Oh my, the EU screwed up badly yesterday. There is no doubt about that. Invoking Article 16 of the Northern Ireland protocol, however briefly, to prevent Covid vaccines getting into Northern Ireland via the Irish Border.
The Northern Irish and Irish Governments made clear their displeasure and, in very short order, the EU backtracked, as it should have done.
It was an example of the appropriate way to behave when you get it wrong. The EU is no more immune to screw-ups than the rest of us. In fact, it was really quite incredible that it got through the Brexit process by being pretty reasonable most of the time, in the face of extreme provocation from our ministers.
Last night, their leaders, when confronted with the consequences of their actions, didn’t hunker down and get all belligerent about getting Article 16 done, or anything. They stopped digging. Earlier this month, Boris Johnson was pretty gung-ho about the possibility of us invoking the same provision. I doubt that it would be resolved so unremarkably if he ever does.
Boris Johnson(13th January 2021) – "I can confirm that if there are problems that we believe are disproportionate, we will have no hesitation in invoking article 16." #PMQs pic.twitter.com/8U652xcNM9
— Haggis_UK 🇬🇧 🇪🇺 (@Haggis_UK) January 30, 2021
Our Layla Moran talked about the need for calm heads in a difficult situation:
“The effectiveness of the COVID vaccine depends on countries working together.“The use of Article 16 to restrict the supply of vaccines is both wrong and short-sighted. I urge all sides to work together to find a resolution as soon as possible.“Liberal Democrats believe that global problems can only be solved by countries working together. Calm heads must prevail now and right the way through to the end of this crisis both at home and abroad.”
* Caron Lindsay is Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice and blogs at Caron's Musings. You can find her on Bluesky at caronmlindsay.bsky.social
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
The mysterious mole men of New York caught on video
Doing better? The goal must be Sufficeincy
Michael Meadowcroft (1942-2026) - A Liberal to His Core
Labour deputy claims that Farage is a threat to democracy
Mick Taylor
Jason Connor
Chloe
theakes
94 Comments
They have backed down from one part of their blunder.
They have yet to retreat from their planned institutional theft of vaccine intended for other countries.
Is it not more to do with the contract situation that Astra Zeneca is in with conflicting obligations. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/jan/30/lawyers-disagree-over-astrazenecas-duty-to-supply-vaccines-to-eu
What amazes me is the EU health commissioner Stella Kyriakidou has not been replaced or had the decency to resign,mess after mess and still clings on to her job, whilst EU citizens suffer big time.
It wasn’t great. But the real significance is that this will probably be the moment that ‘more Europe’ stopped being the default answer.
National self-sufficiency is very much about to be in vogue.
The EU and its institutions are simply not set up to take on procurement. It is that simple.
It sounds as if the EU is to be congratulated. Ursula deserves a medal.
It was all the fault of Boris.
I really don’t know who annoy me more, Brexiters with their false illusions of entitlement or EU ideologues who think it’s the only show in town. Both positions are largely an excuse for not facing up to reality, which is that, right or wrong, a decision has been made and only we can make something of it.
How many British government ministers have have done less than a perfect job over the last year and are still in their jobs????
The EU have ordered vaccines and under their contract with Astra Zeneca are entitled to receive what they have ordered.
Astra Zeneca are trying to renege on the contract due to unspecified “problems” with their production plant in Belgium. They are trying to rely on a “best intentions” clause that was inserted in case they did not succeed in developing the vaccine and getting it approved, in which case the contract would have been frustrated.
However, the European Medicines Agency have approved the vaccine so the production issues do not engage with the best intentions clause which does not apply to this scenario.
We are all part of a global community and should want the vaccines to go to the people who need them the most wherever they live in the world.
Barry Lofty
‘How many British government ministers have have done less than a perfect job over the last year and are still in their jobs????’
Plenty, but they also have to face voters.
One thing I hope this does is shake some rejoiners out of the “EU automatically good, UK automatically bad” mindset. It does us no favours with the UK electorate who are not going to vote for a party/political mindset who is always putting them down and negative about them no matter what they do or achieve. We should give the UK credit where it is due, despite our feelings about Brexit
I note not all rejoiners are libdems but we get tarred by the same brusth/
@Marco
The term is Best Efforts. It is a standard commercial term, frequently used when the out-turn of a production process is not deterministic. It is also common that a specific plant becomes more productive after a period of settling in and tuning. Manufacturers are used to dealing with risk and customers who want what they want when they want it. Best to let the commercial people deal with it.
slamdac is right – one of the biggest issues that hindered the anti-Brexit campaigns was a perception that the LDs and others were EU fan clubs who, amongst other things, wanted the EU to drive a hard bargain (hoping that the UK would blink and reverse Brexit) and thus got annoyed when the UK did manage to wring unexpected concessions.
I’ve always thought you can be pre-Europe without being pro-EU membership. The LDs can make that case; Labour can’t really play the “rejoin the single market” card, but the LDs can and should.
I have no real problem with the EU = good part. It is the UK = bad part which harms Remain/Rejoin and nothing is worse to the electoral prospects of the Lib Dems / Remain / Rejoin than when we “appear” to be taking the EU’s side on a matter or “appear” to be wishing for the EU to drive a hard bargain.
When that happens the UK electorate (who remember are the people who vote for us) lose faith that we will stand up for their interests.
10 UK voters are worth more than 100,000,000 french or german non voters when it comes to pure electoral calculus.
And here is a view from Germany in the English-language version of Der Spiegel
https://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/europe-s-vaccine-disaster-commission-president-ursula-von-der-leyen-seeking-to-duck-responsibility-a-1197547d-6219-4438-9d69-b76e64701802
It seems that Ursula von der Leyen has previous form in moving on from posts and leaving her successor to sort out the mess she created.
Marco 30th Jan ’21 – 8:34pm:
The EU have ordered vaccines and under their contract with Astra Zeneca are entitled to receive what they have ordered.
They are only entitled to “Best Reasonable Efforts” to supply.
Astra Zeneca are trying to renege on the contract due to unspecified “problems” with their production plant in Belgium.
An absurd allegation to level at a company that is producing the vaccine at cost courtesy of Oxford University and the British taxpayer. The Belgium plant has only just gone into production and has a low yield as AstraZeneca’s CEO, Pascal Soriot, explains in this interview…
‘Pascal Soriot: “There are a lot of emotions on vaccines in EU. But it’s complicated” [26th. January 2020]:
https://www.repubblica.it/cronaca/2021/01/26/news/interview_pascal_soriot_ceo_astrazeneca_coronavirus_covid_vaccines-284349628/
It is difficult to get the full picture because, despite the huge amounts of public money poured into the vaccine effort, “commercial confidentiality” prevents us from knowing how much we are paying for a dose or how many doses have been supplied. However, it looks as if all the companies have contracted in the short term for more than they can actually supply.
While Moderna and Pfizer appear to have scaled down their deliveries in a way that spreads the pain, Astrazenica seems to have loaded most if not all of their shortfall onto the EU contract. The reduction in first quarter supplies to the EU is attributed to problems at their Belgian plant but you can understand why this has been questioned: a fifty million dose reduction is pretty massive.
