When will this shit end?

[Toilet Duck]

20 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

maybe so, but that is not what is current govt guidance...and seeing as young people have been making many sacrifices all year I don't blame them being pissed off seeing older vaccinated people breaking rules now.

Oh, I know, the rules haven't changed and until they do, we should be abiding by them. It does shift the thinking though as things start to relax more (and should be comfort to the rest of us that we are in the end game!). 

[incident]

2 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

While that's true, the approach of vaccinating the elderly first was down to the fact we didn't know the vaccine prevented transmission and just that it helped prevent serious illness and death. If we're now seeing data that says it prevents transmission, moving to a system of vaccinating younger, more active people with more contacts first would now make more sense? (And in retrospect, is what we should have done all along).

I couldn't disagree more with that logic.

While we didn't know for certain, and especially not to this extent, we did always have a good idea that the vaccine would at minimum reduce transmission to a reasonable degree. The Oxford/AZ vaccine at least had data suggesting that and it was always likely that others would behave the same, so plans were made with that in mind.

As you say, the reason for the priority lists being as they are is to prevent serious illness and deaths - but that hasn't changed at all and it'll take far less doses to get to the end of the priority list than in would to have a big enough impact on overall transmission rates.

To be blunt about it - if people aren't getting ill or dying for it, then reducing transmission becomes far less urgent.

[Toilet Duck]

20 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

While that's true, the approach of vaccinating the elderly first was down to the fact we didn't know the vaccine prevented transmission and just that it helped prevent serious illness and death. If we're now seeing data that says it prevents transmission, moving to a system of vaccinating younger, more active people with more contacts first would now make more sense? (And in retrospect, is what we should have done all along).

Which I guess would also be a strong argument for pushing back second doses to get everyone a first one. Because if the vaccine actually cuts transmission strongly, you actually protect the vulnerable more by vaccinating those who could transmit to them, rather than the marginal increase in effectiveness of the second dose.

I still think the approach of vaccinating the most vulnerable first would be the correct course (the other is essentially a vaccine-driven version of the Gt. Barrington declaration...lock up the elderly and frail til lower risk individuals gain immunity). It depends on what you are trying to achieve with your vaccination programme and the priority orders put mortality first (stop people dying), then morbidity (reduce the pressure on the NHS), then everyone else (now that it looks like it cuts transmission, actually drive down infection levels significantly). There's an argument for now targeting those in high risk environments as it would benefit society at large in bringing down case numbers and reducing risk further for those currently without protection, but I think the counter argument to that (which is related to your second point) is to just keep ploughing on and get 1 dose into as many people as possible as quickly as possible as every additional vaccinated individual contributes to lowering the risk at a societal level anyway.

Edited March 4, 2021 by Toilet Duck
typo!

[Crazyfool01]

For those desperate to drop restrictions I’d urge some caution ... 

[steviewevie]

1 minute ago, crazyfool1 said:

For those desperate to drop restrictions I’d urge some caution ... 

they need to get jabs in arms as quick as poss...kent variant spreading....

[stuartbert two hats]

The vaccinations are supposed to drastically cut the spread of the virus, not just whether it can make you ill.  Can we cut grandpa a break? 

[xxialac]

43 minutes ago, JoeyT said:

EU making lots of friends.

 

Of course the optics look very bad but it is fact that AstraZeneca have a contract to supply the EU.

Has the UK not equally "blocked" vaccine shipment produced at UK sites from being sent to the EU?

Struggle to see the difference...

[JoeyT]

1 minute ago, crazyfool1 said:

For those desperate to drop restrictions I’d urge some caution ... 

With vaccination programmes at various points across the world I'm not sure we can compare one country to another anymore?

[Crazyfool01]

3 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

they need to get jabs in arms as quick as poss...kent variant spreading....

Yeah it’s not over as a pandemic though quite clearly ... 

[zahidf]

Just now, xxialac said:

Of course the optics look very bad but it is fact that AstraZeneca have a contract to supply the EU.

Has the UK not equally "blocked" vaccine shipment produced at UK sites from being sent to the EU?

Struggle to see the difference...

I dont believe they have. Link please if you think differently!

[zahidf]

Just now, crazyfool1 said:

Yeah it’s not over as a pandemic though quite clearly ... 

oh, not as a worldwide one. But then we keep border controls tight. 

