Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

All things Rugby
User avatar
eldanielfire
Posts: 32646
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by eldanielfire »

Did anyone post this piece on the AstraZeneca contracts?

https://www.politico.eu/article/the-key ... contracts/

How the UK gained an edge with AstraZeneca’s vaccine commitments
A comparison of the UK and EU contracts shows that London’s deal has extra teeth.

UK Government Continues To Ramp Up The Vaccination Programme Against Covid-19
Boxes of vials of the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine | WPA Pool Photo by Andrew Matthews/Getty Images
BY ANNA ISAAC AND JILLIAN DEUTSCH
February 22, 2021 12:48 pm

Two contracts, two different legal systems, but one goal: Getting doses of a life-saving vaccine to people as quickly as possible.

Just how the U.K. has secured doses more quickly than the EU from pharmaceutical giant AstraZeneca has been a matter of intense scrutiny. Some clues can be found in comparing the contract that AstraZeneca signed with London to the one it inked with Brussels.

On the whole, the contracts appear roughly the same when it comes to their language and their tone, says Sébastien De Rey, a contract law specialist at Leuven University. But there's one key difference, he notes: “The U.K. contract is, on some specific points, more detailed."


The level of specificity is partially due to the legal systems they're based on. The U.K. contract is written in English law, which will judge whether both parties delivered the goods based on the exact wording of the contract. The EU contract is written in Belgian law, which focuses on whether both parties tried their best to deliver the goods and acted in good faith.

It's these extra details that give the U.K. more leverage to ensure its contract is delivered effectively. While both contracts say all parties will make their “best reasonable effort” to deliver the vaccine, the U.K. government is clearer in asserting its oversight of the agreement.

This core difference, according to a lawyer familiar with the development of the U.K. text, can be chalked up to the fact that the contract sealed with London was written by people with significant experience of purchasing agreements, specifically drug-buying deals. The European Commission’s contract, by contrast, shows a lack of commercial common sense, in the lawyer’s view.

The starkest example of this difference is a clause in the U.K. contract stating that if any party tries to force or persuade AstraZeneca or its subcontractors to do anything that could hold up the supply of the vaccine doses, the government may terminate the deal and invoke what appear to be punishment clauses — although these are largely redacted.

The EU, on the other hand, can only withhold payments until the company delivers the goods, or until it helps find more producers to make the vaccine. And as POLITICO reported last week, the non-redacted version of the contract shows that the EU also waived its right to sue AstraZeneca in the event of delivery delays.

Furthermore, officials with knowledge of the U.K. contract say the British government was a more active participant in the manufacturing of the home-grown vaccine — even though the U.K. contract was signed just a day after the one with the EU. This aggressive approach gave London a lead in securing AstraZeneca's doses.


“In sum, the balance of power tilts notably towards the U.K.,” senior MEP and former Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt wrote in a post Friday. “Since the outcome of this particular contract has led to an enormous amount of public distrust, both the Commision [sic] and AstraZeneca have a lot of explaining to do.”

Stronger supply chains
The U.K. contract makes it clear that London had thought through the entire Oxford/AstraZeneca supply chain, rather than just focusing on the delivery of the vaccines. The EU, by comparison, was more unclear, even as to where its plants would be.

The U.K. contract contains a commitment by AstraZeneca that the British supply chain “will be appropriate and sufficient” for the supply of the doses the U.K. purchased. London understood, then, that if the supply chain were not “sufficient,” the drug company would be on the hook for meeting any shortfall from somewhere else, according to a person familiar with the U.K. contract’s development.

The British contract also indicates the deal would cover “other manufacturing facilities in Europe” in the event that the European Medicines Agency approved the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine before British regulators after the Brexit transition period.

It didn’t specify what would happen if approval came first in the U.K., which is in fact what happened. But the U.K. Task Force told journalists in December that it would get vaccines from Germany and the Netherlands to meet any potential shortages on the island ahead of the U.K.’s earlier approval.

By contrast, the EU’s contract basically states that AstraZeneca will only make its "best reasonable efforts" to supply and manufacture the vaccines in the EU, which in the contract includes the U.K. manufacturing sites. In the full version of the contract and order form, the three British plants — as well as a Dutch and German subcontractor that haven't been used for the EU doses — are included in the EU's supply chain. The company hasn't used the U.K. doses to fix the shortage of EU supply.



Instead, AstraZeneca has largely relied on a Belgian subcontractor, Thermo Fisher Scientific (originally Novasep), to supply the EU with drug substance. It has also gotten some doses from a U.S. plant in Maryland.

More broadly, the specifics of the EU’s plants have been a subject of confusion. For example, the Commission's published contract said the EU would get drug substance from “I\IL.” When a redacted version was published on January 29, the Commission at first kept on insisting that this referred to Italy and Ireland. It later turned out to be a copy error that should have said “NL,” for the Netherlands, according to Dutch broadcaster NOS.

Earlier timelines
As with supply chains, the timeline is also disputed. But it does appear that the U.K. got an earlier start on the ground — even though that’s not clear on paper.

AstraZeneca CEO Pascal Soriot made the argument that the U.K. had better vaccine supply because the U.K. signed an agreement for vaccines months earlier than the EU. Formally, this isn’t true: The U.K. contract was signed on August 28, while the EU’s was signed a day earlier on August 27.

However, the key lies in an earlier agreement that AstraZeneca made back in May with the U.K., which was a binding deal establishing “the development of a dedicated supply chain for the U.K.,” an AstraZeneca spokesperson said.

