Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Brexit discussion thread XIV (Please read OP before posting)

Options
1…78101213…555

Comments

  • Options
    #272
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 38,964 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    RobMc59 wrote: »
    Thought provoking post Celtic..
    I disagree with your assertion brexit happened five years ago.I believe that although the UK actually left the EU at the end of January last year,the transition period has masked the affects which is why I believe it will take a number of years from now to be able to see the effects.
    Do you not believe that you are seeing the effects already?
    I can see loads of negative effects - maybe it is just that none of the positives have become visible yet? Let me know what these positives are and I'll keep an eye out!
    RobMc59 wrote: »
    Regarding maintaining standards,I hope they are maintained at the current levels,no sensible person wants inferior quality products or food,although I can understand that the UK government is unwilling to comply with EU rules just because the EU is trying to assert it`s will on the UK..
    You hope that standards are maintained at the current level (I note the use of the word hope!).
    Who set those standards and why?

    For what reason was the EU "trying to assert its will on the UK"?
    Had it anything to do with any third country hoping to sell into the EU having to adhere to minimum standards?
    Had the UK decided to ban all sales into the EU, would the EU still have tried to assert it's will on the UK?
    RobMc59 wrote: »
    It`s not set in stone leaving the EU means your done for,that`s just something spread by the EU who obviously don`t want a country that leaves doing well.
    Can you name one positive for the people of the UK that has happened since the UK left the EU?
    Nobody tried stopping the UK from leaving the EU. They made the various decisions themselves and despite all expert advice proceeded to leave with next to nothing of a plan. They threatened its neighbours if they didn't get their way and have lost credibility at an international level.

    If a country wishes to leave the EU, then they can; as you saw with the UK's departure. Nobody was standing in their way stopping them. So why isn't there a queue to leave?
    If another country were of similar mind to the Uk and decided to leave, do you think they would leave the CU and the SM? Do you think they would protest at being treated like all other third countries who are expected to meet the rules of trading with the EU?


  • Options
    #273
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,242 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    RobMc59 wrote: »
    Thought provoking post Celtic..
    I disagree with your assertion brexit happened five years ago.I believe that although the UK actually left the EU at the end of January last year,the transition period has masked the affects which is why I believe it will take a number of years from now to be able to see the effects.
    Regarding maintaining standards,I hope they are maintained at the current levels,no sensible person wants inferior quality products or food,although I can understand that the UK government is unwilling to comply with EU rules just because the EU is trying to assert it`s will on the UK..It is sometimes astonishing the way certain posters accept control and edicts from Brussels without question,I agreed with much of what Kermit has to say and was dismayed at the treatment this stalwart of the brexit thread received for questioning brussels overbearing desire to control every aspect of life within the EU.
    The government have signed up to a very thin deal because they want minimal EU say over the destiny of the UK,not what I wanted but we have to get on with it,things can and do change.It`s not set in stone leaving the EU means your done for,that`s just something spread by the EU who obviously don`t want a country that leaves doing well.
    Long term,I hope the tories are given their marching orders and the deal can be revisited.
    The UK are finding out very quickly that all of this EU 'red tape and Beaurocracy' exists not to create more paperwork, but to eliminate the need for it within the customs union and single market

    It's setting the common standards and the rules for manufacturing and processing that everyone agrees to follow, that then allows member states to trade freely amongst each other

    The devil is in the detail so they need to be complex and capture every conceivable scenario, but having this framework allows businesses to trade with a block of 518 million people using a single set of standards, rather than having to comply with the requirements of 30 different countries any of which could change at the whim of any of their governments


  • Options
    #274
    El Weirdo
    Registered Users Posts: 11,646 ✭✭✭✭El Weirdo


    RobMc59 wrote: »
    ...It is sometimes astonishing the way certain posters accept control and edicts from Brussels without question,I agreed with much of what Kermit has to say and was dismayed at the treatment this stalwart of the brexit thread received for questioning brussels overbearing desire to control every aspect of life within the EU...

    I suppose it would be too much to ask you to provide examples of Brussels controlling every aspect of EU life? Or will you just ignore the posts asking you to do so, just like you did when you came up with the same nonsense a couple of weeks ago?


