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

The UK response - Part II - read OP

Options
1…2627293132…78

Comments

  • Options
    #842
    ancapailldorcha
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 37,383 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »
    Absolutely true, such a pity then the govt here it would rather grandstand and big up Brexit than ensure the confidence is there in the population for a vaccination programme

    As loathsome a man as I find Johnson to be, he has never been anything but effusively positive about vaccine development. He's gone nowhere near the anti-vaxx drivel peddled by many modern conservatives.

    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
    #843
    theological
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,831 ✭✭✭theological


    A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »
    Absolutely true, such a pity then the govt here it would rather grandstand and big up Brexit than ensure the confidence is there in the population for a vaccination programme


    To be fair Hancock was wrong on this, and Johnson pretty much said as much yesterday by refusing to attribute it to Brexit when the Sun asked in the press conference.

    The UK are doing this with emergency approval which is granted under EU legislation. So, this approval isn't because of Brexit.


  • Options
    #844
    A Dub in Glasgo
    Registered Users Posts: 16,998 ✭✭✭✭A Dub in Glasgo


    I know, it did not stop the co-ordinated tweets from UK govt ministers

    edit
    and now UK cabinet minister stated this morning

    Gavin Williamson, the education secretary, struck a different tone when asked why Britain had approved the vaccine first.

    “I just reckon we’ve got the very best people in this country and we’ve obviously got the best medical regulator, much better than the French have, much better than the Belgians have, much better than the Americans have,” he told LBC Radio. “That doesn’t surprise me at because we’re a much better country than every single one of them.”


  • Options
    #845
    JP Liz V1
    Registered Users Posts: 85,262 ✭✭✭✭JP Liz V1


    I see Rita Ora is in trouble for breaking rules throwing a party
    https://forumofgames.com/




  • Options
    #846
    Seamai
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,250 ✭✭✭Seamai


    A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »
    I know, it did not stop the co-ordinated tweets from UK govt ministers

    edit
    and now UK cabinet minister stated this morning

    Gavin Williamson, the education secretary, struck a different tone when asked why Britain had approved the vaccine first.

    “I just reckon we’ve got the very best people in this country and we’ve obviously got the best medical regulator, much better than the French have, much better than the Belgians have, much better than the Americans have,” he told LBC Radio. “That doesn’t surprise me at because we’re a much better country than every single one of them.”

    Sounds positively Trumpian, something you'd expect from a school kid. As of today their official figure is over 60,000 deaths with some sources putting the figure in the high 70'000s. Yeah they've done a great job.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #847
    meeeeh
    Registered Users Posts: 11,624 ✭✭✭✭meeeeh


    How could they mess up good news with their jingoism. It's actually quite entertaining.


  • Options
    #848
    serfboard
    Registered Users Posts: 4,676 ✭✭✭serfboard


    Seamai wrote: »
    Sounds positively Trumpian, something you'd expect from a school kid. As of today their official figure is over 60,000 deaths with some sources putting the figure in the high 70'000s. Yeah they've done a great job.
    Chris Giles, the economics editor of the FT is who I go to for the UK figures. He puts it at 80,000


  • Options
    #849
    RobMc59
    Registered Users Posts: 4,831 ✭✭✭RobMc59


    meeeeh wrote: »
    How could they mess up good news with their jingoism. It's actually quite entertaining.

    At the end of the day,all countries will be using this vaccine,the UK taking the bull by the horns and approving the vaccine early is a bold move,it`s unlikely any EU country would have done this unilaterally risking disapproval from brussels.


  • Options
    #850
    BonnieSituation
    Registered Users Posts: 18,923 ✭✭✭✭BonnieSituation


    RobMc59 wrote: »
    At the end of the day,all countries will be using this vaccine,the UK taking the bull by the horns and approving the vaccine early is a bold move,it`s unlikely any EU country would have done this unilaterally risking disapproval from brussels.

    What are you on about?

    They can't do it unilaterally because the EMA is the body that licences the vaccine.

    Why would they waste resources in trying to do that?

    And the UK in fact utilised the EU processes to get it out quicker.

    Do you ever read up on anything?