One official close to the U.K. contract said the agreement began as an email in April from the U.K. government saying it would provide £65 million to help the University of Oxford execute its production plan. It later evolved into a fully-fledged contract between the government and the British-Swedish company, which also might explain why it took until August for the contract to be signed.


Most important, however, is that it meant that the British government was “effectively a major shareholder” in the jab’s development as early as April. After Oxford and AstraZeneca agreed to team up at the end of April, for example, the British government filled seats on Oxford-AstraZeneca joint liaison committees.

“Protecting the U.K.‘s supply was a central objective ... as that was being negotiated from April onwards,” the official said. Even though this isn't explicitly stated in the contract, the official said that the government’s role in the early stages of the vaccine meant “there is absolutely no way that AstraZeneca would have been able to enter a contract which gave away equal priority of access to the U.K. doses.”

This British supply was therefore already secured by the time four EU countries — Germany, the Netherlands, France and Italy — signed an agreement in June to obtain up to 300 million doses of the vaccines. The countries’ deal at the time was a fairly bare-bones agreement, and it’s unclear whether it established a European supply chain, but over the summer it was transferred into the formal purchasing agreement managed by the Commission.

The Commission wouldn't comment this week on the publication of the U.K.'s AstraZeneca contract, but it has underscored that the EU's agreement provided money — up to €336 million — to the company to ramp up manufacturing of vaccines at-risk for the bloc.

"We did not invest in the company on the assumption that they would not be able to pre-produce," a Commission official wrote in an email. “Investing and ramping up pre-production capacity was one of the premises of our agreements."

"There are clear delivery quantities, both for December of last year as well as the coming quarters for this year," the official added.


Stronger enforceability
A further difference is that the British and Belgian legal systems have different views of how these contracts should be delivered and adjudicated if issues arise.

Many companies choose the U.K. for contracts involving the purchase of goods or other agreements that deal with a point of sale. That’s because English law is an effective route for suing a company if it doesn’t deliver goods in time. The U.K. contract is testament to that advantage, lawyers said.

English contract law also has much more literal interpretation — what’s on paper is what counts, lawyers say. By contrast, Belgian law, which the Commission chose for its contract, takes a wider view that includes the context a contract’s written in and the good intentions of both parties. The court system in Belgium also tends to reach a decision in a legal dispute far more slowly than its English counterpart.

That said, while the EU’s contract may be less precise, it can still carry weight in a court of law, De Rey said. It's more detailed in laying out what it means by best reasonable efforts, he added, pointing to the preamble of the EU contract, which goes into great detail about the great need for vaccines during the pandemic.

"In the end, it will always come back to this 'best reasonable efforts' and the interpretation of this," he said. "But the standard of these 'best reasonable efforts' is quite high."

More micromanagment
The U.K. contract is also more clear in how it will monitor the delivery of the doses, as well as what happens if the company doesn't come through.


Although the delivery schedule itself is redacted, the U.K. contract clearly states that AstraZeneca shall notify the British government about any changes to the schedule and use its “Best Reasonable Efforts to keep as close to the original” delivery schedule. The company also has 30 days to notify the U.K. ahead of its delivery about the number of doses it should expect.

Once that happens, “AstraZeneca may not adjust the Delivery Schedule without the prior consent” of the British government.

An exception: AstraZeneca isn't in violation if there's a “minor variance” to the delivery schedules, up to five business days, “due to the unpredictable nature of the Manufacturing of the Products” — as long as the U.K. is notified within a reasonable timeframe.

The EU contract, by contrast, doesn't go into this level of detail about notification when manufacturing plans change. But it does have another remedy in the Belgian system, De Rey explains: If a company is in breach of a contract, the other party can appoint another producer to do the job at the expense of the company in breach.

Indeed, the Commission's contract says it or EU countries can present plans to boost production and "AstraZeneca shall use its Best Reasonable Efforts" to contact producers “to increase the available manufacturing capacity within the EU," it states.

The problem with this provision, however, is it doesn't ensure a rapid timeline, which is crucial amid a global race to vaccinate populations.


Furthermore, the U.K. contract gave more clear powers to managers on the ground in executing and validating the contract, while the EU contract focused more on ensuring equitable distribution of the vaccines between each EU country.

The EU contract also says the Commission and EU countries should use their “Best Reasonable Efforts” to help AstraZeneca secure enough drug substance, vials and other materials to produce its vaccines, and the company should report to the Commission in “regular intervals” on whether it can meet its supply promises. AstraZeneca will "promptly notify the Commission if it encounters difficulties in this regard that place at significant risk AstraZeneca’s ability to manufacture or sell the Vaccine Doses as contemplated by this Agreement," it reads.

What this meant on the ground: When AstraZeneca faced supply issues at the start of 2021, it gave the EU little notice. It informed the Commission that the EU would receive at least 70 million fewer doses in the first quarter of 2021 just a week ahead of the European Medicines Agency’s expected approval date. The company still has not updated the EU on what it can provide them in the second quarter of the year.

To be sure, the EU contract says Brussels may suspend payments if AstraZeneca fails to deliver, and it specifically states that AstraZeneca may not have any impending contracts that would hinder its ability to supply the EU. But it also states that if AstraZeneca’s performance is “impeded by any such competing agreements, AstraZeneca shall not be deemed in breach” of its agreement with the EU.

