Current Affairs

[Mervyn and Trish]

I think I heard today that at present they expect to be able to do second vaccinations for the most vulnerable groups (us crumblies and those with underlying conditions) and it is first jabs for younger groups most at risk of slight delay. However that was based on the known shortage of AZ vaccine. I don't know if potential Pfizer delays are in the calculation. Fingers crossed. April was of course always the time when second jabs would have to be done alongside the next batch of firsts. I just glad I'm not organising it.

[Kendhni]

Having spent a while on some research I think I have a good understanding of the various vaccines issues. Most importantly Astra Zeneca and Pfizer are multinational companies and it is they rather than governments who manage the logistics of how they meet their various orders and commitments.

The AZ vaccine was developed at Oxford University with backing from the UK government. It was also the government that encouraged the manufacturing partnership with AZ with an undertaking to provide worldwide. The original idea had been to partner with a US company but there were fears supplies wouldn't get beyond US borders. That worry was probably well founded as many of the supply issues we are seeing are a result of the US blocking export of materials needed in vaccine manufacture. AZ have production facilities in many countries and have licensed others elsewhere.

The Pfifer jab was developed in Germany and is produced at their factories and licensees worldwide but significantly they do not have a plant in the UK.

So under our contracts with both companies the vaccines could come from anywhere the companies decided. In reality the majority of UK's AZ supply has been produced in the UK, with some coming from India. It is that source that will fall short for a while. Our Pfizer jabs have always come from their plant in the EU because they do not have a factory here. That is the only imports we have received from within the EU.

The EU have received their jabs largely from EU based facilities. They could never receive Pfizer from us because we don't make it. They haven't received AZ from us because they never needed to. They were late licensing it for use and, since then have stopped using it in several countries for various seemingly inaccurate pseudo scientific reasons and have now generated such an anti vaccine feeling against it, they can't use what they've got. They are threatening us with legal action because AZ are not sending vaccine from the UK that they don't need, in return for the Pfizer jabs sent here.

In a nutshell both we and the EU have supply contracts with multinational companies. There was never a government level deal between us and the EU on import/export so we have breached nothing. We have placed contracts and left the companies to handle the logistics. The EU in their usual manner are trying to micromanage and getting themselves in a knot. To the extent they are now talking about taking direct control of manufacture and delivery.

Based on my research, but of course my opinion only.

Most of that is reasonably fair. Just to qualify some things
- while the UK has not issued a ban on exports, they have said they are not exporting until the UK is on top of its own population (I suppose that could be argued as fair, so why there is any complaint about the EU doing the same thing is strange, the US have a similar policy)
- the EU has exported about 40million vaccines to over 30 countries, with about 10million (25%) of those going to the UK and significant numbers of others going to countries like Canada, Mexico and even the US (the volume being under the control of the manufacturers not the EU)
- the EU actually signed the contract with AZ (27th Aug) before the UK did (28th Aug) - so given they are not receiving the expected volumes you can understand why they may be annoyed. The issue is that the EU used Brussels law which keeps the contract open providing both parties with wriggle room (best endeavours) whereas the UK used UK law (naturally) which is absolute.
- what you label as 'pseudo science' is actually incorrect. There have been some cases of blood clotting that may (or may not) be associated with the AZ jab and the EU wants to investigate this first especially since this vaccine has had an accelerated flow to market (I see nothing wrong with that - I believe, or at least would like to think, that our own medical teams are also investigating this).
- Similarly there have been some incidents in America in relation to the Moderna (I think) jab. But, every year people die as a direct result of other jabs e.g. flu.
- the EU is continuing to allow vaccines to third countries but not where it leaves their own vaccination program lagging behind (so no different to the UK)

The WHO, and others, has made it quite clear that the whole world needs to be vaccinated in order to curtail this, so it is just as important that the vaccines are distributed globally. My bigger concern at the minute is the growing expectation of a significant third wave, which seems to be gathering a bit of momentum - hopefully enough has/is being done to minimise this.

[Kendhni]

I’m wondering if the threats coming out of the EU will escalate to a point where any remaining Pfizer vaccine we have will be saved and used only for the delivery of second jabs?

There was a statement on the news this morning where the government has said it will ensure people get their second jabs on time.

