Utopia Talk / Politics / 50% of US vaccinated by 2022 IV

Y2A Member	Sun Apr 04 16:43:48 "You needed the under 18s to make your 50% by 2022?" No, according to the NYT covid vaccine tracker: http://www...us/covid-19-vaccine-doses.html "78% This is equal to all adults, 18 and older. Children under 16 are not yet eligible."
Y2A Member	Sun Apr 04 16:51:58 Using clown voters/republicans as a proxy for vaccine hesitancy, let's say 60% of clown voters will not get the vaccine. the clown got 47% of the PV: 47%*60% = 28.2% of the adult population. If everyone else gets it that is 78% * (1 - 28.2%) = 56% of the total population.
Habebe Member	Sun Apr 04 16:54:52 I should note that in many EU nations vaccinne hesitancy is actually worse than the US.
Habebe Member	Sun Apr 04 16:59:54 http://gra...VIRUS/EU-VACCINES/qmypmrelyvr/ Here is a timeline.
jergul large member	Sun Apr 04 17:01:56 Y2A At least you are starting to see how I got my below 50% fully vaccinated before 2022. Napkin jergulmath, but it's not an outlandish guesstimate.
Habebe Member	Sun Apr 04 17:03:00 http://www...cy-is-worse-in-eu-than-us/amp/ Anti vaxers in EU vs the US.
Y2A Member	Sun Apr 04 17:07:13 it all depends on how many crazed MAGAs and Farrakkan "DONT LET THEM VACCINATE U" types are out there. The very high growth rate in vaccinations over the past cpl of months is likely driven by Democrats and the minority faction of RINOs who are ok with vaccinations.
Y2A Member	Sun Apr 04 17:10:24 meaning that those "projections" that the NT times site based on extrapolating based on current growth is likely flawed. it will be really interesting to see when the rate of change in new vaccinations starts to decrease.
Seb Member	Sun Apr 04 17:47:09 Jergul: Why isn't the EU exporting any of the order of Pfizer vaccine that it placed with Pfizer, and instead insisting it be delivered?
Seb Member	Sun Apr 04 17:48:59 It's a nonsensical question. The only reason that there's no exports from the UK to the EU is that the Way order was made in August and the first batch isn't due until around now.
Seb Member	Sun Apr 04 17:49:23 *AZ order
Seb Member	Sun Apr 04 17:53:03 The only thing that the UK contract can prevent being exported is the drug deliveries the UK ordered. Arguing that this could be exported to the EU is like arguing that is Turkey signed a deal tomorrow with Pfizer to be supplied from the Belgian plant, then any failure to reallocate production from the EU order to Turkey constitutes an export ban. The EU APA with Pfizer specifically prevents Pfizer agreeing such a contract. Ergo, the EU APAs un jergullaw are an export ban. That's stretching the term to breaking point.
Rugian Member	Sun Apr 04 17:58:46 Y2A may be smarter than jergul, but he is equally as bad when it comes to interpreting data. Polls say that a majority of Republican voters want the vaccine. Try to be less of a hack Y2A, it gets in the way of your analysis skills.
jergul large member	Sun Apr 04 18:07:15 Seb Is the intent of the State to stop exports until its needs are met? Is the effect such that exports are stopped until the State's needs are met? It's an export ban. The cunning use of flags argument does not impress me at all.
jergul large member	Sun Apr 04 18:09:47 Hey Dummy Y2A is using Trump voters are a proxy. 60% of them will not get the vaccine, but 100% of democrat voters will. Way to misunderstand such a simple thing.
Rugian Member	Sun Apr 04 18:23:40 Gee, it's almost as if looking at this thing from the perspective of political affiliation is irrelevant. Hence the accusation of hackery. Right now, OVERALL Marist data suggests that 25% of the population is not receptive to receiving a vaccine. Based on that, we can estimate that (1 - 25%) * 80% (not 78% - why you would short yourself by excluding 16 and 17 year olds is entirely beyond me) = 60% of the eligible population is at least willing to entertain the idea of getting a shot right now. Of course, that 60% goes to 75% once the vaccine is greenlit for children. As it will and should be. Combined with previous infections, and herd immunity is pretty much already guaranteed.
Rugian Member	Sun Apr 04 18:29:55 TL;DR: you are stupid, you are definitely going to lose here, and my only regret here is that I didn't get you to commit money to your bet beforehand.
jergul large member	Sun Apr 04 20:01:58 Dummy There is no way the FDA will approve (its a formal process, dummy) the vaccines for anyone, let alone for children, before 2022. That you think vaccines should be given to chidren under emergency use authorization says a whole lot about your ethics or lack thereof. Fact is, there is a reasonable chance that emergency use authorized vaccines are more dangerous to children than covid-19 is. 60% "willing to entertain" still means less than 50% fully vaccinated by the end of 2022 is a reasonable estimate. Go figure, dummy.