For those who accuse the EU of attempting to steal the UK’s vaccines, try looking at it through their eyes. The Pfizer plant in Belgium has supplied millions of doses to Britain, Canada and other countries. By now, it is likely that enough vaccines have been made in Belgium by the different drug companies to vaccinate the entire population of that country – which also happens to be the worst Covid-affected nation in the world after San Marino! It is bound to be galling for EU citizens (and Belgians in particular) to learn that vaccines manufactured at home are being exported on such a massive scale, when their own vaccination rates are so low and scheduled jabs are having to be postponed.
If Astrazenica vaccines made in Britain are “ours” then Pfizer and Moderna vaccines made in the EU/Belgium must surely be “theirs”.
@Caron Lindsay “Is it not more to do with the contract situation that Astra Zeneca is in with conflicting obligations.”
That is what parties with vested interests wanted people to believe; fortunately, the EU were incompetent and released a version of the agreement in which they had incorrectly redacted the sections they did not want disclosing…
Interestingly, the price – which is all that AstraZeneca didn’t want disclosing had been correctly redacted(*) – so I assume AZ did a first pass redact and handed to document over to the EU for them to redact.
This mistake meant they released the full contract, which is exactly what the European Commission had asked AZ to do. By subsequently replacing the published document with a correctly redacted version they demonstrated that what they had asked AZ to do wasn’t what they actually wanted them to do.
In either case, the unredacted version is unambiguous and supports AZ’s viewpoint, hence why the EU has gone very quiet about the contract and AZ, choosing instead to explore other outlets for their bullying.
(*) Although the price had been previously disclosed by the Belgium’s State Secretary for Budget and Consumer Protection.
Simon Horner 30th Jan ’21 – 10:13pm:
Astrazenica seems to have loaded most if not all of their shortfall onto the EU contract.
AstraZeneca’s EU contract is being supplied from EU production plants which have only recently started production and consequently have yet to achieve full capacity. The EU were several months behind in placing their order.
If Astrazenica vaccines made in Britain are “ours” then Pfizer and Moderna vaccines made in the EU/Belgium must surely be “theirs”.
AstraZeneca is contractally obliged to supply the UK with 100m doses from its UK production plants. The UK government placed this order and funded the plants at Oxford and Keele at an early stage before it was known if the vaccine would work. Pfizer and Moderna are different companies supplying orders against entirely separate contracts and have no relevance here. Moderna’s production plant is in Switzerland.
@Simon Horner
Your rather missing the point.
Many countries signed contracts and prefunded vaccine manufacturers months ahead of the EU which allowed them to start producing vials and sort out teething problems in their manufacturing.
The EU dithered and delayed in the procurement and then expect to come to the table late and yet still receive vaccines as they come straight off the assembly line.
From what I have seen from all the Vaccine Contracts published thus far, they have all included the “best efforts” clause for the EU contracts at least. It was something some EU politicians were spewing about over the Curevac contract. But is it really any wonder that a producer would insist on this clause for a country that is coming late to the table, especially if they had already concluded contracts elsewhere and made commitments to doses and where uncertain if they would be able to meet targets for the new contract. Now I am not saying those clauses are not in other countries contracts ( who knows) they have not been published.
But regardless, if the EU is having a problem with its contract, then it should seek arbitration, not impose export bans.
I have looked at the new EU legislation
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32021R0111
(7) Export authorisation should be granted by the Member States where products covered by this regulation are manufactured to the extent that the volume of exports is not such that it poses a threat to the continuous supply of the vaccines necessary for the execution of the APAs between the Union and vaccines manufacturers. In order to ensure an adequate coordinated decision at Union level, the Member States should seek in advance the opinion of the Commission and decide in accordance with that opinion
(9) It is not the intention of the Union to restrict exports any more than absolutely necessary, and the Union remains fully committed to international solidarity and strongly supports the principle that any measures deemed necessary to prevent or relieve critical shortages are implemented in a manner that is targeted, transparent, proportionate, temporary and consistent with WTO obligations
In other words the EU has ordered 600 million doses of Pfizer now and if it feels that Pfizer is not reaching those “continuous supplies” it can block exports to other countries.
I hardly think that is appropriate and it is taking us all down a path of a slippery slope
Many of you are missing the point that if Astra Zeneca cannot produce enough vaccines to meet its contractual agreements, there is no reason why the supply to EU should take a hit just because there are problems in a factory in the EU.
If they have an agreement to supply the UK first that is a breach of the UK-EU trade deal and unlawful.
If there is a shortfall in supply then they should proportionately reduce their supply to all countries not favour one country over another.
Marco
“if Astra Zeneca cannot produce enough vaccines to meet its contractual agreements, there is no reason why the supply to EU should take a hit just because there are problems in a factory in the EU.”
I am afraid you are not understanding the “Best reasonable efforts” clause it is there to protect AZ and it is up to the EU to seek arbitration on the matter, not impose export controls, even if export controls where an appropriate measure, then it should only apply to AZ and not a blanket control over all vaccines.
“If they have an agreement to supply the UK first that is a breach of the UK-EU trade deal and unlawful.” Thats a new one on me, please point me to the FTA where it states that, i could be wrong but I have not heard that one before
“If there is a shortfall in supply then they should proportionately reduce their supply to all countries not favour one country over another.”
And yet the legislation they have introduced is ambiguous. It simply implies that vaccines exports can be blocked if EU does not receive “continuous supplies” necessary for their execution.
As I have stated many times, Germany does not want to use Oxford for over 65’s
Germany has a large number of Pensioners and wants to only use Pfizer and Moderna for this demographic, there is already a shortage of this and they have had to cut production numbers to a whole host of different countries.
Germany was the one who was pushing for this new legislation. It really does not take a genius to work out what is going on here.
This is all a smoke screen in order to seize more access to Pfizer, how else is Germany going to vaccinate its elderly population if it is not authorising the use of oxford.
You really think it was just a coincidence that all this has all been going on at the same time? Complain about shortages, knock the efficacy of Oxford, bring in export controls.
Matt and Jeff
A best efforts clause protects the purchaser as it requires the supplier to take steps to mitigate the effects of force majeure/unforeseen circumstances.
Furthermore there is a hierarchy of required efforts and “best efforts” sits at the top of the hierarchy and imposes the most stringent requirements on the supplier to implement all measures available in order to meet their contractual requirements.
In this case, utilising UK factories to supply vaccines to the EU would satisfy a best efforts clause.
Matt – A UK first supply agreement (if it exists) effectively imposes a quota on exports on the vaccine where there is a shortage. Quotas and tariffs on exports are not allowed unless permitted in the trade deal.
Invoking Article 16 without first consulting the Irish Government is unbelievable. The present Commission is incompetent. Heads should roll.
@Marco
“Quotas and tariffs on exports are not allowed unless permitted in the trade deal.”