  • Options
    #275
    demfad
    Registered Users Posts: 3,182 ✭✭✭demfad


    listermint wrote: »
    Overbearing , check.
    Questioning Brussels, check.
    Control every aspect of life, check.
    Accept control, check.
    Edicts, check.


    Youre playing the who's who of brexit hits for the last 5 years . Can you give some clear and concise example of all of this overbearing control and edicts that we are accepting as an Ireland within the EU.

    Just wondering so one can ensure that you haven't been a brexit cheerleader all along. Details backing up the above classics would be a good start.

    He wont. He will ask others to use their energy explaining themselves on every last obvious truth yet will make sweeping statements without any suibstantiation again draining people's energy.

    Textbook behaviour the social media has come to expect from this type of right wing poster over the last number of years.


  • Options
    #276
    Strazdas
    Registered Users Posts: 18,085 ✭✭✭✭Strazdas


    France 2 had a report on the increased traffic to Cherbourg on their evening news on Monday. They talk about how lorry totals have trebled and show Irish drivers saying even attempting to go through GB is way too much hassle.

    You can watch the report here :

    https://www.francetvinfo.fr/monde/europe/la-grande-bretagne-et-l-ue/apres-le-brexit-le-port-de-cherbourg-enregistre-un-trafic-plus-important-en-janvier_4271491.html


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #277
    RobMc59
    Registered Users Posts: 4,831 ✭✭✭RobMc59


    El Weirdo wrote: »
    I suppose it would be too much to ask you to provide examples of Brussels controlling every aspect of EU life? Or will you just ignore the posts asking you to do so, just like you did when you came up with the same nonsense a couple of weeks ago?
    The EU carry on with vaccines has been pathetic for a start-thats bad enough.


  • Options
    #278
    sondagefaux
    Registered Users Posts: 1,443 ✭✭✭sondagefaux


    British chicken exports to the EU are now at 20% of the levels they were at in January 2020.

    Export Health Certificates must be completed in three different languages.

    Instead of fetching £3.50 per chicken, truckloads of chicken are being destroyed at a cost of £1,500.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/AngusMacNeilSNP/status/1354198388368158726

    So far, British beef exports, British lamb exports, British pork exports and British chicken exports have been badly hit by Brexit.

    The vast majority of meat consumption in European countries is made up of beef, sheep meat, pig meat and chicken.

    So the big four meats in terms of production and export to the EU have now all been very badly hit by Brexit.


  • Options
    #279
    Charles Babbage
    Registered Users Posts: 5,495 ✭✭✭Charles Babbage


    breezy1985 wrote: »
    Wales probably has the highest per capita number of English people. A lot of them would be older conservative voters too


    I suppose that if the English who availed of freedom of movement and retired to Spain are pro Brexit, then there isn't much hope for those that only made it to Wales.


  • Options
    #280
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,402 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    RobMc59 wrote: »
    The EU carry on with vaccines has been pathetic for a start-thats bad enough.

    Public health (inc. vaccinations) is not a competence of the EU. Animal health is.

    Maybe, if PH was an EU competency, we might be in a better place now - with pan-EU actions co-ordinating the fight against Covid. Some countries, like Spain, cannot even co-ordinate the fight within their own borders.


  • Options
    #281
    Strazdas
    Registered Users Posts: 18,085 ✭✭✭✭Strazdas


    breezy1985 wrote: »
    Wales probably has the highest per capita number of English people. A lot of them would be older conservative voters too

    Also, there is no Welsh press to speak of. Unfortunately, all they get is the right wing ranting and propaganda from the English tabloids.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #282
    sondagefaux
    Registered Users Posts: 1,443 ✭✭✭sondagefaux


    RobMc59 wrote: »
    The EU carry on with vaccines has been pathetic for a start-thats bad enough.

    Like back in December? When Astra Zenreca vaccine doses were supplied to the UK from production centres in the EU. Or the fact that 20 million of the AZ vaccine doses ordered by the UK will be produced in the EU?
    About four million doses of the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine will be available in the UK for inoculation before the end of this year, if it receives emergency authorisation from the UK regulator, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, as expected.

