UK Politics: Oh Ambassador you are really spoiling us!

[A Horse Named Stranger]

14 hours ago, Werthead said:

To be fair, he only said it was "quasi-ineffective," which is helpful, specific terminology. It was the Germans who I believe indicated they thought it wasn't effective at all on the over-65s, or nearly so.

Not quite. The problem was, AZ did not have the results of a study from the US of that age group, when they field their paperwork for approval. With no or insufficient data on that group, the German authorities said, we can't just wave it thru, just we cannot give a recommendation on the AZ vaccine used for the 65 y.o. +

[Luzifer's right hand]

I work in a bubble in which next to nobody wants the AZ vaccine anyway. There are quite a few pure anti-vax folks but even pro vaccine people want the Pfizer vaccine instead because  of all the bad PR. I mean they 70% effectiveness number is still everywhere while preliminary numbers out of Isreal suggest 99% effectiveness for the Pfizer vaccine. It is the same at my mothers workplace. 

Some people will take it when there is no alternative but that seems to be it. 

I will take what is offered I guess. 

If the AZ vaccine is really that much less effective I think the fallout might damage the EU beyond repair and it is already a sinking ship imho. 

[ljkeane]

20 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Not quite. The problem was, AZ did not have the results of a study from the US of that age group, when they field their paperwork for approval. With no or insufficient data on that group, the German authorities said, we can't just wave it thru, just we cannot give a recommendation on the AZ vaccine used for the 65 y.o. +

That's not entirely correct either by the way. The US study isn't a study of that age group, it's just another general study of the efficacy of the vaccine in people over 18. It's that because it's a larger study you might be able to make more of a determination of it's efficacy in over 65s.

[Padraig]

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

When the British engage in populism it's likened to Trump, it's horrifying. When the EU does it, oh well it's natural, it's a net positive. n populism it's likened to Trump, it's horrifying. When the EU does it, oh well it's natural, it's a net positive. 

You can do better than that.  Can we agree that this health crisis is that, a major crisis?  Countries are going to react to a crisis?  And they need to be seeing to be do something?

The "need to be seeing to do something in a crisis" is presumably what you are criticising but without that, we have nothing.  People lose all faith in their governments.

It is going to get very weary if you compare everything bad that the EU does to Trump.  It shows a lack of understanding of what Trump has done and its a rather lazy debating tactic.  If you have a good argument why something is bad, lay out the facts.  Simply comparing it to Trump is not good enough.

Again, I don't want to get mixed up in the British question but Trump and the UK are more entangled with each other because Brexit was driven by Trump's friend Farage (to point at the most obvious target).  That's just how it is.

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

Except if you are Greek.. or owe them money.

Whataboutism.  Does anyone win when you play that game?  Here is a list of all the bad things that we have done and a list of bad things that you have done?

I don't want to speak on behalf of the Greeks.  But this was the first article I found when I googled them.  Most things are more complicated than  simple soundbites.  I do know that Ireland had its own struggles with the EU during the Great Recession.  But (unlike the UK) most of Europe hasn't been reared on a very EUsceptic diet for the last 40 years.  We realised that our troubles weren't because of the EU (but yes, they could have been nicer to us).  There is a bigger "better together" argument that has always won.

[john]

2 hours ago, Heartofice said:

Yeah of course. I’ve rarely heard anyone admit the EU engages in populism though 

That’s the thing about populism, it’s disdained from afar and welcomed when it benefits you. I would say this is a fairly benign example of populism by the EU but still I don’t like to see it.

[Padraig]

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

The truth is that the border thing was really completely overblown, was barely even an issue until the EU decided to make it one , as a negotiation tactic.

I should respond to this also though.

That's an opinion but it is miles away from what the normal view is in Ireland.  Ireland was always concerned about the implications of Brexit.  Way before the vote.  The Irish government spent a lot of time ensuring that the EU took it seriously.

The opinion you state was reported here as the norm in the right wing press in the UK (during Brexit discussion).  The right wing press couldn't understand how the EU would take a more altruistic position, so it convinced itself that it was this great Machiavellian strategy.  Maybe the EU should take that as a compliment but no.  Like most conspiracy theories, it was way overblown.

[Padraig]

35 minutes ago, Luzifer's right hand said:

If the AZ vaccine is really that much less effective I think the fallout might damage the EU beyond repair and it is already a sinking ship imho. 

I'm on a posting streak. 

Its important to view a vaccine in totality.  Saving lives is very important but reducing the severity of illness is very important too.  Maybe more so, since far more people get ill than die.  That's why there is logic in a one dose strategy.