And yet it is not an export or quota into the EU as the Pfizer, moderna and indeed the AZ it is being manufactured in the EU itself, so clearly your point is not applicable
“A best efforts clause protects the purchaser ” who do you think was insistent on the best efforts clause? The EU or the manufacturer?
I can assure you it would have been the manufacturer and that is why so many EU politicians were peeved at the commission for coming late to the table and having these clauses put on them.
I am actually struggling to understand why you seem so insistent on defending the Eu for their failures when their own politicians are criticizing the commission in very strong terms.
If the EU has a problem with its contracts, that is what arbitration and the courts are for, Not Vaccine Blockades.
We have given Millions of Pensioners in the UK their first Jab of The Pfizer vaccine who need to receive their 2nd jab within 12 weeks.
There are already questions and uncertainties about the efficacy of the vaccine in this amount of delay. These vulnerable members of our society have been waiting a year to feel a little safer and to get back to “some form ” of near normal.
If you think the UK or the EU would be forgiven if these people were denied these 2nd doses because of legal arguments in the EU and vaccine blockades……
This party would not be forgiven either if it put the EU above the UK;s most vulnerable citizens on this matter.
No country should be engaging in vaccine Nationalism, I have made that quite clear.
Maybe the EU should be looking at forced IP sharing instead of vaccine blockades to solve the shortage problem????
I see The Sun is giving the EU both barrels…
‘THE SUN SAYS EU’s block on life-saving Covid jabs bound for UK is an act of unforgivable hostility’:
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/13893864/eu-covid-jab-block-unforgivable-hostility/
@ Jeff
The Sun has a half-truth there. The failure is the Commission’s. It should have acted sooner and better. I am sure that some states will be more reticient about giving up competencies in the future. The greatest threat to the EU, at the moment, is not Brexit Britain, but internal. Ironically, from the institutions that should be working hardest to maintain the EU’s integrity. If it was up to me I would sack the Commission and replace them with more capable people.
matt
‘As I have stated many times, Germany does not want to use Oxford for over 65’s’
So that reduces the vaccine requirement from AZ by approx. 18 million,add onto that the trashing of the AZ vaccine by Macron on Friday (although 2 hours later the EMA approved AZ for all age groups),that reduces the vaccine requirement even further plus the fact that France has the most anti-vaxers.
So the initial 30 million doses AZ can supply should be now be close to actual requirements.
The problem isn’t simply that the EU screwed up. It is that when the pressure was on them, its bureaucrats chose a course of action founded on petty nationalism, that immediately undermined an international agreement only entered into less than a month before, and indeed undermined the most sensitive part of that entire agreement, the part that the EU had insisted upon, allegedly to support the Irish Peace Process.
They did so without consultation with anyone with an ounce of common sense and have entrenched the view in many people’s minds that the EU is as duplicitous as we think Boris Johnson is. That cannot be undone by a mere backtrack. The damage is done, both to the reputation of the EU and our position on rejoin.
Sadly, doubling down on support for the EU by suggesting it has shown how to behave when it screws up is missing the point entirely.
As I have said before, Liberals should always stand against the abuse of power, and out of control bureaucracies are the biggest threat to our liberties, bar none. The simple fact that the EU Commission did not consult with the Irish government (or any other governments apparently) shows how little they care about the subsidiarity of small nations.
What to do when out of control bureaucrats make such a disastrous mess and undermine your core values is to get rid of that part of the bureaucracy that did it, but in the EU it is almost impossible.
All in all, what it shows is the ease with which humanity allows a crisis to be created from a problem (in this case from a divorce), and how what are theoretically contingency measures (Article 16) can become part of a system (an out of control commission) that exacerbates divisions to near breaking point and these can lead to real conflict and a further deterioration in relations.
We love to pretend that organisations we like are all so well educated and clever. What yesterday shows is that the EU, like the rest of us, is not.
@David Evans
Your last sentence sums up the situation perfectly. The trouble is that, whether some of the Brexiters like it or not, we are still connected to the mother ship in terms of trade and will be for some time. As they used to say; “When Detroit sneezes, the rest of the USA catches the cold”. Well, imagine that in reverse.
The view from Germany seems to be that the vaccine crisis is entirely caused by incompetence at the EU commission. This story about an attempt by the health ministers of four leading nations to get the contracts signed early – from the English language version of Bild – is typical : https://www.bild.de/politik/ausland/politik-inland/with-this-letter-by-jens-spahn-the-vaccine-disaster-in-the-eu-begann-74736986.bild.html.
The article pointedly says that the claims from within Brussels that this effort was abandoned to prevent “vaccine nationalism” is not consistent with the content of the letter. The Bild article says “The background is that Spahn and his colleagues had jointly tried to procure a sufficient amount of the vaccine for all Europeans. Merkel, however, wanted to make the procurement, as a big gesture, a matter of the EU.”
I am generally pro-European and highly sceptical of how the Northern Irish issue has been abused and manipulated by Brexiteers and hardline Unionists, (and indeed I always felt the NI border one of the most worrying aspects of Brexit, from about 2014 onwards) but the idea of the EU Commission as an independent additional party effectively appended to the Good Friday Agreement and capable of unilateral action is risky and new. (Although it has produced an unusual degree of unanimity in British, Irish and NOrthern Irish stakeholders). I fear this incident will be squirrelled away by those seeking to push further away from Europe, and weaponised in future. It may even feature in any Tory electioneering.
I think that we can all agree that EU messed up on three fronts:
1. The terminology and also the contract with AZ. As the manager of AZ similar issues in regards to the culture growth needed for the vaccine were also found at UK sites but there was 3 month head start to fix these issues. AZ signed a contract with the UK first and from what I gather there is a determination of delivery stipulated in the contract. The EU was more concerned with price and driving the cost down, where the UK was not.
2. The imposition of Article 16 without consulting anyone after lecturing the UK on the peace treaty. Has probably been noticed in Washington and Biden being of Irish decent and a keen interest in the GFA will probably be more UK inclined now than EU… But we shall see.
3. The export control which I think is more driven by the German/Franco axis and hiding behind the EU commission, to get their hands of the Pfizer vaccine. That and the simultaneous questioning of the AZ vaccination by both Germany and President Macron of France suggest to me this maybe the case.
I have over the time become a remainer to a leaver, and believe me there are probably a few on this site and party who have done the same. As a party we tend to be burnishing the credentials of the EU and not spending enough time setting up what we would do if in power. The rejoin the European Union is gone…. The bridges that were burnt before were completely destroyed on Friday with the wrecking ball of panic and miscommunication.
This country has now become less inclined to the EU and we should recognise this fact. This ia drum that needs to be stopped beating and a new message of cooperation with external and European partners needs to be forthcoming. May be our leader was right after all
@Matt
Brexit was an act of aggression, the path of conflict. There will be plenty more for them to weaponise in the future. If they choose to do so.
