covid-19

[RandBlade]

You call it meaningless but I fully expect that the rollout unanimously considered to be best by the JCVI, all 4 countries CMO and the CEO of Astrazeneca ought to save thousands or tens of thousands of lives.

80% of fatalities are coming from the first 4 priority groups which the UK will have fully dosed once each by middle of February. Skipping half of them so you can give boosters to the other half quicker, against the medical advice being given in this country, seems to me to be a terrible, terrible idea that would risk thousands of extra lives a week being lost.

You act as if rigorously following the 3 week regimen is riskfree, its not it is risking the lives of the 7 million you don't bother vaccinating.

[Aimless]

I think you have not read what I wrote.

[RandBlade]

I have. It was getting too long for a point-by-point reply though.

When even the boss of AstraZeneca is saying the right thing is being done, it is pretty comprehensive.

Another look at thinking of it - ignoring the 100% hospitalisation prevention claim (a claim both AZN and Moderna and Pfizer have all made), then AZN and the MHRA both agree >70% protection from one dose alone. So some quick and dirty numbers . . .

Currently ~1000 people a day are dying.
80% of those from the 4 tiers getting the vaccine rollout. So that's ~800 peoply dying every day from the vulnerable groups.

70% protection for all of those people saves ~560 lives every single day.

Vaccinating only half of those 800 people at 95% means 380 lives saved every single day.

Gambling on only vaccinating half the people means sacrificing ~180 lives a day. It would mean ~1260 extra dead people a week, all else being equal.

[RandBlade]

A Brussels based journalist writes ...

Twitter Link

Still claiming its all due to earlier British approval and the EU paying 1/6th of the amount, signing contracts three months later, hasn't had an impact Aimless?

[Aimless]

You have not read what I wrote; if you had, you would've seen why your comments are either wrong or not relevant—or both.

[Aimless]

Interesting teaser:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03234-7

[RandBlade]

You have not read what I wrote; if you had, you would've seen why your comments are either wrong or not relevant—or both.

I have read what you wrote, but my comments are relevant. The fact is we are operating in the real world and decisions need to be made. Your arguments BTW are logically inconsistent with other arguments you've made elsewhere.

To put into context the JCVI and MHRA have made it clear they believe it is very much worth following the one-dose-for-all-vulnerable-first strategy and you're not happy and complained a few times that their evidence should be put before others first - despite the fact they are the others who provide the advice in the first place. We're in an emergency we don't have time to go for 17th opinions on everything before making a decision. Rollout isn't happening in the future its happening now - so the government either follows the JCVI advice today, or follow some other prescription today going against the JCVI.

On the other hand you quibbled about the government taking a few weeks from when they got the SAGE advice - and took some immediate action but not an immediate lockdown and took the advice of other scientists too. There you condemned them for prevaricating and not immediately acting upon the immediate advice. You didn't say the SAGE advice should be sent for second opinions, or that the lockdown modelling should be sent others to be rigorously tested before acting upon it.

Given the vaccine rollout is happening now, today, how is it any better to not follow the JCVI advice immediately than it is to not follow SAGE advice immediately? Swift action saves lives - and swift action on vaccines will save lives. This is the same thing you've been advocating all thread.

[RandBlade]

Twitter Link

This made me laugh. What an embarrassment that spokesperson is, going full-on Cartman.

Spent 1/6th of the up-front investment, signed the contracts three months late - but can't comprehend why they're back of the queue? Oh diddums.

The UK spent 6x as much as the UK did on vaccine procurement per capita - essentially the same amount as the ENTIRE EU COMBINED - and signed our contracts THREE WHOLE MONTHS earlier - and Aimless thinks that's one whole big coincidence, nothing has gone wrong with the EU's procurement and its AstraZeneca's "scandal" that the EU supply procurement has been a miserable failure . . . if it wasn't so serious and tragic it would be funny.


This is the story of this phase of the pandemic in one chart. A miserable failure to see the woods for the trees.

[Aimless]

I reiterate my request that you actually read what I wrote. You're an adult and presumably educated human being; it should not be this difficult for you to read.

[Aimless]

Actually, I would also like to reiterate my earlier requests that you actually read the things you yourself link to

[gogobongopop]

This is an interesting issue.

On one hand I'm obviously pleased with the UK's approach to purchase and distribute the vaccine on their own. Selfishly speaking it's wonderful and it seems to have been a good decision. An easy decision, of course, given our horrific death rate, but a good one nonetheless.

I have no idea what's in the EU/AZN contract so I don't know whether the EU are right to say that they are not adhering to it.

I'm also pleased that other EU nations didn't decide to do what we did; get in nice and early, spend big and buy the goddamn lot of it. Again, selfishly speaking.

The issue highlights an arguable downside to the EU, which is the speed at which it sometimes operates. Crudely speaking - the more people involved the more complex things become, and the longer things can take. Not always, of course, but it's a reasonable rule of thumb.

However on the other hand I completely understand the EU's decision to attempt to purchase and rollout a vaccine as a block. Given the density of countries and borders, it makes perfect sense to ensure a balanced rollout is achieved. Without this approach I'd be concerned about countries within Europe "competing" against each other; each one buying more than they need and looking out for their own interests only. That would only result in some countries winning and others loosing - ultimately resulting in more deaths and a much longer pandemic. It's also the kind of shit that can start heated conflict and war.

I don't share RB's obvious joy at the trouble the EU is having. I know it's important for him to show the failings of the EU and the success of the UK, but it's pretty poor taste. I hope they get things sorted soon and the contractual volumes of vaccine are delivered as promised.