And in the end, the EU waived its right to take AstraZeneca to court if there are delivery delays.
User avatar
kiap
Posts: 20365
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by kiap »

eldanielfire wrote: Sat Mar 06, 2021 11:07 pm Did anyone post this piece on the AstraZeneca contracts?
... AstraZeneca has largely relied on a Belgian subcontractor, Thermo Fisher Scientific (originally Novasep), to supply the EU with drug substance. It has also gotten some doses from a U.S. plant in Maryland.

More broadly, the specifics of the EU’s plants have been a subject of confusion. For example, the Commission's published contract said the EU would get drug substance from “I\IL.” When a redacted version was published on January 29, the Commission at first kept on insisting that this referred to Italy and Ireland. It later turned out to be a copy error that should have said “NL,” for the Netherlands, according to Dutch broadcaster NOS.
The Commission are bumbling ditherers.

One minute they're sneering about an ineffective vaccine, the next they're crying about lack of supply.

Then the next, they're stealing another country's order.
This British supply was therefore already secured by the time four EU countries — Germany, the Netherlands, France and Italy — signed an agreement in June to obtain up to 300 million doses of the vaccines. The countries’ deal at the time was a fairly bare-bones agreement, and it’s unclear whether it established a European supply chain, but over the summer it was transferred into the formal purchasing agreement managed by the Commission.


... And in the end, the EU waived its right to take AstraZeneca to court if there are delivery delays.
The EU really are a joke shop.
User avatar
Blackrock Bullet
Posts: 15663
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: #68

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by Blackrock Bullet »

I don’t believe the Commission made any comments on the effectiveness of the jab. Those kind of comments came from Macron and the media (which included the U.K. press), that undermined trust in it. Gobshites that did big damage but separate issue to this.

In terms of the contract, I don’t believe the “best reasonable effort” clause included anything on application dates and consideration of other supply chains. One of the EU’s issues is that AZ held back the application date to the EMA whilst going through the U.K. process. That resulted in the U.K. having weeks of using EU based plants to get their programme going as their planes scaled up whilst the application was held back to the EMA. That was in bad faith by AZ but revealed the naivety of the EU.

All of these vaccine makers want to have a strategic partner so they can do big time live studies that they can report to the rest of the world. That’s AZ with the U.K., Pfizer with Israel and we have recently seen J&J doing it in South Africa (after bad media reporting on AZ’s effectiveness vs. J&J on that variant). The U.K. and Israel took huge risks on those two vaccines going forward. The EU needed to be way more aggressive with the likes of Pfizer as it was clear that they were in the lead. They were never going to be a strategic partner but needed to be more like the US in using market and manufacturing power to ringfence EU produced vaccines. Unfortunately they seemed to take the approach of using their power to focus on price over protecting the EU supply chain. That goes back to trying to be seen as good guys on the international stage versus Trump’s America blocking them leaving the US. That’s blown up in their faces on two fronts to be fair....
Mick Mannock
Posts: 25839
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by Mick Mannock »

According to adverse incident reports collected by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 966 individuals have died after having received an mRNA vaccine for COVID-19.

Between Dec. 14 and Feb. 19, 19,769 reports were made to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) following immunizations with either the Moderna or Pfizer BioNTech mRNA vaccines (the only two vaccines given during the time period assessed). At this time, VAERS data is not available after Feb. 19.

The 966 deaths represent 5 percent of the total number of adverse events reports. Of those who died, 86, (8.9 percent) died on the same day they got the shot. An additional 129, (13.4 percent) died within one day. An additional 97 died within 2 days, and 61 within 3 days.

A total of 514 (53.2 percent) died within a week. 173 died within 7-13 days. 106 within 14-20 days.

85 percent of deaths occurred in individuals over 60; below 60 there were five deaths among those aged 20-29; 8 aged 30-39; 20 aged 40-49; and 57 aged 50-59.

For detailed information drawn from the VAERS reports, see charts provided at the link at the end of this article.

Epoch Times Photo
Information drawn from VAERS reports on mRNA vaccinations for COVID-19. (source: CDC)
Comparison With Influenza Vaccines
Neither of the mRNA vaccines are FDA approved, rather, they have Emergency Use Approval (EUA). They represent a departure from traditional vaccines in that they do not use any part of the suspected pathogen to stimulate the immune system, but rather, nucleoside modified RNA, from which Moderna drew its name.

Dr. Christian Perrone, head of Infectious Disease at Hopital de Garches in France, stated in a complaint filed in Europe:

“The first vaccines they are offering us are not vaccines. They are gene therapy products. They…inject nucleic acids that will cause our own cells to produce elements of the virus.”

The death rate following COVID mRNA vaccination is much higher than that following influenza vaccination.

The CDC’s data allows only a ballpark estimation of the rate of deaths following flu vaccination.

In the 2019-2020 influenza season the CDC reports that 51.8 percent of the U.S. population received a vaccine, which is approximately 170 million people.

VAERS reports that in the calendar year 2019 (not the 2019-2020 influenza season) there were 45 deaths following vaccination. To provide context, in 2018 VAERS reports 46 deaths, and in 2017 it reports 20 deaths.

The 45 deaths in 2019 are occurring at a rate of 0.0000265 percent, when calculated using the number of vaccines given in the 2019-2020 influenza season.

As of Feb. 19, 41,977,401 COVID vaccinations had been given with 966 deaths reported following vaccination, which is approximately a rate of .0023 percent.

The VAERS System
VAERS was put in place in 1990, to capture unforeseen reactions from vaccines.

VAERS is criticized both for the fact that anybody can submit a report, and for the fact that it catches only a fraction of the adverse incidents.