Here’s a fascinating and insightful Twitter thread by an Oxford University lecturer who was involved in the development of the vaccine. It is about the technical challenges in vaccine manufacture, but it clearly explains why you can’t sign a contract and expect product reliably in a short period of time. I find it inconceivable that those responsible for the EU contract were unaware of all of this. https://twitter.com/adamjohnritchie/status/1355136430402580482
Lib Dems get it right some of the time. There is an instinctive desire to avoid giving central government too much power and in favour devolving decision making to a more local level. Except when they don’t get it right, and favour handing responsibility, as with vaccine procurement, to a democratically unaccountable and highly centralised Pan European body! Lib Dems were highly critical that the UK declined to be a part of it.
Go figure that one!
The point of not being too centralised is to avoid screwing up in the first place. No-one really cares on how well screw ups are handled afterwards. They don’t want them made in the first place.
The EU commission handled the procurement of vaccines as if they were haggling about the price of a fish in a local bazaar! The cost of the vaccine is quite unimportant in this case. There was far too much emphasis on tying up suppliers to deliver on the terms specified in a written agreement. Most successful deals are made without ever looking back on the fine print as signed. There is just no need if everyone is happy. Once that point is reached the deal has gone sour for whatever reason. Involving the courts to adjudicate on disputes is always too be avoided if possible. Firstly, it’s expensive. Secondly it’s a frustratingly slow process. No-one can afford to hang around for a couple of years for the courts to give their ruling. The virus won’t wait for that!
The EU commission is not known for its democratic tendencies but perhaps to give the impression of democracy it makes a big show of sharing out all the top jobs in government with all the member states. It is not surprising that this can lead to bizarre appointments. It is quite possible for an official in Malta one day to find himself or herself on the world stage, responsible for the foreign policy of 27 countries.
Inexperience can often be a the root of incompetence and this is quite common in the EU.
Matt et al
” who do you think was insistent on the best efforts clause? The EU or the manufacturer?“
As I noted previously, there is a hierarchy of endeavours clauses and “best endeavours” creates more onerous requirements for the supplier than “reasonable endeavours” does for example it requires a supplier to pursue all available options to deliver their contract including avenues that are not commercially favourable to them see here: https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=d4607189-2c3c-43b9-85b4-d83913875083
Therefore it will have been the EU who insisted upon “best endeavours” rather than “reasonable endeavours”
@Dan
The British Government has, of course, acted perfectly on Covid!
Um… not!
PPE. Test and Trace. Not supporting people to self-isolate. Schools. Free School Meals. Quarantine from abroad. The list goes on and on…
In fact the EU is doing what every block does – defending the interests of citizens with the tools at its disposal.
I’d much prefer to be in Germany – even if it is a bit behind us on vaccinating. But daily deaths from Covid there are currently averaging well below 1,000 – in the UK well above 1,000 despite having a 40% bigger adult population.
“This country has now become less inclined to the EU
Um… factually no!
Remain/Rejoin has had a ( slightly growing) lead over Leave since 16). Although the most recent poll shows a switch from “Don’t Knows” to Leave which may be due to the current situation, may be a one-off statistical quirk or may be the start of a long term trend.
And of course as we see what it is like to be outside the EU, people may move to supporting staying out.
The polls need some careful thinking about. Rejoiners may not be very concerned about it as an issue and settle for what is now the status quo. There is, of course, a mistake for us to drone on too much about rejoining. And clearly the referendum shows you have to frame it in terms that it will improve the NHS etc.
However it is clearly a very big mistake for the Lib Dems not to have a strong clear (and respectful) policy of rejoin.
We are now the only UK-wide party with MPs to support rejoin. And the SNP shows the advantage of having a USP where you are the only one supporting the issue. I would settle for a poll rating of 50%+ ! But I think if we had such a message then we would easily get 18%+ in the polls – which would in turn lead to greater support…
https://whatukthinks.org/eu/questions/should-the-united-kingdom-remain-a-member-of-the-european-union-or-leave-the-european-union-asked-after-the-referendum/
https://whatukthinks.org/eu/questions/in-highsight-do-you-think-britain-was-right-or-wrong-to-vote-to-leave-the-eu/
There are already signs of a “Brexodus” of jobs from the City of London which will have a big knock-on effect for the rest of the UK.
https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2020/1001/1168647-ey-brexit-tracker/
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/financial-services/brexodus-of-jobs-from-city-of-london-to-continue-says-eu-commissioner-1.4462606
I don;t know if I am misreading this, but are some posters, suggesting that the Lib Dems, a british party that wants british votes and someday wants to win elections, advocate a policy whereby the UK (and its people) voluntarily give up some of its vaccines (you can argue the semantics but the british public see them as the Uk’s) and ship them to the EU, thereby depriving UK citizens of vaccines.
In a nutshell are posters seriously suggesting that the Lib Dems policy should be “take the vaccines out of UK grannies arm and put them in the arm of an EU granny” as that is how it will be perceived.
If so then they have the political acumen of a whelk, and that is being very cruel to whelks.
it would be total and utter madness. Not even a core vote strategy. It would be a 1% vote strategy.
Marco 31st Jan ’21 – 11:50am:
Therefore it will have been the EU who insisted upon “best endeavours” rather than “reasonable endeavours”
The actual words in the (now published) EU contract are: “Best Reasonable Efforts”.
AstraZeneca have stated that the UK and European supply chains are separate and that delays in one will not affect the other.
Coming back to the thread this morning, the Observer’s leader article by Sonia Sodha is well worth reading:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jan/31/politiicians-and-doctors-risk-fuelling-covid-vaccine-scepticism
Rachel Reeves was given a hard time by Andrew Marr this morning and could not come up with any convincing justification for Starmer’s policy of priority vaccination for teachers.
The BMA, we must remember is the doctors’ Trade Union (it is the GMC that is the doctors’ regulator) but, like Sonia Sodha, I was surprised that they didn’t give any argument why the JCVI’s reasoning was wrong instead of just asserting it.
Macron, one can only surmise, is scared of Le Pen as he is up for re-election in 2022. Although he won the run-off in 2017 easily, he was only ahead 24% to 21% in the first round. François Fillon was on 20% with Jean-Luc Mélenchon less than 0.5% behind him. We could easily see an all-populist exreme-right vs extreme-left run-off next time.
@Marco
I have pointed out to you on another thread
https://www.libdemvoice.org/observations-of-an-expat-covid-battles-and-diplomacy-66861.html#comment-548467
The terms of the contract that are relevant and why I believe you are wrong.
I note that you do no longer bother to respond to those comments and continue to proceed with your opinions here without acknowledging the points already made to you.
Maybe you should respond to the comments on the other thread instead of filling all the threads with the same stuff.
It is still amazing me how you seem intent on defending the EU and taking their side at the expense of UK citizens awaiting their 2nd jabs, When EU countries and EU Media are blaming their own side for this fiasco.
David Evans
Excellent comments.
As a Liberal; Democratic party, the I love Eu, got to be embarrassingly extreme.
To lose Norman Lamb says a lot.
the party ought to be as staunch in raking the EU leaders over the coals, as it does with UK govt leaders when they get it very wrong often!
The EU is, like all bureaucracies, very poorly run, very often.
The party ought to do that on other organisations too.
Instead we get worshipping of the EU and BBc, even defence of the draconian licence fee!
