Covid-19 #28: Astra Projecting is an Out of Body Experience

[Filippa Eilhart]

7 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Lol, again why is this relevant?

because you claim the EU is doing such a bad job?

[rotting sea cow]

This again?

Sorry guys/gals. This bickering among members of the forum will not do anybody any good. None of you (afaik) is in position to solve anything.

UK and US have done what they think they had to do and have overall succeeded. We cannot fault them.

But this should ring alarms everywhere what allies are worth in times of need. This crisis is nothing compared what can happen during a prolonged disruption of the food or energy trade.

The EU and countries around the world should take lessons of this crisis. That EU is at mercy of AZ whims is shameful and the fault is at the shoulder of our political leaders. Same for Canada.

How is possible that developed countries do not have the capability of making vaccines for their people?

Russia has three vaccines. China is widely distributing three and has many others in the pipeline. India has two. Vietnam two or three in the pipeline. Cuba three.

Two of the vaccines developed in the EU failed the clinical trials, another (Curevac) is moving a snail pace. At the same time there is spare capacity to produce more. Yes, they might not be those fancy mRNA vaccines but they might do the job.

[Heartofice]

13 minutes ago, Filippa Eilhart said:

because you claim the EU is doing such a bad job?

Because I’ve seen a bunch of people post up that stat as some sort of proof of success. It’s meaningless. The UK made the decision quite famously to give as many people their first jab as possible rather than make sure everyone has had 2 jabs before moving on. This has proven to be the correct decision. 
 

The UK has administered 46 doses per 100 population, the EU is at 13. That’s what you really need to be paying attention to

 

Anyway I just think a bit of perspective here, these are brand new vaccines, of course there will be issues with supply and production, it would be insane to think there wouldn’t. The point is to anticipate that and work to mitigating those issues 

[Fragile Bird]

7 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Because I’ve seen a bunch of people post up that stat as some sort of proof of success. It’s meaningless. The UK made the decision quite famously to give as many people their first jab as possible rather than make sure everyone has had 2 jabs before moving on. This has proven to be the correct decision. 
 

The UK has administered 46 doses per 100 population, the EU is at 13. That’s what you really need to be paying attention to

Well, duh, there are 420 M people in the EU.

[Filippa Eilhart]

9 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

The UK has administered 46 doses per 100 population, the EU is at 13. That’s what you really need to be paying attention to

Yes, definitely. But I still think it's an important point in view of the comments about "millions of doses" lying around. A lot of countries in the EU decide to prioritise 2nd doses. A lot of people are anxious about being able to get a full vaccination. Italy talked about only giving one dose to people who recovered from covid and it was met with public disapproval. So yes, it's an important stat.

[Heartofice]

7 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Well, duh, there are 420 M people in the EU.

Doesn’t explain the slow rollout

 

6 minutes ago, Filippa Eilhart said:

Yes, definitely. But I still think it's an important point in view of the comments about "millions of doses" lying around. A lot of countries in the EU decide to prioritise 2nd doses. A lot of people are anxious about being able to get a full vaccination. Italy talked about only giving one dose to people who recovered from covid and it was meant with public disapproval. So yes, it's an important stat.

The Uk is also conscious of second doses, but has planned properly. The supply issues we are seeing now have not affected the rollout of second doses and If there is a movement of the time table it won’t be for anyone in the vulnerable groups and so shouldn’t affect reopening too much.

Germany are sitting on 1.6m doses of AZ , almost exactly the same amount they have administered, same goes for France.

Britain has been proven correct that getting that first dose to as many people as possible is the way to go. If there is a lack of take up on vaccines due to disinformation then the EU is not doing a good job there either 

[Filippa Eilhart]

10 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Germany are sitting on 1.6m doses of AZ , almost exactly the same amount they have administered, same goes for France.

yes. That's exactly what I just said. They are sitting on those doses to guarantee second doses due to unreliable supply schedules.

[Padraig]

When you look at some of the numbers, I was a little stunned.  Norway has had 656 deaths.  Ok, 5m population but that's 15 times better than many other countries in Europe.  Finland is similar (Iceland even better).  Now, they are seeing an increase in cases recently but fatalities have remained really low.  COVID can be reasonably controlled.  But there are a lot of factors involved.  Central European countries are exposed more as mentioned, because of the large borders. 

Ireland (for one) probably wasted some of its natural advantages but then health system matters a lot also.  I imagine Norway/Finland are top class.  And even Germany, despite all its borders, has done better than most, helped by its health system. 

