Brexit, for once some facts.

[Jesus H Christ]

Italy has largest EU AstraZeneca stock but lowest vaccination rate

Italian prime minister Mario Draghi aims to use the Oxford jab to speed up vaccinations as his country gears to face a third wave

www.telegraph.co.uk

Not quite Danidl.
View attachment 41259
View attachment 41260
Besides, even if stocks are the problem who else is to blame except EU???

Citizens blame EU and national governments for slow coronavirus vaccine rollout: Poll

More than half of Germans polled said the EU has handled the vaccine rollout badly.

www.politico.eu

???

Oh dear. This blows rather a large hole in our anti-U.K. contingent’s story.

 

[Zlatan]

They were lucky that their gamble has paid off, so far that is. But no-one, including you, should be counting chickens yet, there's a long way to go.

Very long ago I had access to the documents on a defence case about a drug that had caused appalling damage long after it was first used. The drug was a valuable sedative that had benefits for a variety of conditions, and despite its now known danger it is still in use as being invaluable in treating many difficult conditions, including treating the skin lesions caused by leprosy.

It had sailed through all its drug trials and was welcomed for its widespread usefulness, no-one suspecting for a moment that it could possibly have any dangerous effects.

Until.

That drug was thalidomide, causing the birth of countless thousands of terribly deformed babies, of whom some 3000 are still alive today.

The risk that a Covid vaccine could cause anything remotely like it is miniscule, but nothing that contacts us is totally safe until proved so over decades. That's a lesson we've learnt the hard way many times, such as in OG's asbestosis.
.

So you think we should have waited how long flecc? Another year, 2 years, 5 years?? And the point you make is valid so in effect the 3 months extra EMA took over Mhra is of no consequence long term.
Anything we don't know for a decade hence no Authorising body will yet know. Its a calculated risk. UK took it as early, quickly as possible. EU didn't, but neither did they wait 10 years to make sure. They are now putting their society to same risk as UK but just delayed 3 months and with plenty of no confidence shown in the vaccine.

 

[Jesus H Christ]

They were lucky that their gamble has paid off, so far that is. But no-one, including you, should be counting chickens yet, there's a long way to go.

Very long ago I had access to the documents on a defence case about a drug that had caused appalling damage long after it was first used. The drug was a valuable sedative that had benefits for a variety of conditions, and despite its now known danger it is still in use as being invaluable in treating many difficult conditions, including treating the skin lesions caused by leprosy.

It had sailed through all its drug trials and was welcomed for its widespread usefulness, no-one suspecting for a moment that it could possibly have any dangerous effects.

Until.

That drug was thalidomide, causing the birth of countless thousands of terribly deformed babies, of whom some 3000 are still alive today.

The risk that a Covid vaccine could cause anything remotely like it is miniscule, but nothing that contacts us is totally safe until proved so over decades. That's a lesson we've learnt the hard way many times, such as in OG's asbestosis.
.

If risks aren’t taken, nothing gets done. It was a commercial risk to develop a vaccine, it may have failed. It was a health risk to carry out vaccine trials. There is an element of risk investigation in being vaccinated.

How long do you propose the U.K. should have waited? It was magnetic foresight by the U.K.

The point is, we in the U.K. are fortunate to have some of the best minds available in our institutions. The risks are still there, nothing is risk free in this field, but they will have been considered and mitigated as much as possible.

To refer to the work of these people as gambling is unfair and demeaning.

 

[flecc]

I see a modern socially minded party with electorate's well being central to their existence as a necessity

You are describing the LibDems, that is exactly their core policy. Both Labour and the Tories also claim the same, as did Blair with his fake Labour party

The LibDems have failed to get separately elected to govern and later failed when governing in coalition.

So what is the point in another party that the country won't elect. Sadly the country sees all the middle of the road attempts as just wishy-washy, compared to the clear positions of Tory and socialist Labour.
.

 

[flecc]

So you think we should have waited how long flecc?

My post wasn't proposing any wait, once again you read what wasn't posted.

I simply warned against stating emphatically that the vaccines are a great success. No-one knows that yet for many years, though meanwhile they may be achieving much, just as thalidomide did for a while and still does.
.

 

[Zlatan]

You are describing the LibDems, that is exactly their core policy. Both Labour and the Tories also claim the same, as did Blair with his fake Labour party

The LibDems have failed to get separately elected to govern and later failed when governing in coalition.

