Hurrache wrote: » Not a sleight on you but pointing out the amusement of the wild variances in how people view what's happening, some say the EU are a bit blasé, others implying they're (as if we're not the EU) throwing a childish strop over not getting a contracted number of doses of a vacine for which they part funded.
noodler wrote: » Still no proof of this 8% claim actually being made?
hatrickpatrick wrote: » My issue with this angle is, why are we to assume that the UK's scientists would be spineless yes-men who would allow their independence to be trampled upon by the government? Governments putting independents individuals or organisations under pressure to deliver a particular outcome doesn't have to lead to those organisations necessarily complying with such demands. In Ireland, it more often than not seems to. I don't know if this is the case in other countries but I have no reason to assume that it is - I've always assumed that Ireland's issue with this is down to how socially tiny the upper echelons are and therefore how personal these things become. I doubt that's the case in a country with a significantly larger population. But I have no evidence either way. This angle, on the other hand, is based entirely on the assumption that organisations in the UK do, indeed, kowtow to politicians running their mouths.
Sonic the Shaghog wrote: » Every tweet lads have linked here about it only being 8% have all become unavailable so have they been deleted? Bit suss to be taking them down if they can back up their claim surely
HalfAndHalf wrote: » I’m 42 and I’d bite an arm off to get it tbh.
HalfAndHalf wrote: » So, my view being that it’s suspect timing to release currently unsubstantiated data is one side, the other view is that we’re saying the U.K. half of AZ have falsified figures, under instruction of the U.K. scientists on the orders of the U.K. government in the presumable hope that no one else would order the vaccine and therefore find out. I’ll happily admit I’m wrong, it happens a lot just ask the wife, if it turns out that the over 65’s efficacy is only 8% but Jesus, that’s some alternative theory!
“For example, it could be that a lower confidence interval was calculated on very preliminary data based on very few cases with a very wide interval, then a very low value of efficacy would be found, which would be misleading. The authors of The Lancet paper say additional data will become available and it will be best to rely on those data.”
hatrickpatrick wrote: » My issue with this angle is.......
Danzy wrote: » Aren't you just Shilling in the opposite way and adding in lots of buts and perhaps. It's not a replay of Brexit threads, as much as some think it is. In the biggest economic, social and health crisis globally since the end of WW2, the EU is falling way behind in vaccinations compared to others and it is now to a degree that that risks 2021 being a milder replay of last year for the EU while others put it behind them. The numbers are all that matters in this. That's all there is.
...Ghost... wrote: » Well no. I clearly said in my first post that most of what we have is speculation. My opinions are derived from experience on how these political games usually play out and I strongly suspect AZ will be shown to be at fault with a likelihood of UK involvement. You don't find it odd that their supply is not hampered even though the next biggest player has reported supply issues?
Bit cynical wrote: » If AZ can show they had manufacturing issues resulting in the current delay are they not in the clear? Yes it might be a bit unfair that the UK's supply was unaffected, but are AZ in fact under any obligation to be fair with allocations? AZ can argue that the allocation was made before the the manufacturing problems and it was simply unfortunate that the EU's supply got hit.
...Ghost... wrote: » AZ will have very detailed reports on their entire manufacturing regime, past present and future. This is why the EU want to investigate not withstanding less than satisfactory answers thus far. So, if AZ have indeed had manufacturing issues tied to and equating to the sum of the losses to the EU inventory, then they will have quelled some suspicion, but it does not put them in the clear.
Danzy wrote: As things stand for the last month in the EU, they are not.
Ficheall wrote: » Wasn't the AZ data always a bit iffy? Not testing enough people over 65, deciding half a dose was best based on a tiny sample, and iirc some vagueness over what they counted as an post-vaccine infection? I'd assumed there'd have been more rigorous investigation since - is this just 8% thing just poking at the how the original data was used?
hatrickpatrick wrote: » The news has been full of stories about AstraZeneca having slashed their initial vaccine deliveries to the EU by 60% and the knock on fallout from that. But what’s either being buried in all the reporting, or simply hasn’t been reported at all, is what exactly happened? What’s the reason for the delay? Technical, logistical, commercial, etc? I assumed it was similar to what was happening with Pfizer, which is essentially an issue of manufacturing capacity being reduced by an upgrade to their production facility. But what seems odd about the AstraZeneca situation is the anger directed towards them from officials and leaders, plus public statements that “They must honour their delivery commitments”, indicating that this isn’t an act-of-God type mishap in manufacturing, but an act of incompetence and/or willful reneging on the agreement - perhaps their capacity has remained the same but they’ve “bumped” the EU’s order in priority because others are paying more, or something along these lines? Does anyone know what exactly the situation is? I can’t seem to find anything beyond extremely vague statements at the moment.
CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: » 8% comes from Bild. That's enough to put in it the trash heap. I haven't seen a more creditable source backing it.
Hurrache wrote: » Other sources have been linked to a few times, most recently on the previous page.
CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: » I still haven't seen another source repeating the 8% claim even looking at the last few pages. A Twitter poster who sums up articles on his new feed is the only source of the 8% on the previous page. I repeat there is some dodgy data with AZ but the 8% seems to come out of left field. Articles I've read credits the 8% to Bild.
mick087 wrote: » Once again it's everyone else to blame except the EU. Why some countries was out buying vaccines the EU was trying to negotiate a better deal This is an appalling mess. This organization know as the EU has only itself to blame. Who from the EU will be accountable ?
Hurrache wrote: » You don't seem to understand the story at all.
Hurrache wrote: » Erm, they had ordered and funded the vaccines, hence the problem. They weren't trying to negotiate a better deal. You don't seem to understand the story at all.
mick087 wrote: » So eveyone else is to blame again except anyone from the EU. Who is accountable from the EU?
mick087 wrote: » Who is accountable from the EU?
...Ghost... wrote: » AZ will have very detailed reports on their entire manufacturing regime, past present and future. This is why the EU want to investigate not withstanding less than satisfactory answers thus far. So, if AZ have indeed had manufacturing issues tied to and equating to the sum of the losses to the EU inventory, then they will have quelled some suspicion, but it does not put them in the clear. Fact is, they signed an APA and took hundreds of millions of euros upfront for the supply. So, yes AZ are obligated to meet the agreed allocations subject to whatever is in the contract.
Ficheall wrote: » You know when you order a pizza and it arrives two hours late? That's actually your own fault.
ixoy wrote: » Why would they be accountable for AZ's production issues?