There has also been some discussion on whether receiving a different second jab would be an issue - I have not heard an answer to that one.

[Kendhni]

One other thing I find interesting is that the UK has actually purchased/signed up to about 340million vaccinations, whereas they only need about 140million. I know part of this related to 'hedging of bets', but I am not sure of what it will actually mean in reality.

[Kendhni]

A very interesting listen on vaccine efficacy with some concerning comments in relation to the SA variant and longevity of coronavirus.
https://www.latimes.com/science/081-yjln28o-123

[Mervyn and Trish]

I'm not going to copy all our two posts Ken. David can't afford the servers. But I can find no record of the UK government banning AZ, our only current home based manufacturer, from exporting. What I have found is a reference to us exporting our stocks to poorer countries once our need is met. That in my view is different. It's like saying I will give food I have paid for from my larder to the poor after I've had my lunch. It's not trying to ban Sainsburys from delivering to my neighbour. And the base point remains. The EU are currently not using the AZ stocks they have. Indeed I found some reports suggesting some of their stock is actually going to waste. Why do they need us to send them more to pour down the drain?

[Stephen]

If the AZ vaccine is good enough for Boris then it’s good enough for me.

[Mervyn and Trish]

He said the same about you.

[Mervyn and Trish]

Good news, though not unexpected, that EU regulators give the okay to AZ vaccine. Interestingly more people get blood clots from flying than the vaccine but I don't recall a ban on flying (until now of course). Now the scientists have said get on with it I wonder what further excuse Macron and Merkel might find for putting two fingers up at a UK achievement? In my opinion only of course, the shenanigans in the EU over it have been entirely about politics (the Pfizer jab was developed in Germany) than science.

[Onelife]

Good news, though not unexpected, that EU regulators give the okay to AZ vaccine. Interestingly more people get blood clots from flying than the vaccine but I don't recall a ban on flying (until now of course). Now the scientists have said get on with it I wonder what further excuse Macron and Merkel might find for putting two fingers up at a UK achievement? In my opinion only of course, the shenanigans in the EU over it have been entirely about politics (the Pfizer jab was developed in Germany) than science.

The terms of the EU scheme state that participating countries must, "agree not to launch their own procedures for advance purchase of [a] vaccine with the same manufacturers", that the EU has an agreement with.
The Commission is required to notify these countries of any agreement it is about to conclude and they have five working days to opt out if they don't agree with the terms of the deal. The Commission confirmed that no country has used the opt-out so far.

However, the German government - a participant - signed its own side deal with Pfizer for 30 million extra doses in September.

Source..BBC News

[Kendhni]

I'm not going to copy all our two posts Ken. David can't afford the servers. But I can find no record of the UK government banning AZ, our only current home based manufacturer, from exporting. What I have found is a reference to us exporting our stocks to poorer countries once our need is met. That in my view is different. It's like saying I will give food I have paid for from my larder to the poor after I've had my lunch.

That is pretty much what I said. Johnson has made it clear that his first priority is to the people of the UK, I believe the words used were 'until then he won't be in a position to give vaccines to anybody'. What I don't understand is why the British media accept that Johnsons position is valid while criticising the EU for applying a similar policy (except the EU are being open about it and actually have exported millions of doses around the world) and also remaining reasonably silent about the US which applies exactly the same policy (using some 1950's legislation called the DPA). A lot of double standards and hypocrisy from our media.

Fortunately it appears the EMA have reviewed the situation and are happy to continue with the AZ roll out. We used to call this carrying our due diligence.

[barney]

One other thing I find interesting is that the UK has actually purchased/signed up to about 340million vaccinations, whereas they only need about 140million. I know part of this related to 'hedging of bets', but I am not sure of what it will actually mean in reality.

It’s quite obvious.
After the U.K. has vaccinated it’s population, there will be about 200 million vaccines available for other nations, hopefully for the Commonwealth countries.
The Eu are massive and have unlimited funds. They can look after themselves.

[Mervyn and Trish]

I'm not going to copy all our two posts Ken. David can't afford the servers. But I can find no record of the UK government banning AZ, our only current home based manufacturer, from exporting. What I have found is a reference to us exporting our stocks to poorer countries once our need is met. That in my view is different. It's like saying I will give food I have paid for from my larder to the poor after I've had my lunch.