Von de ..L… etc ought to resign!
This party must connect with this country.
Where are the Liberals, the Democrats, people who listen to the voices of reason and common sense?!
Lorenzo
They are currently fighting battles that have been lost. Time we collectively admit that the stance of the lib Dems on rejoining the EU is done. However in its place such be cooperation with the EU on mutual beneficial areas and a rebuild of business by investment in small and medium businesses. These will be the future as bigger firms go towards more automation.
Dan
You say it as it is.
There is nothing wrong with many in this party wanting to rejoin one day.
That means have a go at explaining how they would change the EU as with the BBC or any organisation.
This party has become way too complacent. Its radicalism ought not be in its obsessions, but in its analysis. It cannot analyse at all, it has ceased to. It is fandom , for causes of hobbyists too often!
It is not the EU’s finest hour but my disappointment with them is as much about the ‘opportunity’ given to Brexiteers to turn them into the ‘Great Satan’ and to use it as a stick to try, as Arlene Foster is doing, to scrap the entire N. Ireland deal.
This contract situation will be resolved but the fact remains that Brexit will have an adverse affect on UK businesses far into the future..
Rejoin is a good policy (provided there is a realistic timetable), but the party needs to show that it can stand up for the UK and criticise the EU when required.
The party needs to show to the UK that its EU policy isn’t “the EU says “Jump”, we say “how high””
The problem with your proposal Slamdc is not in its objective, but reality of our situation.
The fact is that we really are now totally irrelevant as far as 90%+ of the public are concerned, 99%+ of the media (i.e. all but the tiny bit that includes LDV, various blogs, the party website etc) and 100% of the mainstream media.
The UK isn’t listening to us. So saying “The party needs to show to the UK …” is totally beyond the bounds of possibility.
Matt, Jeff
It seems the contract was made under Belgian not UK law so my points under 11.50am would not apply.
However I would not fancy AZ’s chances in. Belgian court. Lawyers disagree on the likely outcome but I feel that the EU can rely on their argument that the contract does not specify that the vaccine has to be made in a particular plant:
“AstraZeneca shall use its Best Reasonable Efforts to manufacture the vaccine at manufacturing sites located within the EU (which for the purpose of this Section 5.4 only shall include the United Kingdom),” the contract says in a section on manufacturing sites.“
https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN29Y1ED
There is also a moral obligation to provide them. I find it disheartening to read people talking about “our elderly” etc when many people have relatives in other countries they are concerned about.
Matt – I will always defend the EU against the of the shelf criticisms eg “The EU is… Bureaucratic/Undemocratic/Interfering (delete as applicable)
Also I can comment in any thread where the discussion is relevant. The other thread had petered out a bit but my comments here address your comments there as well.
Brexit has turned out to be appalling, dumped on us with no notice or information. Retail sales to end customer are getting 34% loadings on the order before delivery and are being refused with additional charges levied on their return. Food needs £150 health certificate for a £20 cheese. Fish is now rotting wholesale before getting to market and the UK does not consume most of the species exported.
It’s virtually impossible to take an animal over to the continent , there’s a 5 fold increase in credit card purchase charges, and Musicians tours need work permits, Carne’s on gear and need to keep going back to UK after every 3 stops even with haulage licence. It would cost a fortune and be impractical or impossible at short notice.
Any kind of hire or equipment taken to EU/EEA is now incredibly expensive and bureaucratic, effectively unviable. This is not the case in USA, where we have no so called free trade agreement
This is the worst government in modern history, Trump’s mate Johnson now backpedalling and we are all paying the price for Disaster Capitalism’s Conned victory
@slamdac
“In a nutshell are posters seriously suggesting that the Lib Dems policy should be “take the vaccines out of UK grannies arm and put them in the arm of an EU granny” as that is how it will be perceived. ”
Since according to UK government sources the UK has ordered apparently 357 million doses, what is it planning to do with the spare ones? UK population is 68 Million-ish so < 140 million to vaccinate everyone twice.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-government-secures-additional-2-million-doses-of-moderna-covid-19-vaccine
and that's dated last November
@Marco
You were arguing that the “best reasonable efforts” clause applied only to AZ inventing the vaccine that was viable and approved by the EMA. I pointed out why you were wrong because the clause was inserted by AZ under the supply and delivery heading.
I further a pointed out that under the under section 12.2 of the contract termination for abandonment if the vaccine fails. There is no mention of the “best reasonable efforts” clause.
The arguments you were making were illogical.
It is not about us wanting to protect our elderly over EU citizens at all, however, we started our vaccination program with Pfizer and signed deals before the EU, we delayed the vaccination regime to 12 weeks for 2nd shots in order to deal with the logistics in shortages and to get as many shots into peoples arms as possible. For the EU to then threaten exports of those Pfizer shots because they messed up their procurements was totally unacceptable.
Is there not any part of the EU’s procurement process of vaccines that you are critical of?
“The other thread had petered out a bit but my comments here address your comments there as well.” Well not really, it would appear when you are pointed out to be wrong, including your terminology and wording in the contract, you like to move onto another thread and repeat the same claims.
Are you ever familiar with the sensation of being wrong? Or do you a posses some Jedi ability that allows you to evade it altogether?
I will freely put my hands up when I have made a mistake or I am wrong and will re-evaluate my thinking.
@Nonconformistradical
“Since according to UK government sources the UK has ordered apparently 357 million doses, what is it planning to do with the spare ones? UK population is 68 Million-ish so < 140 million to vaccinate everyone twice."
The UK ordered a large number of doses across a range of different vaccines before they knew which ones were going to be viable, its called spreading your bets.
Most countries took exactly the same kind of approach.
Unfortunately the EU seemed to prefer to hold back and took a more cautious approach and wait to see preliminary results and efficacy results before committing themselves on the dotted line with contracts.
The EU also appear to have been delayed by wrangling as they wanted to place most of their bests on German and France Vaccines, does that not tell you anything about the problems…..
The Uk has been one of the largest leading countries to pump millions in to covax. £500 Million now I believe it is to vaccinate poor and middle income countries.
I also suspect the UK will probably donate or sell at not-profit any surplus vaccines that it has, if and when they come good.
I think we should be concentrating on getting all countries that are able too, to scale up manufacturing of vaccines supplies. Its all well and good pumping money into covax, but if the infrastructure is not there to make the required doses, then the money is useless.
Maybe we should also be looking at or at the very least discussing forced IP sharing ( with compensation) for vaccine producers, beings this is a global health emergency
The AZ contract is an irrelevant smokescreen. The EU’s procurement problems started back in May of last year. They chose the wrong priorities, made poor decisions, played a waiting game to see if the price came down then realised that they had left actual purchasing until most of the vaccines were already allocated. All of that was bad enough.
Desperate to deflect the blame, they piled the blame on AZ and to some extent the UK. The culture within the Commission is now clear for all to see. The sacred Irish border protocol was ditched. They didn’t bother to warn the countries involved, not even their own member state. This was panic, terrible judgement, unforgiveable arrogance.