Habebe Member	Sun Apr 04 20:32:47 "Fact is, there is a reasonable chance that emergency use authorized vaccines are more dangerous to children than covid-19 is." Isnt that the whole point? Do we know of any problems with kids?
Forwyn Member	Sun Apr 04 20:45:42 US GDP as a fraction of the global economy: 24.47%
Y2A Member	Sun Apr 04 21:57:44 "Polls say that a majority of Republican voters want the vaccine." I pulled the 60% number out of my ass. I agree that it might be closer to the higher-end of vaccine use. with that said, i think those polls had it at something like 40% of repubs that said they wouldn't. (1) that is still fairly high and (2) i am not to sure how much i "trust" polling of republicans these days, there was clearly polling error in the 2020 election in favor of the clown.
Y2A Member	Sun Apr 04 21:58:34 *towards the higher-end of vaccine hesitancy
Y2A Member	Sun Apr 04 22:04:25 P.S My entire point in the initial post was to say that even in the worst case scenario it is still very very likely that 50% would be reached by 2022.
Hrothgar Member	Sun Apr 04 22:06:20 FYI Pfizer vaccine is approved for people 16 and older. I have a 16 year old who was able to receive the first dose a couple of weeks ago.
Sam Adams Member	Sun Apr 04 22:21:28 "P.S My entire point in the initial post was to say that even in the worst case scenario it is still very very likely that 50% would be reached by 2022." Correct. Jergul is going to get pwnt bad. Israel, without vaxxing kids, is about to hit 65%.
Sam Adams Member	Sun Apr 04 22:22:55 And israel has plenty of ortgodox antivax retards too, plus muslims.
Y2A Member	Sun Apr 04 22:32:34 the thing is also that vaccine hesitancy is not really binary but on a spectrum. like, if people will need to get one to get on a plane or do other things it will motivate them to get it. also, as ppl see other ppl getting it they will get it (thinking of the initial ppl as "guinea pigs"). in fact, i have a crazy relative that was talking about microchip bs initially but after seeing my parents get it he actually came to me to get him signed up. got his pszier shot a cpl of weeks ago,
Y2A Member	Sun Apr 04 22:33:49 *pfizer
Y2A Member	Sun Apr 04 23:02:36 the op link is supposed to be: http://www...us/covid-19-vaccine-doses.html
jergul large member	Sun Apr 04 23:23:44 Hrothgar FYI, Pfizer has emergency use authorization for 16 years and older. Sammy Israel, without vaccinating kids, has fully vaccinated 56% and vaccination rates have fallen by almost 2/3rds. And you are no Israel. The only way I will be wrong is if the FDA actually does: 1. Give emergency use authorization to kids 2. Rushes approved status, then gives a rushed approve status for vaccinating kids. Both of which would of course be crazy given that children are not actually at risk. Y2K Your very worst scenario assumes that 100% of democrats are going to get vaccinated.
Sam Adams Member	Mon Apr 05 00:13:37 On what day will the US pass 50% fully vaxxed? I got may 31. I got may 31.
jergul large member	Mon Apr 05 00:26:03 That is actually a good idea. Put down the days you think 50% of the US population will be fully vaccinated. Sammy: Before June 1st.
Seb Member	Mon Apr 05 04:20:55 Jergul: No. It is not the intent to stop exports until it's needs are met. 1. As of March 2020 - total UK vaccine manufacturing capacity (not covid vaccine manufacturing capacity, *total* vaccine manufacturing capacity) was zero. 2. April 2020, UK recognising risk of export bans, funded the Oxford consortium to set up global supply chains with knowledge transfer etc. Hence SII and US manufacturing capability. They approached the Netherlands to fund Halix, Netherlands refused. 3. The UK, worried about itself being subject to export bans, set out a strategy of requiring most vaccines ordered be manufactured at sites in the UK. It directly invested in new CMOs to be set up for Valnerva, Astrazenica and novavax (possibly others, those are the ones public), ans for those specific CMOs, the production lines (factories can operate more than one, over these transfer has occurred) that the UK directly provided the capital costs, the requirement is that the UK order must be fulfilled first. 4. There is nothing stopping the CMOs or other third parties directly investing in additional production lines alongside the lines the UK bought and paid for. 5. AZ did infact do so, in August. But production lines take about 8 months to say up, get accreditation from regulators, to produce test batch, then produce first batch. Hence, no exports yet because the contract was signed in August. If the EC contract has been signed in June, then they'd would have been exports in parallel with deliveries to the UK. That is all. The argument that exports are stopped simply because the UK orders cannot be relocated to export due to contact would apply to any contractual term that prevents someone getting intermediate allocation of supply. Which is to say, all contacts, including the EC APAs.