So what is the point in another party that the country won't elect. Sadly the coutrry sees all the middle of the road attempts as just wishy-washy, compared to the clear positions of Tory and socialist Labour.
.

Good post until last 3 words. Cross those out and it's fine.

 

[flecc]

To refer to the work of these people as gambling is unfair and demeaning.

Without this last line I was agreeing with you.

Every risk taken is a gamble against unknown true odds.
.

 

[flecc]

Good post until last 3 words. Cross those out and it's fine.

I was referring to the perceived theory of Tory/Labour positions, not the actual.

I'd argue that many, maybe most people vote on those theoretical positions.
.

 

[Zlatan]

My post wasn't proposing any wait, once again you read what wasn't posted.

I simply warned against stating emphatically that the vaccines are a great success. No-one knows that yet for many years, though meanwhile they may be achieving much, just as thalidomide did for a while and still does.
.

But we do that every year almost without thinking, or many do. I have Flu jab and never ask how old it is, when it past trials.
And yes, your warning is valid but doesn't really enter into argument about EU/UK authorisation differences. It's the same risk for both regimes even tho UK made theirs so much quicker. A few months in your argument is insignificant.
And its risk reward relationship. How many lives could vaccine save, how many could be lost through it even by worst case scenario.
If we went by your post, we, d wait 10 years to make sure, by which time all damage is done.
When man first lit his fire he didn't really check for long term consequences. Might have burnt everything.. Taking risk is all part of living. Nothing is risk free. You know that as well as anybody.
And its why we have medics making the decisions. In their minds it might not be a risk.
If I rode a motorbike like Valentino Rossi every corner would be a massive risk. It isn't for him. Let Rossi ride his bike and JVT/PV/CW make the decisions for us. So far they are doing a good job. Excellent job I think.

 

[Zlatan]

Without this last line I was agreeing with you.

Every risk taken is a gamble against unknown true odds.
.

Perhaps to us who don't have the knowledge and experience. Answered with my reference to Rossi. What's a gamble to some is sometimes not to those with knowledge/skill/gift in required field.

 

[flecc]

But we do that every year almost without thinking, or many do. I have Flu jab and never ask how old it is, when it past trials.
And yes, your warning is valid but doesn't really enter into argument about EU/UK authorisation differences. It's the same risk for both regimes even tho UK made theirs so much quicker. A few months in your argument is insignificant.
And its risk reward relationship. How many lives could vaccine save, how many could be lost through it even by worst case scenario.
If we went by your post, we, d wait 10 years to make sure, by which time all damage is done.
When man first lit his fire he didn't really check for long term consequences. Might have burnt everything.. Taking risk is all part of living. Nothing is risk free. You know that as well as anybody.
And its why we have medics making the decisions. In their minds it might not be a risk.
If I rode a motorbike like Valentino Rossi every corner would be a massive risk. It isn't for him. Let Rossi ride his bike and JVT/PV/CW make the decisions for us. So far they are doing a good job. Excellent job I think.

No, no, no.

My post was replying to JHC's certainty.

Nothing to do with EU/UK authorisations.

Nothing to do with waiting years as I'd only just told you.

And I'd already posted vaccines are good so far, but risks are risks for anyone as Rossi's broken leg showed.
.

 

[Woosh]

It's the same risk for both regimes even tho UK made theirs so much quicker.

it seems that HMRA waved the vaccines through like Border Force does with lorries coming from Calais.
Holding up the vaccines was never an option.
Same thing with lengthening waiting time for the second jab.
Decisions were made. What follows was playing to the gallery.

 

[Zlatan]

No, no, no.

My post was replying to JHC's certainty.

Nothing to do with EU/UK authorisations.

Nothing to do with waiting years as I'd only just told you.

And I'd already posted vaccines are good so far, but risks are risks for anyone as Rossi's broken leg showed.
.