Trying to whitewash such a dismal performance does no god at all to this party. The president of the Commission should accept that she got it badly wrong and resign. That would be a good start. It is also a strong view within many member states, particularly in Germany where she has a reputation for screwing things up and evading blame.
Lorenzo Cherin: “This party has become way too complacent.”
Never a truer seven words typed anywhere on LDV.
And a cursory glance at LDV only serves to explain why that is the case.
I agree with most of what Caron states including “Last night, their leaders, when confronted with the consequences of their actions, didn’t hunker down and get all belligerent about getting Article 16 done, or anything. They stopped digging. Earlier this month, Boris Johnson was pretty gung-ho about the possibility of us invoking the same provision. I doubt that it would be resolved so unremarkably if he ever does.”
Lets agree it was a spat, but more like “a storm in a teacup” once the Irish sorted the advocates of the nonsense out. We must never forget they are still our closest allies and trading partners especially at a time when the Tories now seem hell bent of increasing the carbon footprint of our trade with countries much further afield whilst supposedly planning to host and lead the UN Climate Change summit 2021 – https://ukcop26.org/
Nonconformistradical
‘Since according to UK government sources the UK has ordered apparently 357 million doses, what is it planning to do with the spare ones?’
Are you assuming that two jabs gives lifetime immunity? If not then as per the Flu vaccination annual jabs will be required but maybe only for the over 60’s.
Spare ones should be sent to countries that have new strains of the virus e.g South Africa & Brazil.
@ Matt
“Are you ever familiar with the sensation of being wrong?”
Yes frequently, just not when arguing with you.
If you look at my previous post I acknowledged
that my 11.50am post was not applicable to the situation.
You claim that “I will freely put my hands up when I have made a mistake or I am wrong” but I have seen no evidence of that on these pages.
On the other thread you quoted a passage from the Astra Zeneca contract about the required doses being manufactured in the EU but you omitted the passage that said:
“ (which for the purpose of this Section 5.4 only shall include the United Kingdom)”
Yet this omission did not lead to you “freely putting your hands up”
I do find it strange that you question why I defend the EU on a discussion forum for supporters of the UK’s most pro-European political party. You are entitled to your views but to me your hectoring style is more suited to Brexit Central or The Sun comment pages.
@john oundle
“Are you assuming that two jabs gives lifetime immunity? If not then as per the Flu vaccination annual jabs will be required but maybe only for the over 60’s.”
I’m saying no such thing.
I’m suggesting that if the UK has secured supplies of vaccine to give the entire population 2 jabs then any spare ones are needed urgently elsewhere – especially in countries which don’t have the resources to produce vaccines themselves – shouldn’t we at least be helping them to vaccinate their key workers (medical staff etc.)?
“I do find it strange that you question why I defend the EU on a discussion forum for supporters of the UK’s most pro-European political party.”
It’s a political party, not a cult.
The whole vaccine issue really has thrown into sharp relief the problems with the EU as currently structured. Given that we are supposed to be liberals and supposed to dislike centralised, unaccountable bureaucracies and to like subsidiarity, this would seem to me to be a good opportunity to explain a) how the EU could be improved and b) how British involvement in it in future could facilitate that improvement to the benefit of all.
I wanted to Remain, as did most Lib Dems, but I was never starry eyed about the EU as an institution and I cannot for the life of me understand what good it does anyone to deny reality and pretend the EU has acted well in this case. It hasn’t, and it owes the UK and Ireland an apology. But then, arrogant centralisers of power who don’t believe themselves accountable to anyone else seldom do apologise. Our PM doesn’t and I wouldn’t expect Ursula von der Leyen to either.
@Marco
Actually you are wrong, I have been persuaded plenty of times on these forums when I have been wrong and have been persuaded by opinions.
One example I can think of in particular was when I was dead against changes to control orders to tpims. I was very strongly in favour in keeping maximum control and circumstances where evidence had to be kept confidential to protect national security.
I got in many heated discussions on this forum and I ended up coming more and more around to the Liberal Democrats position that this power was indeed being abused and so I changed my thinking and position.
As for your assertions that I missed parts out of the passage. Actually it was irrelevant and I said I was having to type it all out as it was not allowing me to copy and paste that document and I was pointing out the fact to you that the contract was only for “best reasonable efforts” to supply and distribute, it is irrelevant if that includes the UK factories, if they were using all the best efforts available to them meet those targets then they were fulfilling those terms of the contract and it would be up to arbitration to sort out the disputes, not you or I 🙂
I am also a supporter of the Liberal Democrats as I now joined 🙂 as there are many policies that I identify with mostly. But I have not signed up to the parties position on Europe and I will certainly argue against those hat takes the EU’s position on blocking vaccine exports not just to the UK but other nations who have legally purchased and signed contracts before the EU.
You have not answered any of the points that I made about this being Germanys plan in my opinion all along to secure more doses of Pfizer vaccine… Germany has a population of over 18 million over 65’s and have declined to use The Oxford jab to vaccinate them. That means they need more of the Pfizer. Germany has Dibs of 60 Millions doses of the EU’s procurement of Pfizer Jabs but Germany also signed a bilateral agreement with Pfizer for 30 Million jabs 2 months before the EU did.
Now it would be interesting to see Germany release that contract terms for transparency, but I doubt that they will.
I actually do blame Germany for this fiasco as I think it was them putting pressure on the EU commission to implement these export bans and more than likely the triggering of article 16.
There were to many coincidence occurring over the course of the week in the build up to this for it not to be the case
Nonconformistradical
‘ shouldn’t we at least be helping them to vaccinate their key workers (medical staff etc.)?’
If you read my post I specifically mention South Africa & Brazil as first priorities for spare vaccines,particularly UK made Astra Zenica.
You guys are lucky, at least your comments get published. Choosing my words very carefully, I would like to say the following: The EU procurement problem began in May of last year, long before AZ was involved. The Irish incident cannot be blamed on AZ. The lack of vaccines from alternative suppliers cannot be blamed on AZ. The EU Commission has comprehensively failed the Member States and this has consequences. Blaming AZ for everything, not to mention the UK, does not change matters.
john oundle 31st Jan ’21 – 6:12pm:
Are you assuming that two jabs gives lifetime immunity?
That’s not yet known. Informed opinion is that immunity could last for several years at least. However, the virus may mutate around current vaccines. Second generation vaccines, now entering trials, may be able to prevent that and provide long lasting immunity. For example, ImmunityBio’s hAd5 vaccine targets two proteins, one on the spike and another on the nucleocapsid, so “the chance of both mutating on the virus to a point where it is unrecognisable to the body is vanishingly small…”. A small British startup, iosBio, is working with them to develop a version in an oral capsule.
‘FDA Authorizes Phase 1 Trial of ImmunityBio’s Novel COVID-19 Vaccine Candidate hAd5; Dual Construct is Designed to Drive Both T Cell and Antibody Immunity’ [15th. October 2020]:
https://immunitybio.com/fda-authorizes-phase-1-trial-of-immunitybios-novel-covid-19-vaccine-candidate-had5-dual-construct-is-designed-to-drive-both-t-cell-and-antibody-immunity/
iosBio:
https://iosbio.com/
@Jeff
That sounds like a really good vaccine if it pays off, how wonderful would it be and such a game changer if a vaccine can be found that is taken orally in the form of a tablet or nasal spray. Something that can be scaled up quickly and delivered to peoples through the door.