    ---

    Taking the "bull by the horns" is not what should be done with medicine especially for the sake of a few week, unless you're really desperate...

    Why wait til now? Why not announce the vaccine is to be rolled out a month ago? Really show those pesky Europeans.

    To get the "jump" on the rest of the western world by few weeks isn't that impressive and is a rather odd risk to take.

    I'd be very sceptical about the logistics of the programme being rolled out. Will this be one the famous "Boris announcements"?


  • Options
    #851
    ancapailldorcha
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 37,383 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    RobMc59 wrote: »
    At the end of the day,all countries will be using this vaccine,the UK taking the bull by the horns and approving the vaccine early is a bold move,it`s unlikely any EU country would have done this unilaterally risking disapproval from brussels.

    The UK is still subject to all EU regulations. What a bizarre post.

    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



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #852
    hotmail.com
    Registered Users Posts: 13,070 ✭✭✭✭hotmail.com


    BonnieSituation wrote: »
    What are you on about?

    They can't do it unilaterally because the EMA is the body that licences the vaccine.

    Why would they waste resources in trying to do that?

    And the UK in fact utilised the EU processes to get it out quicker.

    Do you ever read up on anything?

    ---

    Taking the "bull by the horns" is not what should be done with medicine especially for the sake of a few week, unless you're really desperate...

    Why wait til now? Why not announce the vaccine is to be rolled out a month ago? Really show those pesky Europeans.

    To get the "jump" on the rest of the western world by few weeks isn't that impressive and is a rather odd risk to take.

    I'd be very sceptical about the logistics of the programme being rolled out. Will this be one the famous "Boris announcements"?

    If people are going to complain that Britain is doing this too fast.. a couple of weeks isn't going to make difference.

    So it's dangerous territory to start accusing Britain of being hasty.. because that's exactly what the EU is doing. We just happen to be a couple of weeks behind.


  • Options
    #853
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,103 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    RobMc59 wrote: »
    At the end of the day,all countries will be using this vaccine,the UK taking the bull by the horns and approving the vaccine early is a bold move,it`s unlikely any EU country would have done this unilaterally risking disapproval from brussels.
    What? UK is still subject to EU law in this regard, and has granted emergency approval to this vaccine in the exercise of powers conferred on it by Art 5(2) of the Medicines Directive. Any EU member state could do this.

    The UK has got in first because they have a very good national medicines regulator that has the capacity to collect and process the data needed to support an emergency approval and also, perhaps, because as one of the worst-affected countries they are highly motivated to lose no time. But they have not done this becuse Brexit has granted them any freedom of manouvre that EU member states lack.

    It's pathetic that some Brexit-supporting politicians are pointing to this as a benefit of Brexit. It's not a benefit of Brexit and claiming it as such tends to create the impression that there are no genuine benefits of Brexit to which they can point, which is probably not the impression they hope to create.


  • Options
    #854
    PommieBast
    Registered Users Posts: 2,586 ✭✭✭PommieBast


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    The UK has got in first because they have a very good national medicines regulator that has the capacity to collect and process the data needed to support an emergency approval and also, perhaps, because as one of the worst-affected countries they are highly motivated to lose no time.
    Another motive I heard about is needing to get hold of stock before the US's and EU's pre-orders kick in.


  • Options
    #855
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,103 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    PommieBast wrote: »
    Another motive I heard about is needing to get hold of stock before the US's and EU's pre-orders kick in.
    Mmm. I doubt that. I suspect the US and EU pre-orders (and the UK pre-orders as well) will have been done on terms which avoid them being prejudiced by not being first to approve.


  • Options
    #856
    RobMc59
    Registered Users Posts: 4,831 ✭✭✭RobMc59


    ancapailldorcha wrote: »
    The UK is still subject to all EU regulations. What a bizarre post.

    I'm aware the UK is still subject to EU regulations and EU countries could have approved the vaccine on emergency grounds.I pointed out that was unlikely as Brussels would disapprove-whats bizarre about that?


  • Options
    #857
    ancapailldorcha
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 37,383 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    RobMc59 wrote: »
    I'm aware the UK is still subject to EU regulations and EU countries could have approved the vaccine on emergency grounds.I pointed out that was unlikely as Brussels would disapprove-whats bizarre about that?