jergul large member	Mon Apr 05 06:39:31 Seb Did or did not the State design the contracts so that exports were banned until its needs were met? What devices the State may or may not employ against some future production is irrelevant. You keep on repeating the cunning use of flags argument, and I remain as singularly unimpressed.
Seb Member	Mon Apr 05 07:09:22 Jergul: No. They did not.
jergul large member	Mon Apr 05 07:10:58 Seb Yes. The State did.
jergul large member	Mon Apr 05 07:17:39 "a clause in the U.K. contract stating that if any party tries to force or persuade AstraZeneca or its subcontractors to do anything that could hold up the supply of the vaccine doses, the government may terminate the deal and invoke what appear to be punishment clauses" The UK contract is incidently a day older than EUs.
jergul large member	Mon Apr 05 07:39:09 http://gyazo.com/913eea69360a0f18797cec1486a67b4d
obaminated Member	Mon Apr 05 08:16:41 jergul, just bow the fuck out, dude.
obaminated Member	Mon Apr 05 08:16:48 jergul, just bow the fuck out, dude.
Seb Member	Mon Apr 05 09:21:00 Jergul: The uk contract is published. Which clause does this refer to? Also, you are aware that all the APAs state the same. But this is the point: one signed, contracts do not allow the supplier to unilaterally underperform in order to favour another. Indeed the entire basis of the EU complaint against Astrazenica is that it might have done this (and it turns out that it did not). This is *not* the same as an export ban. An export ban is designed to force a company to break an existing contract so as to favour a particular customer.
Seb Member	Mon Apr 05 09:29:50 If Astrazenica had signed a contract with the same wording as the APA with EC, but with the UK govt; it would be in the exact same position. It would not have been able to enter into a guaranteed supply contract with the EU, it would have to enter into a best endeavours contract - and delivery from is UK sites would be dependent on additional capacity being available.
Seb Member	Mon Apr 05 09:30:47 So the EU APA contracts are also - in jergulian terms - export bans
Sam Adams Member	Mon Apr 05 09:36:48 Jergul, if the eu wanted to be first in line for covid vaxes, why didnt you develop any if your own?
Seb Member	Mon Apr 05 13:26:56 Sam: The EC didn't even need to do that to be first in line. Indeed there is no line (EC were able to get Pfizer/Biontec immediately). The only reason it is facing delays with AZ is simply because it did not bother to place an order before August. Because AZ is a not-for-profit venture, no supplier (CMO or AZ) will self-finance production capacity as they are not permitted to make profit on manufacture. Any self financed production infrastructure at best offers them the opportunity to cover their costs. At worse, any over capacity will be a write off on their books. Therefore, any order needs to be placed sufficiently far in advance for production lines to be set up. Hence, the UK investment in April.
Seb Member	Mon Apr 05 13:27:13 And also the SII and US investments around the same time.
jergul large member	Mon Apr 05 13:32:55 Seb Punitive clauses redacted by the State. A ban on exports are measures done to assure that exports do not occur until certain conditions are met. The UK contract in question was signed the day after the EU contract. The EU contract lacks punitive clauses and is therefore not self-enforcing. It also follows Belgian law, not British. This matters as British law is draconian on upholding the letter of the contract (ei punitive clauses shall be enforced), Repriocity is a firmly establish international legal principle. This is the basis on which the EU is invoking export bans. Sammy Just stop. Most of the authorized for emergency use drugs were developed in Europe. The issue here is disparity in distribution caused by the US and UK invoking export bans. It seems to have been corrected somewhat as EU vaccination rates are stepping up significantly.
Seb Member	Mon Apr 05 13:41:24 Jergul: Punitive clauses in English contract law (unlike US) are unenforceable. Wild speculation and spurious conjecture are lovely - but before weaving a conspiracy theory one should check some basic facts.
Sam Adams Member	Mon Apr 05 13:53:46 "The issue here is disparity in distribution caused by the US and UK invoking export bans." Wrong. The real issue is the typical lazy entitlement of socialists. Most of the work and most of the funding was done by someone else, but you want the product of that effort. Of the 2 best vaccines, about 75% of the funding and 75% of the research was from the US.