[RandBlade]

I reiterate my request that you actually read what I wrote. You're an adult and presumably educated human being; it should not be this difficult for you to read.

Learn to read yourself. I've already told you I read it.

If you're incapable of comprehending what that means then brush up your own reading comprehension. If you have something to say then actually say it, don't lie on the floor screaming that others need to do stuff for you. This whole "you need to read" stick when someone reads and disagrees with you is immature and childish. Like threatening to hold your breath until someone agrees with you.

[RandBlade]

I'm also pleased that other EU nations didn't decide to do what we did; get in nice and early, spend big and buy the goddamn lot of it. Again, selfishly speaking.

I'm not overjoyed by it, I am angry.

The EU cut corners. They tried to free ride on the back of us and the USA. They've paid less than a fifth of the development costs then are wondering where the vaccine is. We didn't "buy the goddamn lot of it" we spent billions of pounds, six times what the EU have spent per capita, to build an entirely new manufacturing stream from scratch. The "lot of it" didn't exist, there was nothing to buy, it is being made from scratch.

If the EU had actually put in the billions of Euros they should have done to match our funding then there would be hundreds of millions extra capacity of vaccine rollout this year. It is a shocking dereliction of duty that they didn't bother.

This is the best achievement of the pandemic for the UK - and the worst for Europe - and it is entirely because the EU consciously chose during a pandemic to drag their feet and cut costs. It is dumb, dumb, dumb an absolute disaster. And if they'd invested like we had then Covid could be eliminated from the whole of Europe by the Spring. Because of their failure we're going to be exposed and need to keep border controls for the rest of the year. Summer vacations? Cancel them. Because last year they didn't bother to build up vaccine manufacturing. Idiots!

And what makes it worse is I saw it coming. I was posting about this repeatedly over the last year because the figures were public domain and I knew it was coming but it never got any traction until this week.

Its wrong to view it as a "competition" because there aren't finite quantities of vaccine. We were literally starting from zero quantity. The USA and United Kingdom have both spent billions to build up new manufacturing capacity that did not exist previously. The bloc didn't need to "compete" they needed to pay their own way and do the same bloody thing. They could have spent a few billion euros to build up a dozen new manufacturing plants for the vaccine - that's exactly what the UK did. They're a first world bloc, how the hell can a first world bloc expect to get enough vaccine that doesn't exist for 446 million people without paying for the bloody thing well in advance? India are capable of producing a billion vaccines a year this year, the UK's brand new manufacturing will be producing hundreds of millions - the EU should have put the money in. This was not something to be "austere" over.



The pandemic is costing us £6bn a week with World War II levels of government expenditure and borrowing - spending billions to invest in getting vaccine manufacturing up and running is an absolute no brainer that will pay for itself. Short sighted fools.

[Aimless]

When even the boss of AstraZeneca is saying the right thing is being done, it is pretty comprehensive.

Another look at thinking of it - ignoring the 100% hospitalisation prevention claim (a claim both AZN and Moderna and Pfizer have all made), then AZN and the MHRA both agree >70% protection from one dose alone.

This is a nonsensical appeal to authority. There's nothing unexpected or remarkable about the boss of AZN saying anything, nor is it in any way persuasive. I highlighted several of his remarks in the article that were either wrong or just extremely misleading. Some of these were about the scientific aspects of his—and your—arguments. Some of them were about his claims re. costs, contracts and supply decisions. If you had read the article and read my criticism of its content, you would have been able to understand this. But you didn't, and so you weren't.

So some quick and dirty numbers . . .

Currently ~1000 people a day are dying.
80% of those from the 4 tiers getting the vaccine rollout. So that's ~800 peoply dying every day from the vulnerable groups.

70% protection for all of those people saves ~560 lives every single day.

Vaccinating only half of those 800 people at 95% means 380 lives saved every single day.

Gambling on only vaccinating half the people means sacrificing ~180 lives a day. It would mean ~1260 extra dead people a week, all else being equal.

You have been told—several times, in several different ways—why this type of reasoning is flawed. You have also been told how the argument might be improved. You have failed—repeatedly—to present the kind of evidence that might actually bolster confidence in the strategy being pursued. Asked for models of different scenarios using the strategy being pursued, you have confidently stated that they have been made public, and then on several occasions linked to a source that contains nothing of the sort—as if you simply do not understand what is being asked for. Perhaps because you either can't or won't read.

A Brussels based journalist writes ...

Still claiming its all due to earlier British approval and the EU paying 1/6th of the amount, signing contracts three months later, hasn't had an impact Aimless?

Nothing in that chart shows any proof of any effect of a lower per capita expenditure at the EU level. Do you not understand how to go about determining and showing causation?

Your arguments BTW are logically inconsistent with other arguments you've made elsewhere.

You believe this because you haven't read what I've said—now or previously.

To put into context the JCVI and MHRA have made it clear they believe it is very much worth following the one-dose-for-all-vulnerable-first strategy and you're not happy and complained a few times that their evidence should be put before others first - despite the fact they are the others who provide the advice in the first place.

This is incorrect in two respects.

1. I said they should make their assumptions, data, models and reasoning public so that it can be subject to scrutiny by external experts. It would be an effective way to bolster confidence and encourage others, or, conversely, to elucidate critical flaws and risks. It can't possibly result in any delays—after all, you've claimed that all those things exist and have, indeed, been made public (albeit without being able to show where).

2. You keep having difficulties understanding that external experts in this context refers to experts outside the JCVI—people who are capable of critically appraising their work. It is not relevant that the JCVI is external to your govt. of politicians. Do you think scientists reviewing their own papers counts as peer review? Do you think people should be judges and juries at their own trials?