    The nonsense that being in the EU prevents countries from approving the vaccine. It doesn't despite the chumocracy here claiming otherwise.

    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
    #858
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,103 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    RobMc59 wrote: »
    I'm aware the UK is still subject to EU regulations and EU countries could have approved the vaccine on emergency grounds.I pointed out that was unlikely as Brussels would disapprove-whats bizarre about that?
    EU law explicitly allows member states to do this. Why would Brussels disapprove of member states doing what EU law explicitly permits them to do? If Brussels was minded to disapprove, why would it make laws allowing them to do this? And, even if Brussels did disapprove, why would that stop member states exercising the rights that EU law gives them?

    So, yeah, your assumption that Brussels would disapprove does look a bit odd

    That's not to say that the UK's emergency approval is uncontroversial. Anthony Fauci, for example, has questioned the wisdom of the move. There's a balance here between a robust approval process and a speedy approval process, and striking the balance is difficul. So there are reasons that have nothing to do with Brexit, or with EU membership, why you might question whether the UK has been right to strike the balance as it did.

    But none of this has much bearing on EU membership. One of the values that underpins the EU system is subsidiarity - the principle that decisions shoudl be taken at the lowest appropriate level. The reason there's an exception in the Medicines Directive allowing member states to grant emergency approvals for vaccines and treatments for infectious diseases is precisely a recognition that the challenging task of striking the balance between speed and robustness in this situation is a decision that a member state can appropriately take for itself, and the requirements of EU membership should not get in the way of that. An EU member state might be unwise to give emergency approval, and I think most MS governments have not sought emergency approval from their domestic regulators, but they wouldn't put themselves in bad odour with the EU if they did.


  • Options
    #859
    RobMc59
    Registered Users Posts: 4,831 ✭✭✭RobMc59


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    EU law explicitly allows member states to do this. Why would Brussels disapprove of member states doing what EU law explicitly permits them to do? If Brussels was minded to disapprove, why would it make laws allowing them to do this? And, even if Brussels did disapprove, why would that stop member states exercising the rights that EU law gives them?

    So, yeah, your assumption that Brussels would disapprove does look a bit odd

    That's not to say that the UK's emergency approval is uncontroversial. Anthony Fauci, for example, has questioned the wisdom of the move. There's a balance here between a robust approval process and a speedy approval process, and striking the balance is difficul. So there are reasons that have nothing to do with Brexit, or with EU membership, why you might question whether the UK has been right to strike the balance as it did.

    But none of this has much bearing on EU membership. One of the values that underpins the EU system is subsidiarity - the principle that decisions shoudl be taken at the lowest appropriate level. The reason there's an exception in the Medicines Directive allowing member states to grant emergency approvals for vaccines and treatments for infectious diseases is precisely a recognition that the challenging task of striking the balance between speed and robustness in this situation is a decision that a member state can appropriately take for itself, and the requirements of EU membership should not get in the way of that. An EU member state might be unwise to give emergency approval, and I think most MS governments have not sought emergency approval from their domestic regulators, but they wouldn't put themselves in bad odour with the EU if they did.

    My comments are my opinion,nothing more.I'm sure most here will watch how vaccine approval within the EU happens.Will it be en bloc or individually?I know where my money is.
    Edit: Anthony Fauci has apparently apologised for his earlier comments.


  • Options
    #860
    RobMc59
    Registered Users Posts: 4,831 ✭✭✭RobMc59


    BonnieSituation wrote: »
    What are you on about?

    They can't do it unilaterally because the EMA is the body that licences the vaccine.

    Why would they waste resources in trying to do that?

    And the UK in fact utilised the EU processes to get it out quicker.

    Do you ever read up on anything?

    ---

    Taking the "bull by the horns" is not what should be done with medicine especially for the sake of a few week, unless you're really desperate...

    Why wait til now? Why not announce the vaccine is to be rolled out a month ago? Really show those pesky Europeans.

    To get the "jump" on the rest of the western world by few weeks isn't that impressive and is a rather odd risk to take.

