Forum Topic

EU's vaccination car crash in slow motion

Watching the EU and it's vaccine role out is like watching an inevitable car crash in slow motionthose european politicians who soiled the now unwanted Oxford AZ jab have blood on their hands - they now call it the Aldi low budget vaccine the last laugh, although it's no laughing matter, will be this side of the channeland (unfortunately) a great coup for the brexiteers

Gregory Edelston ● 1861d39 Comments

I think the age of 65 is now becoming somewhat arbitrary for being "elderly". I think pension age for those born in the late 1950s is now 66 and there's no longer a specified retirement age. I can see the NHS and other bodies has to have age boundaries for statistical and management purposes but I'm not sure how much they really mean in clinical terms? But prepared to be corrected on that!

Michael Ixer ● 1859d

I'm not medical, but I think 65 does seem to be a sort of cut-off, hospitals would categorise you as "elderly" once you hit 65. And if you develop some diseases like Parkinson's or dementia before 65 it's described as "early onset" but once you're over that particular hill it's regarded as par for the course.

Elizabeth Balsom ● 1859d

As far as I'm aware the fact about the AZ vaccine is that there weren't enough participants over 65 years old in the stage three trial to draw any conclusions about its efficacy in that age group. I'm not an immunologist but from what I've read the immune system becomes less effective itself with age so may also become less likely to respond to a vaccine. However, I would assume ages are just put in a band like "over 65" for convenience. I would assume that there isn't a sudden dip in efficacy at the age of 65 (!) but a possible gradual reduction in its efficacy after that age. What we don't know is the rate at which efficacy declines for the AZ vaccine, if at all. The Scottish report seems to indicate it maintains a reasonably high level. So if offered the AZ vaccine it seems sensible to take it. I'm not sure any testing would show that efficacy in any vaccine in (for example) an average 90 year old is as good as for an average 70 year old - I don't think the trials take into account? that level of detail; perhaps someone else does know?

Michael Ixer ● 1859d

Sanofi is working with GSK, so I suppose we have a dog in that particular fight. If their second attempt works, perhaps Macron will be less abusive towards us!I agree philosophy is about as much use as Classics.

Elizabeth Balsom ● 1859d

All of your friends and anyone over 65 is better getting the AZ vaccine than nothing at all. The chances are it has some benefit, though there is no evidence of this yet from clinical trials, there is evidence that it is safe.Since we seem to have supplies of both vaccines, it is a shame our government hasn't been arrange to give the AZ one to vulnerable under 65's, front-line workers etc and the Pfizer one to older people. Not bothering to do this has helped the numbers in the campaign to give as many people as possible their first jab - which looks good on telly.It is perfectly possible that the new trials show the AZ vaccine to be effective in over 65's also, thus allowing Johnson'e poker game with our older generation's health a win.Macron does seem to be on another planet doesn't he. I looked him up - his first degree is in philosophy, not immunology. That's about as useful as Classics isn'n it.If the Sanofi one had worked first time and the AZ one not (and it does seem to be just a lottery), how different things would be! Strangely, of the 3 companies which dominate the vaccine market (Sanofi, GSK and Merck), none have yet come up with a working vaccine, despite their best efforts. If all the major governments (US, EU, China, UK, Russia eg) had not ploughed billions into sponsoring dozens of developments, including various "whacky ideas" like MRNA vaccines and chimpanzee derived adenoviruses, we would still all be totally screwed.Everyone should take up whatever vaccine they are offered.

Michael Winstanley ● 1859d

Friends in Bath, Bradford on Avon, Leamington Spa, Norfolk, South Northants, Taunton, York, all mid 70s have had the AZ jab.I gather the AZ and Pfizer vaccines work differently, but as I have no grasp of science I no nothing of their relative efficacy. Le Roi Soleil rubbishes the AZ vaccine at every opportunity,but I do not know the extent of his scientific background. Nor do I know what method Sanofi has been working on.Our death rate is shameful and Johnson's attention, certainly in the early stages, was elsewhere.

Elizabeth Balsom ● 1860d

Interesting early indications from this report on the results of Scottish vaccinations are encouraging:https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n523From what I gather one gets given whatever vaccine is available for the first shot - I had the Pfizer vaccine at the scout hut but I know others had the AstraZeneca one from that location. 