The VAERS website describes the system in this way:

“Established in 1990, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) is a national early warning system to detect possible safety problems in U.S.-licensed vaccines. VAERS is co-managed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). VAERS accepts and analyzes reports of adverse events (possible side effects) after a person has received a vaccination. Anyone can report an adverse event to VAERS. Healthcare professionals are required to report certain adverse events and vaccine manufacturers are required to report all adverse events that come to their attention.

“VAERS is a passive reporting system, meaning it relies on individuals to send in reports of their experiences to CDC and FDA. VAERS is not designed to determine if a vaccine caused a health problem, but is especially useful for detecting unusual or unexpected patterns of adverse event reporting that might indicate a possible safety problem with a vaccine. This way, VAERS can provide CDC and FDA with valuable information that additional work and evaluation is necessary to further assess a possible safety concern.”

Without a medical diagnosis or autopsy, the report of an adverse incident following a vaccination is not proof that the vaccination caused any particular symptoms.

In a reply to The Epoch Times, about the VAERS death report, Steven Danehy, Director of Global Media Relations for Pfizer, wrote:

“To date, millions of people have been vaccinated with our vaccine. Serious adverse events, including deaths that are unrelated to the vaccine, are unfortunately likely to occur at a similar rate as they would in the general population.”

Moderna has not responded to requests for comment.

The VAERS database is dense with information and can be difficult for some users to follow. The Epoch Times has extracted its data as clearly as possible in charts provided in the link below.

At the link below are charts containing: on the tab “All Deaths Readable” descriptions of what happened to the patients—effects they experienced as reported by health care workers and/or relatives, or other witnesses; VAERS ID numbers (used to look up a complete file on the VAERS database); vaccination type; manufacturer; vaccination name; date received; age, gender and state of each recipient; as well as medical history; and other medications patients were taking.

Summary_of_VAERS_deaths_through_Feb_19th
User avatar
eldanielfire
Posts: 32646
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by eldanielfire »

Blackrock Bullet wrote: Sun Mar 07, 2021 11:22 am I don’t believe the Commission made any comments on the effectiveness of the jab. Those kind of comments came from Macron and the media (which included the U.K. press), that undermined trust in it. Gobshites that did big damage but separate issue to this.

In terms of the contract, I don’t believe the “best reasonable effort” clause included anything on application dates and consideration of other supply chains. One of the EU’s issues is that AZ held back the application date to the EMA whilst going through the U.K. process. That resulted in the U.K. having weeks of using EU based plants to get their programme going as their planes scaled up whilst the application was held back to the EMA. That was in bad faith by AZ but revealed the naivety of the EU.

All of these vaccine makers want to have a strategic partner so they can do big time live studies that they can report to the rest of the world. That’s AZ with the U.K., Pfizer with Israel and we have recently seen J&J doing it in South Africa (after bad media reporting on AZ’s effectiveness vs. J&J on that variant). The U.K. and Israel took huge risks on those two vaccines going forward. The EU needed to be way more aggressive with the likes of Pfizer as it was clear that they were in the lead. They were never going to be a strategic partner but needed to be more like the US in using market and manufacturing power to ringfence EU produced vaccines. Unfortunately they seemed to take the approach of using their power to focus on price over protecting the EU supply chain. That goes back to trying to be seen as good guys on the international stage versus Trump’s America blocking them leaving the US. That’s blown up in their faces on two fronts to be fair....
And now they are looking worse than Trump did on the issue of vaccines given they now have a few attempts at badly preventing production leaving the EU for valid customers with contracts. That's what happens when you play politics instead of prioritising the people's needs. The EU wanted to look like the good guys, but had little intent of behaving as such and so it's backfired. The attempts to undermine AZ also have.

It doesn't help that as the head of AstraZeneca pointed out, a lot of their haggling was due to a fixation on the UK/Brexit. Which again betrays worries about how they think what and how well the UK can do now it's left. The EU sees to have 2 constant issues at the moment, the mentioned paranoia on the UK (the fear of any Brexit success, the fear of other countries leaving etc) and the obsession with acting like a big nation that has to look superior to the nations that make it up so it can pull power. There was no need for the EU to get involved in Vaccine procurement, it's not exactly in it's responsibilities either.

As a EU cynic I've always mainstain it's gravest mistake was moving from a body that was supported to promote and encourage trade and jobs for it;s nations to a political body that serves it's self and by it's nature is to far removed democratically from the masses of Europe.
User avatar
Clouseau
Posts: 1005
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by Clouseau »

Mick Mannock wrote: Sun Mar 07, 2021 12:17 pmEpoch Times
:-?
Mick Mannock wrote: Sun Mar 07, 2021 12:17 pmDr. Christian Perrone
:-|
bimboman
Posts: 70454
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by bimboman »

Clouseau wrote: Sun Mar 07, 2021 4:55 pm
Mick Mannock wrote: Sun Mar 07, 2021 12:17 pmEpoch Times
:-?
Mick Mannock wrote: Sun Mar 07, 2021 12:17 pmDr. Christian Perrone
:-|


Seems a bit of a looper, he will be saying that some of the vaccines are “useless” for the over 65’s if it carries on.
User avatar
Clouseau
Posts: 1005
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by Clouseau »

bimboman wrote: Sun Mar 07, 2021 4:58 pmSeems a bit of a looper
Yep he also thinks masks are useless.
bimboman
Posts: 70454
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by bimboman »

Clouseau wrote: Sun Mar 07, 2021 5:20 pm
bimboman wrote: Sun Mar 07, 2021 4:58 pmSeems a bit of a looper
Yep he also thinks masks are useless.

