#COVID19 | Page 908 | Vital Football

#COVID19

in_the_top_one said:
The EMA have long established processes (since well before brexit) for assessing new drugs. They were surprised that the brits broke from that and approved when they did. They are perfectly entitled to protect themselves and those they represent by not clearing a new product until they are sure. We all wish they could have arrived at that sooner but it is not really anything to do with Macron or Merkel.

Macron, president of France, said something stupid about data for the over 65s (only) - probably because he didn't understand, maybe because he is upset about brexit, who knows - perhaps both.
He subsequently said it was safe and effective and that he would have it.
“The Haute Autorité de Santé now considers as of today that all three vaccines that we have in France have a remarkable efficacy to protect people against the risk of severe forms of Covid-19,” said the minister.
“As a result, I can announce that from now on people aged 50 and above who have co-morbidities such as diabetes, high blood pressure or a history of cancer can be vaccinated with AstraZeneca, including those aged 65 to 74.”
Mr Véran however said that those aged 74 and above will be administered Pfizer or Moderna jabs.
The country earlier cited a lack of data in its refusal to approve the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine for the elderly and vulnerable populations.
They have sufficient Pfizer and Moderna stock for the over 74s and they believe (probably correctly) that there is more data for those treatments in that age bracket. There is literally nothing wrong with that stance.

Find me a representative of the EU that said it doesn't work or is unsafe?

Like Strett and Lienking have been saying, if they didn't think it was any good, why were they so keen to get hold of it?

In addition, AZ are only going to deliver 45% of what they promised. Who wouldn't be angry about that?
Click to expand...

I haven't gone completely into all of this but believe that Macron has done most of the damage with his earlier remarks and some countries are still taking his comments as gospel resulting in a slower application of vaccines.

I don't have the faintest idea whether this was deliberate on his part or not but there's no doubting the result.
 
in_the_top_one said:
What do these words have in common: Indonesia, Thailand, Norway, Democratic Republic of the Congo?
All countries with a political axe to grind against plucky brits, and for which I have Stockholm Syndrome, apparently.


Look, I think the suspension is wrong (as I said). I think the suspension is damaging (as I said). I think it will be restarted very soon (as I said). The EMA doesn't really have an axe to grind and it is their decision. They are following a process which was put in place for very good reasons.
Macron was wrong to say what he did (as I said) and right to change his mind and announce that he would take AZ when offered.
Merkel continues to receive blame for not taking it when she simply wasn't allowed to. If this is their political calculation then it was a rather poor one given we know how much the public love a good vaccination programme. If you really think they are deliberately pausing vaccinating their populations to get one over on Boris or improve their polling, you are barking mad.
Click to expand...

So will you also say that leaving the EU has enabled us to do far better than the EU in vaccinations? So, ergo because of Brexit lives are being saved (not the government, as we know their shortcomings, but Brexit)?

If we had joined, the UK, unlike all EU member states, would not have been able to take part in the governance of the scheme, including the steering group or the negotiating team.

Britain would have no say in what vaccines to procure, at what price or in what quantity, and for what delivery schedule. There would be no side-deals possible, all because of Brexit.

So, it is only logical then that we didn't join because of Brexit and, ergo it has been a sucess because of Brexit.
 
Strett said:
So will you also say that leaving the EU has enabled us to do far better than the EU in vaccinations? So, ergo because of Brexit lives are being saved (not the government, as we know their shortcomings, but Brexit)?

If we had joined, the UK, unlike all EU member states, would not have been able to take part in the governance of the scheme, including the steering group or the negotiating team.

Britain would have no say in what vaccines to procure, at what price or in what quantity, and for what delivery schedule. There would be no side-deals possible, all because of Brexit.

So, it is only logical then that we didn't join because of Brexit and, ergo it has been a sucess because of Brexit.
Click to expand...

Its a good job brexit only affects vaccinations cos bearing in mind it is the only obvious success (although it is not at all clear we needed to leave to get the same result) imagine if brexit affected all the other areas where we can see anything but success. Oh wait...
 
The EU have screwed up horribly through their arrogance. Their hubris (sorry DF) has caused others’ nemesis: people are now dead because of their power grab and their decision to wait for a ‘French vaccine’.

They couldn’t decide whether to try to delegitimise Britain’s vaccination programme, to query the contracts, or to cast doubt on the vaccine itself.

In the end, like mad scientists in a sci-fi B-movie, they tried a combination of all the ingredients. The result: more deaths, vaccine scepticism, delayed immunity and further economic damage. And now the precautionary principle is king.

It is simultaneously a disturbing illustration of the EU’s arrogance and a salutary lesson for the future, that is to say, never trust the EU.

Leaving this bloc will be looked back on as the best move the UK has made in generations.
 
Woanz said:
The EU are behaving stupidly but as pointed out to you despite everything they’re only 2 or 3 weeks behind us despite their size difference & our amazing head start as for the rest of that bullshit if you genuinely think there’s been more advantages than less then you’re delusional.
Click to expand...

The new development in AstraZeneca's fractious relationship with the EU could cause a month's delay to the bloc's target of vaccinating 75 percent of its adult population by Sep 21, the London-based research firm Airfinity Ltd said yesterday.
 
radfordinlondon said:
Its a good job brexit only affects vaccinations cos bearing in mind it is the only obvious success (although it is not at all clear we needed to leave to get the same result) imagine if brexit affected all the other areas where we can see anything but success. Oh wait...
Click to expand...