Michael Ixer ● 1860d

I am not over 65. If I were, I would far prefer to have the Pfizer vaccine and would see no reason why I should not be given it. If the Pfizer vaccine did not exist, I would make do with the AZ vaccine. But as I am not over 65, I'm happier with either, or Moderna. We should all get one; even the Queen says so.European countries are in the position where both Pfizer and AZ are available. It is then a sensible decision to allocate supplies of the Pfizer vaccine to the over 65's and of the AZ vaccine to younger people. It is a course of action that we could have taken in the UK -instead we have decided to take a risk, as we have decided to take a risk on a 12 week delay between jabs. I hope both pay off. Each is against scientific/medical advice and each could conceivably increase the UK death rate, which is already one of the highese in the world, primarily due to Johnson's vacillating.You seem severely misinformed about the situation. There are not warehouses full of vaccines going unused in Europe because they have been refused. The reason less jabs have been given in Europe so far per capita is that they do not sufficient supplies. The reason they do not have supplies is that AZ has not delivered on their contract with them. This is nothing to do with a "farce" in Brussels. Nor is the higher level of vaccine hesitancy in some European countries anything to do with the EU vaccine procurement programme. The Commission took on the job of vaccine procurement, not public health information - this is the responsibility of each individual government as it is that of our own. Vaccine rollout is also the responsibility of each national health service in each country, not the EU. Perhaps you live in some fantasy world in which EU countries don't have individual governments the same way that we do.How does it go in your world? "They can't get enough vaccines for us " - "Oh, well that puts me off taking it then; they can't work very well otherwise they's have bought more sooner". Do you think this is a logical way for people to think? This doesn't make any sense.

Michael Winstanley ● 1860d

It isn't in the least bit amusing Michael, even if you find it funny.  This farce orchestrated by Brussels is putting millions of EU residents' health at risk and the resulting deaths will be tragic.I assume from the scepticism of your post that you would refuse to have the AZ vaccine?

Sue Hammond ● 1860d

This is a half-plausible theory.However, we have never baulked at opting out from EU activities when it suited us; we retained our veto, we refused to join the Schengen and opted out of the Euro. Though it is impossible to know now what would have happened in hypothetical circumstances which never have and never will exist, on balance, I think you are wrong about this.We similarly opted out of an EU joint initiative to procure PPE in favour of acquiring it all through mates of Matt Hancock at a premium. Thank goodness we didn't go that route with the vaccines - paying that premium direct to the manufacturers instead - at least they can be argued to deserve it.

Michael Winstanley ● 1860d

This is a comic book fantasy version of real events which bears little relation to them. If it amuses you to indulge in this sort of ridiculous story-telling, I guess you can't do many people any harm with it - it's not as if anyone has much else to do at the moment.At present there is no reliable data on the effects of the AZ vaccine on the over 65's. This is why it hasn't been approved at all in the USA, even for emergency use and why in Europe, many countries will only use it for the under 65's. AZ has been forced to conduct further trials to demonstrate its efficacy in the over 65's before the FDA will consider it for approval.My best guess would be that these trials will show a positive result - I do sincerely hope so.

Michael Winstanley ● 1860d

Nobody is crowing Michael.  The EU #ucked up on its vaccine procurement because its lumbering bureaucratic process was too slow, but now they cannot get the amount they want, and according to Ursula Whotsit, it's everybody elses' fault. Then the wee wannabe Bonaparte sticks his nose in and states the AZ drug doesn't work for the over 65's anyway, and now Ma Merkel has said she won't take it!  This vaccine chaos is of the EU's own making and thank goodness the U.K. are not part of it.

Sue Hammond ● 1860d

There wasn't an EU purchasing framework for vaccines with which to remain. This was a one-off put together for Covid-19 vaccines.I don't see what this all has to do with Euphiles defending the EU. It is simply about getting one's facts right. The EU has practically the same contract as us. It is just that AZ has chosen to supply us, not them. We haven't got anything "right" or anything "wrong" (unless we have given someone at AZ a secret backhander), we have just been lucky.