That is pretty much what I said. Johnson has made it clear that his first priority is to the people of the UK, I believe the words used were 'until then he won't be in a position to give vaccines to anybody'. What I don't understand is why the British media accept that Johnsons position is valid while criticising the EU for applying a similar policy (except the EU are being open about it and actually have exported millions of doses around the world) and also remaining reasonably silent about the US which applies exactly the same policy (using some 1950's legislation called the DPA). A lot of double standards and hypocrisy from our media.

Fortunately it appears the EMA have reviewed the situation and are happy to continue with the AZ roll out. We used to call this carrying our due diligence.

We'll have to agree to disagree. What I believe Boris is saying is we will vaccinate our own people before we give away our vaccine. That is vaccine we have purchased. He hasn't said AZ cannot also supply to he EU as they see fit. But that is exactly what the EU has said tonight. AZ are banned from exporting to the UK.

[Kendhni]

I'm not going to copy all our two posts Ken. David can't afford the servers. But I can find no record of the UK government banning AZ, our only current home based manufacturer, from exporting. What I have found is a reference to us exporting our stocks to poorer countries once our need is met. That in my view is different. It's like saying I will give food I have paid for from my larder to the poor after I've had my lunch.

That is pretty much what I said. Johnson has made it clear that his first priority is to the people of the UK, I believe the words used were 'until then he won't be in a position to give vaccines to anybody'. What I don't understand is why the British media accept that Johnsons position is valid while criticising the EU for applying a similar policy (except the EU are being open about it and actually have exported millions of doses around the world) and also remaining reasonably silent about the US which applies exactly the same policy (using some 1950's legislation called the DPA). A lot of double standards and hypocrisy from our media.

Fortunately it appears the EMA have reviewed the situation and are happy to continue with the AZ roll out. We used to call this carrying our due diligence.

We'll have to agree to disagree. What I believe Boris is saying is we will vaccinate our own people before we give away our vaccine. That is vaccine we have purchased. He hasn't said AZ cannot also supply to he EU as they see fit. But that is exactly what the EU has said tonight. AZ are banned from exporting to the UK.

I take a much more moderate interpretation. The UK, while not openly saying they will not export, have made it clear that they will look after their population before they will consider exporting (so we seem to agree on this point) they are doing this by tying AZ (UK) hand's via contract - that is a backdoor export ban. On the other hand the EU who have been exporting millions of doses have now said that they too are now going to prioritise their own population. However, unlike the UK, the EU is continuing to allow exports to countries that are lagging in their vaccination programs.

So in reality, what is the difference between the US (with its export ban using a 1950's law, ensuring its people get priority), the UK (with an implicit ban through contract law, ensuring its people get priority) and the EU (who is now using its laws to ensure its people get priority)? There is none except through media hypocrisy.

[Stephen]

He said the same about you.

Nice of him to give me a mention

[Kendhni]

One other thing I find interesting is that the UK has actually purchased/signed up to about 340million vaccinations, whereas they only need about 140million. I know part of this related to 'hedging of bets', but I am not sure of what it will actually mean in reality.

It’s quite obvious.
After the U.K. has vaccinated it’s population, there will be about 200 million vaccines available for other nations, hopefully for the Commonwealth countries.

Not as obvious as you seem to think. While we have paid for millions of doses that has been a gamble by the government - having been ordered before approval and several will now not materialise (having failed trials or proven not to be effective). At the minute there is no expectation that the UK will recover this money.

Some of the excess may go to Commonwealth countries but the only statement I can find so far is that the government have said that they intend to contribute oversupply to an initiative related to supplying poorer countries. COVAX facility? The (non-enforceable) framework for this re-distribution is being put together by WHO.

[Manoverboard]

Blood clots are a red herring

There will surely be more cases because of our pandemic lifestyle, more comfort food and less exercise ?

[Onelife]

Blood clots are a red herring

There will surely be more cases because of our pandemic lifestyle, more comfort food and less exercise?