    But leaders of the government’s vaccines task force said initial supplies would be imported from continental Europe – like the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine approved by the MHRA last week.

    The original plan was for all British doses to be produced through a supply chain set up by Oxford university and AstraZeneca in the UK. The vaccine is manufactured on their behalf by two biotech companies, Oxford BioMedica and Cobra Therapeutics, and filled and finished by Wockhart in Wrexham.

    “There have been some [UK manufacturing] challenges,” said Ian McCubbin, the task force’s manufacturing lead, at a press briefing on Monday. “That’s why there is a little delay in the delivery of the doses.”

    AstraZeneca said it was using a continental facility initially because it had booked capacity there “which we wanted to use rather than waste”, not because of problems at the British sites.

    The company and the vaccines task force said they expected UK-made supplies to start flowing smoothly early in the new year. Mr McCubbin said at least 80 million of the 100 million doses of the Oxford/AstraZeneca ordered by the UK government would be made in Britain.
    https://www.irishtimes.com/business/health-pharma/supply-of-covid-vaccine-doses-held-up-by-manufacturing-delays-1.4430676?mode=amp

    I don't remember anyone in the EU being spiteful about this.


  • Options
    #283
    demfad
    Registered Users Posts: 3,182 ✭✭✭demfad


    Brexit has 2-3 directions from this point:

    1: Switzerland

    The thin deal is clearly not satisfactory for most UK trade and of course services. Cue, small bilateral after bilateral deal to remedy this over years and decades. This process is a slow
    drift towards a Swiss type arrangement. At some point the 4 freedoms and EU juristiction come back into play.

    2: Singapore on the Thames.

    The UK Government tries to make the country compete by intervening to give it competitive advantages against the EU. Some industries suffering now would be doomed. The fact that the UK Government is not really intervening as these industries struggle indicates that they realize these firms are doomed in the Singapore scenario anyway and therefore a 'quick death' for them is best for all. (Indicates SoT is the current direction)


    3: A possible unlikely 3rd direction (similar to 1:) might occur after a serious collapse of the economy (and more importantly) the Government. A new Government might see an emergency move into the Single Market (Norway deal) as the only timely way out of such a crisis.

    Any thoughts?


  • Options
    #284
    demfad
    Registered Users Posts: 3,182 ✭✭✭demfad


    Sam Russell wrote: »
    Public health (inc. vaccinations) is not a competence of the EU. Animal health is.

    Maybe, if PH was an EU competency, we might be in a better place now - with pan-EU actions co-ordinating the fight against Covid. Some countries, like Spain, cannot even co-ordinate the fight within their own borders.

    Public Health as EU competency would be hugely beneficial for Ireland and others like us.


  • Options
    #285
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    demfad wrote: »
    Brexit has 2-3 directions from this point:

    1: Switzerland

    ...

    Any thoughts?

    The EU has said from the outset that the Swiss deal is a nightmare and will never be repeated.

    I think 3 is most likely: the tories lose the next election and Labour move to an EEA type deal.


  • Options
    #286
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 38,964 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    demfad wrote: »
    Brexit has 2-3 directions from this point:


    3: A possible unlikely 3rd direction (similar to 1:) might occur after a serious collapse of the economy (and more importantly) the Government. A new Government might see an emergency move into the Single Market (Norway deal) as the only timely way out of such a crisis.

    Any thoughts?
    If the UK were to re-join the SM, what would be involved from an EU side? Would each member state have to approve the application?

    In terms of the UK applying, I can't really see it happening for quite some time. They need to realise the foolishness of the last number of years. Otherwise vermin like Farage will continue pulling at threads and we'll be back here again a few years later.


  • Options
    #287
    ancapailldorcha
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 37,370 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    The EU has said from the outset that the Swiss deal is a nightmare and will never be repeated.

    I think 3 is most likely: the tories lose the next election and Labour move to an EEA type deal.

    The Swiss arrangement involves 100 bilateral agreemenets. I think a few deals to build on the current arrangement between the UK and the EU is extremely likely.
    Seth Brundle wrote: »
    If the UK were to re-join the SM, what would be involved from an EU side? Would each member state have to approve the application?