On the other hand you quibbled about the government taking a few weeks from when they got the SAGE advice - and took some immediate action but not an immediate lockdown and took the advice of other scientists too. There you condemned them for prevaricating and not immediately acting upon the immediate advice. You didn't say the SAGE advice should be sent for second opinions, or that the lockdown modelling should be sent others to be rigorously tested before acting upon it. Given the vaccine rollout is happening now, today, how is it any better to not follow the JCVI advice immediately than it is to not follow SAGE advice immediately? Swift action saves lives - and swift action on vaccines will save lives. This is the same thing you've been advocating all thread.

This is a mischaracterization both of what the govt. was reported to have done, and what I said about it. You should go back and re-read that discussion—or read it, as it were, because it was clear back then as well that you hadn't. It is also a nonsensical comparison; a minister presented cherry-picked politically motivated advice, in secret, in a successful bid to sway the PM—with catastrophic and indeed deadly results. In what way do you think that's comparable to quickly making public sufficiently detailed information about scientific analyses so that they can be subject to scientific scrutiny? Secret is the exact opposite of public. Political is not scientific. Moreover, at that time, we already had sufficient evidence—from several studies—to support the early implementation of lockdown-style interventions in certain scenarios—evidence that drove SAGE to make their recommendations and on which their criticism of the govt's decisions were founded. We did not, however, have evidence to support the dangerously stupid approach that was taken instead. The burden of proof was on the govt.

This made me laugh. What an embarrassment that spokesperson is, going full-on Cartman.

Spent 1/6th of the up-front investment, signed the contracts three months late - but can't comprehend why they're back of the queue? Oh diddums.

The UK spent 6x as much as the UK did on vaccine procurement per capita - essentially the same amount as the ENTIRE EU COMBINED - and signed our contracts THREE WHOLE MONTHS earlier - and Aimless thinks that's one whole big coincidence, nothing has gone wrong with the EU's procurement and its AstraZeneca's "scandal" that the EU supply procurement has been a miserable failure . . . if it wasn't so serious and tragic it would be funny.

You should read the BBC article.

At a news conference earlier on Wednesday, Ms Kyriakides said UK factories, which have not experienced problems, were part of its deal with the company and had to deliver.

In an interview on Tuesday with Italian newspaper La Repubblica, AstraZeneca CEO Pascal Soriot said the contract compelled it to make its "best effort", rather than obliging it to meet a set deadline for delivery of the vaccines.

Ms Kyriakides said this characterisation of the deal was "not correct or acceptable", and called on the company to be "open and transparent" about its production of vaccines.

[...]

The EU reiterated its position after the two sides met on Wednesday evening to try to resolve the issue.

[...]

In a nutshell, here is why EU officials are furious with AstraZeneca. They say the contract between them and the pharmaceutical giant clearly stipulates that the two main vaccine production factories in the UK are to be classed as primary manufacturing sites, and the production sites in Belgium and the Netherlands are secondary priorities.

The vaccine production issues are in Belgium and the Netherlands (they have been producing lower yields). So, this is a no-brainer to EU officials - the UK sites should be used to transport the vaccines across the continent.

[...]

In fact, EU officials point out to me that EU money went into upgrading the facilities in the UK and that they fully expected it to be operational for them.

This is the story of this phase of the pandemic in one chart. A miserable failure to see the woods for the trees.

I'm not sure why you keep posting a chart that clearly shows higher per capita vaccine-development expenditure causes more covid deaths per capita.

If you're incapable of comprehending what that means then brush up your own reading comprehension. If you have something to say then actually say it, don't lie on the floor screaming that others need to do stuff for you.

So here's the thing. For the past half a decade, in every thread, I have had to do your work for you, when it comes to reading and explaining not only what I write and link to but also what you write and link to—because you're a lazy and sloppy reader, and an even sloppier debater. I'm sorry but this is the truth and you need to face up to it. For example, in this latest discussion, you have repeatedly responded to requests for specific kinds of evidence with links that do not contain what was requested. Why do you do this, if it is true, as you claim, that you are capable of reading? Do you do it to waste other people's time and energy? No; you do it because you're lazy and confused. I would be very grateful if you would, in discussions and debates, stop trying to make other people do your work for you. It is such a low bar that it is, frankly, unbelievable that you so consistently fail to reach it.

[Aimless]

The issue highlights an arguable downside to the EU, which is the speed at which it sometimes operates. Crudely speaking - the more people involved the more complex things become, and the longer things can take. Not always, of course, but it's a reasonable rule of thumb.

While this is generally true, I don't believe this is an example of that phenomenon. I believe what happened here reflects the priorities and decisions the EU made, and its expectations; it did not prioritize speed, chose to prioritize—or over-emphasize—clinical and legal risks and did not expect vaccines to be available so soon. The same goes for several individual member states—including my own country. You can ascribe this problem to a number of things—eg. national/institutional/scientific culture, lack of awareness, etc—but I'm not sure lower institutional complexity would've made much of a difference if the deliberate decisions about priorities remained the same.

[Aimless]

In more interesting news, this is pretty cool:

Twitter Link

[RandBlade]

This is a nonsensical appeal to authority. There's nothing unexpected or remarkable about the boss of AZN saying anything, nor is it in any way persuasive. I highlighted several of his remarks in the article that were either wrong or just extremely misleading. Some of these were about the scientific aspects of his—and your—arguments. Some of them were about his claims re. costs, contracts and supply decisions. If you had read the article and read my criticism of its content, you would have been able to understand this. But you didn't, and so you weren't.