[Heartofice]

11 minutes ago, Padraig said:

You can do better than that.  Can we agree that this health crisis is that, a major crisis?  Countries are going to react to a crisis?  And they need to be seeing to be do something?

The "need to be seeing to do something in a crisis" is presumably what you are criticising but without that, we have nothing.  People lose all faith in their governments.

Yes it is a major crisis, governements make mistakes, they react, they do things badly. It is to be expected. My problem here is the slight hypocrisy on display here. If the UK reacting in a 'Britain first' way, or acting in a way that is seen as 'populist' is decried, and it often is, then shouldn't the same criticism apply to the EU when it does something similar? From my perspective you appear to be defending it, which looks rather blinkered.

14 minutes ago, Padraig said:

It is going to get very weary if you compare everything bad that the EU does to Trump.  It shows a lack of understanding of what Trump has done and its a rather lazy debating tactic.  If you have a good argument why something is bad, lay out the facts.  Simply comparing it to Trump is not good enough.

I'm really not comparing everything in the EU to Trump, I mentioned Macron in regards to Trump, and I think it was a fair comment given what he said, if Trump had said something similar the papers would be in uproar (or maybe not surprised)

16 minutes ago, Padraig said:

Wataboutism.  Does anyone win when you play that game?  Here is a list of all the bad things that we have done and a list of bad things that you have done?

I'm not playing whataboutism there, you mentioned that the EU was always willing to protect their little countries, but that really wasn't the case when it came to the Greek crisis.
 

16 minutes ago, john said:

That’s the thing about populism, it’s disdained from afar and welcomed when it benefits you. I would say this is a fairly benign example of populism by the EU but still I don’t like to see it.

Surely this is the point, if we all agree that populism, however you define it is good or bad then shouldn't we be consistent with it. We shouldn't just handwave it because it suits or benefits us.

[JoannaL]

The vaccine export transperency rule, or whatever it will be called, is more than just actionism out of populistic reasons. It seems that a company had exported vaccine in breach of contract. Thats bad. But it would be much , much worse should something like this happen again. This would lead to a major crisis. It is the duty of the EU to protect against that. You know once fooled is understandable but twice fooled? They have to make this rule and take control of what is going on.

[Heartofice]

4 minutes ago, JoannaL said:

The vaccine export transperency rule, or whatever it will be called, is more than just actionism out of populistic reasons. It seems that a company had exported vaccine in breach of contract. Thats bad. But it would be much , much worse should something like this happen again. This would lead to a major crisis. It is the duty of the EU to protect against that. You know once fooled is understandable but twice fooled? They have to make this rule and take control of what is going on.

And why specifically target the UK?

[JoannaL]

Well, they specifically target AZ at the moment or at least they have them in mind, that is true. This is because AZ is in proven to be in  breach of contract - and you now, last time they exported vaccine when they shoudnt  it was to the UK so to guard also against that seems absolutely reasonable to me.

But the new law will take into accout more companies and also more countries (though not all countries, humanitarian delieveries will be exempt, and also norway and switzerland and the middle east as far as I know)

[A Horse Named Stranger]

1 hour ago, ljkeane said:

That's not entirely correct either by the way. The US study isn't a study of that age group, it's just another general study of the efficacy of the vaccine in people over 18. It's that because it's a larger study you might be able to make more of a determination of it's efficacy in over 65s.

Or that. Either way, the problem was a lack of data for the age group of the 65 y.o. and older.

It's not saying anything about the efficacy of the vaccine for the age group, it might very well work.  Just the German authorities thought they lacked data for a verdict/approval for that age group.

[Filippa Eilhart]

24 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

And why specifically target the UK?

they’re not. The measure targets all countries that are not specifically covered by exemptions.

[Heartofice]

Just now, Filippa Eilhart said:

they’re not. The measure targets all countries that are not specifically covered by exemptions.

Except its a pretty extensive list, including countries like Norway and Switzerland, Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Palestine, Syria, Tunisia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Israel, Moldova and Ukraine. Unless you want to suggest that it the UK just so happened to not be on that list, maybe as an oversight. 

 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

1 minute ago, Filippa Eilhart said:

they’re not. The measure targets all countries that are not specifically covered by exemptions.

Yeah, but tbf, the most notable countries not covered by exemptions are Russia, the UK, the US and Turkey. So the UK's absence there is very obvious.

[Filippa Eilhart]

18 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Except its a pretty extensive list, including countries like Norway and Switzerland, Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Palestine, Syria, Tunisia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Israel, Moldova and Ukraine. Unless you want to suggest that it the UK just so happened to not be on that list, maybe as an oversight. 