I know we are in a global pandemic and research is so important, I just wish there was a way around doing this without the need for animal trials first 🙁 I really despise animals being kept in captivity and especially for medical research, especially highly intelligent primates. It goes against every thing I believe in and hold dearly to my core.
Sorry for being a downer and bringing out the animal rights activist in me, but so many animals are being sacrificed in this research for our benefit, i actually wish there was a huge fundraiser going on from the public along with global governments input with some serious cash to pump in to preserving parts of the rainforests and animal habitats as recognition for the sacrifice that wildlife is making in our efforts to beat this pandemic. Probably a useless gesture, but it might at least make me feel little less guilty but by no means comfortable about what is happening to animals in the name of research
The main thing that has struck me throughout this is the almost total silence from the Lib Dem leadership. It feels that the party has had a collective nervous breakdown at the thought that the EU could be anything other than perfect (and the thought that the UK can actually do something better then the UK).
(and the thought that the UK can actually do something better than the EU!)
@ Stephen Howse
The problem is that the EU is damned if it does and damned if it doesn’t.
There were good reasons why they chose the approach to vaccine procurement that they did, which were
a) to avoid vaccine nationalism, in particular avoiding a situation where some countries steal a march and others get left behind – this happened with PPE procurement where there wasn’t the same centralised approach and the EU were criticised for that as well!
b) ensure public confidence in the vaccine approval process through rigourous checks.
They were wrong to try to invoke article 16 but let us not forget our current governments actions including a negotiating strategy that risked the NI peace process and being willing to break international law with the internal market bill.
The current gloating and triumphalism of Brexiteers as if they are “winning a race” only serves to remind me why I dislike Brexit so much.
“They were wrong to try to invoke article 16 but let us not forget our current governments actions including a negotiating strategy that risked the NI peace process and being willing to break international law with the internal market bill.”
I have no time for “yeah, but” in this instance to be honest. I deplored what Johnson and co did with the internal market bill. That doesn’t in any way lessen how disgraceful I find the EU’s approach to this issue. If I were the Irish government I would not be feeling good right now – the EU powers that be backed the Irish to the hilt only so far as it suited them politically and when it didn’t, they were happy to trigger A16 without even bothering to consult the Irish government.
I’m ultimately pro European because I’m a liberal but I have zero interest in being a UK based mouthpiece for the European Union or being its political representatives in the UK political system.
As someone born and raised right on the Irish border, I was appalled when Johnson threatened an egregious breach of international law. I am equally appalled that the EU would take the ill-judged and hugely damaging actions they took on Friday night.
Can I suggest that if anyone’s response to this is to engage in whataboutery then they are less interested in the consequences of such actions than in their own political agenda.
No Marco, the EU is damned because it chose to lobby and get the power to procure vaccines, when it didn’t have the ability to do it competently.
Hence:
a) It didn’t “avoid vaccine nationalism”. It exacerbated it.
b) It didn’t “ensure public confidence in the vaccine approval process through rigorous checks”. It ignored the one vital point in public procurement in a crisis – It is better to be approximately right than precisely wrong ( … and late, and then be a sore loser, etc etc)
The EC have exposed their feet of clay. Whether the EU (without British scepticism) do something about it or just hunker down and pretend all is well and will just go away is the important question.
P.S. Stephen and Paul are absolutely right in all this.
Well, UVDL was pushed off to Brussels by Mutti Merkel because she was a failure in Germany, particularly with regard to procurement. So what do you expect?
@ David Evans
The EU is doing ok in terms of vaccine procurement if you look at the global situation. They are ahead of Canada, Australia and New Zealand in terms of vaccinations carried out.
Furthermore, Astra Zeneca have agreed to supply an additional 9 million doses to the EU which is a step forward.
If you said a few months ago they would be in this position it would be seen as reasonable progress.
They are behind the UK, USA and Israel in the rollout but what do those countries have in common? Self-interested nationalistic governments (until recently in the USA).
It’s time to move on and for us all to think globally and ensure that the vaccines get to the people who need them the most.
@Marco
“The EU is doing ok in terms of vaccine procurement if you look at the global situation”
That is just rubbish
The UK committed £1.67billion on Covid vaccines before it was known whether they would be effective – more than the £1.57billion the EU spent on behalf of 27 countries, with Britain spending £25.00 per capita compared to £3.51 for Brussels
Brussels did not strike a deal with Pfizer until clinical trials had been concluded – while Britain and the US had deals in place in July 2020.
Brussels have not concluded a contract with Novavax
The EU has got it’s procurement all wrong.
It is all very well sitting back and haggling on price for a product when supply outstrips demand
But when you are in a global health emergency and demand outstrips supply you need to act fast and concentrate on contracts that can deliver on speed, rather than on price.
The EU messed up, a fact recognised by its own member states.
Even Germany had its own bilateral agreements going and signing contracts before the EU as it obviously had no faith in the commissions ability to reduce bureaucracy and act with speed.
“Any kind of hire or equipment taken to EU/EEA is now incredibly expensive and bureaucratic, effectively unviable. This is not the case in USA, where we have no so called free trade agreement”
The above (and other similar stories which compare trading with the EU and US) shows the problem is with the EU, not with the UK. Prior to 31.12.2020 the above would have applied to outsiders trying to trade with the UK too.
If it’s difficult for outsiders to trade with the EU, then is it better to be on the side of the tradewall that has 6 percent of the world population and 13% of GDP, or the side with 93% of the world population and 84% of GDP?
@ Matt
The figure you quote for the EU is additional investment over and above what individual member states have invested (as noted previously).
The German government put $445m into Pfizer-BioNtech alone.
Others above write that the Lib Dems were perceived as too critically pro-EU. I think that’s a fair comment. They (in the past we) always said they wanted to be in the EU to reform it but there was little detail on what shape the reforms would take.
I have posted this before – it’s from the leader of the Slovak liberal party, and is a 60 page document, also in English, all about things they would like to change to improve the functioning of the European Union and strengthen subsidiarity.
https://sulik.sk/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/european-union-reform-2017.pdf
I asked if the Lib Dem MEPs had a similar document and none seems to exist – even though they would easily be able to come up with reams of proposals for any other level of government. Unless they can come up with this kind of detail then I really hope the UK doesn’t rejoin. Uncritical approval is bad citizenship and the EU doesn’t need bad citizens.
@Marco
Doesnt matter what you keep saying, the proof is out there for all to see.
Germany concluded its own bilaeral deals as it obviously had little faith in EU ability to procure them in a timely manor
Other EU countries, namely Hungary started to source its own vaccines from Russia.
I do admire your tenaciousness in defending the commission on its vaccine procurement, others might have felt a little lonely standing on that pedestal, but your doing it with vigour so I will credit you for that
Where is Ed on this issue?