Your criticism was absolutely lame. Just because you flail about with bad arguments doesn't mean I need to "understand" your bad arguments. I understood them, I rejected them because they were wrong, they remain your bad arguments that I reject 100%.

You have been told—several times, in several different ways—why this type of reasoning is flawed. You have also been told how the argument might be improved. You have failed—repeatedly—to present the kind of evidence that might actually bolster confidence in the strategy being pursued. Asked for models of different scenarios using the strategy being pursued, you have confidently stated that they have been made public, and then on several occasions linked to a source that contains nothing of the sort—as if you simply do not understand what is being asked for. Perhaps because you either can't or won't read.

No you have claimed - several times - that the reasoning is flawed. You are wrong. You have no PROOF that you are right and I and everyone else are wrong. Models have been made public and I gave you a link that explicitly shows it and its reasoning.

Nothing in that chart shows any proof of any effect of a lower per capita expenditure at the EU level. Do you not understand how to go about determining and showing causation?

Bullshit. No proof of any effect? Apart from the CEO of fucking company that is producing the vaccines blaming the EU's tardines for the mess they're in right now.

I've been warning about this for ages before this blew up. Here's someone I've quoted to you before, and you think there is no effect? Do you believe that - honestly!? No effect!?

Twitter Link

Twitter Link

Madrid: "No vaccines left".
Aimless: "No effect"

You believe this because you haven't read what I've said—now or previously.

No, just because I reject your inane ridiculous arguments like that there's no effect from not signing up for vaccines until the last minute, nor investing in producing them doesn't mean I haven't read them.

This is incorrect in two respects.

1. I said they should make their assumptions, data, models and reasoning public so that it can be subject to scrutiny by external experts. It would be an effective way to bolster confidence and encourage others, or, conversely, to elucidate critical flaws and risks. It can't possibly result in any delays—after all, you've claimed that all those things exist and have, indeed, been made public (albeit without being able to show where).

2. You keep having difficulties understanding that external experts in this context refers to experts outside the JCVI—people who are capable of critically appraising their work. It is not relevant that the JCVI is external to your govt. of politicians. Do you think scientists reviewing their own papers counts as peer review? Do you think people should be judges and juries at their own trials?

Again this isn't about peer review. This is about reaching a decision and doing it. Peer review is an entirely different process. And yes as I've said (if you bothered to read it) repeatedly the reports and evidence is put online in a timely fashion for anyone who wants to review it to do so, but the country can't stand there paralysed in inaction until others have reviewed what has been decided.

This is a mischaracterization both of what the govt. was reported to have done, and what I said about it. You should go back and re-read that discussion—or read it, as it were, because it was clear back then as well that you hadn't. It is also a nonsensical comparison; a minister presented cherry-picked politically motivated advice, in secret, in a successful bid to sway the PM—with catastrophic and indeed deadly results. In what way do you think that's comparable to quickly making public sufficiently detailed information about scientific analyses so that they can be subject to scientific scrutiny? Secret is the exact opposite of public. Political is not scientific. Moreover, at that time, we already had sufficient evidence—from several studies—to support the early implementation of lockdown-style interventions in certain scenarios—evidence that drove SAGE to make their recommendations and on which their criticism of the govt's decisions were founded. We did not, however, have evidence to support the dangerously stupid approach that was taken instead. The burden of proof was on the govt.

There were ots of claims as to what the science was, speaking to multiple scientists is entirely appropriate. It wasn't cranks spoken to, it was leading scientists who aren't on SAGE.

As for evidence, we have sufficient evidence - from several studiest - to support vaccinating everyone vulnerable. Yet you don't want to act immediately upon it, you want to farm it off for "peer review". Hypocrite!

You should read the BBC article.

You should have read the article I provided you too first. Ms Kyriakides is being disingenuous. The CEO of Astrazeneca has made it absolutely clear that Astrazeneca were contractually obliged to supply the UK manufactured doses to the UK contract, that the UK paid for and signed three months earlier first and that the EU can be supplied from those plants after the UK contract has been fulfilled - and that was known and locked in contract three months before the EU belatedly signed its deal.

As for claims that the EU paid for the factories that's bollocks. As we've shown repeatedly, the EU didn't bother to spend and jumped on other manufacturies months later.

I'm not sure why you keep posting a chart that clearly shows higher per capita vaccine-development expenditure causes more covid deaths per capita.

Because you're in denial that not paying for vaccines is related to not getting vaccines.

This isn't ice cream and pirates - this is not paying for ice cream and not having ice cream/

So here's the thing. For the past half a decade, in every thread, I have had to do your work for you, when it comes to reading and explaining not only what I write and link to but also what you write and link to—because you're a lazy and sloppy reader, and an even sloppier debater. I'm sorry but this is the truth and you need to face up to it. For example, in this latest discussion, you have repeatedly responded to requests for specific kinds of evidence with links that do not contain what was requested. Why do you do this, if it is true, as you claim, that you are capable of reading? Do you do it to waste other people's time and energy? No; you do it because you're lazy and confused. I would be very grateful if you would, in discussions and debates, stop trying to make other people do your work for you. It is such a low bar that it is, frankly, unbelievable that you so consistently fail to reach it.

Garbage. You just need to read and understand what I write and not expect others to swallow your shit just because you haven't bothered to understand what others think and understand why others think differently to you.

Did you read the Astrazeneca CEO's article yet? Because you are still sharing myths it complete tore to shreds - and now the farcical Ms Kyriakides is rowing back fast after her lies have been called out.

Twitter Link

Twitter Link

Diplomatic language for "Oh I've really shat the bed, how to clean this up now?"

