Always the case, unfortunately. Hopefully temperatures will cool and common sense and purpose prevail.
EU unhappy with vaccination exports to non EU countries
- Thread starter Green_Red
- Start date
Great point, hard to think that if the good news from their trials wasn't published what reactions we would be seeing at the minute to the political moves.
Swedish media unarsed, main story is being delighted that the British-Swedish pharma vaccine has been approved.
Stupid as feck this evening from the EU, but not so arsed about the vaccine roll out, Swedish hospitals past peak weeks back, dropping 20% /week now.
Vaccines, even slowly rolled out will continue that downward trend.
Had a cafe lunch with a couple of mates today & then had to grab some shit from the mall. Bizarre talking tonight with mates & family back at home, they took lockdown 1 great, lockdown 2 ok but all seem utterly depressed this time. I didn’t really dare to tell them about my day.
Thanks
It's not on Chilevision
That's why I don't understand the lack of cool-headedness. I personally think that there is something fishy with AZ but even if it's actually the case, there are ways to deal with it later in a more vicious way, acting like children only made the commission and by extension the EU look really bad.
Probably why they triggered the nuclear clause in the NI protocol without thinking.
I think AZ are obliged to “over-provide” for the UK before they can send any UK made stock to Europe, which is morally wrong and quite frankly stupid.
It’s sent some at the EU into a frenzy and they come out of it looking like morons.
Don't think it features very highly looking very quickly.
Die Spiegel (international edition) has some stuff about how the West could come to regret their vaccine hoarding, another on VDL ducking responsibility for her failings, migrants from the ME stuck in Bosnia, German-American relations and....randomly an article from Sturgeon arguing for Scottish independence and rejoining the EU.
Le Monde seems mostly about measures to avoid another lockdown in France.
El Pais about the authorisation of the AZ vaccine in the EU, the J&J results, the EU-AZ scuffle, EU blocking vaccine exports and general Spanish news.
La repubblica mostly again about domestic Italian politics.
So seemingly currently not very much, which isn't surprising because I doubt the average German or Italian etc really cares about NI.
Indeed. Although that's utterly inexcusable given how long everyone's been arguing about NI.
I suspect they're probably right we'll use NI to backdoor vaccines in for what it's worth. But not sure there's much the EU can do about that without looking stupid like they currently are.
Swedish headlines:
• Sweden to face Denmark in Handball WC final
• British-Swedish AZ vaccine approved by EU
• Health authority wants to require negative covid test for arrivals from countries with new variants.
• Sweden to face Denmark in Handball WC final
• British-Swedish AZ vaccine approved by EU
• Health authority wants to require negative covid test for arrivals from countries with new variants.
No comment from my Dutch newspaper so far, just a report on the facts. They had an analysis of the ways AZ has been messing in the course of its vaccine development process yesterday though; and I suppose they'll follow up with an analysis on today's mess tomorrow.
What's she doing wrong? As a serious question. I had the impression she had been doing OK so far, but I haven't seen too much of her, apart from her usual figurehead appearances.
Not happy with Von der Leyen
West's greed for vaccines
The two articles by the way if anyone is interested in reading them.
West's greed for vaccines
The two articles by the way if anyone is interested in reading them.
In this instance, everything. She failed to make sure that the vaccines arrive as scheduled, she failed from a PR standpoint and finally she acted recklessly with the NI border clause, which will have an effect on his actual bosses in the EU capitals.
'In this instance', do you mean what's been happening this week, or also going back further regarding vaccine procurement?
I'm just curious if she's been a poor leader more generally, or if this week's events have quickly moved your guys' opinions on her over the edge. (Not criticizing that, just wondering. As I said, I don't know enough about her work so far. I just know I felt positively about her general long-term plan for the EU when she started in the job.)
The vaccine procurement shambles was unforgivable. The EU recovery fund is flawed and very poorly structured. And aside from that, the timing of the China investment agreement was awful.
given the optics, and now the retraction. She needs to go.