Very true Mob…keep stretching those muscles if you want to stay stiff fit

[towny44]

I take a much more moderate interpretation. The UK, while not openly saying they will not export, have made it clear that they will look after their population before they will consider exporting (so we seem to agree on this point) they are doing this by tying AZ (UK) hand's via contract - that is a backdoor export ban. On the other hand the EU who have been exporting millions of doses have now said that they too are now going to prioritise their own population. However, unlike the UK, the EU is continuing to allow exports to countries that are lagging in their vaccination programs.

So in reality, what is the difference between the US (with its export ban using a 1950's law, ensuring its people get priority), the UK (with an implicit ban through contract law, ensuring its people get priority) and the EU (who is now using its laws to ensure its people get priority)? There is none except through media hypocrisy.

Unless the UK govt have issued a legal requirement on AZ not to export any vaccine until the UK population have all been vaccinated, then your assertions about what is happening are clearly being influenced by your pro EU leanings.
If the UK government supply contract for vaccines with AZ had any such stipulation, then I feel certain that Ursula Von Lederhosen would have brought this to our attention by now.

[Mervyn and Trish]

Whatever the truth of the contracts it is surely true that it took the EU much longer than us to approve the vaccines and get on with sticking needles in arms. So during that time were Pfizer to pour their product down the toilet to export it where it could do some good? It is also surely true that the government here has managed the whole vaccination issue far better than the EU and I just hope we are now far enough ahead to avoid the third wave now taking off in mainland Europe here.

[Ray B]

Would we be exporting vaccines to our overseas territories as they all come under the monarch?

[Kendhni]

Whatever the truth of the contracts it is surely true that it took the EU much longer than us to approve the vaccines and get on with sticking needles in arms. So during that time were Pfizer to pour their product down the toilet to export it where it could do some good?

There is no doubt that the EU ensuring it carried out due diligence did delay their vaccination program. They could have kept the stock pile of Pfizer jabs at the ultra low temperature building up (it would have remained stable for the extra few weeks) - but they allowed it to be exported.

It is also surely true that the government here has managed the whole vaccination issue far better than the EU and I just hope we are now far enough ahead to avoid the third wave now taking off in mainland Europe here.

No doubt this government has redeemed itself slightly over its vaccination program, however I suspect we will be subject to the third and subsequent waves - hopefully it will not be as severe as it could have been.

[Kendhni]

I take a much more moderate interpretation. The UK, while not openly saying they will not export, have made it clear that they will look after their population before they will consider exporting (so we seem to agree on this point) they are doing this by tying AZ (UK) hand's via contract - that is a backdoor export ban. On the other hand the EU who have been exporting millions of doses have now said that they too are now going to prioritise their own population. However, unlike the UK, the EU is continuing to allow exports to countries that are lagging in their vaccination programs.

So in reality, what is the difference between the US (with its export ban using a 1950's law, ensuring its people get priority), the UK (with an implicit ban through contract law, ensuring its people get priority) and the EU (who is now using its laws to ensure its people get priority)? There is none except through media hypocrisy.

Unless the UK govt have issued a legal requirement on AZ not to export any vaccine until the UK population have all been vaccinated, then your assertions about what is happening are clearly being influenced by your pro EU leanings.

Does that mean that your inability to answer the question asked is being influenced by your anti-EU feelings?

[towny44]

Unless the UK govt have issued a legal requirement on AZ not to export any vaccine until the UK population have all been vaccinated, then your assertions about what is happening are clearly being influenced by your pro EU leanings.

Does that mean that your inability to answer the question asked is being influenced by your anti-EU feelings?

It could be interpreted that way, but as I said I don't need to go searching for the answer, because Ursula would be shouting it from the rooftops, if your supposition was true.

[Kendhni]

Unless the UK govt have issued a legal requirement on AZ not to export any vaccine until the UK population have all been vaccinated, then your assertions about what is happening are clearly being influenced by your pro EU leanings.

Does that mean that your inability to answer the question asked is being influenced by your anti-EU feelings?

It could be interpreted that way, but as I said I don't need to go searching for the answer, because Ursula would be shouting it from the rooftops, if your supposition was true.

I haven't really put forward any supposition, I have asked what is the difference between the US using the DPA to block exporting, the UK using contract law to block exporting and the EU now using Brussels law to block exporting? It isn't what UVDL has to say that you need worry about, it is the hypocrisy of the British media applying double standards and making a mountain out of nothing.