    In terms of the UK applying, I can't really see it happening for quite some time. They need to realise the foolishness of the last number of years. Otherwise vermin like Farage will continue pulling at threads and we'll be back here again a few years later.

    I'd say so but, again any sort of arrangement involving accepting the four freedoms is at least a decade away.

    We sat again for an hour and a half discussing maps and figures and always getting back to that most damnable creation of the perverted ingenuity of man - the County of Tyrone.

    H. H. Asquith



  • Options
    #288
    Strazdas
    Registered Users Posts: 18,085 ✭✭✭✭Strazdas


    demfad wrote: »
    Brexit has 2-3 directions from this point:

    1: Switzerland

    The thin deal is clearly not satisfactory for most UK trade and of course services. Cue, small bilateral after bilateral deal to remedy this over years and decades. This process is a slow
    drift towards a Swiss type arrangement. At some point the 4 freedoms and EU juristiction come back into play.

    2: Singapore on the Thames.

    The UK Government tries to make the country compete by intervening to give it competitive advantages against the EU. Some industries suffering now would be doomed. The fact that the UK Government is not really intervening as these industries struggle indicates that they realize these firms are doomed in the Singapore scenario anyway and therefore a 'quick death' for them is best for all. (Indicates SoT is the current direction)


    3: A possible unlikely 3rd direction (similar to 1:) might occur after a serious collapse of the economy (and more importantly) the Government. A new Government might see an emergency move into the Single Market (Norway deal) as the only timely way out of such a crisis.

    Any thoughts?

    The UK could only be admitted to the EEA if there was a guarantee that they wouldn't try and disrupt it. Can you imagine the levels of fiasco if the UK joined it and then tried to leave it again under yet another far right government? I could easily see Norway and Iceland vetoing their entry unless they gave cast iron guarantees they wouldn't try and wreck the association, now or at any point in the future.


  • Options
    #289
    demfad
    Registered Users Posts: 3,182 ✭✭✭demfad


    Seth Brundle wrote: »
    If the UK were to re-join the SM, what would be involved from an EU side? Would each member state have to approve the application?

    In terms of the UK applying, I can't really see it happening for quite some time. They need to realise the foolishness of the last number of years. Otherwise vermin like Farage will continue pulling at threads and we'll be back here again a few years later.

    This would involve approval from the likes of Norway and others.
    The court of arbitration is not the ECJ but another court but the laws it adjudicates are EU, SM laws and precedent would come from ECJ.

    Re foolishness: That's why I would suggest a major economic calamity would be necessary. Tory voters and all to the right (and some working class voters) are caught in an authoritarian media bubble similar to the US. That's why I believe the Government would have to fall for this scenario to be possible. The UK Government are more than happy to push the lies/hate etc., knowing they have a loyal media and Social Media machine to amplify.

    If an economic catastrophe plus a Government change happenned I believe a move to the single market instead of a 100s bilateral would have enough support (easily 60%+)


  • Options
    #290
    El Weirdo
    Registered Users Posts: 11,646 ✭✭✭✭El Weirdo


    RobMc59 wrote: »
    The EU carry on with vaccines has been pathetic for a start-thats bad enough.

    More vagueness.


  • Options
    #291
    schmoo2k
    Registered Users Posts: 1,379 ✭✭✭schmoo2k


    El Weirdo wrote: »
    More vagueness.

    And post Brexit...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #292
    Irish Praetorian
    Registered Users Posts: 1,745 ✭✭✭Irish Praetorian


    Look, as someone pretty pro EU here, I don't think it's unreasonable to look at some of the hard data surrounding the different status of vaccination in the EU and the UK, and make the argument that this might be one area the UK did better/moved faster on. Now whether that was due to an inherent faster reaction time due to being an independent entity or a comparatively slower reaction time on the part of the EU or a breakneck recklessness on the part of the UK or a snails pace caution on the part of the EU, well that may remain to be established. But I do think it remains possible to concede the UK might be doing better in this area without this somehow being an admission of Brexit as some kind of overall success.


