Aegir wrote: » How many vaccine doses has Canada supplied to the EU? How many shots have come from Israel? How many vaccines have come from Australia? Do either of these countries have an export ban on vaccines and should also be accused of vaccine nationalism?
Aegir wrote: » nope, never called it that once. aaah, we all know it's the truth, but "The Man" is covering it all up. could you enlighten me, how di the 96,001 people who have been given the AZ vaccine in Ireland get hold of it?
Tippbhoy1 wrote: » Can you let me know what vaccines are being manufactured in these countries and did the factories get any money from outside countries and include stipulations of supply from said factories?
Tippbhoy1 wrote: » Excellent example there of plausible deniability. Probably will be good enough for the courts in fairness.
Tippbhoy1 wrote: » We both know where Ireland got the AZ from, from EU funded vaccine factories, from a vaccine produced by a British owned company hand selected by the UK government, researched by a Uk university which was part funded by the EU for years, who wanted to partner with MSD but were told they couldn’t, because the Uk government couldn’t influence it enough if that was the case.
Aegir wrote: » so good enough for the EU, good enough for the courts, but you know better. you can, of course, provide evidence to back this statement up I presume, or is it another case of "We all know it, but "They" won't admit it?
Gael23 wrote: » I’m group 7, wasn’t expecting it that soon. Will we be getting it through GPs or somewhere else?
Aegir wrote: » Why would the EU prevent Pfizer delivering vaccines to the UK, because Astra Zeneca isn’t delivering as many doses as the EU would like?
stephenjmcd wrote: » Rolling review of treatments from Eli Lilly has begunhttps://twitter.com/EMA_News/status/1369939509828329474?s=19
seamus wrote: » You're right, why would they? The EU should just ringfence AZ vaccines produced in the EU and stop them leaving..
Klonker wrote: » I think the above posters may be getting confused with group 4 - '16-69 at very high risk' and group 7 - '18-64 at high risk'. Easy to do i think, they could have just called one high risk and one medium, not very clear. I think I'm looking at the most up to date groupings:https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/39038-provisional-vaccine-allocation-groups/ I was the one who originally asked the question. I think when all group 7 gets first doses we should be in a great position to lift majority of restrictions. I'm just trying to best gauge when that would be. Is there anywhere you can see the groupings in terms of number of people?
Deathofcool wrote: » Californian variant doesn't appear to be as transmissible as Kent or worry these Professionals in terms of effectiveness of vaccines.https://twitter.com/profshanecrotty/status/1369754219926851584?s=19 Also Israel still going the right wayhttps://twitter.com/segal_eran/status/1369897891888779269?s=19
eoinbn wrote: » The SBO groups. They aren't 100% but they give a decent indicator(ignore timelines, it is from December)https://twitter.com/rachellavin/status/1341087726385377282 There is roughly 1m people up to and including G7. AZ are projected to deliver ~675k doses by the end of April. Lets say they deliver 500k. That is 500k first doses(assuming none are held back). By the end of April we should also have 1.3m+ from the mRNA suppliers and a small number from J&J. Even if we split the 1.3m into first and a second doses(not realistic, first will be higher than 50%) then that gives 1.15m first doses.
iamwhoiam wrote: » Can anybody help me with question .I have tried to find the info myself but getting bogged down . Is the drug bamlanivmab have any relationship to the family of drugs Non Steroidal anti infammatories ? In other words is Ibuprofen related to Bamlanivmab ? I am asking as I have allergies and would like to know if they are in any way related ? Thank you in advance
GLaDOS wrote: » Bamlanivimab is an antibody, so completely different from ibuprofen.
Klonker wrote: » Thanks. I don't really understand that chart but your numbers of 1m up to and including group 7 is helpful. So end of April looks manageable to have all these vaccinated with at least of dose. That would be the chort who make up 95%+ of deaths (guessing a bit here) so should be looking in great shape by then.
iamwhoiam wrote: » Thank you , I for some reason thought the family ending in mab were anti inflammatories .I must have got it wrong .
seamus wrote: » You're right, why would they? The EU should just ringfence AZ vaccines produced in the EU and stop them leaving. Pretty simple. By the time the court challenge is over, the vaccinations will be in people's arms and AZ will have had to stiff their other customers on orders. It doesn't matter if AZ win the legal challenge in the end, the goal is injections in arms. The EU can take the financial hit. #JustBusinessThings Or....AZ could avoid all this by delivering what the EU has ordered.
average_runner wrote: » We need to source our own and stop depending on the EU. Britain has more than enough so we should reach out to them there and the same with the US.
average_runner wrote: » Why? Other countries got their order in first and paid top dollar for it? EU tried to do it the cheap way. We need to source our own and stop depending on the EU. Britain has more than enough so we should reach out to them there and the same with the US.
ixoy wrote: » Britain/US will only have more than enough when they've produced enough vaccines for all their citizens, which they haven't yet. After that, I'm not sure where their priorities will lie, be it with COVAX or others. The US would likely look to Canada far faster than Ireland for example which is suffering vaccine shortages.
dominatinMC wrote: » Great news and more compelling evidence that the end is nigh. Wonder will George Lee be updating the nation on these findings as vehemently as he did when reporting the emergence of the "California variant" :rolleyes:
Aegir wrote: » it makes sense for the UK to get surplus vaccines to Ireland, particularly the birder counties, just as it makes sense for the US to help out Canada and Mexico if it can.
average_runner wrote: » Other countries got their order in first and paid top dollar for it? EU tried to do it the cheap way.
We need to source our own and stop depending on the EU. Britain has more than enough so we should reach out to them there and the same with the US.
is_that_so wrote: » If we stop depending on the EU, we lose their bargaining power costs would go up and access to does would fall. It's also vaccine nationalism, which is not a good look.
seamus wrote: » It's not a car boot sale. "First come, first served" is not a thing. When you manufacture stuff and commit to deliveries, you commit to deliveries. How many other customers you have is your problem, not your customers'. If a company can only deliver to one customer at a time, then their production chain is either very immature or just plain sh1te.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w2.vanillicon.com/v2/284f2526e18ff7e4c08066f9ed850ed0.svg)