Sam Adams Member	Mon Apr 05 14:00:32 Pfizer(elite vax), owned by US, research split between US/EU. Moderna(elite vax) owned by US, research in US. J+J(acceptable vax) owned by US, research split between EU/US. AZ(marginal vax) owned by UK, research in UK. Note the preponderance of US(especially for the 2 best ones) and the lack of EU representation.
Forwyn Member	Mon Apr 05 15:06:59 Joined the Moderna club yesterday. Glad to do my part in making sure jergul is horrifically wrong
Rugian Member	Mon Apr 05 15:10:44 Forwyn is officially a part of the statistics, hooray! ---- April 5: % of US that has received at least 1 dose: 32.4% (+0.4%) % of US fully vaccinated: 18.8% (+0.3%)
Sam Adams Member	Mon Apr 05 15:20:46 Watch jergul be confused about how numbers dipped on easter sunday.
jergul large member	Mon Apr 05 15:41:17 Seb Not a CT, simply the backdrop for why the EU has invoked the principle of repriocity when it comes to vaccine distribution. Sammy 2 of 3 "US" vaccines were developed in Europe. There is a few day lag in vaccinating and reporting. The April 5th numbers are for vaccinations done up to a week earlier.
jergul large member	Mon Apr 05 15:44:17 Forwyn I will only be spectacularly wrong if the US decides to apply emergency use authorization on children that are on the whole not at risk from covid at all. You are pretty much cheerleading big government overreach.
Rugian Member	Mon Apr 05 16:01:35 "You are pretty much cheerleading big government overreach." It's only overreach if it's mandated. Merely giving people the option is not overreach. Also, let's ignore that Covid HAS hospitalized and killed kids. Even without that, the fact remains that Covid cost an entire generation of children a year of both education and social interaction. So let's not pretend that Covid has been all sunshine and rainbows for the young. The primary value of the vaccine is that it allows people to return to their normal lives. Children as as big a beneficiary of that as anyone.
jergul large member	Mon Apr 05 16:35:14 Ruggy Kids do not need to be vaccinated to return to their normal lives. They are shut down to help others. They cannot consent to "an option" that provides them with no benefits and places them at some risk. Emergency use authorization on kids should not even be on the table. Proper FDA approval for any vaccine on children is not possible before 2022. The FDA might do it anyway due to political pressure. So even if you win the argument, you lose the bigger discussion. I will laugh and laugh and laugh anytime you ever complain about government overreach again.
Sam Adams Member	Mon Apr 05 18:44:04 "There is a few day lag in vaccinating and reporting. The April 5th numbers are for vaccinations done up to a week earlier." Ah so the US total is even higher then?
Habebe Member	Mon Apr 05 18:50:56 Seb has never made so much sense *no export ban. If the EU wanted vaccines on time they should pay for them on time and invest in supply chains.
Sam Adams Member	Mon Apr 05 18:53:48 Im behind a ridge in the backcountry stopped to snack on some crackers and rest my legs, trolling jergul and seb over 5g internet, not worried if i wander into any other skiers because i am vaxxed(and the UV load off the fresh snow is probably chernobyl levels), and an eagle just flew over. Murrica.
jergul large member	Mon Apr 05 19:26:18 Great, now sammy is bragging about how great his snow is to a Northern Norwegian. Habebe It is an export ban, silly. Hence the EU citing repriocity in enacting its own bans on exports. I got your ticket long ago btw. You can't troll a troll. That is just called making out. The EU got its contract with the producer before the UK did incidentally. The wording is almost identical save the bits where the producer is compelled by the State to not export the vaccine.
jergul large member	Mon Apr 05 19:26:51 Sammy I got your ticket long ago btw. You can't troll a troll. That is just called making out*
obaminated Member	Mon Apr 05 19:53:20 kind of surprised how petty jergul becomes when he is clearly losing an argument.
Sam Adams Member	Mon Apr 05 21:45:32 "Great, now sammy is bragging about how great his snow is to a Northern Norwegian. " Ya, but does it come with EAGLES?
Seb Member	Mon Apr 05 23:01:15 Jergul: No, UK contract with CMOs for setting up plant signed in April. Before Astrazenica got the license from the Jenner institute. Purchase order with AZ negotatiated between may and August and signed the day before EC contract. But note the respective contracts are with AZUK and AZAB subsidiaries respectively. Bottom line: UK invested in production capacity in April with the drug substance manufacturers. AZAB placed contracts with drug substance manufacturers in August. And the EC contract is clear that the capacity is to be built. Regurgitation of the Comissions narrative without thought is pretty sad, especially when it's a narrative they have changed three times and never had the confidence to test in court. EC definition of recpirocity is bizarre: simply proportionate exports from any country with a manufacturing base. But for a country like UK, which doesn't have a manufacturing base to meet own demand, would suggest we have to ensure export of roughly 80% of domestic supply on a per capita basis before we can import any vaccines from EU. It's made up nonsense to allow EC to point fingers at others for their failure to adequately think through the vaccination program.