Have our MP’s suddenly taken a vow of silence because it’s the EU?
Stephen
Thanks, for terrific commentary..
And Matt, as ever!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Supporters of the EU and who claim a higher degree of democracy for the organisation than its detractors would concede, no doubt can claim the electors in the EU can deliver their verdict on Ursula von der Leyen, and others, through the ballot box just as we can with Boris Johnson and Matt Hancock.
I’m not sure, though, if that is supposedly through voting for the right set of MEPs or the right set of National leaders who can then bring their influence to bear on the composition of the European Commission. Either way, I suspect that the EU is stuck with her for the foreseeable future.
Peter Martin
They managed with a great deal of trouble & endless road blocks to finally get rid of the Jaques Santer commission almost at the end of its tenure, after numerous allegations of corruption. Remember the dentist that was given the post of special scientific advisor etc.?
Apparently the parliament needs a two thirds majority so deliberately difficult to get rid of commissioners, who of course know it & behave accordingly.
When it came to number of deaths, death rates, rates of infection, lockdowns, etc., we were instructed NOT to compare countries; when it comes to vaccinations that’s all we do!
@expats
I do agree to some extent.
I believe the Government should get credit for something that it has got right and done well (To some extent) in regards to vaccines, though I do believe it was still to slow to roll out in care homes and to care home staff.
And seeing the vaccine roll out is some welcome good news in what is normally very depressing and worrying news.
However, I do think that Ministers need to moderate their language somewhat, It only goes to wind European friends up when they keep harking on about how well the UK is doing in comparison and raises tensions.
That being said Europe also needs to Quell their talks of the Oxford vaccine efficacy rates in over 65’s.
There are so many European countries now deciding not to use Oxford for over 65’s ( That is their choice and a matter for individual countries) however, it is then concerning where they are going to get all their access to Pfizer vaccines for their over 65’s when Pfizer had already announced a reduction in supplies.
I fear these arguments over vaccines blockades have not ended
Matt
Your continuing debate here is excellent and as ever worth relating with and to.
I disagree though on your comment here,
We need more debate re the Astra zenica vaccine and the entire strategy re second doses.
It would be better to wait and delay a little and get it right, than go full speed and waste vaccine doses.
If the young benefit more from this vaccine, they ought to get it. We are wasting resource and workload if it means in a few months we have low immunity.
I do not trust a single scientist because they are to be trusted. I trust them if they are right.
Why do they often disagree? Because, as they say in the film business, re likelihood of success, “nobody knows anything!”
@Lorenzo Cherin ( my friend)
Can you please point me to the thread or comment where I said that as I could not find it.
I think what I was worried about before in regards to delaying the 2nd dose was.
It seemed logical to me that your body needs to have maximum protection as possible with antibodies, so that should you encounter Covid, your immune system is fully primed to get on top of the infection and thus not giving it any chance to multiply and therefore possibly mutating.
I believe some scientists raised these concerns and possibilities as well.
At the time there were also not much clarity around the dosing regime and efficacy of oxford trial due to a mix up in the study.
So it really was quite concerning to me that PHE were willing to take a risk with a change to the dosing regime on cereal fronts.
I was worried about mutation and I was also worried that if we did not receive a high enough levels of antibodies in vulnerable people and pensioners from 1 dose and we ended up seeing high levels of transmissions and hospital admissions in this demographic, we would have wasted all the hard won battles that we already faced, would be faced with longer lockdowns which would lead to even less compliance from the younger generation as they would have seen the Vaccination program as failed and lost anymore goodwill towards sacrificing their liberties.
It was just really concerning.
We are starting to see more data come through from AZ in regards to efficacy from the 1st dose and the length of protection this gives ( which sounds promising) and we are also hearing that it could result in reduction in transmission rates, which would be an even bigger bonus.
Of course, with every bit of good news, we get more bad news about the Kent strain mutating again and not yet knowing the full effects, and the SA and Brazilian Strains.
I do have to admit, I would rather see our over 65’s receive the Pfizer vaccine, as more of these demographics where included in the trials and their is more confidence in the efficacy. However, There is a shortage of this vaccine and they have reduced forecasted supplies to many countries.
cont
I note that PHE has said that although preferable to receive 2 doses of the same jab, they have authorised the use of mix and match IF their is a shortage of supply of 1 vaccine, or records have been lost and patient not knowing what 1dt jab they received.
So if it is safe to mix and match, then would it be sensible to be giving everybody the 1st jab of oxford and then the 2nd jab for Pfizer for the over 65’s as their top up, until supply issues have been sorted globally???
“We need more debate re the Astra zenica vaccine and the entire strategy re second doses.
It would be better to wait and delay a little and get it right, than go full speed and waste vaccine doses.”
Wait and more people die.
I think a key part of the UK strategy going forward is predicated on the vaccines being effective and so far, having high safety records (ie. mild adverse reactions). Hence we can to some extent treat the UK population as a trial with relatively little risk, but with the benefit of starting to hinder the spread of Sars-Cov-2.
In this context, we saw the publication of further work from Oxford University on a single vaccine and some indication as too how long it may be effective – ie. they have already been collecting data beyond the 4 weeks of a trial group who have only received the first dose. I expect in the coming months we will see more reports on whether 12 weeks is an absolute maximum or whether it is something else. Current data seems to indicate that it might be a wise maximum as even at this point there are more people with some immunity than is the case with some vaccines for other diseases after 2 doses.
I expect there will be sufficient data available by March, for an informed decision to be made concerning the second dose. Which will be just in time for all those who received their first dose in January…
Vaccine wastage is more of a concern with the Pfizer vaccine, as effectively a batch of 1,000 doses once removed from the -70C freezer only lasts a few days. Hence the need for vaccine hubs that can vaccinate circa 1,000 people in a day and fill each and every one of those appointments.
Another area currently being researched is whether the second dose needs to be of the same vaccine strain or whether it could be from another. Expect to hear more about this research in the coming weeks.
So, in summary, we have embarked on a voyage of active learning, fortunately, there are others also doing similar and provided we continue to share data and act on it, I expect some level of ‘normality’ to resume over the summer; albeit conditional on whether we can move faster that Sars-Cov-2 is mutating…
Dear friend Matt
Agree on every comment there, your previous one just above the posting you read by me, was merely an aside, but you can always relay common sense and innate decency here as ever!
My understanding is that Article 16 was never actually used, merely discussed, and that the EU wished to monitor the export of vaccines from EU based factories with a view to prohibiting exports. In other words, nothing actually happened but the press had a field day. Plus ca change… as they say over there.
@Teresa Wilson
“My understanding is that Article 16 was never actually used, merely discussed,”
Well not entirely accurate, it was not discussed at all and that was the problem.
The commission announced that the policy was coming into effect the following day with No consultation with the UK Government, Irish Government or Northern Island. It angered and united so many and the EU came under condemnation not just from the UK and Ireland, but leaders from around the world, that the EU realised it made a massive mistake and was forced into quick a U-Turn.
So to characterise it as a mere policy discussion is being extremely fluffy with the facts