Michael Winstanley ● 1860d

Sorry, I'm reading down the thread in the order the comments were first made and I have to repeat, this is nonsense again. (i) We did have to follow EU rules in the transition period - read the treaty if you doubt this.(ii) No-one was forced to joing the EU joint purchasing scheme. It was not an "EU rule". It was voluntary. Any country  could have opted out as we did.THen, they did not muck up. They bought the same vaccines as us, their contract with AZ is similar and ours and theirs were signed within a day of each other. They have negotiated a price 1/3 of ours. That might be why AZ has chosen to supply us first and it is definitely why the EU Commission is in a dispute with AZ - not with itself.

Michael Winstanley ● 1860d

No Sue, this is utter nonsense. We were still in the transition period and thus still subject to all the EU treaties. Vaccine purchasing is not something the EU normally does, but the EU Commission suggested that it work on behalf of its members in a joint purchasing exercise. No-one had to join and we could have joined it if we wanted.It was nothing to do with being an independent country.Nor have all the countries involved been fighting each other "like rats in a sack" over it. The vaccines they have managed to get hold of are being shared out equitably between the countries.However, the wondrous Astra Zeneca has let them down on delivery quantities.Frankly, I think the fact that they have not been able to vaccinate as fast as us so far, whatever the underlying reasons, is a pretty cycnical thing to try to crow about.

Michael Winstanley ● 1860d

Vaccines are wonderful and even if Brexit is a success both are only applicable to the living.With one of the worse death rates in the world we need to learn the lessons that enabled some of the other countries, mainly in the southern hemisphere, to escape this pandemic without such a cost to lives and the economy.Europe need to learn those lessons too but the UK had an advantage as we were told during Brexit we are an island nation (even though we consist of more than one island).

Ed Robinson ● 1860d

Yes, probably agree to disagree on that. Hopefully we can agree on animal welfare issues and now the government is free from any EU compromises they can implemented strict standards in the food industry, etc?

Michael Ixer ● 1861d

Nice try David but ultimately a hopeless one. 😉

Sue Hammond ● 1861d

Yes, I was just trying, in my usual peaceloving way, to bring the opposing fictions together. Or perhaps factions.

David Ainsworth ● 1861d

Michael we will never agree on the machinations of the EU.  I see Brussels/EU as a quasi controlling dictatorship and you see it as a strong united confederacy so we had better agree to disagree.

Sue Hammond ● 1861d

The FT paywall let me rad this via Google if not via your link, Sue's. I see this is really just checking that the 27 states are not undermining the strategy that signed up and agreed to  that is they're not trying to purchase vaccines that should already be committed to the EU by suppliers. Otherwise there's nothing to stop them ordering supplies independently, like Hungary has done with Sputnik V.David, I did qualify one of my earlier posts to say that if UK had still been an EU member we couldn't know if they would have been part of the EU purchasing scheme. Of course if we were still in the EU perhaps Cameron would still be PM and Johnson of somewhere writing history books or Xenophon articles for some journal 🙂 It's difficult to say, we might have joined in and our biotech and health care system knowledge would have made the EU schemes great success or - like Schengen and the Euro - we might have gone on our own anyway?

Michael Ixer ● 1861d

Yes in theory the EU member states could have done their own thing with vaccine procurement...as long as the controlling Brussels bureaucrats agreed with it! Thank heavens we are now free of all that nonsense. Brussels probes member states’ compliance with EU Covid vaccine strategyhttps://www.ft.com/content/1d358d9e-a89e-4f26-a4d9-ba04ea78008e

Sue Hammond ● 1861d

Spot on David

Andy Pike ● 1861d

But unlike the 27 we did not face pressure from Brussells to stay United on vaccines. The only pressure we faced was from old hindsight and his gang .Had we still been in we would have been pressured to stay solid with the others.

Andy Pike ● 1861d

I totally agree with you Michael.The EU has not performed properly with regard to the vaccines (but each Member State can opt out from central purchasing if they so wish).On par, the UK has performed very badly with regard to the Brexit deal, the supply of PPE, questionable contracts, the non-existent track and trace.....I agree that the government purchased the Pfizer vaccine just in the nick of time and legally - though I do not think honourable would be a classification I would use.Thank goodness for the NHS (not the government) for the excellent roll out of the vaccines.

