Why should the UK vaccine supply be diverted to Europe?

[lovelemoncurd]

They ordered 3 months later than the UK. They have themselves less time to sort glitches. They have been slow to the table and now they wish to punish to UK for being efficient.

I was a remain voter. I'm starting to change my mind!

Read the ICNARC report

I've not seen that, Marsha - does it split occupancy by age and is there any chance of a link please?

I'm off to bed soon but can catch up on it in the morning ...

Puzzled it sure does, by sex and area of deprivation and other variables

As someone who appreciates data and information design it’s a good report. Here you go

www.icnarc.org/DataServices/Attachments/Download/7673eac0-ed5c-eb11-912d-00505601089b

The real question comes down to whether, in the face of a global pandemic, you think securing the incidental benefits for your own country which come from vaccinating lower risk groups is more important than vaccinating the vulnerable in other countries, many of whom have healthcare systems on the verge of collapse or whose citizens are dying in the street without healthcare (for example, Southern Africa and Brazil). Clearly, for most people on this thread, the answer is "yes".

In terms of who is in ICU at the moment, you may find this of interest:

Vaccinating those aged 65 and over will make a “big impact” on hospital bed usage, NHS England’s chief executive has said.

Sir Simon Stevens said: “About a quarter of hospital admissions for Covid are for people aged under 55, and about half of inpatient bed days for coronavirus patients, relates to patients under the age of 65.”

He said deaths were “highly concentrated” in the older age groups, including those aged 70 and above, the clinically extremely vulnerable, and the health and social care staff looking after them.

Sir Simon added: “Independently that has been estimated to account for 88 per cent of deaths that have occurred so far.

Thanks, Marsha - I just glanced at it before turning in and that PP does indeed seem to have been mistaken

I'll read it properly in the morning

Good news - NI are now asking for 65s and over to come forward for vaccination. It's going really well here.

The real question comes down to whether, in the face of a global pandemic, you think securing the incidental benefits for your own country which come from vaccinating lower risk groups is more important than vaccinating the vulnerable in other countries, many of whom have healthcare systems on the verge of collapse or whose citizens are dying in the street without healthcare (for example, Southern Africa and Brazil). Clearly, for most people on this thread, the answer is "yes".

Brazil and South Africa have already received vaccine doses, and there are schemes in place to distribute vaccines to poorer nations. There was never any intention for Britain or any other country to decide they no longer need 10 million or so doses and fly them off to Brazil. That's not how it works.

I'd also like to know if this is your philosophy in general? Would you be happy for you and your family to forego treatment for minor ailments, and have your tax money sent to countries with "healthcare systems on the verge of collapse"?

there are schemes in place to distribute vaccines to poorer nations.

A major part of this is, presumably, the worlds largest vaccine producer, the Serum institute in India, making the OxfordAZ vaccine and one of their own at scale for the developing nations, at very low cost I believe.

@IcedPurple. This is a global pandemic. It's not a normal situation. The combination of an unvaccinated population combined with economic shutdowns and limited access to healthcare is crippling for these countries.

Would you be happy for you and your family to forego treatment for minor ailments, and have your tax money sent to countries with "healthcare systems on the verge of collapse"?

Actually, I do think we should spend more on overseas aid.

@MessAllOver

The point is that government and the media have managed to terrify vast swathes of the population, so suddenly expecting them to give up "their" vaccines just can't be done - as said, it would be political suicide

I agree with this. Fear leads to selfishness.

No I am not afraid of the virus. Live in London my whole family has had it. I want to have the vaccine because as many people as possible don't it will cause problems. The virus to spread more and more variants. The virus to be able to get to those in are population that can't or won't take the vaccine.

The more of the population we vaccinate the safer are more vulnerable population will be. The faster kids will get their lifes back to normal and the less we will wreck the country for them.

@ErrolTheDragon

there are schemes in place to distribute vaccines to poorer nations.

A major part of this is, presumably, the worlds largest vaccine producer, the Serum institute in India, making the OxfordAZ vaccine and one of their own at scale for the developing nations, at very low cost I believe.

I think so. I believe South Africa are about to receive their part of vaccines now and this will be from the Indian factory

@SwimmingOnEggshells

I'm not in the UK and I have to say I find reading this thread very disturbing. The rhetoric and venom from some is deeply unpleasant.

I'd advise you not to go near the Brexit threads either then.