I mean she was in charge of the procurement campaign and now everyone is unhappy with the vaccination supply. That alone should put her in hot water. Though on the other hand I find it unfair to just flat out compare UK with EU numbers, when the UK is cutting corners with (using AZ on over 65 year olds and stretching out 2nd jabs), where EU countries are more careful. I think the comparison should be more nuanced, but that won't absolve her role either.
The EMA have authorised the AZ vaccine for everyone over the age of 18, the UK haven't done anything out of the ordinary by using it on over 65s and certainly that by itself is not cutting corners.
She was terrible from day one and as others have mentioned she wasn't seen positively before that too. Just an example of what she did immediately, she created a new commission portfolio named "Protecting our European way of life", that's how she thought an immigration focused porfolio should be named which was opposed by the EU parliament and protecting was turned into promoting. She couldn't even spend a day without her first blunder and then 2020 is a mess for her in terms of crisis management which leads us to today.
Thanks @JPRouve, @do.ob and @MikeUpNorth. Yes, this is quite the shambles, and taking responsibility would be good here. I don't think anyone in Europe would particularly mind - although national leaders might try to keep her in her job because they likely don't want to go through another painful round of trying of finding someone for the job.
I had not seen that before. Yes, that is very awful.
The wording is: “At least some protection is expected in this subgroup, although the exact level of protection cannot be estimated for the time being,” Bruno Sepodes, vice chair of EMA’s human medicines committee, told a news briefing."
I'm not necessarily saying what the UK is doing is wrong and I know sweet nothing about the medical side, but for my liking the public discussion is too focused on a race to highscores, with little to no regard for due diligence.
The wording is not really that relevant. I'm not claiming (nor I think is anyone) that the vaccine is incredible and 100% efficacious for the elderly population. Just that both the UK and EU medicines regulatory experts have deemed it both safe and efficacious enough to use for anyone over the age of 18. It is not cutting a corner to give the vaccine to >65s.
Whether individual countries (Germany) decide to take their own route regarding this or individual leaders (Macron) chat total crap in the media about it, is a different matter.
I agree that silly comparisons between countries are not helpful at all and should be stopped as much as possible.
By the way, I also think stupid trumpeting of your own scientists (Williamson), disparaging the scientific process of another country, even if in a roundabout way (Fauci) or making unsubstantiated comments about the efficacy of a vaccine when you yourself acknowledge that you haven't seen the data (Macron) is incredibly foolish in the current climate.
Last edited:
It’s interesting that the EMA licensed it for all adults. I thought there was a chance they might restrict to U65s but have no problem with them being pragmatic. Needs must. Or course, just because a drug is licensed for use in a certain population doesn’t make it the best option when other treatments are available, with better (meaning any!) clinical evidence behind them.
Anyway, the difference between the UK and EU regulatory timelines seems to be mainly about the type of license. Emergency vs conditional. The latter is more cautious and has higher standards of manufacturing and batch controls as well forcing the manufacturer to comply with legally binding post-authorisation safety monitoring. It’s definitely caused a slower initial roll-out but there could be longer term benefits if some of these vaccines reveal any nasty surprises (which is not impossible)
Personally, I’d rather live in whatever country gets the most needles into arms as quickly as possible. But the way this is being spun as nothing but pointless bureaucracy and incompetence from the EU is a little harsh. Although not surprising seeing as so many of us live in a UK media echo chamber (Airfinity, remember the name
)Also, in the long run, the different approaches to the regulatory process won't make more than a few weeks difference to the vaccination process. Given its length, that seems fairly insignificant - even more so given that very few vaccine doses were available when countries like the UK, US, and Canada got their emergency approvals through. The real difference is rollout speed is in the rollout process itself. (Which is of courae also a mess in many EU countries, but that's unrelated to the EU as an entity.)It’s interesting that the EMA licensed it for all adults. I thought there was a chance they might restrict to U65s but have no problem with them being pragmatic. Needs must. Or course, just because a drug is licensed for use in a certain population doesn’t make it the best option when other treatments are available, with better (meaning any!) clinical evidence behind them.
