Peter wrote:
I still do not understand what drives half of the policies around the mainland. Totally baffling. For example Spain is not using AZ over 65.
…….
What does anyone have to gain from this? Is it still “demand management” i.e. suppressing demand for AZ so the politicians look less incompetent? It clearly was that in the early days of slagging off AZ.
Having recently spent 6 weeks on the continent, I’d say: sheer and utter incompetence combined with a VERY strong desire to cover their backsides. The level of totally inept (mis)management combined with an eye-watering cynicism was something to behold. I think the long-term consequences for the EU as a whole but also for individual member states will be dire on many levels. Frankly, never thought I’d write that, but for Europe I see this pandemic as the beginning of the end.
Unfortunately I have to go again in a few weeks, but at least I’ll be fully vaccinated by then.
PS: none of these trips is out of my own volition, I’d much rather stay in SoCal.
Peter wrote:
anybody in the vaccine stats business will know that cannot possibly be the case.
Anybody in the “healthcare stat business” is still puzzled with the fact that the reported numbers of SVT in conjunction with the AZ vaccine from UK are an order of magnitude lower than in rest of Europe. It is an urgent scientific question why this is the case?
Is it a diagnosis problem? A reporting problem? Does the vaccine from the UK plants of AZ cause significantly less SVTs than the vaccines from EU plants? Is it an interaction with another drug that is less common in UK?
Peter wrote:
but the Chief Epidemiologist should be an intelligent person who can issue a message that conveys the statistical risk.
Unfortunately (or fortunately?) people are not only interested in the pure statistical risk. They are much more concerned by “doing something wrong themselves” than by “being harmed by force major”.
That is the whole point about the AZ discussion: From a fact point of view, a vaccination with AZ is still safer than the risk of death by Covid. From a personal perspective, however, it is ones own decision to get vaccinated with AZ (or not) but fate if you get Covid.
That is the whole point about the AZ discussion: From a fact point of view, a vaccination with AZ is still safer than the risk of death by Covid. From a personal perspective, however, it is ones own decision to get vaccinated with AZ (or not) but fate if you get Covid.
Yes.
One would not be having this debate if this virus had a mortality of 10%, or better still 50%, or killed 1% across all ages.
We are in the “lucky band” with just ~1% (and mostly old/obese) where it does a lot of economic destruction in the civilised world but those not at much risk have the luxury of being selfish 
The next “present from the East”, or even a home-grown variant, is likely to be different… a 10% mortality would collapse the medical system instantly, there would be dead bodies all over the streets… and the military would have to take over.
Peter wrote:
a 10% mortality would collapse the medical system instantly, there would be dead bodies all over the streets… and the military would have to take over.
Interestingly there are only very few diseases with a case fatality rate between 10-20%. That seems to be a hard place for a virus – either it kills only the “slow and weak” and therefore <5% or it is much more deadly and hits the 50%+. MERS – which is not so far away from Covid – had a CFR of about 30%…
And that is also a good example why I question your scenario: If the CFR goes beyond 10% the reaction will be so massive, that the outbreak will be contained very soon. Medical system is unlikely to collapse (and did not in case of MERS.
Only a (quite unlikely) combination of a very long incubation period, slow disease progression (so that we basically only find out that t thread exists after significant part of global population is already infected) and a high case fatality rate would be a major problem.
I think I’ve done so already, but I’d recommend everybody to play around with “Plague Inc.” . It’s “only a game” but their disease progression model is actually quite good – and it’s a great opportunity to experience the impact of different transmissabilities, CFRs, etc. …
Malibuflyer wrote:
Anybody in the “healthcare stat business” is still puzzled with the fact that the reported numbers of SVT in conjunction with the AZ vaccine from UK are an order of magnitude lower than in rest of Europe. It is an urgent scientific question why this is the case?Is it a diagnosis problem? A reporting problem? Does the vaccine from the UK plants of AZ cause significantly less SVTs than the vaccines from EU plants? Is it an interaction with another drug that is less common in UK?
It is a massive question, but everything I’m hearing in the business tells me that the most likely source of the difference is connected to who exactly is being vaccinated – i.e. the UK is essentially hitting the 50+ population with it en masse whereas EU countries are choosing much more carefully (due limited supply and the various concerns they have) and thus as a consequence, choosing more ‘unfortunately’. Also a likely link is to Covid-19 itself which causes clotting of all sorts, and the idea that many EU countries with much lower testing than the UK are more likely to accidentally violate the no-jab-shortly-after-Covid rule. Remembering the consensus that 1/3 of infections are completely asymptomatic, I can well believe that plenty of recently-infected people are wrongly being given the jab – and this will be magnified where testing is limited.
A drug-drug interaction seems less likely. It would be the first thing they would look for and find the victims had in common.
A diagnosis/reporting problem is possible but seems unlikely. The UK has a well-regarded pharmacovigilance system and no shortage of dirt-digging journalists who’d be delighted to run a ‘my dad died from a vaccine clot but they didn’t report it’ story.
Differences in local production are possible – local contamination or variations of some sort. One could not possibly comment on how likely this is without a detailed understanding of how the manufacturing process works and an intricate knowledge of how EU plants might differ from UK plants. On a very general level, we do know that the UK plants are more ‘advanced’ in terms of the time AZ has had to refine the manufacturing process – this is a point they have referenced themselves with respect to yields.
Meantime, the charming Thierry Breton continues to peddle the myth that the EU’s procurement programme failure is entirely the fault of AstraZeneca – apparently it would have been perfect, even better than the UK, if it wasn’t for those untrustworthy shysters and con artists at AZ. Still, he’s got to protect his and Ursula’s position I suppose. I imagine Pascal Soroit wants to punch him in the face during their meetings.
