive that perspective was, to me—the notion that one can negotiate a contract to deliver a product... and then welch on it because one overpromised in a contract with another customer, like a worthless bullshitter whose word means nothing. Hopefully, this will be confirmed in the other lawsuit :up:

---

You are forgetting an important part of the procedure ; in a civil case in a Belgian court, the judge is passive. That means he will not award anything that isn't demanded. I don't know all the details of the case the Commission brought to court. But if they didn't demand any type of compensation for doses not delivered on time because of shortcomings of azn, they would not get any. The reason why I mention this is because because the court rejected compensation for future delays after the July deliveries. What has not happened yet can't be penalized was the obvious reason for this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

You are forgetting an important part of the procedure ; in a civil case in a Belgian court, the judge is passive. That means he will not award anything that isn't demanded. I don't know all the details of the case the Commission brought to court. But if they didn't demand any type of compensation for doses not delivered on time because of shortcomings of azn, they would not get any. The reason why I mention this is because because the court rejected compensation for future delays after the July deliveries. What has not happened yet can't be penalized was the obvious reason for this.

---

Hmm, I interpreted the ruling as saying that the court ordered fines for delays of ordered deliveries past each of the three deadlines (in July, August, and September)—15m, 20m, and 15m respectively. The Commission sought a much more harsh penalty of 10 EUR per dose per day, but the court ordered only 10 EUR per dose per period. I can't tell whether the Commission sought penalties for delays past an earlier deadline than the ones the court set out—I just assumed they had.

Second shot is in. Pfizer.

Swedish media reporting that a group of companies all seem to have issued fraudulent covid status certificates, to something like 100k people—at $175 a pop—and many of the suspects are in the wind. These certificates were used for a variety of purposes, but my guess is they were primarily used for travel. As far as authorities have been able to determine, no PCR tests were actually done, so it's likely at least some people who were infected and contagious were able to travel as a result of this scheme who wouldn't have been able to do so otherwise. Several of the people implicated are physicians, but it's a long list of colorful characters and a whole bunch of companies who have been profiting off of Sweden's increasingly deregulated healthcare & welfare sectors for years. Anyway, dang.

And people say the Nordic countries don't know how to embrace capitalism. . .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

And people say the Nordic countries don't know how to embrace capitalism. . .

---

everyone involved is an immigrant so it still checks out

It wouldn't surprise me if that happened here as well. For reasons I don't quite understand the government here won't let its gigantic testing infrastructure issue certificates. So all the testing for travel is done by private companies.

By the way; the first shot had next to no side effects (a little soreness in my arm), the second one didn't even cause that much. Taking off the band-aid caused more discomfort than the vaccination.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flixy

https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/20/europ...ntl/index.html

:bulb:

---

And he's been found dead. I guess that was the best outcome in this situation..

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...jurgen-conings

Twitter Link

Twitter Link

Stupid imbecilic innumerate antivaxx bullshit continuing lockdown today. Inexcusable mendacity, biggest mistake of the entire pandemic.

Friday PHE report dump:

https://assets.publishing.service.go...riefing_16.pdf

https://assets.publishing.service.go...iant_DELTA.pdf

https://assets.publishing.service.go...a_Update_6.pdf

https://assets.publishing.service.go...week_24_v2.pdf

My Eldest sister, who's got serious health issues, serious enough to make the chances of her surviving covid-19 zero, still hasn't been vaccinated. She lives in a small village in North-west France so the risks she runs are limited. Still, she could have made an appointment for a vaccination of her choice weeks ago, but she's holding off. What's craziest about this is that she is aware of the fact that her fears of the risks of vaccination aren't rational.

Has she fallen for antivaxx conspiracy theories, or is she just scared of the needle or is there something else at play?

Hope she's ok and doesn't catch it but with the Delta variant rising across the world the odds of evading the virus indefinitely without a vaccine don't look good.

A friend of ours with kidney problems is also not getting the vaccine because she's worried about the long term effects. I did the rational unemotional approach trying to counter her worries, but it's her decision and her worries, so I dropped it.

That's the real damage the anti-vax movement has caused. Upping the uncertainty just enough so reasonable people start to doubt or having second thoughts, without having to buy into the anti-vaxxer bullshit.

Much of the disinformation tracks back to Russia - and there's over half a million dead Russians now so they're practicing what they preach.

Almost as if Putin doesn't care if either westerners or his own people die - and he's quite content to see the virus cull his elderly demographics, while seeing the west mired in discord.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust

A friend of ours with kidney problems is also not getting the vaccine because she's worried about the long term effects. I did the rational unemotional approach trying to counter her worries, but it's her decision and her worries, so I dropped it.

