Where's your criticism of the EU's scheme been? Aimless's? Hazir's?
Its an unmitigated disaster and where is the criticism? Or is it perhaps in your eyes anti-European or taboo to level any criticism?
When some was shared here from a German paper you attacked the source rather than tackle the issue, you moronic joker.
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
Is the EU to blame or is it individual governments and local authorities?
And FT article two days ago on this subject said:
Denmark’s creditable performance, just ahead of the UK on a per capita basis, shows that EU centralised procurement is not responsible for Europe’s faltering start.
I genuinely don't know. The EU was obviously slower to procure and approve, but my understanding is that in return they got a cheaper price and more liability if things go wrong. That's all done now though, I think, and it's now down to individual nations.
Interested in other's thoughts.
The Dutch situation wasn't caused by the EU program. It was caused by privacy-fetishism and late changes to national policies.
Congratulations America
If blame is properly laid on individual states and not the EU, it seems to me that just leads to a further question as to why that happens to be the case? While I mostly steer clear of the topic these days, posters on here probably recall I am not a big fan of "ever closer union." But infectious disease response and control strikes me as one field where it's a marvelous idea.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Agreed.
If there's any area where a unified policy covering a large area/population/many states is beneficial it's in control of an infectious disease.
To answer your first question: Yes.
Yes the EU is to blame and Yes local authorities are to blame too. Two wrongs don't make a right and more than one thing can go wrong.
The flaws with the EU's procurement programme are many and detailed. Try going through the Tweets of the Portugese reporter I linked to before who has done a lot in covering this recently. Then to add insult to injury many nations have badly rolled out what was actually procured, with the Danes being a notable exception.
The EU's procurement scheme has been dominated by the worst forms of European nationalism. Pfizer literally offered the EU hundreds of millions of more doses but the French were unhappy at giving so many extra doses to a German company so they were turned down. Instead the first vaccine signed by the EU was the Sanofi vaccine which not only isn't authorised it hasn't even started its Phase III trial yet! 300 million doses signed first to a French company that may begin Phase III trials in a few months time and could potentially be available by the end of 2021 if the EU is lucky at this rate.
Twitter Link
The FT article was categorically wrong. Denmark was never ahead of the UK on a per capita basis, the FT knowlingly or ignorantly used flawed data that misleadingly gave that impression (they used Danish data that on the day it was released and British data out of date since daily data hadn't started yet). The Danes have done a very good job at using up the supply they received very quickly, but then ran out of supply because they'd used it up - so yes they've done better than the Dutch for instance who have screwed up, but they're still limited by the poor procurement. Well done Denmark for blitzing through what they had but its a shame they've ran out now.
Twitter Link
Twitter Link
Does anyone want to justify the EU prioritising and signing first 300 million doses to French Sanofi knowing full well that it is so far behind in its development that six months after it was signed it still hasn't even begun Phase III trials yet - then being so slow and late to sign the doses for every other scheme like Pfizer and AZN which were well into Phase III when they were being signed up by the rest of the world before the EU.
By the end of July when the EU was busy signing its agreements with Sanofi, which six months later still hasn't begun Phase III, both Pfizer and Astrazenica had both already begun Phase III by that point.
Marvellous if a good job is done.
Terrible if a bad job is done.
Data sharing should be spread out but slow moving decision making during a pandemic is not a strength. The biggest criticism levelled at our PM for instance is that he's sometimes slow to react - the EU by its very nature and way it has been designed is even slower to react as a bloc.
Countries that have done well have done so by acting rapidly not by acting as a sclerotic, Byzantine bloc.
Most of the criticism has come from parties and media in the resp. member states, and has been directed at govts and other authorities in those states, because it is clear that they bear the greatest responsibility for problems.
I'm pretty sure you're wrong and that the results are mostly due to eating roast turkey on holidays.The point is that the criticism has been vocal and consistent in the US and UK, with the results to show for it
Disagree in two respects.
1. It's more or less impossible to unify policy across a bloc consisting of countries that differ greatly wrt institutions, structure & responsibility of healthcare systems, economic features, etc. Policy must be tailored to national and local circumstances.
2. Policies are inextricably entwined with politics, as they involve often significant restrictions on rights. Politicians at those levels are best suited to engage the public and to make sensitive decisions about tradeoffs.