As for the UK.  It is fed a diet of how terrible the EU vaccination plan is.  By all the UK media.  It doesn't matter how true that is (IMO, the EU hasn't done as well as it would like but it certainly hasn't done as badly as HoI suggests).  Its the narrative, don't look for nuance.  

I do agree that there is a major question about promoting the Green Pass.  The EU is due 200m doses of the Pfizer vaccine, 55m doses of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, and 35m doses of the Moderna vaccine by the end of Q2 (plus 70m AstraZeneca).  If all of them are realised (and 1 or 2 more vaccines may be approved before the end of Q2) then Europe should be in a good place for the rest of summer.  And I suppose, they have to prepare now for a good summer.  But they better also be prepared to row back on their plans if things go tear shaped.

3 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Doesn’t explain the slow rollout

The population size doesn't explain the slow rollout?  It is as easy to vaccinate 65m people as 450m?

I'm actually pretty sure Germany (or France) sitting on doses of AZ is not because they are waiting for the second dose.   Germany had other issues (related to the age restrictions), which they may have fixed by now if it wasn't for the suspension.

Europe is a very varied continent.  Some countries will do very well at one thing, others at another.  People always thought the NHS was well run in the UK, so i'm not surprised that it has done well at administering the vaccine.  But whether countries are in or out of the EU doesn't make a huge difference to a lot of these things.  No point looking at everything through EU glasses, as convenient as that is sometimes for people.

[Week]

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

Why is cases relevant?  We’ve vaccinated the vulnerable population.

Plus in Jan we were at 60k cases so I think you can see the difference. But yeah cases I don’t care about 

Cases drive continued mutations and potential for variants. It's like a rising tide against a hastily made dam - the dam is holding but the potential for leaks and failure increase.

[Filippa Eilhart]

32 minutes ago, Padraig said:

I'm actually pretty sure Germany (or France) sitting on doses of AZ is not because they are waiting for the second dose. 

Yes, probably not all of it. There are different factors. Of course the suspension didn't help. But there are ways to spin statistics that have nothing to do with the truth. For instance it was recently reported that Luxembourg only used 20% of it's AZ delivery while in fact it used 90%. The reason was the report came a day after a big delivery and the fact that it is indeed keeping doses for the 2nd shot.

Anyway, we should be at 60% vaccinated population by summer so that's comforting.

[rotting sea cow]

1 hour ago, Clueless Northman said:

Wait, there are people who seriously think EU will let UK come back if there's another government and they ask nicely?

 

The one demographics at risk, that's barely spoken about, is the obese people - but the issue is, where do you put the threshold between "at risk" and "not at risk", a BMI limit possibly. That lack of discussion without any doubt has killed hundreds of people, though.

Other than that, if I had to make a completely blind guess about "race" or "ethnic origin", I'd wonder if there's any subtle genetic precondition with people from Mediterranean origin - mostly Italian and Iberian, considering how Greece and N. Africa haven't been hit as hard, and how Latin America has been horribly mauled. But that would be quite weird. A US observer might wonder if there's a precondition among Black people, but considering how Africa has fared, I would ascribe the terrible outcomes for African-Americans mostly if not entirely to social and economic conditions. And that's probably not a valid guess anymore since current death rates are just all over Europe, with relatively homogeneous Central European countries badly hit. Fatality rates are even less reliable than death rates.

I don't think there is a big genetic factor that it's driving severity (I might be wrong of course) but there are cultural factors that might be driving infection. If you are part of large, multigenerational families living at the poverty level, whose income depends on your day-to-day work, inevitably the virus is going to hit you. These families tend to congregate together forming complex social structures within the society.

Central Europe has also people who live at the fringes of society, the Roma for example as well as many people below the line of poverty. I wonder how their comunities are faring.

Again. I understand why this isn't being discussed openly. Racism and classism are real problems. At the same time, you really need a social plan to reach out these people otherwise you will never understand why the infection and death rates are exploding.

Of course, these are my suspicions and I might well be wrong. 

 

[Heartofice]

1 hour ago, Padraig said:

The population size doesn't explain the slow rollout?  It is as easy to vaccinate 65m people as 450m?

Its a factor, but it's not an excuse. The US has double the EU population and has also vaccinated almost twice as much of it's population as the EU. The EU hasn't done well, we can sit here and bicker about just how badly it has done but I don't think it can be said to be a case study in efficiency when you look at how it compares to the rest of the world. 