    I'd be very sceptical about the logistics of the programme being rolled out. Will this be one the famous "Boris announcements"?

    The UK has used the emergency approval route which is available to all within the EU as Peregrinus points out. I question whether any EU countries will use this emergency option or wait for approval from Brussels.
    The logistics will be a problem for all countries due to temperature storage requirements I'd say.


  • Options
    #861
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,103 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    RobMc59 wrote: »
    My comments are my opinion,nothing more.I'm sure most here will watch how vaccine approval within the EU happens.Will it be en bloc or individually?I know where my money is.
    Edit: Anthony Fauci has apparently apologised for his earlier comments.
    It will mostly be en bloc, but not because "Brussels would disapprove". Of course you're entitled to your opinion on this but it's notable that, although you have freely expressed your opinion on this point, you have stoutly resisted all invitations to tell us why you think this. And it's not exactly an opinion that explains itself.

    As pointed out, seeking emergency approval at the national level involves a trade-off between speed and certainty - the UK has got early approval of the vaccine, but on the basis of a faster analysis of less test data. The same would be true for any country seeking early approval. That's not a choice any government will make lightly, given the downside risk. And, in considering the choice, a number of factors are going to come into play.

    - How badly affected is the country by the pandemic health-wise? Economically? The worse it is affected, the greater the incentive to prioritise speed. And the UK is one of the worst-affected countries in Europe, both health-wise and economically.

    - How good is the country's national medicine regulator? How well respected? How well resourced and equipped to act on a request for emergency approval? The better the regulator, again, the greater the incentive to seek an emergency approval. And here again this consideration leans in favour of the UK being more likely to seek emergency approval; the MHRA is a very well-resourced and well-regarded outfit. Not every member state could say as much about its national regulator. Quite a few of the smaller states have very modest national regulators that probably couldn't grant emergency approval in less time that the EMA is likely to take in licensing the vaccine for general use.

    - I hate to say it, but baser political considerations will also apply. The more a national government is under pressure because of a perception (whether justified or not) that it has not handled the pandemic well, the greater the temptation to seek emergency approval because it will be good PR. And the UK government is afflicted by precisely that perception. I'm not saying that that's a factor that influenced the UK government but, um, the incentives are there.

    - And an even baser consideration; it's not the case, as we've seen, that the UK's ability to pursue emergency approval is an outcome of Brexit, but Brexiter cheerleaders can claim it as such, and indeed have done so. And if they feel under pressure to justify Brexit or bolster support for it, or think they may come under that pressure soon - oh, on, say, 2 January - well, again, the temptation is there.

    So, yeah, there are both good reasons and bad reasons why the UK might be more likely that others to seek emergency appproval. Let's be charitable and assume they did this for good reasons. But, either way, indifference to the supposed disapproval of Brussels is not one of the reasons; no member state that does this is likely to face the disapproval of Brussels.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #862
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    RobMc59 wrote: »
    My comments are my opinion,nothing more.I'm sure most here will watch how vaccine approval within the EU happens.Will it be en bloc or individually?I know where my money is.
    Edit: Anthony Fauci has apparently apologised for his earlier comments.

    You should watch RTE or Virgin media when England win. It's the same then.

    It's all because the ref didn't pick up the antics at the breakdown, or because the other side were very poor. Zero ability to actually say that you know what, they did well then.

    The MHRA has been monitoring the trials of several vaccines and was therefore ahead of the curve. It didn't need to review the data post trials, because it was monitoring it on a weekly basis.

    Yes, this has nothing to do with Brexit and there is nothing to prevent other countries doing the same and approving the vaccine already, but they haven't. The MHRA have done a good job and should be praised, but some posters would rather eat broken glass.


  • Options
    #863
    meeeeh
    Registered Users Posts: 11,624 ✭✭✭✭meeeeh


    Eu decided to purchase drugs as a group and as such the EMA approval is needed. If we didn't we would be competing with individual EU states and yes some could do emergency approvals. Thankfully they didn't and we are part of a group purchase scheme that will treat small countries the same as Germany or France.