Seb Member	Mon Apr 05 23:02:28 I mean, I get why you have an affinity for made up nonsense given your recent invocation of super secret redacted unenforceable punitive clauses...
jergul large member	Tue Apr 06 00:26:24 Seb The principle of repriocity is firmly established in international law. The EU needs not justification for enforcing a ban on exports beyond referencing that principle. It has been established that the UK has banned exports at least until the first 100 million doses have been delivered and quite possibly far beyond that. The UK contract is newer than the EUs contract and is identical in wording except for reference to punitive clauses that your State has redacted so that silly mandarins like you can make the silly arguments you have. The cunning use of flags argument you continue to present is utterly unimpressive. You should be able to tell that when the likes of obam and habebe are cheering you on. Sammy Tons of them. They are pests.
jergul large member	Tue Apr 06 00:38:32 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White-tailed_eagle Closely related to that vulture of yours (as B. Franklin called it. Vastly preferring the turkey asa national bird). 3500 nesting pairs in Norway.
Seb Member	Tue Apr 06 00:42:01 Jergul: The export ban isn't an instrument of international law, however. Purely domestic. The EC have already explained their position on reciprocity. "It has been established" By who, using what criteria? The UK has not banned exports. It is that simple. It has contacted CMO manufacturers to produce production lines in the UK and NL, as opposed to using existing production lines elsewhere in the EU, and funded the construction of said production lines on the basis that will be used to produce the drugs to supply the UK contract. This is costly and inefficient, but intended to provide security of supply because of the fear - justified in the event - that the EU could not be trusted to keep export routes open. Had the UK not done this, there would still be no exports to the EU. There would simply be no production of AZ vaccine yet, as production lines would still be being set up. "The UK contract is newer than the EUs contract" Incorrect, also immaterial. The relevant contracts securing exclusivity are with the CMOs and date to April when the UK investments in supply chain were made. " and is identical in wording" Do you really want me to post a line by line comparison of the salient points? "Except for reference to punitive clauses" Quote the punitive clauses. Punitive clauses are unenforceable in English contract law. "so that silly mandarins like you can make the silly arguments you have." Lol. Professional contrarianism gets you into such a mess jergul.
jergul large member	Tue Apr 06 00:50:41 Seb You do not get to redact stuff and then ask people to quote it. The fundamental issue here is that EU exports to the UK are allowing the UK to vaccinate at rates far faster than in the EU. Parity in vaccination is a reasonable agenda, as is citing repriocity as the bases for an export ban to the UK. You are not supplying the EU with vaccines produced in your country. The EU is not therefore not going to supply you with vaccines produce in the Union until vaccination parity is reached. The cunning use of contract clauses to ban exports is still a ban seb. It is enough that the clauses intimidate the producers to follow the will of your State. Ultimately though, it does not even matter. States can ban exports for any reason they like. The only thing you are laying the groundwork for here is sabotaging production flows later on down the road.
Habebe Member	Tue Apr 06 01:34:25 For refence purposes, here is the link to the EU contract and the UK contracts available online I will post next.Both ar PDF files. http://ec....chase-agreement-astrazeneca_en EU-August 27th 2020
Habebe Member	Tue Apr 06 01:39:13 http://www...7f-0194-452a-bdae-9999aecc753d UK-May 27th, 2020 Now how Jergul finds may 27th to be a day before August 27th is beyond me, ancient Norweigan secret. Both use the terms "Best reasonable efforts" which apparently was an issue with the EU because....idk racial justice?
jergul large member	Tue Apr 06 01:50:06 UK: "DATED 28 AUGUST 2020" From your source. Jesus.
jergul large member	Tue Apr 06 01:56:35 Ruggy What is incidentally your position on people who have a degree of natural immunity due to prior infection? What vaccination rate do you expect that group to rationally follow? Will it be higher or lower than general population vaccinations in your esteemed mind?
jergul large member	Tue Apr 06 02:01:04 In the EUs mind, "reasonable best efforts" would give parity in vaccination rates for countries with contracts with that wording. That to me is a reasonable understanding of the term.
Seb Member	Tue Apr 06 02:17:12 jergul: You don't get to claim something exists without proof that it does. If it's redacted, and you can't quote it, then what evidence do you have that such a clause exists? Things we know for a fact: 1. HMG investment in production lines for the Oxford vaccines drug substance manufactured at Halix, OxfordBiomedica and Cobra occurred in April. http://www...ine-made-uk-firm-given-nearly/ http://www.b3cnewswire.com/202004152058/halix-enters-collaboration-with-the-university-of-oxford-for-gmp-manufacturing-of-a-covid-19-vaccine.html http://www.bestinvest.co.uk/research/market-news/oxford-biomedica-joins-covid-19-vaccine-consortium Note, these investments are direct HMG to the supply chain companies, not to AZ. Note also, the Netherlands were also invited to join in investment in Halix, but declined. http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2021/03/dutch-had-chance-to-invest-in-leiden-vaccine-maker-halix-nos/ 2. AstraZenica was awarded the license from the Jenner Institute around 30th April http://www.astrazeneca.com/media-centre/press-releases/2020/astrazeneca-and-oxford-university-announce-landmark-agreement-for-covid-19-vaccine.html 3. Astrazenica starts agreeing contracts with the the CMOs that the UK had set up to expand production after August. http://news.pda.org/en/article/145914/astrazeneca-and-halix-partner-to-manufacture-covid-19-vaccine http://www.proactiveinvestors.co.uk/companies/news/927947/oxford-biomedica-astrazeneca-sign-agreement-to-produce-covid-19-vaccine-candidate-927947.html What can we conclude and infer here: 1. Drug substance is manufactured by Contracted Manufacturing Organisations - I.e. unlike Pfizer, this is not a vertically integrated supply chain. AZAB and AZUK, the two subsidiaries, subcontract drug substance manufacture, and fill and finish to CMOs. 2. UK directly invested in the CMOs (early to mid April) prior to the Jenner Institute awarding the license to Astrazeneca (30th April). EU govts declined. EC also made it clear that if the UK were to come onboard with the EC program, it would have no seat at the table, it's existing work would be thrown away, and it would not be able to contract independently. Please use the sharing tools found via the share button at the top or side of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach of FT.com T&Cs and Copyright Policy. Email licensing@ft.com to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found at https://www.ft.com/tour. https://www.ft.com/content/8d9edc58-7922-496a-942f-5360bfe84876 "The Commission was happy for us to join the European procurement but we would not have a seat at the table, we had to abandon all the work we had done to date, we could not speak either then or in the future to any potential vaccine companies that would conflict with what they might want to do, and they would tell us when we would get the vaccine," http://www.ft.com/content/8d9edc58-7922-496a-942f-5360bfe84876 3. UK almost certainly agreed the capacity lockup with the CMOs: that, after all, is the only reason for the UK to invest in creation of manufacturing capacity, to cause capacity to be created to meet the demand for its own contracts. 4. The UK contract with AstraZenica was signed 28th August. file:///C:/Users/LONST30/Downloads/AZD1222%20Supply%20Agreement%20-%20[REDACTED].pdf None of it seems to include any obligation on AZUK not to export, nor does it mentione priority. It simply states that AZUK at time of contract guarantees that the designated UK supply chain CMOs have the required capacity. It is in a position to agree this because the UK has set these up from April. In the EU contract, AZAB merely agrees to take best reasonable efforts to secure manufacturing capacity. It cannot agree because the capacity does not exist: and because the Jenner Institute License in a fit of misapplied altruism made this a not for profit contract, no private financer has an interest in investing in manufacturing capacity. That is why there is no capacity for the EC to draw upon in it's contract in August. I will not go into detail on how they are different, others have. There are similarities, but that will be because the same legal team at AZ were working on both. http://www.politico.eu/article/the-key-differences-between-the-eu-and-uk-astrazeneca-contracts/ --- "The fundamental issue here is that EU exports to the UK are allowing the UK to vaccinate at rates far faster than in the EU." That is called "global markets". Pfizer has a centralized, for profit model for it's vaccine. It has set up a small number of global production hubs and exports from these. It invested in capacity as soon as it new it had a viable candidate drug with a view to meeting demand. With the Oxford nfp model, there is no incentive for anyone but the customer to finance production lines. But then customers are unlikely to finance over-capacity; nor will they want their capacity being re-purposed to other clients (c.f. equivalent clauses in EC APA contracts that prohibit a supplier from entering into other contracts that prevent fullfillment of the EC contract, which any contract that proposed to deliver vaccines to the same timetable using the same production capacity would do - in your language: an automatic export ban). I guess you just don't like not for profit models. That aside, we have a simple issue: your argument hinges on the idea that Pfizer's Belgium based capacity is the EUs to direct, and it is for the EU to determine who it should service, simply because it is based in Europe. This is very different from the argument that the Oxford Biomedica, Cobra and Halix capcaity, at least insofar as it comes from the UK funded production lines, is the UK's to direct because HMG directly paid for them to be created. In one case, a state is monopolizing all vaccine production capacity; in the other, any customer is free to invest in capacity to service it's contracts. "You are not supplying the EU with vaccines produced in your country." Again, "You" implies that the UK should share it's contract (which the EU is not proposing to do - it would still expect Pfizer to honor the EC contract ahead of UK contracts); or the EU will block any EU company from fulfilling a contract with the UK. These are not reciprocal arrangements. "he cunning use of contract clauses to ban exports" You are not even able to point to these supposed contract clauses - citing "redacted" punitive clauses that would have no legal effect as punitive clauses are not valid in English Contract law. "States can ban exports for any reason they like." Indeed they can. An ultimately the UK has novavax and Valnerva facilities coming online; and as the intended AZ supply for the EU being built at Oxford Biomedica and Cobra will also shortly be available; we can simply impose a reciprocal vaccine export ban and use that capacity to make up the shortfall, if needed. And of course customers (of which the UK has an abnormally large concentration) can consider what steps they need to take going forward to ensure supply chains are not reliant on countries that impose export bans during an emergency. You have no evidence for your wild assertions, and there is quite a lot of evidence documenting the contrary. It is this simple: The EC, wildly out of it's depth in this area, but proceeding with it's typical arrogance and adherence to market fundamentals - completely screwed up the vaccine program as it focused on scale, unit prices, and solidarity; but underprioritized time to value in it's calculations. It picked Astraseneca as the target to scapegoat. First it claimed the issue was EU exports of AZ to the UK at the expense of the EU. Then it realized there were no such exports, and changed tack to suggest that the UK had an export band, threatening Pfizer. Then it realized that the Pfizer supply chain was dependent on lipid exports, and the UK might attempt to onshore Pfizer drug manufacture, and said it was about AZ exports from EU to UK when the UK wasn't exporting from UK to EU - even though that would make no sense as UK consumes more AZ than it can produce. The EC's position varies to fill the gaps in public knowledge, because it is simply a convenient political narrative to aid the EC. The EC's actions are actually at the moment limited to preventing Halix from fulfilling it's orders to the UK - i.e. expropriating the UK investment. However, the AZ contracts with both parties allow it to swap supply in the event of contract interference. What this means is that the EC will get deliveries from Halix slightly earlier than otherwise followed by further delay, while the UK will get a delay which will be made up to the Q2 total from the EC funded UK based supply chain. The most important thing from the EC perspective is it has a scapegoat for the gullible.
Seb Member	Tue Apr 06 02:20:16 jergul: "In the EUs mind, "reasonable best efforts" would give parity in vaccination rates for countries with contracts with that wording." No. For a number of reasons, but starting with the biggest, their contract is with AZAB and does not extend to the entire group. You can't ask AZAB to be responsible for AZUKs obligations. In addition, the reasonable best efforts applies to manufacture - and the recitals clear state scale up efforts ongoing. Compare to the UK contact where AZUK guarantees capacity is available. All of this was known at the time. It's in various press releases. Of course the EC knew and understood what it was buying. If they didn't that's even worse.
Habebe Member	Tue Apr 06 02:31:58 Jergul, Meh Euro legal systems are wretched nd inferior to British common law in general, it may extend to contracts as well Remember the Amanda Knox (Italy) fiasco?
Habebe Member	Tue Apr 06 02:36:25 Seb, Its probably worse. The EC wasnt made for handling emergency early vaccine deals.
jergul large member	Tue Apr 06 06:23:16 Seb We will just have to agree to disagree. I am bored with this now. Export bans are in any event a tool in the repetoire that can be used as required.
Sam Adams Member	Tue Apr 06 10:07:35 US passes 4 million vaxes per day. Eligibility is expanding to every 16+ in the next few weeks. We could vaccinate every adult in norway in a day.
jergul large member	Tue Apr 06 13:42:11 How many people do you think live in Norway sammy? 3500 nesting pairs?
Rugian Member	Tue Apr 06 13:44:07 Jergul grows bored while we grow in vaccinations. ---- April 6: % of US that has received at least 1 dose: 32.6% (+0.2%) % of US fully vaccinated: 19.0% (+0.2%)
Rugian Member	Tue Apr 06 13:44:57 "Sam Adams Member Mon Apr 05 18:53:48 Im behind a ridge in the backcountry stopped to snack on some crackers and rest my legs, trolling jergul and seb over 5g internet, not worried if i wander into any other skiers because i am vaxxed(and the UV load off the fresh snow is probably chernobyl levels), and an eagle just flew over. Murrica." This was beautiful *sniff*
jergul large member	Tue Apr 06 14:13:50 Ruggy Want to commit to a date when you think more than 50% of Americans have been vaccinated? Also, what is your position on people who have a degree of natural immunity? Do you feel they will vaccinate at rates similar to their uninfected peers?
Rugian Member	Tue Apr 06 14:34:36 "Want to commit to a date when you think more than 50% of Americans have been vaccinated?" Before 1/1/2022, to start with. "Also, what is your position on people who have a degree of natural immunity? Do you feel they will vaccinate at rates similar to their uninfected peers?" Probably. Among other reasons, most people with natural immunity are unaware that they have it.
jergul large member	Tue Apr 06 14:57:50 Ruggy: 50% before January 1st 2022 Sammy: 50% before June 1st. Note how close my and Ruggy's estimates are.
jergul large member	Tue Apr 06 15:01:00 Jergul: 50% after January 1st 2022 Ruggy: 50% before January 1st 2022 Sammy: 50% before June 1st 2021 Any other of you loudmouths want to commit to a date?
Forwyn Member	Tue Apr 06 17:00:59 50-19=31 31*5=155 Five months, put me down for 50% by Halloween
Habebe Member	Tue Apr 06 17:34:15 I'll say by July first 2021 Its very likely to be june1st or at least the first weeks. This is a very conservative estimate. Total population-332 million. Total vaxed already is I think 17% We are averaging about 3 million doses/day. .91% To be conservative I'll say 2.5 million/day So 17 million/week Or 70 million/month But most are double shot so keep that in mind. But we are also at 49.9% of the US population having at least one dose. This is important as almost everyone who received the first dose will likely get a 2nd one in about a month-a month and a half. By that measure Sam's estimate seems very likely. I only went more.conservative to leave Lebensraum for issues/mistakes. Plus I'm counting all doses as doubles, again the J&J vaccine will again be a bit more of a boost, but again elbow room. The numbers are rough estimates mostly and data from our world in data which I do realize seems a little off on total Pop and 49.99% since 162 *2=324 which 8 million short of 2021 US pop which I jist googled. Mabry that's illegals or work visas etc.
jergul large member	Tue Apr 06 17:43:25 Jergul: 50% after January 1st 2022 Ruggy: 50% before January 1st 2022 Sammy: 50% before June 1st 2021 Fowyn: 50% before November 1st 2021 Habebe: 50% before July 1st 2021
State Department Member	Tue Apr 06 18:35:18 50% before May 19th 2021.
Hrothgar Member	Tue Apr 06 21:25:16 Got my 2nd dose today. In a couple of weeks I'll be counted as a small percentage toward the 50% you all are throwing down bets on.
Y2A Member	Tue Apr 06 21:50:18 you are already part of the % they are talking about as the % is based on all ppl who've had at least one vaccination.
Sam Adams Member	Wed Apr 07 10:45:43 It is now confirmed that AZ causes blood clots and may be more dangerous than coronavirus to the youngest adults. Godamnit seb. Your shitty fucking vax is going to cause significant vaccine hesitantcy and kill so many people.
Paramount Member	Wed Apr 07 10:54:46 Well, that’s it. I’m not gonna take AZ vaccine.
Paramount Member	Wed Apr 07 10:58:26 But, how do we know that Putin didn’t make them to release this statement on the AZ vaccine? According to Swedish media Russia is behind all of the negative reports on the AZ vaccine.
Sam Adams Member	Wed Apr 07 11:31:54 The UK is probably more responsible for our covid problems than china at this point. Both the original strain and current dominant strain entered the US primarily through Heathrow. Now heathrow is one of the most important international travel hubs so its not that surprising but still, those fuckers said they were more secure than they obviously are. The AZ vaccine fuckup is even worse... its doing significant damage to the cause.
Sam Adams Member	Wed Apr 07 11:39:38 http://www...rmanys-coronavirus-crisis.html Germany may lock down again as EU vax rates lag far behind UK variant spread.
Seb Member	Wed Apr 07 14:46:07 Sam, variants are a direct consequence of failure to lock down and control spread. You oppose lockdowns. You also have your own high spreading variant (a NY strain), but the b117 variant has got that niche first.
	show deleted posts