[JoannaL]

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

Doesn’t explain the slow rollout

Germany are sitting on 1.6m doses of AZ , almost exactly the same amount they have administered, same goes for France.

Britain has been proven correct that getting that first dose to as many people as possible is the way to go. If there is a lack of take up on vaccines due to disinformation then the EU is not doing a good job there either 

There is roll-out and there is supply. They are interconnected. You pace roll-out to supply. In Germany for example half the vaccination centres have not yet opened. Calculated capacity there would be 600000 doses a day , but we only have enough supply to vaccinate 300000 dose max. So we vaccinate each week about the amount we get ( and have something , but not more than 20% or so, kept back for second dose). AstraZeneca is a little bit behind (was discussed here why we have a delay). That does not mean that the UK roll-out wasnt better, I think it was /is done most admirably quick and efficient. Definitly less bureaucratic than here. But that only explains a head start of a week or two. The rest is the amount you have, and if the vaccine isnt there, than you cannot move forward, totally regardless of roll-out. so not the roll-out is the problem ,but supply. and there we are at AZ again, which was supposed to be the working horse of the EU campaigne, you  know, the safer, European option - the big mistake the EU made.

About the first doses, I am not sure that isnt dangerous. Not for AZ, 12 weeks seems ok, but for Biontech, it is against the recommendation of the producers, the US is also not doing it, they give second doses after 3-4 weeks just like us.

[Rippounet]

7 hours ago, Heartofice said:

Quite simply there are a number of reasons for the UKs vaccine success. But the main one is that it simply did everything faster. It was the first country in the world to approve vaccines. It got ahead of the queue when it came to signing contracts with pharma companies, and then invested heavily in vaccines, spending a lot of money to get them.

Which is basically what is called "vaccine nationalism" these days.

For instance (random google search):

Quote

 

https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2021/2/7/what-is-vaccine-nationalism-and-why-is-it-so-harmful

Vaccine nationalism occurs when governments sign agreements with pharmaceutical manufacturers to supply their own populations with vaccines ahead of them becoming available for other countries.

Even before many of the now-approved COVID-19 vaccinations had completed their clinical trials, wealthy countries such as Britain, the US, Japan and the European bloc had procured several million doses of the ones that seemed the most promising. As we have seen in the United Kingdom, it was a prudent move.

 

3 hours ago, Heartofice said:

The EU are doing a fantastic job of proving that everything Brexiteers have been saying about them for the past few years was completely correct. If they wanted to give Brits reasons for why Brexit was the right choice they are going about it the right way.

I'd say you have it backwards: the British government was desperate to show that Brexit was NOT a mistake, hence was willing to pay a lot of money to make sure the UK's vaccination program wasn't slower than the EU's (that it turned out faster was, I think, an unexpected bonus).

Given the UK's strong pharmaceutical sector, I'd posit that it would have been a dismal failure if the UK's program had not been significantly faster than the EU, especially given that there was political will. And I'm tempted to say: "so what?" There's tons of things a single wealthy country can do significantly faster than an alliance of more than two dozen countries (some of them not so wealthy). While speed is certainly a net benefit in itself in a pandemic (allowing millions to go back to normal lives), it might not be the alpha and the omega. The point of any alliance of nations is to build some form of inter-national solidarity. Perhaps some fortunate nations will see their vaccination programs slowed down a little in order to help vaccinate the populations of less-fortunate neighboring nations. Perhaps that seems bad today, and the appeal to go at it alone (for developed countries with strong pharmaceutical sectors and production facilities) is certainly there. After all, alliances are bureaucratic monsters that can easily fuck things up. But sometimes solidarity may not be a luxury: would it be that great for any continental European country to have its population vaccinated if its neighbors' werent? And you just don't know what kind of benefit solidarity may provide further down the line.

Methinks gloating over vaccine nationalism on the internet isn't smart.

[Heartofice]

What the British realised is that vaccine nationalism was going to happen, it’s obvious. Therefore you need to act fast and make sure you are in charge as much as possible of your own supply.

They were right, even within the EU a number of countries attempted to go off and obtain supplies on their own. It’s been suggested that EU countries have the freedom to not take part in the collective scheme but it became clear quite quickly like many of the EU rules that they don’t really mean a lot when challenged, and everyone was ‘politely’ brought back into the fold. 
 