 

the list has to do with various EU instruments, like the neighbourhood instrument to help neighbouring countries, EEA, and Covax. Basically poor countries and partner countries are exempt and for anyone else it’s tough luck. The UK specifically chose to not be part of EEA.

[ljkeane]

17 hours ago, john said:

They folded on the NI thing, which was right to do, but they’re still controlling vaccine exports which is not exactly ideal for worldwide vaccine distribution.

They haven't exactly folded but there does seem to have been a bit of a rowing back of the rhetoric around the vaccine controls. Which is good. Both the UK government and von der Leyen have publicly made statements saying they're committed to the principle that there should not be restrictions on the 'export of vaccines by companies fulfilling their contractual responsibilities'.  What that means for the distribution of the Astrazeneca vaccine probably remains to be seen but hopefully it reduces the risk of this escalating to include other vaccines.

[Padraig]

2 hours ago, Heartofice said:

Yes it is a major crisis, governements make mistakes, they react, they do things badly. It is to be expected. My problem here is the slight hypocrisy on display here. If the UK reacting in a 'Britain first' way, or acting in a way that is seen as 'populist' is decried, and it often is, then shouldn't the same criticism apply to the EU when it does something similar? From my perspective you appear to be defending it, which looks rather blinkered.

Surely this is the point, if we all agree that populism, however you define it is good or bad then shouldn't we be consistent with it. We shouldn't just handwave it because it suits or benefits us.

Like most things, it is a scale.  Lets say that Trump scores 9 on the populism scale.  This doesn't get close to that.  I'm sure the UK government has done more populist things than this and has been appropriately criticised.

But neither is particularly relevant.  What I have specifically said about this EU action is that it isn't a good thing, but it is understandable.  I'm going to defend it if people suggest it is way worse than I believe it is.  (I'm assuming we are ignoring the Irish border caveat).

Now, you can define "populism" as having to be inherently bad but then i'm going to say what the EU did wasn't populism (because of that definition).  Instead, I prefer to admit that what the EU did was populism but weak sauce.  All populism mustn't be excoriated.  I am opposed to a purity clause (or zero tolerance), where we are all hypocrites and nobody can be blamed for anything.

Macron has said a few things in recent days.  Nothing seems comparable to Trump but what exactly should I be defending?

2 hours ago, Heartofice said:

I'm not playing whataboutism there, you mentioned that the EU was always willing to protect their little countries, but that really wasn't the case when it came to the Greek crisis.

I never said that the EU always protects the little countries.  Even more, I specifically said that the EU wasn't very nice to us over the Great Recession.  You need to take a broader view (rather than a simple "EU must be a hero or a villain" view).  Even the Greece issue isn't as simple as you project.   People in the EU take a different view of the EU for a reason (compared to the UK).  I suppose, I'm lucky I didn't grow up reading endemic very EUsceptic media for example!

1 hour ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

  Just the German authorities thought they lacked data for a verdict/approval for that age group.

Its important to note that the Germans expect to have far more Pfizer vaccine than AZ in February.  Thus it deliberately choose to use the AZ vaccine on those people where there is no doubt at all in its efficacy.  (At least, that is what the BBC (I think) said previously and it has a certain logic to it).  I suspect they would have interpreted the data differently if there was more of a need.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

58 minutes ago, Padraig said:

Its important to note that the Germans expect to have far more Pfizer vaccine than AZ in February.  Thus it deliberately choose to use the AZ vaccine on those people where there is no doubt at all in its efficacy.  (At least, that is what the BBC (I think) said previously and it has a certain logic to it).  I suspect they would have interpreted the data differently if there was more of a need.

Possibly, but necessarily. Politicians got a bit blindsided by that, and now they have to modify the vaccination strategy. So younger patients from a risk group might get their shots a bit earlier than expected. So there was no political order to trash the AZ vaccine or something like that. So this is mere speculation on the BBC's part, and I somehow doubt it would have affected the advice.

[Padraig]

Germany will have a lot more Pfizer than AZ vaccine in February.  And it has decided to focus the Pfizer vaccine on older people.  Those are facts.

You are right that its speculative to suggest that if Germany only had the AZ vaccine (say) it wouldn't have rejected the vaccine for those over 65.  In that case, it would seem logical to go with the AZ vaccine (given the EMA did clear it after all).  Do you think i'm being too generous there?

I don't think so.  And then its a matter of finding at one point does it make sense for Germany to reject the vaccine for those over 65 (when they have 2 vaccines but way more AZ?)

I'm not ever sure would they have to completely revamp the program.  There are enough under 65 front line staff (in Ireland anyhow) that need the vaccine.  So they get the AZ vaccine.

I don't think its completely cut and dry anyhow but I could be wrong here.