Well, I have been replacing sscanf() with strtoul() in some GPS code, so I would do a poor impersonation of BG 
Regarding vaccination cards or passport or what to call it, EU decided yesterday that there will be an EU wide card. Norway will jump on that bandwagon for sure. The future does not look bright. I fear this is only the start.
This is probably driven by tourism. Unless something like this is done, tourism will be pretty well dead in 2021. I guess Norway doesn’t rely a lot on tourist money but most of Europe’s south is heavily reliant on it. And an easy to operate system which is secure is needed, which implies an in-app QR code display (probably) and validation against a database (definitely).
Which pseudoynm does Bill operate under on here out of interest, or cant you say?
LeSving wrote:
What they have said is AZ is not to be given to people above 65, because AZ has not tested the vaccine on people above 65
Yes they have. Just not enough over 65s to satisfy some people, it seems, with that lack of satisfaction becoming evident just after the EC lost its rag with AZ and realised shouting and screaming wasn’t going to get it what it wanted. If you really believe the EC and various European politicians didn’t engage in a demand-management exercise after that little spat with AZ then I have some snow I’d like to sell you…. ;-)
Interesting that no-one engages with my point about why Pfizer is treated so differently, despite (a) also being well behind with deliveries and (b) making a considerable profit out of the whole thing.
LeSving wrote:
IMO AZ is a second rate vaccine, compared with Pfizer and others, but does it matter from a pandemic point of view? Not in the situation were in right now. No one is being forces any vaccine whatsoever, it is 100 % voluntary. How many actually takes AZ, I don’t know. The availability is like 99% other brands of vaccines, and only 1% AZ. So even if not a single person gets AZ, it doesn’t really matter at all. You could say it is more of a nuisance right now.
You could say a lot of things. One thing you could definitely say is that if Norway hadn’t sat on its hands and waited to tag along with the EU’s disastrous procurement programme, it could easily have vaccinated it’s entire population twice over by now. All Norway had to do was throw money at all the manufacturers early on instead of waiting while the EU treated the whole thing like international trade talks where there’s no hurry and we have months to spend getting every detail correct over lots of nice lunches with great cheese at taxpayer’s expense….
Whether it’s second-rate, who knows, but it’s certainly better than nothing – which is what most of the EU has right now and that situation isn’t changing anytime very soon. The RWE studies coming out seem to suggest that efficacy is much of a muchness between the two, and in any case if you think it makes any real difference in the long run then you fundamentally misunderstand the concept of mass-vaccinating a population.
Peter wrote:
This is probably driven by tourism. Unless something like this is done, tourism will be pretty well dead in 2021. I guess Norway doesn’t rely a lot on tourist money but most of Europe’s south is heavily reliant on it.
Greece is engaged in talks with the UK over a system to allow tourism this summer. The EU, predictably, plays down the prospect of any member state acting unilaterally – but that horse has already bolted, e.g. Hungary and the Sputnik vaccine.
I will say our European friends are, I think, playing this very badly from a PR viewpoint.
First they made a fuss about not being given adequate access to the vaccine.
Now they have stocks they arent using.
They are also at least to a degree playing politics with the vaccine. The vaccine maybe was not specifically approved for over 65s, but neither was the delay in receiving the second dose for any of the vaccines approved. These vaccines are so new it is inevitable our knowledge will evolve and countries must decide for themselves how they are best used. After all the countries have effectively underwritten the vaccines anyway, I doubt there is an agreement for the sale of the vaccine which does not place liability firmly with the recipient country. So the politican are playing a very cynical game sadly.
The lossers will be those people who die as a consequence of being persuaded not to have the vaccine, the unnecessary pressure place on their health services and theri economies, and those other people outside Europe who would gladly have the vaccines that arent being used.
Of course the politicians will deploy the usual spin and many will not see this for what it is, but I do think it is a political gamble.
Graham wrote:
Interesting that no-one engages with my point about why Pfizer is treated so differently, despite (a) also being well behind with deliveries and (b) making a considerable profit out of the whole thing.
Possibly because there is a concensus you are right!
Fuji_Abound wrote:
The vaccine maybe was not specifically approved for over 65s
The AZ vaccine has been approved for use in adults with no upper age limit by the MHRA and the EMA – two regulatory authorities which, along with the FDA, make up the accepted trio of gold-standard regulatory approvals around the world. The three approvals that all pharmaceutical companies are interested in, whether for vaccines or anything else.
The FDA wants more data from AZ (which is always does, it is the number one gold standard) and specifically more data from a US population.
The regulators which have imposed a <65 rule are of zero relevance outside their own country. 95% of the time they are of zero relevance in their own country too, most pharma companies never make a single submission to any of these regulators – most things just go through on the nod following EMA approval.
As a separate issue, the EMA is really struggling because it lost a lot of its expertise and organisational competence when it moved from London to the continent. This filters through into what I see day to day at work – more and more clinical trials, even from EU pharma companies, are focusing on US patient recruitment in anticipation of chasing FDA approval as the first priority. The business strategy of getting EMA approval first has almost vanished because they are so slow and difficult. When I started in clinical research (~2003) the US was the cheap place to fill a trial with patients, at least compared to Europe – we charged equivalent staff out in the US at perhaps 60% of European rates. Now the situation is completely reversed and US staff cost 50% more – all because of a shift in demand.
The EMA did approve AZ for the over 65s. Some individual countries took a different view.
Yes, you are both of course correct. As I typed I thought to myself it is unbelievable if they has not, and meant to check, but didnt. It makes it even more extraordinary they claim it hasnt been approved.
I think the reality is the approval is only limited that the vaccine (currently) should not be used in pregnancy or children?
Fuji_Abound wrote:
I think the reality is the approval is only limited that the vaccine (currently) should not be used in pregnancy or children?
That is normal and the same for Pfizer (and pretty much every product on first approval). Most products – unless they are designed specifically for those demographics – are never even trialled in them. Those that are subsequently trialled in them don’t tend to start until there’s a huge amount of RWE, often including off-label use in those demographics.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/angela-merkel-refuses-astrazeneca-vaccine-coronavirus-s97vctrzr
I guess this is the basis of some of the discussions.
Graham – yes, I agree entirely normal and everyone is rightly going to be very careful about children and pregnancy. I beleive some trials are now underway, especially in children. It appears unlikely these vaccines will prove a problem with either group.
Sorry it is partly behind a paywall. The article goes on to say Macron will receive the vaccine – clearly stepping away from the German posiiton.
and says;
“Only 200 people out of 3,800 turned up for appointments for the AstraZeneca vaccine at a centre in Berlin on one day this week.”
The public comments that follow inevitably reflect the attitude as being considered “selffish – I will have hers, and send it to Africa – all somewhat understandable and predictable”!