So did the WHO, CDC, and all the UK senior medics a short while ago. Loopers.
Mick Mannock
Posts: 25839
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by Mick Mannock »

Clouseau wrote: Sun Mar 07, 2021 4:55 pm
Mick Mannock wrote: Sun Mar 07, 2021 12:17 pmEpoch Times
:-?
Mick Mannock wrote: Sun Mar 07, 2021 12:17 pmDr. Christian Perrone
:-|
The stats were provided by neither. But never mind, eh?
Sputnik V

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by Sputnik V »

Epoch times is about a credible source as Viz
Mick Mannock
Posts: 25839
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by Mick Mannock »

Sputnik V wrote: Sun Mar 07, 2021 6:39 pm Epoch times is about a credible source as Viz
And the did not provided the stats
Sputnik V

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by Sputnik V »

So the poo poo one is better than the mRNA.
User avatar
message #2527204
Posts: 14048
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Ultracrepidaria

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by message #2527204 »

bimboman wrote: Sun Mar 07, 2021 5:33 pm
Clouseau wrote: Sun Mar 07, 2021 5:20 pm
bimboman wrote: Sun Mar 07, 2021 4:58 pmSeems a bit of a looper
Yep he also thinks masks are useless.

So did the WHO, CDC, and all the UK senior medics a short while ago. Loopers.
Unison are currently running a campaign to draw attention to the fact that even clinical masks are useless.
User avatar
Gospel
Posts: 14524
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: West of Londinium

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by Gospel »

As an aside anyone else in the UK noticed how much busier the roads are now? So much for the lockdown. It looks like business as usual with regards to people out and about.
C69
Posts: 41305
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 1:44 pm
Location: For Wales the Welsh and aproppriate pronouns

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by C69 »

message #2527204 wrote: Sun Mar 07, 2021 9:09 pm
bimboman wrote: Sun Mar 07, 2021 5:33 pm
Clouseau wrote: Sun Mar 07, 2021 5:20 pm
bimboman wrote: Sun Mar 07, 2021 4:58 pmSeems a bit of a looper
Yep he also thinks masks are useless.

So did the WHO, CDC, and all the UK senior medics a short while ago. Loopers.
Unison are currently running a campaign to draw attention to the fact that even clinical masks are useless.
No they aren't really are they? Please post a link.

The RCN and a few other Unions are though pushing for greater access to FFP3 masks rather than simple surgical/FFP2 masks. Which is the exact opposite of your assertion.
The premise is that in this different phase of Covid, FFP3 mask use would be a better proposal than FFP2.
Not to mention the caveat of AGPs obviously
User avatar
message #2527204
Posts: 14048
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Ultracrepidaria

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by message #2527204 »

C69 wrote: Sun Mar 07, 2021 9:27 pm
message #2527204 wrote: Sun Mar 07, 2021 9:09 pm
bimboman wrote: Sun Mar 07, 2021 5:33 pm
Clouseau wrote: Sun Mar 07, 2021 5:20 pm
bimboman wrote: Sun Mar 07, 2021 4:58 pmSeems a bit of a looper
Yep he also thinks masks are useless.

So did the WHO, CDC, and all the UK senior medics a short while ago. Loopers.
Unison are currently running a campaign to draw attention to the fact that even clinical masks are useless.
No they aren't really are they? Please post a link.

The RCN and a few other Unions are though pushing for greater access to FFP3 masks rather than simple surgical/FFP2 masks. Which is the exact opposite of your assertion.
The premise is that in this different phase of Covid, FFP3 mask use would be a better proposal than FFP2.
Not to mention the caveat of AGPs obviously
Seems to me they're saying regular surgical masks aren't any good... so a bit of rag worn for weeks on end must be less efficient than either.
User avatar
Frodder
Posts: 11492
Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2015 1:25 pm
Location: Leafy Cheshire (West)

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by Frodder »

message #2527204 wrote: Sun Mar 07, 2021 9:32 pm
C69 wrote: Sun Mar 07, 2021 9:27 pm
message #2527204 wrote: Sun Mar 07, 2021 9:09 pm
bimboman wrote: Sun Mar 07, 2021 5:33 pm
Clouseau wrote: Sun Mar 07, 2021 5:20 pm
Yep he also thinks masks are useless.

So did the WHO, CDC, and all the UK senior medics a short while ago. Loopers.
Unison are currently running a campaign to draw attention to the fact that even clinical masks are useless.
No they aren't really are they? Please post a link.

The RCN and a few other Unions are though pushing for greater access to FFP3 masks rather than simple surgical/FFP2 masks. Which is the exact opposite of your assertion.
The premise is that in this different phase of Covid, FFP3 mask use would be a better proposal than FFP2.
Not to mention the caveat of AGPs obviously
Seems to me they're saying regular surgical masks aren't any good... so a bit of rag worn for weeks on end must be less efficient than either.
Can we please have the link for the unison campaign
C69
Posts: 41305
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 1:44 pm
Location: For Wales the Welsh and aproppriate pronouns

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by C69 »

message #2527204 wrote: Sun Mar 07, 2021 9:32 pm
C69 wrote: Sun Mar 07, 2021 9:27 pm
message #2527204 wrote: Sun Mar 07, 2021 9:09 pm
bimboman wrote: Sun Mar 07, 2021 5:33 pm
Clouseau wrote: Sun Mar 07, 2021 5:20 pm
Yep he also thinks masks are useless.

So did the WHO, CDC, and all the UK senior medics a short while ago. Loopers.
Unison are currently running a campaign to draw attention to the fact that even clinical masks are useless.
No they aren't really are they? Please post a link.