Anyway, the difference between the UK and EU regulatory timelines seems to be mainly about the type of license. Emergency vs conditional. The latter is more cautious and has higher standards of manufacturing and batch controls as well forcing the manufacturer to comply with legally binding post-authorisation safety monitoring. It’s definitely caused a slower initial roll-out but there could be longer term benefits if some of these vaccines reveal any nasty surprises (which is not impossible)
Personally, I’d rather live in whatever country gets the most needles into arms as quickly as possible. But the way this is being spun as nothing but pointless bureaucracy and incompetence from the EU is a little harsh. Although not surprising seeing as so many of us live in a UK media echo chamber (Airfinity, remember the name
That's very true and I agree with all of that.It’s interesting that the EMA licensed it for all adults. I thought there was a chance they might restrict to U65s but have no problem with them being pragmatic. Needs must. Or course, just because a drug is licensed for use in a certain population doesn’t make it the best option when other treatments are available, with better (meaning any!) clinical evidence behind them.
Anyway, the difference between the UK and EU regulatory timelines seems to be mainly about the type of license. Emergency vs conditional. The latter is more cautious and has higher standards of manufacturing and batch controls as well forcing the manufacturer to comply with legally binding post-authorisation safety monitoring. It’s definitely caused a slower initial roll-out but there could be longer term benefits if some of these vaccines reveal any nasty surprises (which is not impossible)
Personally, I’d rather live in whatever country gets the most needles into arms as quickly as possible. But the way this is being spun as nothing but pointless bureaucracy and incompetence from the EU is a little harsh. Although not surprising seeing as so many of us live in a UK media echo chamber (Airfinity, remember the name
Having said that, I've been getting updates from a German friend who lives in Berlin but who has family living in the countryside.....it actually does sound a bit chaotic there so far and would certainly raise a few eyebrows here I think! Similarly hearing from a Swiss friend in Switzerland of doctors who've been diagnosed with Covid being made to come in to work if they're not too unwell and just plonking them on Covid wards.
Fair to say the response across our continent has been varying degrees of shambolic.
Frankly, I'm not interested in point scoring or comparing countries (and agree its silly anyway with different strategies), I want to get jabs in arms for everyone as quickly as possible and do a virtual fist bump every time I see promising data for every new vaccine candidate.
The other thing getting lost in the shambolic EU rhetoric is the credit due to the NHS for doing an exceptional job. For all its flaws it’s still a hell of a good health service. So was always a chance it would be leading the way regardless. Unsurprising to see the Tories trying to skew the story to be all about procurement and investment in private companies.
It’s interesting that the EMA licensed it for all adults. I thought there was a chance they might restrict to U65s but have no problem with them being pragmatic. Needs must. Or course, just because a drug is licensed for use in a certain population doesn’t make it the best option when other treatments are available, with better (meaning any!) clinical evidence behind them.
Anyway, the difference between the UK and EU regulatory timelines seems to be mainly about the type of license. Emergency vs conditional. The latter is more cautious and has higher standards of manufacturing and batch controls as well forcing the manufacturer to comply with legally binding post-authorisation safety monitoring. It’s definitely caused a slower initial roll-out but there could be longer term benefits if some of these vaccines reveal any nasty surprises (which is not impossible)
Personally, I’d rather live in whatever country gets the most needles into arms as quickly as possible. But the way this is being spun as nothing but pointless bureaucracy and incompetence from the EU is a little harsh. Although not surprising seeing as so many of us live in a UK media echo chamber (Airfinity, remember the name
It seems to me that the EU commission made a grave error in judgement by treating their procurement program as they would any trade deal where getting the lowest price and protections took precedence over everything else. What they should have been doing is treating the situation as the emergency that it is by getting to front of the queue for vaccines. Obviously the buraucracy involved coordinating the member states further slowed them down.
The lower price and protections will likely be a false economy anyway given the economic damage that every week in lockdown causes.
It's interesting that you now seem to concede that some level of vaccine scepticism is important and that there's a chance that it can go horribly wrong in the long-term as I'm pretty sure you were arguing strongly against people that expressed similar views throughout the pandemic. How worried should we be on that count?
