O/T. The Government's handling of Covid

[Ram59]

Who knows? The Tories allege he wanted to join. Conversely, C4’s ‘Fact Check’ suggests there is no evidence of Starmer wanting to join the EU procurement programme. Nothing in Hansard either apparently. Maybe you know differently.

It's not a secret that he wanted to join the EMA, you would think that being part of the procurement programme would have been a natural progression, but you're right, who knows? But if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, there's a good chance it is a duck, but not definitely, no.

[swaledale]

It's not a secret that he wanted to join the EMA, you would think that being part of the procurement programme would have been a natural progression, but you're right, who knows? But if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, there's a good chance it is a duck, but not definitely, no.

Well thats what happens when you confuse different entities! The EMA which oversees the approval of vaccines is completely different and if we had gone down that route, would not have made much difference to our vaccination rate, we may ahve been a couple of weeks behind where we are now.

Being blindly anti EU is as daft as being rabidly pro EU!

[ramAnag]

It's not a secret that he wanted to join the EMA, you would think that being part of the procurement programme would have been a natural progression, but you're right, who knows? But if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, there's a good chance it is a duck, but not definitely, no.

You’re opposed to all things Labour and all things Starmer, Ram...but although you claim ‘it’s not a secret’ you’re unable to provide any evidence.
I can see a scenario, where at an earlier stage of the pandemic, it could have made absolute sense to join the EMA. Equally I recognise that the UK’s management of the vaccination programme would appear to be better than many countries in the EU.
You might be looking for, and think you’ve found, a ‘stick to beat’ Starmer with...it looks to me as if you haven’t, and I wholly agree with Swales’ last sentence.

[Ram59]

Well thats what happens when you confuse different entities! The EMA which oversees the approval of vaccines is completely different and if we had gone down that route, would not have made much difference to our vaccination rate, we may ahve been a couple of weeks behind where we are now.

Being blindly anti EU is as daft as being rabidly pro EU!

You do make a valid point about the pfizer being a couple of weeks behind, the Astra would have been over a month behind. Also, we would be unlikely to have made so many first doses, instead going with the 3 week second dose.

But, how realistic would it have been, to be part of the EMA but not part of the EU procurement programme? I'm not aware of any other country being in that position. I would think that membership of one would 'oblige' membership of the other in practice.

[Ram59]

You’re opposed to all things Labour and all things Starmer, Ram...but although you claim ‘it’s not a secret’ you’re unable to provide any evidence.
I can see a scenario, where at an earlier stage of the pandemic, it could have made absolute sense to join the EMA. Equally I recognise that the UK’s management of the vaccination programme would appear to be better than many countries in the EU.
You might be looking for, and think you’ve found, a ‘stick to beat’ Starmer with...it looks to me as if you haven’t, and I wholly agree with Swales’ last sentence.

Starmer made a speech in the house of commons on 31st January 2017, stating that the labour party wished to stay in the EMA.

Perhaps, you would like to enlighten us of the scenerio, where membership of the EMA early in the pandemic would have helped?

[Andy_Faber]

Meanwhile, all spats aside:

15,062,189. That is bloody epic. I shed a tear.

[ramAnag]

Starmer made a speech in the house of commons on 31st January 2017, stating that the labour party wished to stay in the EMA.

Perhaps, you would like to enlighten us of the scenerio, where membership of the EMA early in the pandemic would have helped?

2017!! Lol...bang up to date with the pandemic then! Truly relevant to mass vaccination, not being a member of the EU and him being the leader of the opposition...or maybe not.

Not seeking to ‘enlighten’ anyone Ram. But isn’t it possible that, had things panned out a little differently, membership of the European Medicines Agency may have been beneficial to the UK? I’d actually still value their advice over such matters as ‘pharma vigilance’ and the general efficacy of drugs.

[Ram59]

2017!! Lol...bang up to date with the pandemic then! Truly relevant to mass vaccination, not being a member of the EU and him being the leader of the opposition...or maybe not.

Not seeking to ‘enlighten’ anyone Ram. But isn’t it possible that, had things panned out a little differently, membership of the European Medicines Agency may have been beneficial to the UK? I’d actually still value their advice over such matters as ‘pharma vigilance’ and the general efficacy of drugs.

So that's a 'no' then, you can't give me an example why it would have been better to join the EMA.

[ramAnag]

So that's a 'no' then, you can't give me an example why it would have been better to join the EMA.

Well I’d have thought my last sentence was a reason. The more information we have about such matters the better imo.

Bit better than an out of context speech from three or four years ago anyway.

[Ram59]

Well I’d have thought my last sentence was a reason. The more information we have about such matters the better imo.

Bit better than an out of context speech from three or four years ago anyway.

But that extra information comes at some kind of cost and/or commitment. Do you honestly think that we could pick and choose our level of involvement in the EMA? I would even argue, is the EMA fit for purpose? What help is the extra information, when it contradicts that of your own experts?

To be honest, I believe that the EMA's role in this has been pretty poor. According to their own spokesperson, they deliberately delayed authorisation of the vaccines in order to make it look like they'd been more careful about it and to give greater confidence, that worked well didn't it? The problem was that 1,000s of EU citizens are dying every day they delayed the decision. We then look at the imagination of the EMA, they've basically gone verbatim off what the pharmaceutical companies have stated, the safe route.

Whereas the UK government combined with the MHRA have actually analysed the data combined with data from past vaccines to assess the efficiency and effect of the vaccine rollout. The result is the rollout which has seen over 15 million people get their first dose and the protection that comes with it and hopefully the start of the lifting of restrictions.

The EMA's safe stance is based on the pharmaceutical companies trials which only involved second doses after 3 weeks, but why did they choose 3 weeks? Because they needed to get authorisation asap and couldn't afford to wait for another 9 weeks. Previous similar type vaccines trialed over different periods of time for 2nd doses have found the greatest efficiency to be after 12 weeks, so it's not such a gamble to surmise that the same will apply in this case, whilst also taking into account the massive advantage of giving out so many more first doses because of this and so, people like yourself are now increasing your immunity to the virus, unlike your similar aged friend in the EU who will be waiting many more weeks, to be in such a position.

On a side note, it was particularly disappointing when the GMA representing the GP's come out criticizing the move. For such a group of supposedly intelligent people, to come out and criticise and undermind the vaccination programme which was supported by experts in their field, was disgraceful. Fortunately, it doesn't seem to have had any adverse effect on the take up of the vaccine. Even WHO's SAGE group have now endorsed an 8-12 week gap for the second dose.


I don't how it was out of context, as Brexit shadow secretary, he was arguing that we should stay in the EMA, which he now likes to keep quiet about. Nothing to do with the respective rollout programmes, I suppose. Only 4 years ago, people are raking up things Johnson has said or done or not done from 10 or 20 years ago.