The EU can, however, play an important role in coordinating surveillance—and assisting in procurement and distribution of treatments and vaccines, or the distribution of necessary equipment.
The Portuguese reporter uncritically retweeted an image containing an error. The Sanofi contract was signed on September 18:
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/pres.../en/ip_20_1680
Twitter Link
It was the second contract to be signed. Talks were concluded on July 31. At the time, talks were still ongoing with the others. When a contract is signed depends on the substance & nature of negotiations; presumably, the negotiations with J&J and Sanofi took less time.
The conspiratorial claim re. French appeasement has been rejected. It is also quite stupid to reach for that Francophobic explanation when a far more plausible explanation is that the EU was trying to avoid putting all its eggs in one basket, and, instead, balancing the portfolio in order to hedge against the risk of failure or other unpleasant surprises. The Sanofi vaccine was expected, if successful, to be deployed towards the end of 2021, not only in the EU but also in countries that might need support to gain access to vaccines. Hence, there's nothing strange about backing it before Phase 3 trials had been initiated; indeed, it isn't dissimilar from what you've praised about the UK's approach of backing a broad range of candidates.The EU's procurement scheme has been dominated by the worst forms of European nationalism. Pfizer literally offered the EU hundreds of millions of more doses but the French were unhappy at giving so many extra doses to a German company so they were turned down. Instead the first vaccine signed by the EU was the Sanofi vaccine which not only isn't authorised it hasn't even started its Phase III trial yet! 300 million doses signed first to a French company that may begin Phase III trials in a few months time and could potentially be available by the end of 2021 if the EU is lucky at this rate.
[...]
Does anyone want to justify the EU prioritising and signing first 300 million doses to French Sanofi knowing full well that it is so far behind in its development that six months after it was signed it still hasn't even begun Phase III trials yet - then being so slow and late to sign the doses for every other scheme like Pfizer and AZN which were well into Phase III when they were being signed up by the rest of the world before the EU.
By the end of July when the EU was busy signing its agreements with Sanofi, which six months later still hasn't begun Phase III, both Pfizer and Astrazenica had both already begun Phase III by that point.
“Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
— Bill Gates
Had the EU been purchasing Sanofi on top of Pfizer etc then that would be fair enough, but that isn't the case. The EU quite famously rejected Pfizer's offer of half a billion doses of the vaccine last summer (when Pfizer was already in Phase III) and only purchased an initial 200m doses instead as late as November meaning they're getting their stock distributed behind countries that purchased sooner, while instead going ahead with 300m for Sanofi which still isn't in Phase III.
Yes buying some of everything as it goes into Phase III is a good idea if it is going to be available around now. Rejecting those that are available now in favour of those available at the end of the year is a different matter!
The EU's supply purchases of both Pfizer and Astrazenica were pro rata both much smaller than the UK's purchases and signed much later and getting delivered much later as a result. The UK, like Israel, ensured it purchased its supplies ASAP for those going into Phase III last summer and the gamble is paying off now. The EU instead waited until November to get around to signing a deal with Pfizer, having signed a deal with Sanofi months sooner.
It is borderline corrupt and inexcusable. Had Sanofi been on top of sufficient and prompt orders of Pfizer etc then fair enough, but it was not. Sanofi wasn't another egg it was the key egg they signed, despite knowing it wasn't even in Phase III yet and still is not. The EU rushed to sign an agreement with Sanofi that won't even be available for another year potentially, if ever, by which time the pandemic should frankly be over hopefully - while dawdling until November to get off its arse with Pfizer. And ordering a smaller quantity from Pfizer than from Sanofi.
No wonder the Germans and others have had enough and started signing their own deals with Pfizer because the EU scheme is broken.
Some good news.
Twitter Link
Why are you describing it as a rejection, when it's clear that what actually happened was that they continued negotiating? Talks with Pfizer concluded in early September. Just because a candidate is in phase III doesn't mean that that candidate will pan out—half of all phase III trials fail, and it's difficult to determine whether a completely new technology will pan out.
Do you... do you know what the word "corrupt" even means?It is borderline corrupt and inexcusable.