I've just posted above that...

Strett said:
If we had joined, the UK, unlike all EU member states, would not have been able to take part in the governance of the scheme, including the steering group or the negotiating team.

Britain would have no say in what vaccines to procure, at what price or in what quantity, and for what delivery schedule. There would be no side-deals possible, all because of Brexit.
Click to expand...

So no, we would be languishing with only 10% of our population vaccinated, infections on the rise, a third wave imminent and all the anti-Tory posters screaming it's all the Butcher's fault.
 
Are you the one that say we're deranged about brexit?
Deary me, you need to sit down and have a cup of english breakfast.

There is no point agreeing with a minor point on which you might be right because it is embedded in an enormous plate of spaghetti of muddled thinking, logical fallacies and abject bile. I don't know where to start, so I shan't bother.
 
Calvin Plummer said:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56361599

Interesting read (though obviously it will be disregarded by the right and left as biased) - some highlights include Johnson saying the best strategy would be to ignore the virus and refusing to listen to SAGE advice on not shaking hands.
Click to expand...

Have only just clicked on the link and am already sickened.

"At the beginning of March 2020, I asked a senior member of the government: "Do you feel worried?" They replied: "Personally? No." But just weeks later, Downing Street was scrambling to manage the biggest crisis since World War Two. "

In March we could all see what was happening and about to happen.
By 7th March there had already been many problems in Wuhan, obviously, but also 145 dead in Iran, and 230 dead in Italy.
Incredible hubris by that "senior member of government".
 
in_the_top_one said:
Are you the one that say we're deranged about brexit?
Deary me, you need to sit down and have a cup of english breakfast.

There is no point agreeing with a minor point on which you might be right because it is embedded in an enormous plate of spaghetti of muddled thinking, logical fallacies and abject bile. I don't know where to start, so I shan't bother.
Click to expand...


So are you now saying it is because of Brexit (minor) whereas previously you posted this...

in_the_top_one said:
Two issues here.

1. This is fabulous news. A step towards what we all want. A true cause for celebration.

2. Fuck all to do with Brexit, I'm afraid. Literally, fuck all.
Click to expand...
 
in_the_top_one said:
Have only just clicked on the link and am already sickened.

"At the beginning of March 2020, I asked a senior member of the government: "Do you feel worried?" They replied: "Personally? No." But just weeks later, Downing Street was scrambling to manage the biggest crisis since World War Two. "

In March we could all see what was happening and about to happen.
By 7th March there had already been many problems in Wuhan, obviously, but also 145 dead in Iran, and 230 dead in Italy.
Incredible hubris by that "senior member of government".
Click to expand...

Agreed terrible mismanagement, looking even worse with the benefit of hindsight.
 
Strett said:
So are you now saying it is because of Brexit (minor) whereas previously you posted this...
Click to expand...
We could have done what we did while remaining members of the EU.
Nothing we did was contingent on brexit.
We could have joined or not joined the procurement scheme.
We chose not to. That has worked out well so far.
We would probably have been more likely to choose to participate in the scheme if we had remained in the EU after the referendum. The result of that choice could be said to be a result of brexit. The reasons for the decision were almost certainly not correctly founded. It wasn't that they thought they could do it better or faster, the just didn't want the brexit baggage or have anything to do with the EU. I would have preferred the decision to be based not on ideology but on public health grounds - i.e. what was best for the health of the nation. I think that was very much secondary but we will never truly know unless we believe the word of Michael Gove and I'm reluctant to do that even when he is supporting my point of view. He said that the reason we weren't joining was because of oversight by the ECJ - clearly something he couldn't accept. e.g. he said we didn't join because we weren't in the EU (which was irrelevant) and also "participation in the European Medicines Agency would involve, certainly at the moment, the acceptance of the European Court of Justice’s oversight, and that is not something the British people voted to do."



Brexit may well cost more lives and livelihoods than the virus due to economic decline and further austerity. We shall have to wait and see but it hasn't started well.


I hope that is a satisfactory answer? I have said exactly this before; there are no revelations.

The rest of your posts today are a bit embarrassing tbh.
 
in_the_top_one said:
We could have done what we did while remaining members of the EU.
Nothing we did was contingent on brexit.
We could have joined or not joined the procurement scheme.
We chose not to. That has worked out well so far.
We would probably have been more likely to choose to participate in the scheme if we had remained in the EU after the referendum. The result of that choice could be said to be a result of brexit. The reasons for the decision were almost certainly not correctly founded. It wasn't that they thought they could do it better or faster, the just didn't want the brexit baggage or have anything to do with the EU. I would have preferred the decision to be based not on ideology but on public health grounds - i.e. what was best for the health of the nation. I think that was very much secondary but we will never truly know unless we believe the word of Michael Gove and I'm reluctant to do that even when he is supporting my point of view. He said that the reason we weren't joining was because of oversight by the ECJ - clearly something he couldn't accept. e.g. he said we didn't join because we weren't in the EU (which was irrelevant) and also "participation in the European Medicines Agency would involve, certainly at the moment, the acceptance of the European Court of Justice’s oversight, and that is not something the British people voted to do."



Brexit may well cost more lives and livelihoods than the virus due to economic decline and further austerity. We shall have to wait and see but it hasn't started well.


I hope that is a satisfactory answer? I have said exactly this before; there are no revelations.

The rest of your posts today are a bit embarrassing tbh.
Click to expand...

So was that a yes or no?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.