It seems to me the argument Brussels is trying to run very simplistically is this. If AZ contracted to supply the UK with 100 vaccines amd in another contract Europe with 100, but for some reason the UK is getting its hundred, but Europe 50, then the total production should be split 75 each. They then appear to be saying because we can control the European production we will restrict as best we can where the production goes to achieve as close as we can to force this split.
Of course this is argued as a contractual issue between the Commission and AZ, without a direct admission that the consequence to one of AZs contracts is a direct impact on others. In short if you wont honour the contract with us, then nor should you honour your contracts with anyone else.
Unfortunately it is being seen as bully boy tactics by many both in the UK and Europe, but the politicians in Europes backs are to the wall.
There is fortunately a huge stream of vaccine coming on stream, and whatever else, it may be a good time to de-escalate, for everyone to hold their nerve, and in the coming months I suspect the problem will solve itself. It surely is not the time to be clutching at straws with inflamatory factory inspections and already calling into doubt the agreement with NI. It is certainly a time for carm and holding nerves and Macron and other European leaders would be better leaving it to the Commission.
The following may provide a minor diversion from European vaccine politics 
The third person I’ve known personally to have had CV is (for sure) my wife, and the fourth might be me! Well over a week ago she had a mildly elevated temperature one evening, then bought a rapid test at one of the local urgent care clinics the next morning with a negative test result. Then after having an ongoing runny nose and discussing it in a video consultation with our (real) doctor, she got retested today at our main provider’s drive-thru (the back of throat sample test) and this afternoon the result came back positive. Her symptoms have 90% gone by now (maybe a slight loss of taste, she’s noncommittal) so she’ll wait out the days of quarantine remaining since the onset of symptoms etc and she’ll be done. Prior to her symptoms we had substantial indications that she’d come into contact with CV, hence the video discussion with our doctor after a negative initial test result and only mild continued symptoms, and with that in mind we’ve both been careful to avoid contact with others since.
I think it’s very likely I caught it from her. Obviously we’re normally together all the time and I had a mild sore throat a day after her temperature, then a junior version of the same runny nose. Nothing more and 100% gone now but enough to notice if you were paying attention. Based on the circumstance I’ll have to continue staying away from others for a few days per protocol, but I’ve got plenty of paid time off saved. I’ll have time to prepare my tax returns this year.
My parents, both in their early 90s, have had their first Pfizer injection here in the US and have appointments for their second. No adverse reactions noted.
Back to European vaccine politics at your discretion.
Glad that you and your wife are two of the 80 percent with mild symptoms only, and not of the 1-2 that die, and that you are doing the sensible thing not to expose others. And I continue to hope that these percentages are off because a large number of asymptomatic and undiagnosed cases, although the evidence appears to show otherwise.
Please see the following questions as curious, not “gotcha”. As you know my opinion is somewhere in the middle and perhaps closer to yours than others.
Did the fact that you did not avoid infection change your view that people can look after themselves well enough? Or did you expect to get it eventually and were happy with that risk?
Do you think that others in your position will do what you do and decide to protect others, or continue to go out and about?
Good to hear about your and your wife’s mild case Silvaire!
The Brussels action seems to have achieved what nobody else has managed to do since Ireland was formed geologically i.e. unite the 173 distinct political parties there.
The export controls are still going ahead. It will be interesting whether any applications will be refused – presumably starting today.
@Cobalt, my views on the efficacy of government CV lockdowns etc on real world statistics, the dangers of precedent posed by them, how to lead people effectively, how to manage ones life and my limited right to direct other people’s choices are for sure unchanged by recent personal experience. Obviously our personal experience has not been earthshaking and not enough to elicit an irrational, fear based reaction. Reactions like that are part of the problem, not the solution.
It is interesting to me to consider that my wife (who despite my own views and plans is unlikely to get vaccinated any time soon) probably has some natural immunity now. Perhaps me too, hard to say. We won’t do anything different as a result but I’d guess we’re in a better position now.
Peter, thanks for the well wishes.
Malibuflyer wrote:
We have clearly shown, it’s not. 1/3 of the index is measuring purely the size of the country (which is an explicit input into the formula how the index is calculated). As shown earlier, when you have two countries which are exactly identical on what they do and how the disease spreads but one substantially smaller, then the smaller one gets a substantially better score.
If you look closely, you will see that the population size is not part of the parameters for instance, it has to be derived from the other parameters. There is also a problem here with statistical accuracy when comparing large and small populations. Lets say there is a population of 10 persons, then one person gets Covid and dies. Does this mean death rate is 10% ? or 100k per million? of course not, it’s simply an effect of small numbers. These things have to be taken into account properly.
[ post edited to remove a personal attack. NOTE THAT USUALLY SUCH POSTS ARE DELETED ]
Silvaire I hope you stay well.
Thanks. We know where, when and to whom my wife was exposed, in a planned “essential” setting. It was roughly two weeks ago, and seven people were involved in terms of having subsequent positive test results. Symptoms for any did not go beyond the level of a cold, meaning in my ‘case’ (assuming I actually did catch it, which was not confirmed) just enough symptoms to notice.
LeSving wrote:
If you look closely, you will see that the population size is not part of the parameters for instance, it has to be derived from the other parameters.
Mathematically the outcome is the same. If you double the population, two of the six score parameters double.
LeSving wrote:
Lets say there is a population of 10 persons, then one person gets Covid and dies. Does this mean death rate is 10% ? or 100k per million?
It means that in that country the measured death rate is exactly that.
it’s simply an effect of small numbers. These things have to be taken into account properly.
Also true. But there are valid ways of dealing with outliers and small samples. You can exclude them from the input (by having a sample size threshold, or a variance threshold or similar) or remove them from the output.
Multiplying the measurement with the sample size size is not “doing it properly”.
Cobalt wrote:
It means that in that country the measured death rate is exactly that.
Not when looking statistically at it, and it will be wrong when comparing, because the numbers are too small.
Look. I will try to express my views without Peter deleting it (again). There are two options here:
1. The persons doing the analysis has messed up fundamentally
2. We don’t know how they have used their numbers, thus they may not have messed up fundamentally. Statistics is more than arithmetic average.
Now, what is the most likely option? For me it is option number 2 because that involves the least amount of assumptions – by far, all things considered (positive and negative).
Consequently, further discussions will be unfruitful, it will lead to nothing, mostly because we don’t know the details of the analysis.