  • Options
    #293
    forgottenhills
    Registered Users Posts: 441 ✭✭forgottenhills


    demfad wrote: »
    Brexit has 2-3 directions from this point:

    1: Switzerland

    The thin deal is clearly not satisfactory for most UK trade and of course services. Cue, small bilateral after bilateral deal to remedy this over years and decades. This process is a slow
    drift towards a Swiss type arrangement. At some point the 4 freedoms and EU juristiction come back into play.

    2: Singapore on the Thames.

    The UK Government tries to make the country compete by intervening to give it competitive advantages against the EU. Some industries suffering now would be doomed. The fact that the UK Government is not really intervening as these industries struggle indicates that they realize these firms are doomed in the Singapore scenario anyway and therefore a 'quick death' for them is best for all. (Indicates SoT is the current direction)


    3: A possible unlikely 3rd direction (similar to 1:) might occur after a serious collapse of the economy (and more importantly) the Government. A new Government might see an emergency move into the Single Market (Norway deal) as the only timely way out of such a crisis.

    Any thoughts?

    Anyone who believes that the UK are going to make any moves back to EU jurisdiction of any sort, for at least a generation, are dreaming imo.

    A milder variation of the Signapore on the Thames idea is their most likely direction (remember that they now have a free trade deal for goods with the EU that they won't want to break). To get clues for where they are heading in the short to medium term I think that the UKs move to seek accession to the CPTPP (Asia-Pacific free trade trading bloc) is quite interesting.

    UK seeking accession to CPTPP


  • Options
    #294
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,402 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    demfad wrote: »
    Public Health as EU competency would be hugely beneficial for Ireland and others like us.

    PH should be an EU competence, as shown by this pandemic. Fast action is crucial as is unified action across the bloc. It was not possible, but we will get there in the end. A good few extra cases and deaths, but there you go.


  • Options
    #295
    sondagefaux
    Registered Users Posts: 1,443 ✭✭✭sondagefaux


    Irish Praetorian wrote: »
    Look, as someone pretty pro EU here, I don't think it's unreasonable to look at some of the hard data surrounding the different status of vaccination in the EU and the UK, and make the argument that this might be one area the UK did better/moved faster on. Now whether that was due to an inherent faster reaction time due to being an independent entity or a comparatively slower reaction time on the part of the EU or a breakneck recklessness on the part of the UK or a snails pace caution on the part of the EU, well that may remain to be established. But I do think it remains possible to concede the UK might be doing better in this area without this somehow being an admission of Brexit as some kind of overall success.

    The UK approved two vaccines while it was still under EU law. Any member state of the EU could have done the same under EU law and Hungary has done so for the Russian Sputnik vaccine.

    The UK was being supplied with AstraZeneca vaccine doses produced in the EU in December and 20 million (out of 100 million) AZ vaccine doses supplied to the UK will be produced in the EU.

    The EU has funded the research needed to develop vaccines including the PfizerBiontech vaccine, the Moderna vaccine and the AZ vaccine, as have the UK, the USA and other countries.

    The rollout of the vaccination in the UK has been far faster than anywhere in the EU to date.


  • Options
    #296
    J Mysterio
    Registered Users Posts: 11,035 ✭✭✭✭J Mysterio


    Seth Brundle wrote: »
    If the UK were to re-join the SM, what would be involved from an EU side? Would each member state have to approve the application?

    In terms of the UK applying, I can't really see it happening for quite some time. They need to realise the foolishness of the last number of years. Otherwise vermin like Farage will continue pulling at threads and we'll be back here again a few years later.

    They will need to drop sterling, for a start.


  • Options
    #297
    Enzokk
    Registered Users Posts: 5,576 ✭✭✭Enzokk


    Irish Praetorian wrote: »
    Look, as someone pretty pro EU here, I don't think it's unreasonable to look at some of the hard data surrounding the different status of vaccination in the EU and the UK, and make the argument that this might be one area the UK did better/moved faster on. Now whether that was due to an inherent faster reaction time due to being an independent entity or a comparatively slower reaction time on the part of the EU or a breakneck recklessness on the part of the UK or a snails pace caution on the part of the EU, well that may remain to be established. But I do think it remains possible to concede the UK might be doing better in this area without this somehow being an admission of Brexit as some kind of overall success.