So you and I would be taking same risks as Rossi if we attempted to follow him around track. Of course we aren't, we, d be risking our lives at 60% of his pace, he could follow us all day long take zero risk whilst we are on absolute limit. Because he has the skill, experience and a gift for it. Just as he has knowledge to race his Yamaha, JVT/PV /CW have spent their lives studying what is at best a passing recent interest in epidemiology to us.
What constitutes a risk from our point of view is not necessarily one from theirs.
I agree with JHC completely. Saying it was a gamble from their points of view is totally demeaning of their ability and knowledge.
MHRA came to conclusion to pass the vaccine by studying data, JVCI arrived at decision to prolong delay by similar means.
They didn't just walk in a room and flick a coin.
You make out they just got lucky. People make their own luck. They know what they are doing, so far proven by the simple fact they were right on both counts. The vaccine is both safe and works and the delay to second jab is showing not to be counter productive.

 

[Jesus H Christ]

Without this last line I was agreeing with you.

Every risk taken is a gamble against unknown true odds.
.

A gamble is a punt on a random event such as a roulette wheel turning up a particular number. There is no way to predict the likely outcome.

A risk is something which has been considered based on past and relevant evidence. For example, a modified surgical procedure normally known to yield a particular benefit at low risk. The modified part of the procedure carries additional unknown risk, but evidence from the procedure as a whole indicates it’s likely to be perfectly safe. That’s a risk, not a gamble.

You are attempting to reduce the work of the people developing and adapting the delivery of the Covid vaccination to that of someone playing roulette or a one armed bandit. I can only guess why you would want to do that.

 

[Zlatan]

it seems that HMRA waved the vaccines through like Border Force does with lorries coming from Calais.
Holding up the vaccines was never an option.
Same thing with lengthening waiting time for the second jab.
Decisions were made. What follows was playing to the gallery.

But MHRA were involved throughout the trials process. They didn't just get sent the stuff at end, they were in the lorry when it was loaded, with it on the ferry and checking on driver throughout. They didn't need to search it, so they could wave it through faster.
Why are you belittling their efforts, I don't understand.
The development of vaccine was incredible, the people involved superb. Yes, it seems errors were made but MHRA/JVCI studied data and agreed with AZ.
Can you imagine you building a bike and some stranger just belittles your efforts and makes out you were lucky getting it through certification.. I don't understand what's going on in here.
Just about every aspect of Vaccine process has been incredible. From development, to testing to procurement and manufacture and all folk want to do is put every aspect down.
Why Woosh?
Is it just fashionable to knock anything to do with this government? I, d thought some could be rather more impartial than that.

 

[Danidl]

But MHRA were involved throughout the trials process. They didn't just get sent the stuff at end, they were in the lorry when it was loaded, with it on the ferry and checking on driver throughout. They didn't need to search it, so they could wave it through faster.
Why are you belittling their efforts, I don't understand.
The development of vaccine was incredible, the people involved superb.
Can you imagine you building a bike and some stranger just belittles your efforts and makes out you were lucky getting it through certification.. I don't understand what's going on in here.

Can you not see the danger in that approach?. When the auditor gets too close to the producers it can corrupt, even if well meaning.
But the main point. That going from zero to production by the million within one calender year, is incredible.

 

[daveboy]

And think on this point. we still wouldn't have the vaccines if the Chinese hadn't cracked it's genetic code

That's like saying I cracked the code to my house alarm, when I fitted it myself.

 

[Zlatan]

Can you not see the danger in that approach?. When the auditor gets too close to the producers it can corrupt, even if well meaning.
But the main point. That going from zero to production by the million within one calender year, is incredible.

Agreed, I can see the danger in that but I can also see the benefits.All depends how it is done and how professional the people involved are. I, d guess if you don't trust those people whether they make decision in 2 weeks or 2 years is irrelevant. Personally I have faith in JVCI/PHE and MHRA so I don't have an issue.
If I thought they were all government lackeys well perhaps I, d have a problem.????

 

[Zlatan]

That's like saying I cracked the code to my house alarm, when I fitted it myself.

Is it? Think it's more like having certification folk in house whilst you fit it so they don't have to examine it after you have finished.

 

[flecc]

A gamble is a punt on a random event such as a roulette wheel turning up a particular number. There is no way to predict the likely outcome.

A risk is something which has been considered based on past and relevant evidence. .

Not true, they are commonly the same thing.

One gambles on race horses based on past and relevant experience of their performance. The same with many sports.

If the bookies weren't able to fix the odds against us based on the same past and relevant experience we could win almost all the time. Just as your medics have so far with their odds fixed in their favour by the relevant evidence you speak of.

Or put much more briefly, you are splitting hairs in distinguishing between risking and gambling.
.