@MessAllOver - It is not a disease that only affects the elderly as you appear to believe. 274 pregnant or recently pregnant women have gone into ICU with covid in the UK according to ICNARC. Pregnancy is an at risk group, and cannot be safely vaccinated yet. Until there is herd immunity in the UK, we will continue to have pregnant women going into ICU. There are many other young people too who would have been classified as "lower risk", who have gone into ICU and in some cases died. There are also tens of thousands very unwell with long covid. Their lives are not "incidental benefits". We have a duty to help other countries who can't afford vaccines, but there is no logical link that says this must come at the expense of vaccinating UK citizens in a timely fashion.

'In an interview with European newspapers on Tuesday, Mr Soriot said AstraZeneca's contract with the UK meant the supply coming out of the British supply chain would go to the UK first.

He said: "As soon as we have reached a sufficient number of vaccinations in the UK, we will be able to use that site to help Europe as well. But the contract with the UK was signed first and the UK, of course, said: 'You supply us first,' and this is fair enough."

AstraZeneca said in a statement on Wednesday: "As each supply chain has been set up to meet the needs of a specific agreement, the vaccine produced from any supply chain is dedicated to the relevant countries or regions and makes use of local manufacturing wherever possible."

Bernd Lange, the chairman of the European Parliament's trade committee, said: "Instead of blaming each other in the media, just make the contract public. Since the vaccine is supposedly non-profit, what's the problem?"

The European Ombudsman opened a maladministration investigation into the commission's refusal to grant public access to the contract after a complaint.

As a leaver, I am not surprised at the Commission's reaction to trying to disguise their cock up in not ordering early enough. I think that I read elsewhere today that the Oxford/AZ vaccine may not get EMA approval til mid February now. It would serve the Commission right if AZ decided enough was enough, refunded the money and pulled their application for approval.

@MessAllOver so do you think only the uk should do this ?

This is a global pandemic. It's not a normal situation. The combination of an unvaccinated population combined with economic shutdowns and limited access to healthcare is crippling for these countries.

That's why Covax is there.

Actually, I do think we should spend more on overseas aid.

Yes, but that was not my question.

Britain has already contributed to Covax. But you seem to be saying that Britain shouldn't be using the doses bought for its own population and should be sending them to Brazil instead, leaving its own people unvaccinated. Very different.

Presumably you'd be happy to forego your own vaccine dose so that someone in Sao Paolo could have it. Would you also be prepared for you and your family to receive much more basic medical care so that the savings could save lives in Brazil or South Africa?

It would serve the Commission right if AZ decided enough was enough, refunded the money and pulled their application for approval.

Even if lots of people died as a result?

The question is one of need. I need the vaccine much less than an 80 year old in Sao Paulo for two reasons:
i) I am much less likely to become seriously ill from catching the virus; and
ii) if I do become seriously ill, there are much better medical resources available here in the UK to treat me.

Vulnerable groups in poorer countries face a double disadvantage - no vaccine, no healthcare.

@MessAllOver

It would serve the Commission right if AZ decided enough was enough, refunded the money and pulled their application for approval.

Even if lots of people died as a result?

Nothing should stop az dealing with the 27 countries separately and provide them as requested

Also ... don’t Irish lives matter ? If so why were they stopped from getting more vaccines?

@MessAllOver

The question is one of need. I need the vaccine much less than an 80 year old in Sao Paulo for two reasons: i) I am much less likely to become seriously ill from catching the virus; and ii) if I do become seriously ill, there are much better medical resources available here in the UK to treat me.

Vulnerable groups in poorer countries face a double disadvantage - no vaccine, no healthcare.

So once all the groups that are meant to be vaccinated in February are done ... we should stopped vaccinating so that other people in other parts of the countries can have the vaccines.

I can see the teachers really happy about this , or policemen .,

@MessAllOver you donMt answer my question , do you think only then uk should stop its programme or all countries ?

Everyone crowing over the EU's failure (and they have failed abjectly, no question about that) should remember that the consequence will be that more people will die.

We should be asking ourselves whether there is anything we can reasonably do to help.

@EasterIssland when were ireland stopped ? Genuine question

[quote donewithitalltodayandxmas]@EasterIssland when were ireland stopped ? Genuine question[/quote]
www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.dublinlive.ie/news/health/covid19-vaccine-oxford-ireland-brexit-19672792.amp

@donewithitalltodayandxmas. I didn't answer your question because I've been asked lots of questions on this thread and can't answer them all. I was choosing to ignore yours since it is one of the more boring and obvious ones.

Of course all countries should redirect their vaccines once they've vaccinated their most vulnerable groups. However, if they choose not to, that doesn't mean the UK should also follow this course.

@MessAllOver at the moment we have the highest rate and we are spreading the time between dose out in order to vaccinate more , that is an option they could also look at ? We won't have two
Doses in our vunerable until about april time , the eu could well if caught up by then