[RandBlade]

While this is generally true, I don't believe this is an example of that phenomenon. I believe what happened here reflects the priorities and decisions the EU made, and its expectations; it did not prioritize speed, chose to prioritize—or over-emphasize—clinical and legal risks and did not expect vaccines to be available so soon. The same goes for several individual member states—including my own country. You can ascribe this problem to a number of things—eg. national/institutional/scientific culture, lack of awareness, etc—but I'm not sure lower institutional complexity would've made much of a difference if the deliberate decisions about priorities remained the same.

Except if you'd read the background (see how irritating that is, two can play at this puerile game if you insist on continuing with it) you would have known that the delays now are caused by the months wasted.

France, Germany etc were ready to put pen to paper in June. The EU insisted upon getting involved and wasted valuable months, meaning AZN have lost months that could have been used perfecting the manufacturing process as they were in the UK. For what? More negotiations over a not for profit vaccine?

Insanity.

[RandBlade]

Remember the claims earlier that Denmark were showing there was no issue with EU supply because Denmark were nearly performing as well as the UK?

Twitter Link

Aimless: 'No evidence not paying for Covid vaccines has led to a shortage of supply'

EDIT:

Twitter Link

Maybe one day Aimless will accept I was right in recent months to be warning about this. I saw this coming. I take no pleasure in saying "I told you so", this was an avoidable catastrophe.

[RandBlade]

https://www.eurointelligence.com/column/vaccines

Good read by Wolfgang Münchau. Good to see some people see reality even if Aimless is still so far in denial he walks like an Egyptian.

Twitter Link

[RandBlade]

Heads up by the way one of the next possible vaccines to come online is Novavax and FYI the same issue applies here. Kate Bingham's absolutely fantastic taskforce identified it early, paid early to get manufacturing for that up and running in the UK too. Like Astrazeneca the UK signed up Novavax months before the EU did. This is from the deal last October:

As part of the agreement, Novavax agreed to create a dedicated supply chain in the U.K. for the production of that country's order. The company will be required to deliver those 60 million doses to the U.K. government before using that supply chain to fulfill orders for any other parties unless the U.K. government gives it permission.

Once the initial order is fulfilled, Novavax will be able to take orders from other parties using that portion of its production capacity, but the U.K. government will retain the right to request additional batches to match the third-party sales on a pro-rata basis.

https://www.fool.com/investing/2020/...s-coronavirus/

And if you want some more reading: https://assets.publishing.service.go...ublication.pdf

Remarkable job the vaccine taskforce have done.

What a shame the EU didn't pay in full and promptly for its own dedicated supply chains too (there's no exclusivity to any of this, its just about who wants to pay for it).

[RandBlade]

German MP says he doesn't expect them to have enough vaccine to cover the population until next year, and says the EU's strategy has been "too little too late".

Twitter Link

What an absolute clusterf**k of a disaster. We have the technology. We have the manufacturing ability. India is churning out a billion doses of AZ this year. But the EU didn't buy the bloody manufacturing capabilities and it won't be done this year. We're going to have to control our borders and that's another year for the virus to potentially mutate. All because saving money was a priority. Heads should roll.

And STILL Aimless has the gall to suggest that not bothering to invest in vaccine manufacturing has had no negative side effects! You should be ashamed of yourself any day now for saying that. You're like a Trumpist in denial about losing the election, like a QAnoner with his own alternate reality - and in seeing malfeasance in AZN rather than incompetence at home falling for Pizzagate style conspiracies.

What an absolute clusterfuck of a farce this is. Entirely preventable too, enough could have been manufactured to go around, it only needed paying for. £25 more per person is what we have paid to build the manufacturing for this. £25. £25 per person to get rid of COVID. And that was too much money for the EU, they quibbled over spending £25 more and gloated about reducing the bill down to the cheapest in the developed world - and now look what we've got. A vaccine rollout without any vaccines because no money was spent on building the vaccine manufacturing.

[Aimless]

Your criticism was absolutely lame. Just because you flail about with bad arguments doesn't mean I need to "understand" your bad arguments. I understood them, I rejected them because they were wrong, they remain your bad arguments that I reject 100%.

Go on, please summarize my criticism of his claims wrt the evidence in light of the discussion at hand. Then we can see whether or not you have read and understood.

No you have claimed - several times - that the reasoning is flawed. You are wrong. You have no PROOF that you are right and I and everyone else are wrong.

The reasoning is flawed because it is based on point estimates that are not supported by the evidence from trials, and are cast into doubt by real world evidence, and presume no change over time.

Models have been made public and I gave you a link that explicitly shows it and its reasoning.

Go on, post a screenshot of the models for this strategy under different scenarios.

Bullshit. No proof of any effect? Apart from the CEO of fucking company that is producing the vaccines blaming the EU's tardines for the mess they're in right now.

I've been warning about this for ages before this blew up. Here's someone I've quoted to you before, and you think there is no effect? Do you believe that - honestly!? No effect!?

Madrid: "No vaccines left".
Aimless: "No effect"

So here's a good example of you not reading. I said that the chart does not show any proof of any effect. Do you understand the words in that sentence? It's just a chart. There is no scientific analysis. There is nothing in the chart that shows causation. You're showing me a chart that clearly shows vaccinations cause covid deaths. A chart that clearly shows Eurovision prowess causes vaccinations. Or any of an infinite number of spurious relationships. What the chart shows is that the EU's vaccine rollout has ramped up slowly on average, and may have hit a roadblock. It most certainly does not show that the EU's per capita spending on vaccines has caused this. You could just as easily argue that it shows zero effect of the per capita spending difference and 100% effect of the delay wrt signing the contract.