[JoeyT]

1 minute ago, xxialac said:

Of course the optics look very bad but it is fact that AstraZeneca have a contract to supply the EU.

Has the UK not equally "blocked" vaccine shipment produced at UK sites from being sent to the EU?

Struggle to see the difference...

Nope?

Of course happy to be proved wrong.

[xxialac]

Just now, Barry Fish said:

I don't believe we have ?

Apologies, I'd understood that's what had happened behind the scenes. Sure you're right.

[JoeyT]

 

[Fuzzy Afro]

3 minutes ago, xxialac said:

Of course the optics look very bad but it is fact that AstraZeneca have a contract to supply the EU.

Has the UK not equally "blocked" vaccine shipment produced at UK sites from being sent to the EU?

Struggle to see the difference...

This is totally made up.

 

You might as well just change your username to “UK Bad, EU Good” at this point tbh 

[Crazyfool01]

1 minute ago, JoeyT said:

With vaccination programmes at various points across the world I'm not sure we can compare one country to another anymore?

We compared different countries throughout the pandemic that had very different restrictions and demographics ... we are quite a way ahead with jabs clearly I’m just urging a little caution ... 

[Crazyfool01]

3 minutes ago, zahidf said:

oh, not as a worldwide one. But then we keep border controls tight. 

Do we ? I must have missed that 😀

[zahidf]

3 minutes ago, xxialac said:

Apologies, I'd understood that's what had happened behind the scenes. Sure you're right.

Probably would have heard about export controls from the UK if that was the case. 

[JoeyT]

Edited March 4, 2021 by JoeyT

[Fuzzy Afro]

Just now, JoeyT said:

 

Covid is getting fucked by the long hard dick of the vaccines. Love it. 

[steviewevie]

1 minute ago, Fuzzy Afro said:

Covid is getting fucked by the long hard dick of the vaccines. Love it. 

good grief

[xxialac]

5 minutes ago, Fuzzy Afro said:

This is totally made up.

 

You might as well just change your username to “UK Bad, EU Good” at this point tbh 

It's not made up, it was a mistake on my part.

I had thought that the UK had put pressure on AZ to not allow the vaccines to leave, for which there is no evidence I now realise and which I immediately accepted was wrong.

[incident]

12 minutes ago, xxialac said:

Of course the optics look very bad but it is fact that AstraZeneca have a contract to supply the EU.

Has the UK not equally "blocked" vaccine shipment produced at UK sites from being sent to the EU?

Struggle to see the difference...

One key difference you're ignoring is who's producing it.

To the best of my knowledge, AZ are not directly manufacturing (anywhere) at all, and so the actual supply is coming from various contracted manufacturers.

In the case of the UK sites, those manufacturing sites are directly contracted to the UK Government, not to AZ, and so even if AZ wanted to redirect those does to the EU they wouldn't easily be able to (so technically nothing has been "blocked" as the scenario wouldn't arise).

I'm not aware of the EU directly funding any manufacturing for the AZ vaccine in the same way (though I think they might have for Moderna hence we've not seen any doses yet) - their contract is with AZ who've subcontracted production to these other companies. So yes interfering in that is a lot more dodgy.

[xxialac]

Just now, incident said:

One key difference you're ignoring is who's producing it.

To the best of my knowledge, AZ are not directly manufacturing (anywhere) at all, and so the actual supply is coming from various contracted manufacturers.

In the case of the UK sites, those manufacturing sites are directly contracted to the UK Government, not to AZ, and so even if AZ wanted to redirect those does to the EU they wouldn't easily be able to (so technically nothing has been "blocked" as the scenario wouldn't arise).

I'm not aware of the EU directly funding any manufacturing for the AZ vaccine in the same way (though I think they might have for Moderna hence we've not seen any doses yet) - their contract is with AZ who've subcontracted production to these other companies. So yes interfering in that is a lot more dodgy.

Thanks for the explanation. Yes you're right and that's not the same at all.

[steviewevie]

3 minutes ago, xxialac said:

It's not made up, it was a mistake on my part.

I had thought that the UK had put pressure on AZ to not allow the vaccines to leave, for which there is no evidence I now realise and which I immediately accepted was wrong.

we don't know what is in UK/AZ contract, do we? There might be a us first fuck everyone else especially the french clause in there.