I really do bridle at the use of the term "gamble" here and in similar Covid contexts
These are decisions based on extensive scientific advice, not "taking a punt"
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
I really do bridle at the use of the term "gamble" here and in similar Covid contexts
These are decisions based on extensive scientific advice, not "taking a punt"
mjr
Comfy armchair to one person & a plank to the next
- Location
- mostly Norfolk, sometimes Somerset
Don't know who you're quoting there with "taking a punt".
The scientific advice is just advice and the decision-makers have shown themselves more than willing to do something different; plus the scientific advice is not certainty. This shoot is probabilistic, daffodils!
deptfordmarmoset
Full time tea drinker
- Location
- Armonmy Way
In the case of the AZ vaccine approval, the extensive scientific advice was that which led to its approval. Use beyond that approval is why there's a divergence between European countries and the UK's approach. Call it a calculated risk, if you like, but it's still a gamble.
mjr
Comfy armchair to one person & a plank to the next
- Location
- mostly Norfolk, sometimes Somerset
Well, of course it was because it uses a comparative with no indication what it is comparing to.
More than a theoretical idealised imaginary Europe which doesn't exist, in effect. If they had vaccinated earlier, they may well get nowhere near the vaccination rate or coverage of the UK, because their populations would react differently. Then not only would they be in the shoot but they might drag us back in with them with new variants arising, and we don't want that, do we?
If any states felt they could go faster, the methods the UK used (which still acting as if an EU member state) and Hungary has now used were (and are) available to them.
deptfordmarmoset
Full time tea drinker
- Location
- Armonmy Way
Rocky
Hello decadence
Isn't Der German?........you don't even know when you are doing it DM!!
deptfordmarmoset
Full time tea drinker
- Location
- Armonmy Way
To derrrr is human.
Ajax Bay
Guru
- Location
- East Devon
I read it long ago: thank you for posting. Try posting again with an explanation of why you've done so. I was concerned that the media had unfairly traduced his language (they hadn't!).
It will slightly interesting to know why the mods didn't ask you, first, but hey ho!
Last edited:
mjr
Comfy armchair to one person & a plank to the next
- Location
- mostly Norfolk, sometimes Somerset
I expect it's more likely to remain if someone just puts the link, unless they've time to write a full translation.
deptfordmarmoset
Full time tea drinker
- Location
- Armonmy Way
I think it was clear from the quoted section of your post what the context was. It's perfectly obvious that I can't give an original quote in English if it was in French.
Ajax Bay
Guru
- Location
- East Devon
I empathise. And I know you know that I was using the term to flush out exactly the point you made .
In May a nation or union of states can have an insight but no assurance that any particular vaccine would be efficaceous at the end of Phase 3 trials. What to do? Will the horse get even to the start in the Gold Cup?
UK VTC (semi-political) choice (mission "Save lives") was to sign advance purchase agreements for 6 different vaccines. Was this a 'gamble'!!!
UK VTC also accepted a higher level of risk (for UK plc) in the terms of these contracts. Was this a 'gamble'!!!
First Pfizer, then Oxford-AZ and Moderna all produced successful results from Ph3 trials and applied for emergency authorisation. After careful consideration of the data (both during and after the trials and data submission) UK's MHRA authorised such emergency use. Was this a 'gamble'!!!
The JCVI established a strategy and priority order of vaccinating the most vulnerable first, to save lives. Was this a 'gamble'!!!
The JCVI modified their advice (on 30 Dec) to increase the gap between first and second doses to 12 weeks (from 3). Was this a 'gamble'!!!
Yes: and one where the payout was certainly hundreds of lives saved (I haven't done the maths on that, yet) against the risk that effectiveness would be only at 89% (confidence level not sure) instead of 95% (Pfizer) for the extra 9 weeks).
I'm amazed that other nations are not doubling the numbers vaccinated in the first 11 weeks by going for the extended gap, given the paucity of supply.
I have just listened to the leader of the Conservative group in the EU Parliament on the subject of vaccines. He defended the approach taken.