    It was gambling due to the failed response so far from government. As James O'Brien is fond of saying, just because this government screwed up Brexit and Covid, doesn't mean it will screw up with the vaccines. They gambled on approving first and they are now gambling on delaying the second doses to spread the available vaccines to as many people as possible. This is one area where you have to say they have done extremely well so far and outshone the EU, but we will have to wait and see how it will turn out in a few weeks and months time.

    If the Israeli study is correct then they have potentially made a big mistake, if not they are geniuses. I wouldn't want to gamble on people's lives like that, then again they have overseen the worst death toll in Europe so they must have felt the gamble is worth it. I mean at this stage a few thousand extra deaths would just be a statistic for the UK.


  • Options
    #298
    yagan
    Registered Users Posts: 2,623 ✭✭✭yagan


    Irish Praetorian wrote: »
    Look, as someone pretty pro EU here, I don't think it's unreasonable to look at some of the hard data surrounding the different status of vaccination in the EU and the UK, and make the argument that this might be one area the UK did better/moved faster on. Now whether that was due to an inherent faster reaction time due to being an independent entity or a comparatively slower reaction time on the part of the EU or a breakneck recklessness on the part of the UK or a snails pace caution on the part of the EU, well that may remain to be established. But I do think it remains possible to concede the UK might be doing better in this area without this somehow being an admission of Brexit as some kind of overall success.
    Again this is for another thread, but there's a certain about of counting chickens before they're hatched about the UK vaccine programme. Israel eschewed the UK approach and stuck with the recommended time between shots so it will be interesting to see how they compared, especially in reduced mortality in the more vulnerable age groups.

    There's already UK reports of many not turning up for their followup shots.
    The issue the new vaccine centre is facing isn't staff numbers or resources - it's the lack of slots being filled by those eligible for the AstraZeneca jab.

    Owner of Everest Pharmacy, Waqqass Sheikh, and his staff have the capacity to vaccinate 2,000 people a week.

    But since the facility opened last Thursday (January 21), his team are on track to immunise fewer than 1,000 people.

    It hasn't been communicated effectively in the UK that the first shot doesn't protect people anything to the same degree as having the booster. If 50% aren't getting the booster then it's going to be a long slow crawl back to normal, or at least until single shot vaccines are more common.


  • Options
    #299
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,402 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    We await the EMA certification of the AZ vaccine. If they come out with a limit on the age of recipients, say below 65, and a specification the the two jab, 21 day regime must be followed, then that is not what the UK are pursuing.

    We shall see. If it turns out the 90 day regime fails to protect sufficiently, how many doses will they have wasted?


  • Options
    #300
    yagan
    Registered Users Posts: 2,623 ✭✭✭yagan


    Sam Russell wrote: »
    We await the EMA certification of the AZ vaccine. If they come out with a limit on the age of recipients, say below 65, and a specification the the two jab, 21 day regime must be followed, then that is not what the UK are pursuing.

    We shall see. If it turns out the 90 day regime fails to protect sufficiently, how many doses will they have wasted?
    Also because the UK exempted them from liability it's created a certain degree of resistance from people who are actually pro vaccine.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #301
    forgottenhills
    Registered Users Posts: 441 ✭✭forgottenhills


    Sam Russell wrote: »
    We await the EMA certification of the AZ vaccine. If they come out with a limit on the age of recipients, say below 65, and a specification the the two jab, 21 day regime must be followed, then that is not what the UK are pursuing.

    We shall see. If it turns out the 90 day regime fails to protect sufficiently, how many doses will they have wasted?

    Did you read the long and very informative interview with the AstraZeneca CEO posted yesterday on Italian media?

    Here is a quote from his interview:

    "First of all, we believe that the efficacy of one dose is sufficient: 100 percent protection against severe disease and hospitalisation, and 71-73 percent of efficacy overall. The second dose is needed for long term protection. But you get a better efficiency if you get the 2nd dose later than earlier. We are going to do a study in the US and globally to use two-month dose interval to confirm that this is indeed the case, there are many reasons to believe it is the case with our vaccine. We have a different technology. First of all, when you look at level of antibody production, this is higher if you give the second dose three months or two months later than one month later. "

    It is a very complex area and the short time frame of development means that nobody seems sure what the best approach is for now.


Advertisement