You can talk about echo chambers but the UK's most unashamedly pro-EU paper the FT has been the one with the best reporting on the failings of the EU program. Forget about words anyway, look at deeds, the way the EU has been acting in the past week should tell just how badly they've messed this up.
In what way?
Part of the reason that the EU's deal took longer is because they were haggling with vaccine manufacturers about liability. The UK and US accepted liability going on to the taxpayer whilst the EU held out until the manufacturers accepted liability. For major compensation claims to become an issue I'd assume that the vaccine(s) would have to cause some significant longer term health problems to the public?
Interesting to see Barnier pop up in the media again this morning urging cooperation. I think he still has eyes on the top job.
I’m no more a vaccine sceptic than I’m a medicine in general sceptic. I’m just explaining that the UK (and US) license involves looser regulation than the EU license, hence differing timelines. And it’s not just about indemnity. Allowing the manufacturer swerve any of the usual requirements around post-marketing safety surveillance, batch and manufacturing controls that is expected when they launch any other medicine obviously carries some risks. Otherwise why are they usually required?
Medicine is all about understanding risk and benefit and every medicine ever made carries some risk, hence the complex lengthy regulatory assessment. Cutting this back to the bare bones will obviously increase that risk. So it really all depends how comfortable you are with that risk.
Obviously, now the EU has issued a license very similar to the one in the UK that’s reassuring for everybody. Because this means that, at least in the EU, the vaccines are being subjected to the same regulatory rigour as previously approved medicines.
It’s the exact same logic behind the UK unilaterally deciding to not use Pfizer vaccine in accordance with its license. More risks being taken. They’re massively inflating the numbers vaccinated but at what cost? It’s a gamble that could still pay off but it is a gamble.
Last edited:
Nicola Sturgeon should just give all of Scotland's vaccines to the EU as goodwill. Problem solved.
'The people of Schotland have schpoken'
'The people of Schotland have schpoken'
It is interesting that you use the words EU Centric.
As someone with a broad understanding, do people you know consider themselves as European or French.
Because to me, this is a fundamental point.
At no time did anyone I know in England consider themselves truly as European.
I fully accept that there is a huge difference between European and EU.
But taking the vaccine procurement issues, I struggle to understand why any of the nations in the EU would not want to manage their own vaccine procurement process to suit their own specific needs.
EDIT. What I was meaning to say was that it is the responsibility of each government to look after the safety of their own people. Not the EU.
Last edited:
I would say that a lot of people under 40 see themselves has both French and EU citizens, while the vast majority racists included see themselves as French and Europeans.
As for the vaccine, the main issue is that EU countries in particular the founding countries rely on each others economically and logistically, we are not separated or on islands, so there would be no point for France or Germany to purchase millions of doses for themselves while the others have to wait several months to get access to their own doses. And that's without even thinking about the fact that some EU countries couldn't afford the potential bidding war.
That’s the core of the issue right there. Even post-Brexit the EU is essentially a single state whose economy is utterly reliant on internal freedom of movement. So it makes no sense to have big discrepancies in vaccination uptake. It’s in the interest of every European (not just EU) nation that nobody gets left behind and the front-runner states will not be immune (ha!) from the problems caused by delayed uptake in other countries.
A single territory, not a single state.
Yes. That’s much better worded.
Bit of a worry having my choice of words corrected by a non-English speaker but I’ll take it on the chin!
Like you I do so hope we can come to some sort of arrangement. I’d also like my country to state that as (like most wealthy countries) we will have vaccines coming out of every orifice in the next few months that we will be donating our excess supply to the poorer countries that will be in desperate need. Not holding my breath however.
If you’re talking about poorer countries within the EU then it’s a no-brainer for the UK to share any surplus vaccines. There’s an obvious economic upside.
With poorer countries that are further away its a different scenario. With all the Brexit chat about the bonds within the Commonwealth they really should be thinking about putting some vaccine where their mouth is. Although I definitely wouldn’t hold my breath on that one!