That's the real damage the anti-vax movement has caused. Upping the uncertainty just enough so reasonable people start to doubt or having second thoughts, without having to buy into the anti-vaxxer bullshit.

---

I have to admit that this is one thing that I just don't understand, at all. Normally I try pretty hard to grok the position of someone I disagree with, even if I might continue to disagree. But the whole anti-vax thing is one I can't really wrap my head around. At least with other conspiracy theories or commonly held wrong beliefs, there's a self-serving reason underlying it all (even if it's as simple as being able to blame someone else for your woes). But with the anti-vaxxer types it doesn't even pass that litmus test.

One could, theoretically, make an entirely self-interested case that young people and children shouldn't be vaccinated because the personal benefit accruing to them may indeed be less than the personal risk (though both are quite small). But when weighed against the substantial and obvious benefits that accrue to the populace as a whole, this position is so unethical it borders on monstrous. Furthermore, given the awful effect the resulting restrictions has had on jobs and daily life, it's hard to really spin this as 'little personal risk'.

I know that I'm often too ready to put my faith in technological solutions to difficult problems, but this is precisely the sort of problem that is best addressed by a technological fix. I'm, frankly, flabbergasted that people are hesitant or outright refuse to be vaccinated.

I 100% agree with all that wiggin, except the element of children. On the issue of children, its still being weighed up here as to whether to authorise for children or not. The issue is that there is some risk from the vaccine (as there is for all medicines of course) but children are at extremely low risk from Covid. So the question as to whether to vaccinate children not for their own benefit, but for the benefit of others, is far from an open and shut question to answer - certainly not monstrous to stop and think about it. I would lean to say yes vaccinate them, but I would want an absolutely thorough risk analysis. The risk/reward ratio with children is completely different to eg when politicians in some countries went against medical advice to pause vaccine rollouts while the vulnerable weren't vaccinated and hundreds a day were dying.

Though vaccinating the children could be more important in states/countries/regions where a large proportion of adults refuse to get vaccinated, but that too is a question that shouldn't have to come up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

I 100% agree with all that wiggin, except the element of children. On the issue of children, its still being weighed up here as to whether to authorise for children or not. The issue is that there is some risk from the vaccine (as there is for all medicines of course) but children are at extremely low risk from Covid. So the question as to whether to vaccinate children not for their own benefit, but for the benefit of others, is far from an open and shut question to answer - certainly not monstrous to stop and think about it. I would lean to say yes vaccinate them, but I would want an absolutely thorough risk analysis. The risk/reward ratio with children is completely different to eg when politicians in some countries went against medical advice to pause vaccine rollouts while the vulnerable weren't vaccinated and hundreds a day were dying.

Though vaccinating the children could be more important in states/countries/regions where a large proportion of adults refuse to get vaccinated, but that too is a question that shouldn't have to come up.

---

I think that as we get more contagious variants that show more transmissibility in kids the calculus will become much more clear cut.

Obviously we don't have a good handle on the risks to the under 12 set just because the data isn't in yet; however, assuming the risk profile is similar to other young populations (and they show good titers at the dose chosen), I think it would be irresponsible to suggest that cutting off community transmission and a human reservoir for a highly transmissible and deadly disease should be subordinate to very low vaccination risk for one part of the population that has not shown substantial morbidity from that disease.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust

A friend of ours with kidney problems is also not getting the vaccine because she's worried about the long term effects. I did the rational unemotional approach trying to counter her worries, but it's her decision and her worries, so I dropped it.

That's the real damage the anti-vax movement has caused. Upping the uncertainty just enough so reasonable people start to doubt or having second thoughts, without having to buy into the anti-vaxxer bullshit.

---

You've identified one reason for why persuading a person who is hesitant to get vaccinated can be difficult: being rational and "unemotional" often does not help; it's difficult to allay their concerns with arguments. Purely anecdotally, my experience has been that most of the work of persuasion is social, personal, and emotional. One thing we can always do—quite easily—is to gently convey our own positive feelings of anticipation, trust, and relief, implicitly inviting them to share in it. Model positive vaccine feelings; anyone can do it and it takes no effort at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

You've identified one reason for why persuading a person who is hesitant to get vaccinated can be difficult: being rational and "unemotional" often does not help; it's difficult to allay their concerns with arguments. Purely anecdotally, my experience has been that most of the work of persuasion is social, personal, and emotional. One thing we can always do—quite easily—is to gently convey our own positive feelings of anticipation, trust, and relief, implicitly inviting them to share in it. Model positive vaccine feelings; anyone can do it and it takes no effort at all.

---

But what about altering my DNA? Huh?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Being

But what about altering my DNA? Huh?

---

*reassuring, twinkle in eye* it's not gonna do that :)