This is the sort of foaming-at-the-mouth rant that would be more appropriate on The Sun's FB page. The fuck do you mean "Sanofi wasn't another egg it was the key egg" you utter egg? The very first contract that was signed was with AZN—for the same amount of initial doses as for Sanofi, with an optional 100m on top of that. Both AZN & Sanofi were offering logistically preferable candidates, one that might be delivered early and one that might be developed later but using a proven technology. The Sanofi contract was negotiated to allow donations of vaccine doses to other countries that might not be able to manage the cold chain requirements of some of the other candidates. There was no plausible case, back in summer, for the view that the pandemic would be over a year later. I'm sorry mate, but you've clearly lost it. Get a grip.Had Sanofi been on top of sufficient and prompt orders of Pfizer etc then fair enough, but it was not. Sanofi wasn't another egg it was the key egg they signed, despite knowing it wasn't even in Phase III yet and still is not. The EU rushed to sign an agreement with Sanofi that won't even be available for another year potentially, if ever, by which time the pandemic should frankly be over hopefully - while dawdling until November to get off its arse with Pfizer. And ordering a smaller quantity from Pfizer than from Sanofi.
“Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
— Bill Gates
Definitely (to RBs last post)
I was offered the vaccine yesterday. My oncologist says I need a two week break from chemo before I should take it, leaving another week before I go again. Cycle 34 is being pumped into me as I type this so I've got to arrange the jab for 1st, 2nd or 3rd Feb. I wasn't able to make that booking yesterday as my local GP surgery is only making appointments 2 days in advance so I need to ring closer to the time. Hoping I can still get it on those days.
I'm not entirely sure whether my behaviour will change once I've had the vaccine. Certainly I hope my family will relax a little, especially my eldest who has so, so cautious. More cautious than any 11 year should ever have to be.
I would like to go shopping though. Really miss walking round the supermarket. Might feel brave enough to do that.
Having cancer and being on chemo during this ordeal really is the highest order of bullshit.
Last edited by gogobongopop; Yesterday at 03:13 PM.
Let's just summarize:
The UK and US are more successful than the EU wrt vaccination because their governments are subjected to intense criticism from opposition and media, as is the case in those bastions of healthy political dissent and press freedom Bahrain and UAE.
The jealous French corruptly persuaded the Commission to shaft Pfizer & BioNTech because they didn't want Germans getting a big contract, but they were very happy to let the Commission sign an equally ambitious contract with a British company.
The EU is to blame for govts and authorities in member states not being able to deploy even the vaccines that they have been awarded.
Are there any other harebrained ideas you'd like to float or do you think you might want to take a breather and pull yourself together?
“Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
— Bill Gates
Oh that is good news gogo. I'm guessing you're in Priority Group IV (clinically vulnerable) rather than age-related. Very good news if they're booking appointments for you already. Hope it goes through smoothly for you, and doesn't disrupt your fight against cancer. Best wishes!
Correct, group 4 - and thanks
That is very good news mate, I'm glad the UK has been so effective at getting the vaccine to those who need it most. Hope it goes according to plan and that you and your family can have a more relaxed time together
“Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
— Bill Gates
Tack så mycket herrnThat is very good news mate, I'm glad the UK has been so effective at getting the vaccine to those who need it most. Hope it goes according to plan and that you and your family can have a more relaxed time together
Aside from my government fucking up vaccinations, there's also good news: positive cases are still consistently dropping fora while now, and by now hospital occupancy is also dropping
Also had my first test last weekend (was negative), wasn't comfortable but after the stories I heard less bad than expected. Whole proces from making an appointment to getting results was very smooth.
Edit: good news Gogo, hope you can make that appointment when you can get the shot.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
UK vaccinations
11/01 166,474
12/01 223,726
13/01 288,688
England vaccinations
11/01 140,441
12/01 187,645
13/01 248,177
Northern Ireland vaccinations
11/01 7,521
12/01 9,782
13/01 12,454
Scotland vaccinations
11/01 12,664
12/01 16,156
13/01 16,442
Wales vaccinations
11/01 5,218
12/01 10,143
13/01 11,615
Looking on course for the first four groups to be done by 15/2 so long as the ramp up can continue and it doesn't dip too much at weekends.
Everything about this potential scandal is very unclear right now:
Twitter Link
“Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
— Bill Gates
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote