Utopia Talk / Politics / 50% vaccinated by 2022 V

Habebe Member	Wed Apr 07 16:22:42 Yup
jergul large member	Wed Apr 07 17:15:08 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: 50% by May 19th 2021
Rugian Member	Wed Apr 07 19:27:16 So basically, we're all pretty much guaranteed to win, except for State Department who took a bit of a gamble. And...you know...that first guy.
Rugian Member	Wed Apr 07 19:29:37 Of course, we are all (well, maybe not all *cough* jergul *cough*) hoping that SD is correct. And with stats like these... ---- April 7: % of US that has received at least 1 dose: 33.1% (+0.5%) % of US fully vaccinated: 19.4% (+0.4%)
jergul large member	Wed Apr 07 19:46:45 Ruggy Well, your bet is a minute less than mine. You do not seem very convinced of your thesis.
Rugian Member	Wed Apr 07 19:59:52 Jergul I take it you've never watched The Price Is Right? When you think your opponents are all bidding too conservatively, you just bet $1 above the next-highest guess. Doesn't matter what the actual number ends up being, you win regardless.
Habebe Member	Wed Apr 07 20:54:10 I think Sam has a great shot as long as nothing goes majorly wrong, and even still. In two months time we should have 140-180 million single doses.
jergul large member	Wed Apr 07 22:34:08 Ruggy You pwned yourself. Even if I am wrong, I will be but a day wronger than you.
obaminated Member	Wed Apr 07 22:59:01 jergul's meltdown into complete denial spirals down further.
jergul large member	Wed Apr 07 23:05:27 Obam So when do you think 50% of the US population will be fully vaccinated?
Sam Adams Member	Wed Apr 07 23:27:50 Fuck that price is right bullshit. I said may 31st. Im gonna nail it within a couple days either way.
Seb Member	Thu Apr 08 01:45:16 Jergul: http://amp...html?__twitter_impression=true But... the export ban?!
Seb Member	Thu Apr 08 01:46:24 N.b. looks like what's happened here is AZ has diverted supply from the UK to Aus to make up for the exports from EU AZ factories to Aus that the EU banned.
jergul large member	Thu Apr 08 02:36:51 Your link documents it thinks it isunder an export ban. The secrecy and the superfudge is quite stunning.
Seb Member	Thu Apr 08 05:40:06 Jergul: Where? There is no secrecy - the UK does not have a mechanism for tracking total production and distribution. AZ has no obligation to tell the UK how many doses it exports; and UK has no reason to know. The EU had to create one to provide those stats - a mechanism Pfizer has said has negatively impacted the global and vaccination - as part of it's creation of an export control regime. The UK has no interests in building such apparatus. As I pointed out, AZ is free to do what it likes with the supply it has contracted from OxfordBiomedica and Cobra - and always was. The only thing that HMG has dibs on is the product stipulated in the contracts HMG signed with the CMOs. This is not an export ban - any more than EU objecting to their timetable of deliveries not being met because the drugs were being sent to a different customer would constitute an export ban. Only the EU here, is imposing a prohibition on suppliers meeting their contracts.
jergul large member	Thu Apr 08 08:13:09 Seb Get back to me on your line of argument when Astro-Zenica supplies to the EU and the UK have reached parity by population.
Habebe Member	Thu Apr 08 08:39:45 EU isnjust selfish. Globally it tarnished their reputation as both selfish and impotent.
Sam Adams Member	Thu Apr 08 08:41:07 Squabbling over astrazenca... lol its like plebs arguing over the loaf of stale bread from the lords trasheap.
Seb Member	Thu Apr 08 10:31:55 Jergul: That's an entirely arbitrary criteria. If the EU wanted to secure globally equitable access to vaccines, it would have signed up to get it's supply from covax. Instead, it decided to leverage its scale and supply chain positioning to gain the best possible access via the fee market using contracts with suppliers. It got a better deal overall than if it had gone via COVAX. On one vaccine type from one supplier, one country has secured a better outcome than the EU. This was not at the expense of the EU, but simply because it actress faster and took on direct risk; something the EU actively avoided. So now the EU wants to rip up rule of law and contracts and rely on export controls; but only for this vaccine type from this supplier. It is not proposing to allow e.g. Pfizer to be released from its contracts with the EU and distribute supply globally on an equitable basis. Basically jergul, the ECs position on your is hypocritical, and without any coherent philosophical, moral, ethical or legal basis. I'm surprised you've chained yourself to it.
Seb Member	Thu Apr 08 10:34:07 You'll note it is also the EU that is the only major block now opposing patent waivers that could allow production of e.g. Pfizer vaccine to be scaled up globally in the coming months.
jergul large member	Thu Apr 08 12:42:35 Seb It is not arbitrary at all to block exports to countries that have higher vaccination rates than the EU, or little exposure to the virus compared to the EU. The moral anchor you are looking for rotates around protecting the lives of its citizens.
obaminated Member	Thu Apr 08 12:55:37 Eh, lets say 50% by may 15th.
jergul large member	Thu Apr 08 12:57:19 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: 50% by May 19th 2021 Obam: 50% before May 15th 2021
Seb Member	Thu Apr 08 16:22:24 Jergul: Sure it is, when the EU don't refuse to take delivery and insist that EU based firms prioritise customers in other countries that have high infection rates and low vaccination rates. It's a naked "EU first" policy. Which is fine, but is not the free market approach the EU has championed, and a clear invitation for other countries to move to mandatory tech transfers now and in future.
Rugian Member	Thu Apr 08 16:27:28 I don't think jergul understands the meaning of the words "before" and "after." I merely said that we'd hit 50% before 2022, and that will definitely happen. Then again, maybe I'm investing too much in trying to talk reason to a guy who thinks that being an jet pilot is no more different than running items through a check register.
Rugian Member	Thu Apr 08 16:35:17 One-fifth of the country is now fully vaccinated, one-third of the country has gotten at least one shot. Awesome. ---- April 8: % of US that has received at least 1 dose: 33.7% (+0.6%) % of US fully vaccinated: 19.9% (+0.5%)
jergul large member	Thu Apr 08 18:29:00 Seb Lol! Nothing about the vaccines anywhere is a free market approach. Except perhaps in China. The EU has a reasonable policy. End of story.
Forwyn Member	Thu Apr 08 20:55:50 Most gains to second dose are merely limited by the recommended timetable, AKA 21 days for Pfizer, and 28 days for Moderna. Ergo, by May 6th, fully vaccinated % will be AT LEAST 33.7%. Looking grim for jergul
Rugian Member	Thu Apr 08 20:59:09 Forwyn That is the correct way of looking at things.
Sam Adams Member	Thu Apr 08 22:40:27 "The EU has a reasonable policy." Fucking up and hoping the US saves you? I mean, it worked during world war 2 and the cold war. So it might actually be reasonable.
Habebe Member	Fri Apr 09 01:06:30 ^I laughed @ sams posts. EU dropped the ball.
Seb Member	Fri Apr 09 02:16:43 Jergul: Use scale to secure prime position on deliveries over the third world through contracts, oppose export controls because they disrupt global supply chains and prevent fulfillment of contracts, then have a hissy fit when another country secures prime position on deliveries through sigining contracts earlier, and impose export controls that hinder fulfillment of contracts. Yes, very reasonable and coherent position.
Seb Member	Fri Apr 09 02:18:45 The fact the EU is heavily divided in the wisdom of this tells you everything you need to know. The EC is panicked and flailing, vdl has cocked it up badly. But this is what happens when commission president is considered a landing ground for German cabinet ministers failing upwards.
jergul large member	Fri Apr 09 02:19:35 The primary duty of a State is to protect its citizens.
Seb Member	Fri Apr 09 03:56:01 In that case, there are no grounds to make up bullshit arguments about reciprocity. It should be like the US and unapologetic in its vaccine export ban. The EC wants to both adopt a policy of naked self interest; but still occupy the moral high ground of high minded internationalism, claiming we are not safe until everyone is safe and championing multilateralism even as (in the words of an Asian diplomat) it "shut all the small counties in a closet labelled COVAX, locked the door, and went on a shopping spree"; and now adopts a vaccine export ban. The EU is forced into this U-turn by the failure of the ECs strategy. If they had an equivalent of warp speed or the UKs vaccine taskforce that looked at the problem holistically and spent on vaccine production infrastructure on a per capita basis at the same level as the US and UK, there would be much more capacity and we wouldn't be having this conversation. It's worth noting the terms EC offered to the UK to join: no representation, ditch all your current work, we will tell you when you get vaccine. Presumably this is similar to what national govts were offered. In the UK we have a cautionary phrase "the man in Whitehall knows best" intended to be a momento morí for an over arrogant inexperienced centre imposing policy on operational agencies closer to the public. The mealy mouthed attempt to blame the EC blocking exports to Australia because UK while the UK is in fact exporting to Australia also is just diversionary bullshit by the EC to avoid accountability for its failed strategy. EC must carry the can for this. And if the EU now needs a vaccine export ban, it must weather the criticism and accept the consequences that follow.
Seb Member	Fri Apr 09 03:58:53 It should also plow billions into additional vaccine capacity, because it's first instinct is right: we will not be safe until everyone is safe, which means we need to radically up production to avoid successive waves of vaccine escape variants. mRNA particularly looks like a technology with very broad applications, and the surplus post pandemic capacity can be used to eradicate other diseases. This is a time for bold action, not fucking around securing volume discounts in procurement exercises.
jergul large member	Fri Apr 09 07:48:46 Seb The reciprocity argument is fine and dandy. There is no need to intervene if that principle had been followed.
Seb Member	Fri Apr 09 08:12:48 Jergul: Only in Humpty Dumpty terms. If you are complaining that a company isn't delivering to you on the basis of a contract, and that company would still not have been delivering to you if they had been under the same contractual terms you yourself secured, its a pretty clear conclusion it's not reciprocity you are asking for. EU can impose a vaccine export ban, but the world is watching and drawing its own conclusions on Europe's commitment to multilateralism. A thing for other people.
jergul large member	Fri Apr 09 08:15:49 In terms of the UK, repriocity means inflows equals outflows. You do get that your vaccine advantage stems from EU exports to you, right?
Seb Member	Fri Apr 09 08:33:34 Jergul: That's not correct. The EU doesn't export, suppliers do. If reciprocity means that we must an equal number to vaccines we import; then clearly there is no point in importing. If there is no point in importing, and EU policy is that we must produce our own. In that case supply chain on-shoring is the new future of medicines. This requires tech transfer. As Pfizer did not want to set up a UK factor but wanted to centralise in Belgium, the next obvious step is forced technology transfer. And the next obvious thing is to demand reciprocity on inputs to the Pfizer vaccine: supply of nano lipids to Belgium must be no more than EU exports of the same to the UK. Free form busking for rhetorical purposes makes poor policy. Doing this under fire may not be possible; but the logic applies to all strategic medicines. Essentially, the NHS should create a black list of countries and blocks that are not trusted suppliers for strategic medicines. NHS should then only buy from suppliers than can produce in a trusted block, or guarantee 3 months of supply in domestic storage. That should be sufficient to encourage supply chain relocation. Some favourable planning permissions would make Northern Ireland an excellent centre for drug manufacture as it can cater to both the EU and UK.
jergul large member	Fri Apr 09 08:42:58 Seb I see that you don't get that. Now wonder you seem a bit flustered. Well, the EU is slapping down export bans because your vaccine advantage stems from EU exports. That should sort you out.
Seb Member	Fri Apr 09 09:59:25 Jergul: I'm not the one flapping in the wind constantly reinventing positions and making up mumbob jumbo about secret penalty clauses. So basically the EU position (in your mind, note, this is not actually what the EC has said) is that any country that is able to advance faster than the EU based on ordering vaccines from EU based plants should be blocked from recieving deliveries from the EU. I.e. the EU thinks being an exporter of medicines is a bad thing and that counties ought not to be dependent on the EU for medicines. I mean, initially they were mad that they weren't getting medicines from us, but sure, whatever gets you through the next news cycle! However: Firstly, that must be news for Israel! Secondly, that is a clear "Europe first" vaccine nationalism policy. Drugs must go to the EU first above other customers. Fine, that's a legit policy. But own it. Thirdly, that exactly aligns with what I said: the NHS should not buy from suppliers based in the EU for medicines and must insist on on-shoring, or at least only buying from countries that do not seek to block free trade in medicines. And if companies want to be able to sell to people outside the EU without being hindered, they obviously need to move somewhere else. Naturally, NI, which has tax and regulatory freedom to sell into both UK and the EU is an excellent location and beyond the ECs meddlesome export controls. All we need is a little pump priming and strategic application of purchasing power.
jergul large member	Fri Apr 09 10:18:58 Seb The punitive clauses are redacted, but referred to in the main contract. Google is your friend, use it. Its more EU not last, than it is a EU first policy. The problem was always the repriocity aspect. You were getting millions of doses from the Eu, it was getting none from you. Israel is a special case for obvious, historical reasons. Feel free to buy your medicines from china. It has not seeked to block free trade in medicines. Or set up shop in NI. Why not? All you need is a change of government to something not tory.
Sam Adams Member	Fri Apr 09 10:34:18 "The EC is panicked and flailing, vdl has cocked it up badly." Good thing you brexitted
jergul large member	Fri Apr 09 10:44:14 Stroke cases from the Janssen vaccine. Ouch!
Habebe Member	Fri Apr 09 11:07:35 Agrees with Sam, Brexit right now doesnt look so bad.
jergul large member	Fri Apr 09 11:09:36 The UK would have been protected from a EU embargo inside the EU and could still have made the same contracts it did. Barvaria in Germany is buying vaccines outside of the EU system for example.
Sam Adams Member	Fri Apr 09 11:20:15 "Barvaria in Germany is buying vaccines outside of the EU system for example." The superior US mrna vaxes one hopes.
habebe Member	Fri Apr 09 12:18:05 Jergul, Why would the UK want to join a group as incompetent as the EU though? they seem to suck at a crisis.
Seb Member	Fri Apr 09 12:47:38 Jergul: You have yet to provide any evidence at all of a punitive clause. Indeed, punitive clauses are not a thing in English contract law. You can only sue for direct loses, not consequential loses. Sam: Or maybe a bad thing: we might have insisted on the EC scheme being run differently, out alternatively the EC wouldn't have been so paranoid about solidarity... if if if. Habebe: There's literally riots going on in NI right now, an exodus of business and exports to the EU, our biggest export market, down 70%. And had we stayed, we could have not participated in the EU scheme. Indeed the scheme might not have existed or look very different. So no, this doesn't make brexit look good.
Seb Member	Fri Apr 09 13:01:44 Jergul: "The problem was always the repriocity aspect. You were getting millions of doses from the Eu, it was getting none from you." Yes, but again, this is an entirely arbitrary definition of "You". True supplier is Astrazenica. Astrazenica produced millions of doses inside the EU. Why does it follow that because Pfizer is honouring a contract with the UK, Astrazenica should supply the EU not only using its factories in the EU, but that the UK should allow three entirely different companies to break their contracts with the UK and supply the EU? Astrazenica has forced a 60% cut on Q1 deliveries to India, UK and EU. The cause is the scale up to 1000l bulk production is producing lower than anticipated yields. Indeed the UK took a haircut on deliveries by allowing the UK CMOs to switch production lines in the hope of additional capacity to supply AZAB's contract. The UK funded the supply directly, the UK took the risk, the UK even funded a chunkn of supply in the EU, the UK supported technology transfer to EU based CMOs, the UK invited EU govts to join in that funding of EU supply chain, which none did, and the UK (that owns a substantial chunk of the IP) allowed it to be produced royalty free. And by UK there I do mean the HMG and the taxpayer, not your weird bullshit where Pfizer somehow counts as "The EU". The argument that the UK should accept further write downs and release AZ from its contract so that UK production (which is less than the UK needs) can be diverted to supplement EU (which already has its own production) so the EU doesn't need to take as big a write down on its order as they UK did, is just a non starter. As it is, the EU have already appropriated the UKs investment in Halix. So basically, no, it's not going to happen. If the EU wants a vaccine trade war, I'm pretty sure it will get one. UK has more state funded vaccine plants comming online, but I doubt we will divert excess capacity to the EU now. This "tory" govt is all about state aid. If you think you can judge this Govt by past Tory policies you haven't been paying attention. Whatever this govt is, it's wearing the flayed skin of the conservative party as a mask.
Rugian Member	Fri Apr 09 17:08:42 If I can interrupt jergul's ongoing meltdown for a minute, here's today's figures: ---- April 9: % of US that has received at least 1 dose: 34.5% (+0.8%) % of US fully vaccinated: 20.5% (+0.6%)
Habebe Member	Fri Apr 09 17:13:24 Seb, I feel like NI riots like Springfeild ( Simpson's) just at the drop of a hat over anything, its kind of their thing. My point was that the Johnson administration has proven themselves better equipped to handle a crisis than the EU has. At best If I was a Brit I think Id opt at most for Norway relations where they are there for trade and such but not really a member, however they decided to jump on the bandwagon of failure, so.... Oz-ca-nz-uk-us is cool, but is difficult to trade as easily with just beacuse of distance. But clearly the EU is generally incompetent.
Seb Member	Fri Apr 09 17:18:05 Habebe: You are taking a very simplistic approach. The European Commission is one institution rugian a very heterodox set of institutions we call the EU. The commission bungled the vaccine program, but it is brilliant at leveraging trading power into diplomatic negotations to secure it's members advantages. Look how comprehensively it screwed the UK on exit terms, such that we now have an internal border, free trade in goods (advantage EU) with no corresponding provisions for service etc. Yes, EFTA membership would have been an alternative option, but would have negated the point of brexit in the first place. Whats the point of following the rules and got getting a say in making them?
Seb Member	Fri Apr 09 17:18:49 *One institution in a very heterodox set Time for a new screen protector.
Rugian Member	Fri Apr 09 17:23:04 I'm actually flattered your autocorrect defaults to me. lol
Habebe Member	Fri Apr 09 17:23:52 Rugian, I actually found an article (axios) that partially agrees with his logic that we will hit a wall in certain areas... But goes on to say rates will drop lower at 59% http://www...4e-4539-bb45-68a775581f6f.html
Sam Adams Member	Fri Apr 09 17:41:34 Ya, the US is going run into a problem with antivaxers(mainly africans and republicans). But not before 50%
Habebe Member	Fri Apr 09 18:14:31 I think they may have an issue with it, but I also think it wont be a wall of resistance and most of which can be persuaded. I almost got one early at Wal-Mart, they had a cancellation and said skmething over the intercom if anyone wanted it, but there was a line of people.
Sam Adams Member	Fri Apr 09 18:43:14 Pfizer asks for permission down to 12 years old. Should be granted in a few weeks. Rip jergul.
jergul large member	Fri Apr 09 19:05:26 Sammy Emergency use authorization on children is RIP to ethical, data based medicine. Not RIP me.
Sam Adams Member	Fri Apr 09 20:14:51 This whole process of europe and socialism failing is so hard on you, it is turning you into an antivaxxer?
jergul large member	Fri Apr 09 20:27:19 Sammy Kids don't need an emergency vaccine to stay safe. Is covid-19 turning you into an aromatherapist?
obaminated Member	Fri Apr 09 21:27:58 Hahaha "No emergency, i dont need a vaccine" Jergul now says when it becomes clear his government failed and cant provide him a vaccine.
jergul large member	Fri Apr 09 22:16:55 Obam Learn to read numbwit.
Sam Adams Member	Sat Apr 10 00:35:35 "Kids don't need an emergency vaccine to stay safe." Kids do need a vaccine for herd immunity, allowing them to return to normal lives and not threaten their teachers/parents, thus staying safe.
jergul large member	Sat Apr 10 03:45:42 Sammy There is no herd immunity. That would entail a vaccination rate north of 80%. Adults achieve personal safety by getting their vaccinaations Covid-19 is endemic.
Habebe Member	Sat Apr 10 05:07:59 Kids with underlying health problems are at risk.They can also be spreaders. The side effects are likely minimal.Even in adults it only killed like less than 1 % of the pop. Plus kids need to go to school and fet back to normal, becoming a hermit nation like Norway isnt in our cards.
jergul large member	Sat Apr 10 05:30:42 Emergency use authorization *may* be appropriate for at risk children. I have nothing against doctors using the vaccine on at risk children in a case by case basis. Kids can go to school and feel normal. Its not on them to protect everyone else when vaccines are available to everyone else. None of the vaccines are approved by the FDA on any age group. People forget that.
habebe Member	Sat Apr 10 07:43:05 The FDA kills.more people than it saves.
Rugian Member	Sat Apr 10 08:04:02 Habebe Of course we'll hit a wall at some point. The issue is that jergul thinks that wall is coming way earlier than it is. Also, despite being corrected on this point several times already, jergul still seems to think that herd immunity is a function of vaccination rates alone, not vaccination + previous infection rates. There are intelligent conversations to be had on the subject of whether we'll be able to hit herd immunity. Those conversations will not be had with jergul though.
jergul large member	Sat Apr 10 08:21:50 Ruggy You going on the record here stating you think herd immunity will be achieved and the virus eradicated? We all know that it covid is endemic, here with us to stay and those at risk will have to take their yearly booster shots. The math you are looking for: (Vaccination + those previously infected that did not later get a vaccination) - gradual loss of partial immunity.
Rugian Member	Sat Apr 10 08:25:22 Jergul Herd immunity does is not the same thing as virus eradication.
jergul large member	Sat Apr 10 09:33:27 "If herd immunity has been established and maintained in a population for a sufficient time, the disease is inevitably eliminated – no more endemic transmissions occur"
Seb Member	Sat Apr 10 11:30:45 Jergul: Eradication should be the aim. Failing that, maintaining herd immunity in the population at large if reservoirs will continue to exist. Not vaccinating children is an insane proposition - it would allow the disease to have a reservoir to continually spread and maintain strong contacts with vaccinated population, creating the conditions with the perfect evolutionary pressure for vaccine escape mutants.
jergul large member	Sat Apr 10 11:39:48 Seb That same argument could be used to argue mandatory vaccinations of all adults in lieu of emergency use authorization vaccination of children. Children can eventually be vaccinated of course. Once vaccines have been cleared and certified as safe properely according to established procedures. Your sense of urgency is misplaced.
jergul large member	Sat Apr 10 11:41:27 The evolutionary argument only makes sense on a global scale btw.
Sam Adams Member	Sat Apr 10 11:45:16 Adults and children should all be vaccinated. "Your sense of urgency is misplaced." I think you are trying to come up with excuses since your nation was not able to make any vaccines.
jergul large member	Sat Apr 10 12:57:30 Sammy Sure, once vaccines have FDA approval, then everyone should get vaccines. We have money. We are not trying to make vaccines.
habebe Member	Sat Apr 10 13:11:14 So Jergul got backed into a corner and tries to get Rugian to fall for his eradication bit he threw in to try and ensnare him into saying something stupid and Rugian immediately shoots him down.hahaha Jergul, Just admit you made an error in judgement and the US will likely hit 50% FV shortly. Not a big deal. we may struggle to get say 75%. I seen colored folk today saying they wouldnt take it because it killed DMX. ....nothing to do with years.of crack use and such.
jergul large member	Sat Apr 10 15:13:55 Habebe What fucking corner? Eradication follows from herd immunity. "If herd immunity has been established and maintained in a population for a sufficient time, the disease is inevitably eliminated – no more endemic transmissions occur" Everyone reasonable knows covid is endemic and herd immunity unachievable.
Habebe Member	Sat Apr 10 15:18:06 With our interconnected world as it is Covid 19 almost definitley wont be eradicated. We still have bubonic plague cases.
jergul large member	Sat Apr 10 15:26:28 My prediction changes to 65% if the FDA gives emergency use authorization for children, or in other ways short circuts its drug approval system.
Habebe Member	Sat Apr 10 15:46:17 Thats reasonable. 50% is clearly within sight.
Nekran Member	Sun Apr 11 03:17:06 "Everyone reasonable knows covid is endemic and herd immunity unachievable." http://xkcd.com/2448/
Seb Member	Sun Apr 11 03:27:57 Jergul: You are conflating several issues: Consent Personal risk Population health Medical safety No, the argument can't be usef to justify mandatory vaccination as consent is a fundamental principle. Recommending vaccine of children is not equivalent to imposing it of non consenting adults or children. On the issue of personal risk, obviously that's a question for licensing. You have continued to argue emergency authorisation implies a higher safety risk. This is not correct; the emergency authorisations are more relaxed about efficacy, safety requirements are not relaxed. On the subject of risk Vs benefit we routinely offer vaccines to people with lower or negligible personal benefit for population health benefits. E.g. vaccinating young boys for HPV as they are transmission vectors for girls for whom the virus prevents much greater risk. Finally, the evolution issues is of course a global issues. But the risk is highest where you have vaccinated and unvaccinated people in close contact. We know the virus spreads best indoors, and we know b117 loves spreading via child populations (probably due to its higher transmissibility making it effective at child to child transmission even in well ventilated classrooms). A standing reservoir of b117 circulating in school aged children who then spend a lot of time in doors with vaccinated adults is far greater risk than two neighbouring countries with vaccinated and unvaccinated populations.
jergul large member	Sun Apr 11 04:19:30 Seb You seem very confused about what EMERGENCY USE AUTHORIZATION is. I suggest you read up on it.
jergul large member	Sun Apr 11 04:29:28 It is incidentally the issue of consent that makes vaccinating children so troubling. They are incapable of giving it. Fair enough that 18 year olds take vaccines they personally do not need under emergency authorization regimes. We routinely offer approved vaccines to various groups. Safety regulations are relaxed under emergency regimes. Shrugging off brain clotting is not common to mass vaccination programmes. Its fine to get caught up in mass hysteria, but not when children are expected to take one for the team. Get vaccines properely approved before using them on groups incapable of consent that are not at risk.
Seb Member	Sun Apr 11 04:43:57 Jergul: As it happens for various reasons I've become quite familiar with the process. http://www...e-rollout-of-covid-19-vaccines "Sufficient evidence of safety, quality and efficacy is also, of course, the standard by which marketing authorisation applications are judged. Therefore, the conditions imposed on a regulation 174 authorisation for a COVID-19 vaccine are likely to be equivalent to requirements of a marketing authorisation, acknowledging that some flexibilities and pragmatic approaches may be required based on the situation and mode(s) of deployment of the national vaccine programme (and of any future national programme for the roll-out of treatments)."
jergul large member	Sun Apr 11 05:05:42 Seb As it happens, for various reasons, I too have become quite familiar with the process. Virtue signalling is fun! "COVID-19 is the biggest threat this country has faced in peacetime history," "The preferred route to enable deployment of a new vaccine for COVID-19 is through the usual marketing authorisation (product licensing) process" "However, if there is a compelling case, on public health grounds, for using a vaccine before it is given a product licence, given the nature of the threat we face, the JCVI may take the very unusual step of advising the UK government to use a tested, unlicensed vaccine against COVID-19" "A temporary authorisation of the supply of an unlicensed vaccine could be given by the UK’s licensing authority under regulation 174"
Rugian Member	Sun Apr 11 06:34:18 April 10: % of US that has received at least 1 dose: 35.3% (+0.8%) % of US fully vaccinated: 21.3% (+0.8%)
Habebe Member	Sun Apr 11 08:32:09 General updates 1. J&J may have shit the bed. And thats why I went conservative in my estimates and didn't even factor in JJ. 2.Biden has said he plans to help vaccinate other nations by the end of summer.Which should be Mexico first IMHO.
Rugian Member	Sun Apr 11 08:37:52 What happened with J&J?
Habebe Member	Sun Apr 11 08:56:17 So apparently there are major production issues ( not enough) and health issues ( although really minor) that os causing people to be more hesitant etc. 3 states have already stopped isimg JJ vaxes.
Daemon Member	Sun Apr 11 10:29:14 Here's a chance to fix your trade deficit with China: http://abc...nes-effectiveness-low-77002863 Official: Chinese vaccines' effectiveness low In a rare admission of the weakness of Chinese coronavirus vaccines, the country’s top disease control official says their effectiveness is low and the government is considering mixing them to give them a boost [...]
Seb Member	Sun Apr 11 10:40:45 "Sufficient evidence of safety, quality and efficacy is also, of course, the standard by which marketing authorisation applications are judged. Therefore, the conditions imposed on a regulation 174 authorisation for a COVID-19 vaccine are likely to be equivalent to requirements of a marketing authorisation" So no, a temporary approval under reg 174 doesn't imply, as you keep insisting, that the vaccine is unsafe. Instead, it represents the rolling approval, enhanced pharmacovigilence regime the providers are required to operate (focusing particularly on *efficacy* and batch QA), and relative lack of efficacy data compared to a marketing authorisation where the provider would absolutely have to prove efficacy to a higher standard.
Seb Member	Sun Apr 11 10:42:20 The adenovirus jabs are all having yield issues. HEK doesn't like being cultured in large vats as opposed to the smaller 200l ones for some reason.
Seb Member	Sun Apr 11 10:43:41 Jergul: I'm not virtue signaling. But trelling me to read stuff I've had to read a fair bit about is rather boring. Especially as you seem not to have actually read it and understood it yourself.
jergul large member	Sun Apr 11 11:50:11 "Therefore, the conditions imposed on a regulation 174 authorisation for a COVID-19 vaccine are likely to be" I am not implying anything. I am saying that safety has not been ascertained. Pray tell me, can vaccinated people sue if it turns out the vaccine is harmful? The answer to that is no. Emergency authorization protects producers from legal claims because the vaccines are by definition not acertained as safe for use. I seriously doubt you *had* to read anything beyond tasks you took upon yourself for the next parent-teacher meeting. Ultimately, if it is equivalent, then the emergency authorization 174 is redundant and should not be used The vaccines are safe and if it turns out they are not, victims can sue. Which of course is simply not the case.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Apr 11 11:56:46 ”vaccine are likely to be equivalent” Generally, when people say ”likely” in a context that otherwise has robust measures, it means they don’t know, otherwise they would give you figures and stuff. An observation.
	show deleted posts