The RCN and a few other Unions are though pushing for greater access to FFP3 masks rather than simple surgical/FFP2 masks. Which is the exact opposite of your assertion.
The premise is that in this different phase of Covid, FFP3 mask use would be a better proposal than FFP2.
Not to mention the caveat of AGPs obviously
Seems to me they're saying regular surgical masks aren't any good... so a bit of rag worn for weeks on end must be less efficient than either.
You really don't know wtf you are saying do you?
User avatar
message #2527204
Posts: 14048
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Ultracrepidaria

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by message #2527204 »

C69 wrote: Sun Mar 07, 2021 9:37 pm
message #2527204 wrote: Sun Mar 07, 2021 9:32 pm
C69 wrote: Sun Mar 07, 2021 9:27 pm
message #2527204 wrote: Sun Mar 07, 2021 9:09 pm
bimboman wrote: Sun Mar 07, 2021 5:33 pm


So did the WHO, CDC, and all the UK senior medics a short while ago. Loopers.
Unison are currently running a campaign to draw attention to the fact that even clinical masks are useless.
No they aren't really are they? Please post a link.

The RCN and a few other Unions are though pushing for greater access to FFP3 masks rather than simple surgical/FFP2 masks. Which is the exact opposite of your assertion.
The premise is that in this different phase of Covid, FFP3 mask use would be a better proposal than FFP2.
Not to mention the caveat of AGPs obviously
Seems to me they're saying regular surgical masks aren't any good... so a bit of rag worn for weeks on end must be less efficient than either.
You really don't know wtf you are saying do you?
yep.

And for frodder, just type unison into google.
User avatar
Frodder
Posts: 11492
Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2015 1:25 pm
Location: Leafy Cheshire (West)

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by Frodder »

Put Unison into Google and it seems they're worried about the Furlough scheme ending
bimboman
Posts: 70454
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by bimboman »

Frodder wrote: Sun Mar 07, 2021 9:43 pm Put Unison into Google and it seems they're worried about the Furlough scheme ending
If only.

The majority of UNISON members work in the public sector, but after more than 20 years of privatisation and outsourcing, more and more of our members are employed by private sector organisations. ... If you work for a private contractor that delivers public services, you are likely to be eligible to join UNISON.
bimboman
Posts: 70454
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by bimboman »

User avatar
Frodder
Posts: 11492
Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2015 1:25 pm
Location: Leafy Cheshire (West)

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by Frodder »

bimboman wrote: Sun Mar 07, 2021 9:57 pm Is it really only 1% this time ?

https://twitter.com/rcolvile/status/1368488453638397956
An interesting new angle Bimbo
bimboman
Posts: 70454
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by bimboman »

Frodder wrote: Sun Mar 07, 2021 10:08 pm
bimboman wrote: Sun Mar 07, 2021 9:57 pm Is it really only 1% this time ?

https://twitter.com/rcolvile/status/1368488453638397956
An interesting new angle Bimbo


Not my angle. But it checks out that under the 1% cap the pay bill rose 2.7%. (Spoiler they got promoted n stuff).
User avatar
message #2527204
Posts: 14048
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Ultracrepidaria

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by message #2527204 »

maybe had a little overtime?
User avatar
Druid
Posts: 899
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2015 4:00 pm
Location: Over by there.

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by Druid »

It seems the EU is now an AstraZeneca vaccine fanboi.

(Reuters) -
The European Union will urge the United States to permit the export of millions of doses of AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine as it scrambles to bridge supply shortfalls, the Financial Times reported.
The 27-nation EU also wants Washington to ensure the free flow of shipments of crucial vaccine ingredients needed in European production, the FT report on Saturday said.
“We trust that we can work together with the U.S. to ensure that vaccines produced or bottled in the U.S. for the fulfilment of vaccine producers’ contractual obligations with the EU will be fully honoured,” the FT quoted the European Commission as saying.


https://www.reuters.com/article/us-heal ... SKBN2AY0B6
bimboman
Posts: 70454
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by bimboman »

bimboman wrote: Sun Mar 07, 2021 10:27 pm
Frodder wrote: Sun Mar 07, 2021 10:08 pm
bimboman wrote: Sun Mar 07, 2021 9:57 pm Is it really only 1% this time ?

https://twitter.com/rcolvile/status/1368488453638397956
An interesting new angle Bimbo


Not my angle. But it checks out that under the 1% cap the pay bill rose 2.7%. (Spoiler they got promoted n stuff).

What is true though that on any international comparison our medics aren’t underpaid.
User avatar
eldanielfire
Posts: 32646
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by eldanielfire »

Druid wrote: Sun Mar 07, 2021 10:37 pm It seems the EU is now an AstraZeneca vaccine fanboi.

(Reuters) -
The European Union will urge the United States to permit the export of millions of doses of AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine as it scrambles to bridge supply shortfalls, the Financial Times reported.
The 27-nation EU also wants Washington to ensure the free flow of shipments of crucial vaccine ingredients needed in European production, the FT report on Saturday said.
“We trust that we can work together with the U.S. to ensure that vaccines produced or bottled in the U.S. for the fulfilment of vaccine producers’ contractual obligations with the EU will be fully honoured,” the FT quoted the European Commission as saying.


https://www.reuters.com/article/us-heal ... SKBN2AY0B6
The cheek! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Do they have no sense of irony? No self-awareness?
Sputnik V

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by Sputnik V »

How much is a fair wage for people who are celebrated as being on the front line during a pandemic and were clapped for on Thursdays at 8pm.