No, just because I reject your inane ridiculous arguments like that there's no effect from not signing up for vaccines until the last minute, nor investing in producing them doesn't mean I haven't read them.

You might want to re-read what you were responding to, esp. focusing on the fact that it concerns two separate discussions.

Again this isn't about peer review. This is about reaching a decision and doing it. Peer review is an entirely different process.

If you had read what I wrote, you would've realized that it was specifically about your strange inability to understand that the JCVI cannot count as "external experts" for the purposes of critically appraising their own work. By definition. It doesn't have to be about peer review—it's about the relationship (although, to be clear, it is also about peer review). That is why I added the example about people being judges and juries at their own trials.

Your argument re. the risk of delays is not persuasive for several reasons.

1. There can't possibly be any delays—because you have claimed that the models for this strategy exist and have been made public (they do not appear to have been made public).

2. There needn't be any delays—the critical appraisal can be conducted rapidly, in parallel, as you proceed—and everyone will have learned a lot within a couple of weeks, before any harm is done.

3. Delays can't possibly be a problem for you considering your indifference to the deadly delays through which your PM and his govt. contributed to tens of thousands of deaths.

There were ots of claims as to what the science was, speaking to multiple scientists is entirely appropriate. It wasn't cranks spoken to, it was leading scientists who aren't on SAGE.

First of all, they consulted the contrarian idiot leading our dangerously flawed pandemic response.

Secondly, what I said was:

a minister presented cherry-picked politically motivated advice, in secret, in a successful bid to sway the PM—with catastrophic and indeed deadly results. In what way do you think that's comparable to quickly making public sufficiently detailed information about scientific analyses so that they can be subject to scientific scrutiny? Secret is the exact opposite of public. Political is not scientific.

Now, if you had read what I said—both now and back in that discussion—you would've realized that the two situations are not comparable. Your belief that my position on the two matters is inconsistent reflects your inability to understand that the two situations differ significantly. You may as well claim that my position on the present discussion is inconsistent with my position on Indian food.

As for evidence, we have sufficient evidence - from several studiest - to support vaccinating everyone vulnerable. Yet you don't want to act immediately upon it, you want to farm it off for "peer review". Hypocrite!

Your characterization of the question shows that you have not been reading posts throughout this discussion. We do not have any evidence to support partially vaccinating the most frail subjects with the Pfizer vaccine and then delaying their second dose by over three months. We have some—very dubious—evidence that might let us argue the merits of such a strategy wrt the AZN vaccine, but a convincing argument for implementing this strategy with that vaccine would at the very least require detailed models showing that this strategy is beneficial overall across a wide range of assumptions about key parameters and scenarios. I even provided you with a link to a paper that conducts precisely that kind of modeling, to explore a very similar question, in order to help you understand what kind of evidence might be helpful. The paper, though it is comparatively simplistic and not directly applicable to the present pandemic, also illustrates why it's not obvious that a breadth-first strategy is always better in a pandemic than a strategy that focuses on fully immunizing the most vulnerable. Did you even click the link?

You should have read the article I provided you too first. Ms Kyriakides is being disingenuous. The CEO of Astrazeneca has made it absolutely clear that Astrazeneca were contractually obliged to supply the UK manufactured doses to the UK contract, that the UK paid for and signed three months earlier first and that the EU can be supplied from those plants after the UK contract has been fulfilled - and that was known and locked in contract three months before the EU belatedly signed its deal.

In light of his careless answers in the article, what this indicates is that AZN sold the same capacity twice, leading to a conflict between contracts. The EU's description of their contract is more clear than his description in the article, and that description does not indicate a situation where the UK capacity must first be used to fulfill the entire UK order.

As for claims that the EU paid for the factories that's bollocks.

First of all, please read, and please be accurate. The statement you are responding to reads:

In fact, EU officials point out to me that EU money went into upgrading the facilities in the UK and that they fully expected it to be operational for them.

That is not the same as "the EU paid for the factories". Secondly, if you believe the reporter is lying, or uncritically repeating a lie, you should take it up with him. A BBC journalist covering such a high-profile issue is likely to be much more thorough in confirming the information he gets and reports than eg. you are, so I am inclined to take his word for it.

Because you're in denial that not paying for vaccines is related to not getting vaccines.

This isn't ice cream and pirates - this is not paying for ice cream and not having ice cream

You seem to have lost track of this part of the conversation. My issue with the chart is that, even if we take the data at face value as being comprehensive and comparable—and it is neither—the yield on per capita vaccine development investments should not be expected to scale linearly; consequently, if you imagine you're seeing a direct linear relationship, and if the data is of sufficient quality and well-characterized and comparable, there's probably something wrong with what you're seeing. Taken to its extreme, it's like seeing a relationship such that per capita vaccine development investment directly causes covid deaths.

You mention not paying for vaccines, but the EU has in fact paid for vaccines; in AZN's case, it has negotiated a price that is nearly half that of the UK's. If you sign a contract to sell something me to me at a certain date, at a lower price than you sold the same type of product for to someone else, you must still deliver on your contract to me—even if you're getting less money; it's your business to know what you can deliver, at what cost, and when. If you have a problem with that, you should not sign the contract. So the price per dose is irrelevant to the matter of fulfilling the contract. If you negotiate for additional funds as a condition for delivering what you've sold, then that, too, can't be a legitimate issue for failing to deliver—you know your operational needs best, and you have determined that the funds you've negotiated are sufficient to help you fulfill your contractual obligations. That leaves the issue Soriot focuses on in his interview: problems with scaling up and fine-tuning production processes in the limited time available, eg. due to a late conclusion of the deal. That's a fair defense, but not for notifying the customer barely a week before delivery. The problems he describes should have been known about for months—because, unless they've been producing vaccine for about that long, they are unlikely to have any hope of meeting the 80 million target—let alone the much higher volumes promised for the rest of the year.