If the EU had not decided to negotiate as the EU but as individual states, you would have had the potential for 27 sets of disputes as has arisen over AZ and the UK. Endless arguments over who gets what and when.
Going for complete approval through the EMA was in light of the then known reluctance of the population to accept the vaccine. This has dramatically changed in the meantime.
Regarding AZ, the EU put up a lot of money up front in return for promised supplies, and these have not been forthcoming. Part of this is due to production problems. The fear exists (he maintained) that production that should have been allocated to the EU has found its way to other countries who could have paid more. (Hence the export stop.) Also it is unacceptable that when the massive reduction in supply was announced, deliveries to the EU were curtailed but supplies to the UK were fully maintained.
I don't think AZ should have been surprised to have such a strong reaction to the EU considering the amount of the reduction and the short notice they gave, and that this was on top of Pfizer doing something similar.
I still wonder if the supply problems would be so acute if the EU had ordered earlier, but the situation appears to be more complicated than just that.
Ajax Bay
Guru
- Location
- East Devon
Thank you for sharing that. A question and a couple of observations.
Are there data on the latest hesitancy rates in the states within the EU anywhere? You suggest there have been 'dramatic' changes.
When an entity signs an advance purchase agreement (APA) part of the deal is to pay (aka "put a lot of") money "up front. The EU contract with AZ did not, aiui - have read it, "promise" or specify a time profile of supply. The contract did require AZ to tell the customer (the EU) as soon as possible if there was going to be a supply issue. They did, inevitably at "short notice" I guess, once the production issues surfaced in its/partners' continental factories , whence the supply was to come.
I can entirely see why it seems unfair that, with a production shortfall, AZ don't reduce (/reprofile the) supply to each of its main customers similarly. I speculate whether codicils added to the APA signed in May with UK's VTC specify supply profiles (maybe agreed after the Phase 3 trials were close to successful completion) and also specify primacy of supply from AZ's UK-based factories. But we don't know.
5
Some of this might be due to greater realisation of the danger of the virus, coupled with vaccines being the only relatively quick way out of economic lockdowns.
As for AZ, we may never know exactly what was agreed. Personally, I don't begrudge Britain the supplies because of the infection rates there, but in return find the invidious comparisons with the EU rate of vaccination as being solely due to mismanagement uncalled for, although I still feel this might have played a part. A higher rate of vaccination in the EU would come at the cost of a lower rate in the UK.
The rates for Germany used to be about a 50% acceptance rate. A poll not long ago showed this had gone up to 67% acceptance, with up to 90% being willing although having some misgivings. Absolute refusers had gone down from about 20% to 10%. This was on the telly and I'm going by memory, but the vast majority of the population will accept the vaccine. I think there has been a similar development in Italy. I could well imagine the development is similar elsewhere.
Some of this might be due to greater realisation of the danger of the virus, coupled with vaccines being the only relatively quick way out of economic lockdowns.
As for AZ, we may never know exactly what was agreed. Personally, I don't begrudge Britain the supplies because of the infection rates there, but in return find the invidious comparisons with the EU rate of vaccination as being solely due to mismanagement uncalled for, although I still feel this might have played a part. A higher rate of vaccination in the EU would come at the cost of a lower rate in the UK.
Wobblers
Euthermic
- Location
- Minkowski Space
The evidence over extending the time between doses for the Pfizer vaccine is at best weak. The decision was based on the observation of low infection rates between weeks two and three after the first dose. But that short time frame means few data and hence high standard deviation. It is not possible to have a high confidence in that result, statistically speaking. Moreover, this cannot be extrapolated over the remaining nine weeks as we have no data there at all. There was no data to support the idea that the vaccine would remain effective over this period, though it's fair to say that there are good immunological reasons for believing so. Thus, from a scientific viewpoint, the decision to extend the time between doses fourfold was exactly that: a gamble. No data means no evidence! I would not ever contemplate making such an unsupported extrapolation in any paper or report I write - and nor would any professional scientist that I know. I would expect any paper submitted for peer review to be rejected if it did - as would I were I one of the reviewers.
