Danzy wrote: » They could pull the finger out and get it approved. The response has been pretty limp wristed for the last few months.
An Ri rua wrote: » 2 fires? One fire is unfortunate...
HalfAndHalf wrote: » Grabs popcorn, sits back to watch the thread turn into a ‘those bloody Brits it’s all a Brexit stitch up forgetting the company is half owned by a Swedish company’!!
HalfAndHalf wrote: » How so? There are precisely zero facts as yet and just because there’s been some very unstatesmanlike rants coming out of Brussels it’s not what you think, it’s what you can prove. All anyone has been told as yet is that there’s been a fire in an Indian plant and Belgian plant, the latter being the cause of the Pfizer and BioNtech delays.
CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: » Tell me what vaccination regime should be applied on approval? When should the second dose happen?
basill wrote: » Its a plc. The original Zeneca shareholders who received 53.5% of the shares following the merger with Astra AB weren't necessarily Swedish. Indian plant would appear to be a separate entity and exclusively for the production of local product called Covishield. Would appear to be a red herring.
Dressoutlet wrote: » Tbh I'm pissed off at the EU telling Ireland we can't have a supply ready for when it's approved. They're taking their time and punishing the UK for brexit (not a fan of brexit myself, I support the EU) but risking the rest of our health's for spite. AZ should tell the EU to go fxxk themselves.
HalfAndHalf wrote: » What’s that got to do with the time it’s taking to sign off on the AZ vaccine. That’s just deflecting! They’ve all jumped into throwing their weight around yet we’re still 4 days off from them approving the vaccine they’re moaning they won’t get enough of anyway!
Donald Trump wrote: » The main connection with Brexit was that Brexit allowed the UK ruling classes to use the workers as guinea pigs for the vaccine roll out It also allows the UK to jump the queue and outbid the EU countries and potentially start a bidding war for short-term optics.
CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: » Astra Zenaca did a trial based on the second dose being 3 weeks after the first dose. The efficacy was 62%. They had a second regimen of a half dose and then 4-5 months later a full dose with efficacy of around 90%. Astra Zenaca said that this was wrong and it was flawed. Astra Zenaca have then come up with a 3rd regimen with very little data of taking one dose and 12 weeks later taking a second dose. There was next to no trial data on it bus Astra zenaca said they thing it's the best based on some lab based data. If we are to approve the vaccine and a dosage regimen we should have some better data. Hopefully the ema have better data now but the above is a summary of what they had last time.
Mike3549 wrote: » Its not EU who tells that, its AZ
Donald Trump wrote: » Because they are not taking shortcuts? Or allowing exceptions that wouldn't normally be allowed? Hardly limp-wristed is it? UK seem happy enough to bung over a large wad and start injecting it into their citizens without asking too many questions. Seems like the UK basically kinda said "ok, we trust you guys and won't question you."
HalfAndHalf wrote: » Yep, we know all this, it was widely reported, it still doesn’t answer your initial response of what’s this got to do with the fact we’re still 4 days away from it being approved!
CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: » Lets see if I can make it simple. Data is bad. Ema need to take time and do due diligence to study the data in depth. Ema wont take shortcuts.
Dressoutlet wrote: » No, Brussels told Ireland they are not to order doses.
HalfAndHalf wrote: » Please don’t talk to me like I’m an idiot! You don’t need to ‘make it simple when you’re changing the subject as you don’t actually have an answer! UK didn’t take shortcuts either, or the other countries that have approved it. They amended the approval process to speed things up due to it being a reasonably serious situation. But keep making excuses of it helps you feel warm and fuzzy.
Russman wrote: » Ireland is the EU and a company can’t release unapproved medicinal products before they’re approved. It’s not the EU just saying we can’t. You really want us to go short of vaccines because you have the hump with the EU ?
Amirani wrote: » Except that's not what happened at all.
CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: » As I said If anyone wants to complain about the approval not coming through I want them to explain the data and their favoured dosage regimen. Dont just complain. If you want an approval tell me what they should approve. What dosage regimen and why. Edit: the uk came out and said they didnt know what the efficacy was for their chosen dosage regimen. That's a shortcut.
Hurrache wrote: » None of this post has any relationship to the reality though.
HalfAndHalf wrote: » What has a rollout regemin got to do with if it’s safe or not? You’re deflecting again. No answers, no response.
Dressoutlet wrote: » The EU jeopardising the health of one country to spite another Warren's a little more than having a 'hump' It's a downright dangerous precedent and should be nipped on the bud completely. Yes we would be short of vaccines but that would be the fdault of the EU trying to play supreme ruler and not because the company rightfully pulled out.