Garbage. You just need to read and understand what I write and not expect others to swallow your shit just because you haven't bothered to understand what others think and understand why others think differently to you.

RB, you keep posting replies that show you have not read before posting. It's not a matter of interpretation. For example, in response to requests for modeling a specific vaccination strategy, you have repeatedly linked to a document that simply does not contain such a model. It's possible I have missed it, but, if you believe I have, please provide me with a screenshot. Other examples include your tendency to overlook key elements of a question or an answer, which cause you to respond to the wrong thing—typically with a wrong answer. You often say I have said something I have not, and lose your shit over things you accidentally thought I said because you weren't reading carefully. In the past, you have linked to sources that directly contradict the claims you were attempting to use them to support. It's just a weird and honestly very frustrating pattern with you. I believe an adult who can read and write and frequently engages in debate should at the very least be able and willing to read posts and associated documents properly before responding to them. It is the absolute minimum standard, and I believe you should at least try to reach it.

Did you read the Astrazeneca CEO's article yet? Because you are still sharing myths it complete tore to shreds

As a matter of fact, I provided you with a link to the English translation, and went over his inaccurate and misleading claims in detail. Clearly you didn't read my post, or you would've known that.

- and now the farcical Ms Kyriakides is rowing back fast after her lies have been called out.

Diplomatic language for "Oh I've really shat the bed, how to clean this up now?"

In addition to demonstrating, once again, your inability to read, you are also demonstrating your affinity for The Sun style analysis. This does not do you any credit. Note, by the way, that Soriot did indeed show up—just as he had to.

Except if you'd read the background (see how irritating that is, two can play at this puerile game if you insist on continuing with it)

RB, you can't play this game because you can't read. Being able to read is the requirement for playing this game. Since you clearly cannot, you cannot actually play it.

you would have known that the delays now are caused by the months wasted.

France, Germany etc were ready to put pen to paper in June. The EU insisted upon getting involved and wasted valuable months, meaning AZN have lost months that could have been used perfecting the manufacturing process as they were in the UK. For what? More negotiations over a not for profit vaccine?

See, if you had been able to read, you would've realized this has no bearing on what I said to Gogo. Please re-read what Gogo said, and then re-read what I said in response to that. My answer to Gogo was that I do not believe the delayed signing was caused by institutional complexity. Instead, I believe it was due to the EU's priorities; it did not prioritize speed, and instead prioritized other concerns. In what way do you believe your take refutes that? Your first sentence is tantamount to declaring, "the delays were caused by the delay" which is super profound but not informative. You point to France and Germany being ready to sign in June (albeit without specifying which contract you're talking about), which does not in any way contradict what I said. You then indicate that the EU wasted time by negotiating over things that are, by implication, not very important. Ie. the EU did not prioritize speed and instead prioritized other concerns, presumably resulting in the contract being signed later than it would've if its priorities had been different—like I said. This is why I keep saying you should read before responding.

Remember the claims earlier that Denmark were showing there was no issue with EU supply because Denmark were nearly performing as well as the UK?

Who claimed that? Where? Provide a link and a quote.

Aimless: 'No evidence not paying for Covid vaccines has led to a shortage of supply'

The EU has clearly paid for its vaccines, and you have definitely not shown a causal relationship such as the one you've posited. Why are you posting a graph that shows bizarre children's shows have a negative impact on vaccine rollout?

EDIT:
[ tweet ]1354441002384318464[/ tweet ]

Who has said that? Provide a link and a quote.

Maybe one day Aimless will accept I was right in recent months to be warning about this. I saw this coming. I take no pleasure in saying "I told you so", this was an avoidable catastrophe.

I remember telling you your govt's policies would lead to an out-of-control epidemic and tens of thousands of preventable deaths. And it happened, and you just went right on defending Johnson's deadly decisions like a lapdog.

[Aimless]

German MP says he doesn't expect them to have enough vaccine to cover the population until next year, and says the EU's strategy has been "too little too late".

Twitter Link

What an absolute clusterf**k of a disaster. We have the technology. We have the manufacturing ability. India is churning out a billion doses of AZ this year. But the EU didn't buy the bloody manufacturing capabilities and it won't be done this year. We're going to have to control our borders and that's another year for the virus to potentially mutate. All because saving money was a priority. Heads should roll.

And STILL Aimless has the gall to suggest that not bothering to invest in vaccine manufacturing has had no negative side effects! You should be ashamed of yourself any day now for saying that. You're like a Trumpist in denial about losing the election, like a QAnoner with his own alternate reality - and in seeing malfeasance in AZN rather than incompetence at home falling for Pizzagate style conspiracies.

What an absolute clusterfuck of a farce this is. Entirely preventable too, enough could have been manufactured to go around, it only needed paying for. £25 more per person is what we have paid to build the manufacturing for this. £25. £25 per person to get rid of COVID. And that was too much money for the EU, they quibbled over spending £25 more and gloated about reducing the bill down to the cheapest in the developed world - and now look what we've got. A vaccine rollout without any vaccines because no money was spent on building the vaccine manufacturing.

Hey man, did you read the Reuters article?

[wiggin]

I didn't, I have an economics background and nor am I making an appeal to authority - I am making reasoned arguments from studying the details and providing sources - and quoting others who are Professors of immunology but I don't pretend to be one myself or make an appeal to their authority either.