Ivonne Holliday ● 1861d

I think that pro-Brexit people will assume that, if we had voted to remain in 2016 and had a UK government with that mindset, then we might have been more likely to accept the EU policy on vaccine purchase in 2020 and so would have faced the situation of delay and shortfall now faced by the EU without us. We might not have been as go-it-alone as Hungary has been, although we would have been free to do so as a member.

David Ainsworth ● 1861d

Sigh ...

Sue Hammond ● 1861d

Just to add, Matt probabilities described it more adequately as a ballsup and I'm not wriggling just being pedantic about the facts. 🙂

Michael Ixer ● 1861d

I'm not disagreeing that the EU have messed up their vaccine rollout plan, all I'm saying is that the UK could have run it's own plan even if it had been a member of the EU. It's opt out of the purchasing agreement and use of emergency vaccine approval powers was fully compliant with EU rules which applied during the transition phase. Is that difficult to understand? 

Michael Ixer ● 1861d

@Andy and MattTotally agree. But Michael will still wriggle lol.

Sue Hammond ● 1861d

pretty sure i'm a europhile and I can agree, they've ballsed this up.

Matt Palmer ● 1861d

Let's not forget that captain hindsight used foresight to state we should remain with the EU purchasing framework for vaccines.So the one time he looked forward he got it terribly wrong. Thank god he wasnt in charge.I understand the Europhiles want to defend the EU but surely this is an example where they got it wrong and we, acting independently of them got it right. You can dress it up any way you like but the situation on the ground today is irrefutable.

Andy Pike ● 1861d

Sue. We could have still have made the decision to not join the EU purchasing scheme and exercise the emergency option to approve our own vaccines even if we were full EU members. Whether we would have done is another matter, although perhaps if the UK had been involved with its Biotech knowledge the EU plan would have worked better? Altho, remember, the Pfizer BioNTech vaccine was developed by Turkish immigrants in Turkey and AstraZeneca plc is a British-Swedish multinational company ...

Michael Ixer ● 1861d

I think Macron is possibly regretting some of his comments as a number of people in France (and possibly elsewhere) are rejecting the AstraZeneca vaccine. It's certainly a good example of when politicians should avoid speaking about science and technology that they don't understand. I'd put the success of the British programme mainly down to leaving it to the experts: the scientists who approved the vaccines and helped plan the rollout, the NHS who also planned and executed the vaccinations, and the army who assisted with the logistics. No outsourcing to the mercenaries!

Michael Ixer ● 1861d

I disagree Michael.  The UK did not have to follow or accept any EU rules during the transition period.  We could have acted in the same way as 'them' if we had wanted to but we did not, and thank goodness for that!  The EU mucked up (polite version) and the in-fighting will continue as the bloc continues to fall apart.

Sue Hammond ● 1861d

Sue. That's not correct. During transition the same rules applied to the UK as applied to the countries remaining in the EU, having left on the 31st Jan 20 it could no longer contribute to the making or changing of any EU rules. With regard to vaccines, the UK opted out of the EU's joint vaccine purchase programme and also elected to invoke EU emergency rules to carry out its own vaccine approvals in December. Any other EU member could have done that. I believe Hungary hedged its bets both ways as it's getting some vaccines via the EU provgramme but is also getting supplies of the Russian Sputnick V vaccine independently. Keep in mind the joint EU programmme may still be more advantageous for some smaller EU countries as they don't have the same Biotech knowledge or approval processes as the UK or larger EU countries such as Germany.

Michael Ixer ● 1861d

Can't help feeling it's a lot to do with Le Petit Prince in the Elysee asserting the AZ vaccine is ineffective rubbish, when he's probably just mad that the French manufacturers didn't get in there first. Any news on the Sanofi jab?The whole thing has been unsavoury. I glance at the FAZ online where they rant on about "The British variant" and I think, goodness me, you don't mean we've actually exported them something. The tone is unedifying.

Elizabeth Balsom ● 1861d

No Freddie, he UK officially left the EU on 31st January 2020.  The vaccines were ordered during the transition period.  The UK was able to act faster as a fully independent country.  The EU bloc could not and they've been fighting each other like rats in a sack ever since.  So much for their solidarity lol.

Sue Hammond ● 1861d

I thought we were still in the EU when the vaccines were ordered. My impression is this is nothing to do with Brexit per se, just that we were more pro-active and the continentals less confident or suspucious.

Freddie Francis ● 1861d