    UK are free to buy and regulate the vaccine as they wish, EU and US decided for different regulatory approach. I'm sure their approach is safe but their bragging is a bit sad. That is a government that considered sticking Union Jack on AstraZeneca evaccine packaging although that seems to be shelved (one wonders did they get to their senses or did hiccups around testing dampen their enthusiasm). Compare that to German and US reaction pointing out that vaccine is great result of international cooperation.


  • Options
    #864
    PommieBast
    Registered Users Posts: 2,586 ✭✭✭PommieBast


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    Mmm. I doubt that. I suspect the US and EU pre-orders (and the UK pre-orders as well) will have been done on terms which avoid them being prejudiced by not being first to approve.
    What I do know is that the EU ordered back in July/August whereas the UK did not get its act together until Oct/Nov. Given the high probability of the UK vaccine roll-out being screwed up I suspect I'm better off getting it in Ireland.


  • Options
    #865
    meeeeh
    Registered Users Posts: 11,624 ✭✭✭✭meeeeh


    PommieBast wrote: »
    What I do know is that the EU ordered back in July/August whereas the UK did not get its act together until Oct/Nov. Given the high probability of the UK vaccine roll-out being screwed up I suspect I'm better off getting it in Ireland.

    That's not true. UK sighed order agreement before EU. UK very quickly ordered vaccine from different suppliers and they were quicker to do it than EU. EU was still finalising contract when the trial results were announced Pfizer vaccine. I think UK acted very quickly ordering vaccine and criticism there is unfair.


  • Options
    #866
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    PommieBast wrote: »
    What I do know is that the EU ordered back in July/August whereas the UK did not get its act together until Oct/Nov. Given the high probability of the UK vaccine roll-out being screwed up I suspect I'm better off getting it in Ireland.

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-07-20/u-k-orders-90-million-vaccine-doses-from-pfizer-valneva
    The U.K. has signed agreements to buy 90 million doses of vaccines in development by drugmakers including Pfizer Inc., BioNTech SE and Valneva SE, joining countries around the world racing to secure supplies of protection against Covid-19.

    Pfizer and BioNTech plan to supply 30 million doses of their vaccine candidate this year and next, the companies said. France’s Valneva agreed to supply the U.K. with 60 million doses of the shot it’s developing, and another 40 million if the product proves safe and effective

    The article is dated 20th July.


  • Options
    #867
    RobMc59
    Registered Users Posts: 4,831 ✭✭✭RobMc59


    Aegir wrote: »
    You should watch RTE or Virgin media when England win. It's the same then.

    It's all because the ref didn't pick up the antics at the breakdown, or because the other side were very poor. Zero ability to actually say that you know what, they did well then.

    The MHRA has been monitoring the trials of several vaccines and was therefore ahead of the curve. It didn't need to review the data post trials, because it was monitoring it on a weekly basis.

    Yes, this has nothing to do with Brexit and there is nothing to prevent other countries doing the same and approving the vaccine already, but they haven't. The MHRA have done a good job and should be praised, but some posters would rather eat broken glass.

    Perhaps the vaccine EU countries receive when big brother in brussels ok's it will be a special version and not exactly the same as the one that the reckless UK was sent....


  • Options
    #868
    hotmail.com
    Registered Users Posts: 13,070 ✭✭✭✭hotmail.com


    Fauci exposing the American have to be the best mentality. Pathetic.


  • Options
    #869
    RobMc59
    Registered Users Posts: 4,831 ✭✭✭RobMc59


    hotmail.com wrote: »
    Fauci exposing the American have to be the best mentality. Pathetic.

    I've had first hand experience with the FDA and Pfizer and they're both shockingly biased against non US companies.


  • Options
    #870
    meeeeh
    Registered Users Posts: 11,624 ✭✭✭✭meeeeh


    RobMc59 wrote: »
    I've had first hand experience with the FDA and Pfizer and they're both shockingly biased against non US companies.

    Ehm.. Pfizer is an US company.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #871
    BonnieSituation
    Registered Users Posts: 18,923 ✭✭✭✭BonnieSituation


    meeeeh wrote: »
    Ehm.. Pfizer is an US company.

    Tbf to Rob, that's clearly implied by what he said.

    (Unless there was a ninja edit I can't see on mobile)


Advertisement