If you want to have an interesting discussion based on reasoned arguments and facts then that can be interesting. If I say something that is wrong I'm sure you can say so.

If you just want to pull rank and dismiss everything because of your superior educational background then there won't be anything further to discuss - but that won't convince me that you were right and the Professors of Immunology and others who have made the decisions here and whose reports I've been reading and trying to understand are wrong.

EDIT: I put this link into the last page but I would be curious what you think of the Professor's response to the question at the 2:10 mark here on the exact subject of how the immune response works going past the three week mark, also perhaps the final remarks at the 5 minute mark: https://soundcloud.com/blacktriangle...ccine-strategy

RB, My rather flippant response was because we're clearly getting nowhere with this discussion. I have clearly articulated the sheer complexity of the decision involved here and my reasons for finding it unwise absent much stronger data. My educational background doesn't make me smarter or right, but it does mean that I have an appreciation for why the extremely simplistic reasoning based on extremely thin data is not a particularly good basis for making these kinds of momentous decisions. I am willing to accept that someone who is neither me nor you may in fact have more information and a more sophisticated model from which they can draw these conclusions, but you have yet to provide this so I am unable to meaningfully comment other than to say that the information you *have* provided is woefully insufficient.

Literally my job is developing novel medical technologies. I am keenly aware of the sheer complexity of clinical studies, the all-too-frequent surprises found along the way, and the inadvisability of drawing conclusions that are directly related to safety and efficacy without strong data to back it up. My training makes me fundamentally skeptical of claims about efficacy until they have been demonstrated, and I have a sufficient understanding of physiology, biology, engineering, mathematics/statistics, and clinical practice to evaluate if a given dataset meets that bar. I am not saying 'I have an education in this field, I must be right'. Rather, I am arguing that I have the appropriate training to evaluate clinical data and I have not seen any data published that meets the criteria for such a major change in vaccination strategy.

I welcome you to share such data with me; I have very little interest in you sharing the opinions of others about data I have already seen.

Fascinating article with the CEO of AstraZenica. Originally in Italian, I used the Google Translate option in Firefox to read it in England and it is entirely readable: https://www.repubblica.it/cronaca/20...eca-284349061/

Covers everything we have discussed today it seems. Wiggin and Aimless I strongly, strongly urge you to read this article.

I'm not sure why his opinion matters much, but I read it. Most was focused on EU politics that I couldn't care less about. His one discussion of a delayed second dose didn't share much real information other than what we know from their poorly designed, controlled, and powered studies. I will agree that there is at least *some* very modest evidence that the AZN vaccine has at least some flexibility on dosing schedules, though the magnitude of the effects are not known. The same cannot be said about the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines, which had much cleaner trials but also didn't explore this question at all. He also doesn't get into the much more complex discussion about population spread of the virus and how it works dynamically with different vaccination strategies.

If the first dose alone gives general protection of 71% - 73% (the MHRA said "over 70%" in comparison so it matches) and it lasts for three months then absolutely rolling out to twice as many people is 100% the correct thing to do.

Let alone a 100% level of protection against hospitalisations.

If their science is right and the protection is 71% - 73% and therefore potentially tens of thousands of lives are saved by vaccinating 14 million instead of 7 million twice in the first rollout then are you prepared to accept the right thing was done?

I cannot tell you enough how this kind of back-of-the-envelope linear estimation of population wide effects from a single noisy data point does not work. This is not how public health or clinical decisions should be made. It is possible that someone much smarter and better informed than you or me has actually done the work to justify the UK policy, but I have not seen it so cannot comment on its validity.


RB, I appreciate your continued engagement on this very important issue. However, I question whether our back and forth is producing any new or meaningful exchanges. My doubts and professionally-honed skepticism aside, I sincerely hope that this strategy is successful and the UK is able to rapidly return to normal.

[RandBlade]

RB, I appreciate your continued engagement on this very important issue. However, I question whether our back and forth is producing any new or meaningful exchanges. My doubts and professionally-honed skepticism aside, I sincerely hope that this strategy is successful and the UK is able to rapidly return to normal.

There's some early indications that its already working. Considering the new variant there was some concern that the lockdown would be insufficient to cut cases but they're falling fast and the fall is accelerating rather than declining with some limited evidence that the earliest vaccinations especially of NHS staff may already be reducing acquired infections. Be another couple of weeks before concrete data is available but *fingers crossed*.

[Timbuk2]

In summation, then:

extremely simplistic reasoning based on extremely thin data is not a particularly good basis for making these kinds of momentous decisions.

[Timbuk2]

UK cases plummeting, as new national lockdown takes effect finally.




... and the lag from a drop in cases to a drop in hospital admissions begins to show ...




But the death rate in the UK is still dreadfully high.

[RandBlade]

In summation, then:

If that is what was happening but it's not. There's wide array of data involved and the proof will be in the pudding.

We should see in reality whether it was right or wrong very very soon.

Do you foresee that by say April the UK's vaccine decisions will be leading to the UK having comparatively better, worse or indifferent results?

I've said for most of the last year since the differences in the approaches came to light that the UKs vaccine program was well ahead of Europe's. That's coming home now to everyone else it seems, except it appears on this site where for some people they have such crippling Anglophobia it's impossible to face reality. The levels of delusion in some on this site (and I don't mean you Tim or Wiggin) is remarkable.

[gogobongopop]

Just had my first covid vaccine

No side effects so far. Expecting some aches and a touch of fever in a few hours time, which I normally get with the flu jab (lower backache, mostly), but we'll see.