Without making this thread a Brexit thread it just highlighted some of the reasons for leaving the EU, by avoiding its slow, bureaucratic ‘one size fits’ all approach, and acting in its own interests it’s managed to prove to be more agile and fast acting. It’s shone a light on the weaknesses in the current setup of the EU and the way the EU has behaved towards the UK and pretty much the whole world has really exposed the reality of that system and who runs it. But anyway, enough about that.

[Fragile Bird]

Hahaha! Let’s be pigs because everyone else is a pig!

Except other countries are sharing vaccine.

[Filippa Eilhart]

let's not forget this is the EU acting jointly in an area where the EU actually has no competence. It's a new process. But the slowness is I think an acceptable price to pay for avoiding a situation where you have Germany vaccinated at 80% and Poland at 5% because Poland could not have secured enough vaccines acting alone.

[Fragile Bird]

1 minute ago, Filippa Eilhart said:

let's not forget this is the EU acting jointly in an area where the EU actually has no competence. It's a new process. But the slowness is I think an acceptable price to pay for avoiding a situation where you have Germany vaccinated at 80% and Poland at 5% because Poland could not have secured enough vaccines acting alone.

OMG! Why doesn’t Poland have it’s own vaccine plants! Shame on them! Tear down the government!

That’s what we see thrown at Canada by both Canadians and other countries. The shame, the shame!

At least Novavax will be manufacturing here by the end of the year.

[Padraig]

11 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

I'd say you have it backwards: the British government was desperate to show that Brexit was NOT a mistake, hence was willing to pay a lot of money to make sure the UK's vaccination program wasn't slower than the EU's (that it turned out faster was, I think, an unexpected bonus).

Given the UK's strong pharmaceutical sector, I'd posit that it would have been a dismal failure if the UK's program had not been significantly faster than the EU, especially given that there was political will. And I'm tempted to say: "so what?" There's tons of things a single wealthy country can do significantly faster than an alliance of more than two dozen countries (some of them not so wealthy). While speed is certainly a net benefit in itself in a pandemic (allowing millions to go back to normal lives), it might not be the alpha and the omega. The point of any alliance of nations is to build some form of inter-national solidarity.

That's very well said.

40 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Its a factor, but it's not an excuse. The US has double the EU population and has also vaccinated almost twice as much of it's population as the EU. The EU hasn't done well, we can sit here and bicker about just how badly it has done but I don't think it can be said to be a case study in efficiency when you look at how it compares to the rest of the world. 

I wouldn't dispute much of this but I don't think anyone is saying that the EU is doing well.  So its a bit of a strawman argument.

"Rest of world" is incorrect though.  Unless you think the US and UK (and a few smaller countries) is the "Rest of World"?

The US is definitely the better comparator with the EU.  But even there, the US benefits from having 3 of the 4 Western vaccines coming from US companies.  Right now, J&J is shipping vaccines from the EU to the US so that they can hit their Q1 US target.  Its not to say that the EU is doing well.  But you can't ignore the full picture.

In the UK, you often read that the EU is a bully.  It was never really true but the "problem" here is that the EU wasn't a bully.

49 minutes ago, rotting sea cow said:

Again. I understand why this isn't being discussed openly. Racism and classism are real problems. At the same time, you really need a social plan to reach out these people otherwise you will never understand why the infection and death rates are exploding.

Its almost an opportunity lost though.  You read in the US media that they are very conscious that certain minorities were more hesitant about the vaccine than others.  So there was some attempt to engage with that issue.  Shining a light on the marginalised may be a good thing.

[Padraig]

17 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

What the British realised is that vaccine nationalism was going to happen, it’s obvious. Therefore you need to act fast and make sure you are in charge as much as possible of your own supply.

There is a lot missing from this.  What countries attempted to go off and obtain their own supplies?

Initially, all countries thought it was a good idea to do one order (especially the smaller countries, as they thought they would be forgotten about otherwise).  A few countries may have second thoughts now (although, I would like to think not) but it is a bit late.  If you order something today, its not like you are going to see it before 2022 probably.

But a few countries have bought Sputnik, since they wanted to.

So again, seems to be a red herring argument.

Any criticism of the EU should focus on one question.  Could it have done more to get supply earlier?   Everything else seems irrelevant.  I'm not sure what you mean by the way the EU behaves towards the rest of the world.

Are you trying to justify vaccine nationalism by saying that everyone was going to do it?  But the countries in the EU didn't.  It treated it as a shared issue because it is one.  And more power to it.