Thierry Breton said:
“If AstraZeneca had delivered the way it should have delivered to us, like I understand it did in the UK, we will have been exactly in the same situation, even really better, than the UK today, which did get a great organisation through the NHS to vaccinate people.”
Once again he lies about what AZ has done on its UK contract and pretends they’ve sent the UK everything in the original delivery schedule – which they have not – not by a long shot.
172driver wrote:
I think the long-term consequences for the EU as a whole but also for individual member states will be dire on many levels. Frankly, never thought I’d write that, but for Europe I see this pandemic as the beginning of the end.
For the European Union it may well be for several reasons. A) the incompetence shown and B) the prospect that quite a lot of current governments will fall as a consequence of their behaviour. This may leave quite a few countries in a situation where they get ruled by fringe parties or experience massive power shifts.
Malibuflyer wrote:
Unfortunately (or fortunately?) people are not only interested in the pure statistical risk. They are much more concerned by “doing something wrong themselves” than by “being harmed by force major”.
That is the whole point about the AZ discussion: From a fact point of view, a vaccination with AZ is still safer than the risk of death by Covid. From a personal perspective, however, it is ones own decision to get vaccinated with AZ (or not) but fate if you get Covid.
The problem is a loss of trust. If you follow the AZ saga from start to currency, then you will discover lots of confusing or even contradictory statements, combined with a huge hype by the press over it. The way I see it however, the one issue with the AZ vaccine is that the possible side effect of blod clots was not included in the package document (either because it was not known or because it was deemed insignificant). So it is as safe as the next vaccine which does have it in there.
People are generally lousy with risk assessment, we know that from Aviation only too well. But as the proverbial scare rabbit that I am known for in this forum, I clearly would take AZ any day over not having access to anything else for weeks or months.
As another example of press hype: Some inhabitants of a care home here have been infected with Covid 2 months after being fully vaccined with Pfizer. Shock horror until those who have not yet jumped in circles care to read that none of them has any symtoms and were found out in a routine test. Without vaccine, most of them would likely be dead by now.
On the other hand, this shows that the vaccines are not really the answer to stop spread either. Which imho is a huge problem: ff vaccined people can still get it and spread it, there is no purpose in abandoning travel restrictions, on the contrary. So I guess we are a very long way away (if ever) from the point where people actually can travel again as before, vacination or not.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
On the other hand, this shows that the vaccines are not really the answer to stop spread either.
Of course not. The vaccines will not in the next years, and most likely never will, eliminate the virus. Eradicating smallpox through vaccination took decades, and all diseases we keep at a bay using vaccination are still around. Covid-19 and its variants is very likely with us in the same way as influenza, measles, rubella etc etc.
They do, however, bring the rate of serious infection (with hospitalisation and death) down to a level that the disease is tolerable, at or well below influenza level.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
Which imho is a huge problem: ff vaccined people can still get it and spread it, there is no purpose in abandoning travel restrictions, on the contrary.
to the contrary – once your population is mostly vaccinated, you don’t really care if people return with infections.
Which also shows that the proposed UK are the wrong way round. A fully vaccinated country should accept all comers, but protect other non-vaccinated countries by requiring a test on departure.
Of course there will be the argument ‘what about variants’?? Other than that a highly infectious, low-mortality variant would actually be a good thing, there is also a risk that a variant arises against which the vaccine does not work (but which is still detectable using PCR test). This is not only argument for testing arrivals, but an even stronger argument to keep testing everyone on a regular basis, nor just arrivals.
172driver wrote:
I’d say: sheer and utter incompetence combined with a VERY strong desire to cover their backsides. The level of totally inept (mis)management combined with an eye-watering cynicism was something to behold. I think the long-term consequences for the EU as a whole but also for individual member states will be dire on many levels. Frankly, never thought I’d write that, but for Europe I see this pandemic as the beginning of the end.
Knowing who participates from Croatia in EU governing bodies (and I guess it’s similar for other countries), I’m not surprised – a bunch of totally incompetent and ignorant party soldiers and populists. EU totally failed in handling this crisis as united body with sane and sensible politics.
Cobalt wrote:
The vaccines will not in the next years, and most likely never will, eliminate the virus
I’m fully expecting to have to take an annual COVID vaccine (just like I do with flu) till the day I snuff it. I don’t see this going away in my lifetime.
alioth wrote:
I’m fully expecting to have to take an annual COVID vaccine (just like I do with flu) till the day I snuff it. I don’t see this going away in my lifetime.
True.
And it is also a complete fantasy to imagine the restrictions going away before compusory vaccination is strictly enforced. If they are done away with in a revolution or political uprising, the consequence will be very simple: Overwhelming of the health systems within a month or so and thereafter total collapse of society due to Millions of deaths per week rather than years, people dying in the streets e.t.c.
If we have a 30% quota of anti vaxxers who refuse taking their share of responsibility in this crisis, we will continue to have thousands of new infections every day for the forseeable future, paticularly as it becomes more and more clear, that most vaccines do NOT prevent infection but primarily the outbreak of the actual illness. So we will see millions of vaccined people who can still spread the virus and it’ mutations which result from restoration of civil liberties and foremost the freedom to travel onto those who choose not to get vaccined, who then will get sick and, well, see above.
IMHO, there is no other way to eventually reduce the amount of sick people than to totally suspend ALL air travel which is not subject to compulsory and enforced quarantine, vaccined or not to stop the spread, in addition to keeping current measures going indefinitly or at the very least until the whole population is protected from severe illness and hospitalisation by vaccination.