1% increase plus tax rises to wipe it out is Boris answer
User avatar
Ted.
Posts: 18306
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by Ted. »

Let's all discard our masks and respirators, because according the brainiacs on this thread, they are fucking useless. Let's add aerosolized micro fungi, solvents, fumes, gas, dust, paint, RC silica, asbestos, lead, et al, not to mention viruses and bacteria to the things that have made regular use of masks and respirators redundant. Simple logic because, innit!
bimboman
Posts: 70454
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by bimboman »

Ted. wrote: Mon Mar 08, 2021 11:56 am Let's all discard our masks and respirators, because according the brainiacs on this thread, they are fucking useless. Let's add aerosolized micro fungi, solvents, fumes, gas, dust, paint, RC silica, asbestos, lead, et al, not to mention viruses and bacteria to the things that have made regular use of masks and respirators redundant. Simple logic because, innit!


“I’m going to wildly misrepresent any argument made, and make a series of moronic comparisons to demonise a position I clearly don’t understand “
User avatar
eldanielfire
Posts: 32646
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by eldanielfire »

bimboman wrote: Mon Mar 08, 2021 12:00 pm
Ted. wrote: Mon Mar 08, 2021 11:56 am Let's all discard our masks and respirators, because according the brainiacs on this thread, they are fucking useless. Let's add aerosolized micro fungi, solvents, fumes, gas, dust, paint, RC silica, asbestos, lead, et al, not to mention viruses and bacteria to the things that have made regular use of masks and respirators redundant. Simple logic because, innit!


“I’m going to wildly misrepresent any argument made, and make a series of moronic comparisons to demonise a position I clearly don’t understand “
To be fair he's not misrepresenting your frequent rhetoric on this thread.
bimboman
Posts: 70454
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by bimboman »

eldanielfire wrote: Mon Mar 08, 2021 12:01 pm
bimboman wrote: Mon Mar 08, 2021 12:00 pm
Ted. wrote: Mon Mar 08, 2021 11:56 am Let's all discard our masks and respirators, because according the brainiacs on this thread, they are fucking useless. Let's add aerosolized micro fungi, solvents, fumes, gas, dust, paint, RC silica, asbestos, lead, et al, not to mention viruses and bacteria to the things that have made regular use of masks and respirators redundant. Simple logic because, innit!



“I’m going to wildly misrepresent any argument made, and make a series of moronic comparisons to demonise a position I clearly don’t understand “
To be fair he's not misrepresenting your frequent rhetoric on this thread.


Well if that’s a comparison you’re making then you are, I’ve never argued that you don’t need protection from asbestos dust for example. In fact it’s a very good example, check the actual fitting and grading requirements for a worker having asbestos exposure and compare it to a ripped up T shirt then laugh at yourself.


Aren’t you back in class today.?
User avatar
koroke hangareka
Posts: 3228
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by koroke hangareka »

bimboman wrote: Mon Mar 08, 2021 12:09 pm
eldanielfire wrote: Mon Mar 08, 2021 12:01 pm
bimboman wrote: Mon Mar 08, 2021 12:00 pm
Ted. wrote: Mon Mar 08, 2021 11:56 am Let's all discard our masks and respirators, because according the brainiacs on this thread, they are fucking useless. Let's add aerosolized micro fungi, solvents, fumes, gas, dust, paint, RC silica, asbestos, lead, et al, not to mention viruses and bacteria to the things that have made regular use of masks and respirators redundant. Simple logic because, innit!



“I’m going to wildly misrepresent any argument made, and make a series of moronic comparisons to demonise a position I clearly don’t understand “
To be fair he's not misrepresenting your frequent rhetoric on this thread.


Well if that’s a comparison you’re making then you are, I’ve never argued that you don’t need protection from asbestos dust for example. In fact it’s a very good example, check the actual fitting and grading requirements for a worker having asbestos exposure and compare it to a ripped up T shirt then laugh at yourself.


Aren’t you back in class today.?
Clearly bimbo can still only imagine you'd wear a mask to protect yourself.
bimboman
Posts: 70454
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by bimboman »

koroke hangareka wrote: Mon Mar 08, 2021 12:42 pm
bimboman wrote: Mon Mar 08, 2021 12:09 pm
eldanielfire wrote: Mon Mar 08, 2021 12:01 pm
bimboman wrote: Mon Mar 08, 2021 12:00 pm
Ted. wrote: Mon Mar 08, 2021 11:56 am Let's all discard our masks and respirators, because according the brainiacs on this thread, they are fucking useless. Let's add aerosolized micro fungi, solvents, fumes, gas, dust, paint, RC silica, asbestos, lead, et al, not to mention viruses and bacteria to the things that have made regular use of masks and respirators redundant. Simple logic because, innit!



“I’m going to wildly misrepresent any argument made, and make a series of moronic comparisons to demonise a position I clearly don’t understand “
To be fair he's not misrepresenting your frequent rhetoric on this thread.


Well if that’s a comparison you’re making then you are, I’ve never argued that you don’t need protection from asbestos dust for example. In fact it’s a very good example, check the actual fitting and grading requirements for a worker having asbestos exposure and compare it to a ripped up T shirt then laugh at yourself.


Aren’t you back in class today.?
Clearly bimbo can still only imagine you'd wear a mask to protect yourself.


Clearly I referred to the comparisons made by Ted, people working with Asbestos or solvents don’t wear protective equipment to protect other people.

The idea that wearing a mask protects other people when I don’t have covid is quite odd.
User avatar
eldanielfire
Posts: 32646
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by eldanielfire »

bimboman wrote: Mon Mar 08, 2021 12:52 pm
koroke hangareka wrote: Mon Mar 08, 2021 12:42 pm
bimboman wrote: Mon Mar 08, 2021 12:09 pm
eldanielfire wrote: Mon Mar 08, 2021 12:01 pm
bimboman wrote: Mon Mar 08, 2021 12:00 pm




“I’m going to wildly misrepresent any argument made, and make a series of moronic comparisons to demonise a position I clearly don’t understand “
To be fair he's not misrepresenting your frequent rhetoric on this thread.


Well if that’s a comparison you’re making then you are, I’ve never argued that you don’t need protection from asbestos dust for example. In fact it’s a very good example, check the actual fitting and grading requirements for a worker having asbestos exposure and compare it to a ripped up T shirt then laugh at yourself.


Aren’t you back in class today.?
Clearly bimbo can still only imagine you'd wear a mask to protect yourself.


Clearly I referred to the comparisons made by Ted, people working with Asbestos or solvents don’t wear protective equipment to protect other people.

The idea that wearing a mask protects other people when I don’t have covid is quite odd.
The point is most people who get COVID are not initially aware. That could include you. So if most people are wearing masks it's prevents a lot of the transmission to others when people get COVID but are unaware of it.
bimboman
Posts: 70454
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by bimboman »

eldanielfire wrote: Mon Mar 08, 2021 1:00 pm
bimboman wrote: Mon Mar 08, 2021 12:52 pm
koroke hangareka wrote: Mon Mar 08, 2021 12:42 pm
bimboman wrote: Mon Mar 08, 2021 12:09 pm
eldanielfire wrote: Mon Mar 08, 2021 12:01 pm

To be fair he's not misrepresenting your frequent rhetoric on this thread.


Well if that’s a comparison you’re making then you are, I’ve never argued that you don’t need protection from asbestos dust for example. In fact it’s a very good example, check the actual fitting and grading requirements for a worker having asbestos exposure and compare it to a ripped up T shirt then laugh at yourself.


Aren’t you back in class today.?
Clearly bimbo can still only imagine you'd wear a mask to protect yourself.


Clearly I referred to the comparisons made by Ted, people working with Asbestos or solvents don’t wear protective equipment to protect other people.

The idea that wearing a mask protects other people when I don’t have covid is quite odd.
The point is most people who get COVID are not initially aware. That could include you. So if most people are wearing masks it's prevents a lot of the transmission to others when people get COVID but are unaware of it.


That 5% reduction in less than 3% of transmission is just a wonderful thing.

We should of course by this logic allow every child who’s tests are negative remove their masks in school today.
User avatar
eldanielfire
Posts: 32646
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by eldanielfire »

bimboman wrote: Mon Mar 08, 2021 1:05 pm
eldanielfire wrote: Mon Mar 08, 2021 1:00 pm
bimboman wrote: Mon Mar 08, 2021 12:52 pm
koroke hangareka wrote: Mon Mar 08, 2021 12:42 pm
bimboman wrote: Mon Mar 08, 2021 12:09 pm



Well if that’s a comparison you’re making then you are, I’ve never argued that you don’t need protection from asbestos dust for example. In fact it’s a very good example, check the actual fitting and grading requirements for a worker having asbestos exposure and compare it to a ripped up T shirt then laugh at yourself.


Aren’t you back in class today.?
Clearly bimbo can still only imagine you'd wear a mask to protect yourself.


Clearly I referred to the comparisons made by Ted, people working with Asbestos or solvents don’t wear protective equipment to protect other people.

The idea that wearing a mask protects other people when I don’t have covid is quite odd.
The point is most people who get COVID are not initially aware. That could include you. So if most people are wearing masks it's prevents a lot of the transmission to others when people get COVID but are unaware of it.


That 5% reduction in less than 3% of transmission is just a wonderful thing.

We should of course by this logic allow every child who’s tests are negative remove their masks in school today.
Masks aren't mandatory and I'm personally will not have access to the test result. So a "In class masks" policy makes sense for the short term future.
bimboman
Posts: 70454
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by bimboman »

eldanielfire wrote: Mon Mar 08, 2021 1:14 pm
bimboman wrote: Mon Mar 08, 2021 1:05 pm
eldanielfire wrote: Mon Mar 08, 2021 1:00 pm
bimboman wrote: Mon Mar 08, 2021 12:52 pm
koroke hangareka wrote: Mon Mar 08, 2021 12:42 pm

Clearly bimbo can still only imagine you'd wear a mask to protect yourself.


Clearly I referred to the comparisons made by Ted, people working with Asbestos or solvents don’t wear protective equipment to protect other people.

The idea that wearing a mask protects other people when I don’t have covid is quite odd.
The point is most people who get COVID are not initially aware. That could include you. So if most people are wearing masks it's prevents a lot of the transmission to others when people get COVID but are unaware of it.


That 5% reduction in less than 3% of transmission is just a wonderful thing.

We should of course by this logic allow every child who’s tests are negative remove their masks in school today.
Masks aren't mandatory and I'm personally will not have access to the test result. So a "In class masks" policy makes sense for the short term future.


It’s child abuse. Also the results of tests are known within 1/2 an hour, the children then have to immediately leave and self isolate regardless of their actual status. The policy of mask wearing makes no sense, bought to you by a stupid , government sopping to a Union who are genuinely nasty.
Post Reply