3 ms·

> So I do blame the EU commission on endangering the general public health of its constituents. As the comment you replied to asked; do you have an actual sour

> So I do blame the EU commission on endangering the general public health of its constituents. As the comment you replied to asked; do you have an actual source for that? The "much quoted" thing is not a source, it is simply weasel words. For what it's worth, some national-level politicians have said some negative comments about it, but I can't recall hearing any EU commission figures commenting negatively about it (being cautious about it; sure, but negative, I can't recall any). Happy to be proved wrong though.

the-dude 6y ago
> it is simply weasel words. That is not very nice to say. !g astrazeneca 60% effective site:.eu : First hit : https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/ema-recommends-covid-19-vaccine-astrazeneca-authorisation-eu https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/ema-recommends-covid-19-va... Please note I blame them for the general narrative around AZ as being not trustworthy. It is very clear to see in comments from the Dutch public ( and I have seen similar sentiments at our DE neighbors ). It does not help our press is not very critical, I'll give you that.
- jamesrr39 6y ago
  Sorry, I didn't mean to be offensive with the "weasel words" comment, simply that is the term for this kind of "much quoted figure" kind of text (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word). Thanks for providing a link to the EMA press release though. On the note of that press release, the title of the page is "EMA recommends COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca for authorisation in the EU", which I wouldn't consider anti-AZ, and reading the text it states in the same paragraph that it's talking about "reduction in the number of symptomatic COVID-19 cases in people given the vaccine". Anyway, I didn't mean to offend, just calling out what I saw, others may have a different opinion to me of course.
mutatio 6y ago
France for a start: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-56252028 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-56252028 Possibly worse situation in Germany where blatent misinformation was published regarding the Oxford vaccine. Consider the gravity of this given Germany's population is far more "anti-vac" than say the UK. The EU and Germany/France in particular did a stellar job of destroying the Oxford vaccine's credibility.
- jamesrr39 6y ago
  I'm not sure if you read my comment? But like I said, on the national level (for example France in the link you posted) I remember hearing some negative comments, but on the EU commission level (the institution that sits in Brussels), I don't remember hearing anything explicitly negative. Happy to be proved wrong though.
  - g_p 6y ago
    Not aware of having seen any statements from the EC itself on the topic (it was approved by the EMA for all ages), but I think it unlikely the EC itself would have said anything, if only for one simple self-centred reason: It would be shooting itself in the foot to admit the vaccines it had bought in a group-buy scheme were ineffective or in any way sub-standard. Member states would be furious, and Ursula would have been gone. This article has a summary of statements from different politicians - https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-what-eu-leaders-said-about-astrazeneca-vaccine-and-the-data-forcing-a-rethink-12233495 https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-what-eu-leaders-said-abo... The closest I can see for the EC is one from Ursula, with the article reporting: "She then suggested the UK had compromised on "safety and efficacy" by approving the jab so early, despite the EMA reaching the same conclusions as the UK's internationally-respected MHRA which approved the vaccine." (That is realistically just her attempts to excuse a slower approval process that ultimately reached exactly the same outcome)

the-dude 6y ago

> it is simply weasel words. That is not very nice to say. !g astrazeneca 60% effective site:.eu : First hit : https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/ema-recommends-covid-19-vaccine-astrazeneca-authorisation-eu https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/ema-recommends-covid-19-va... Please note I blame them for the general narrative around AZ as being not trustworthy. It is very clear to see in comments from the Dutch public ( and I have seen similar sentiments at our DE neighbors ). It does not help our press is not very critical, I'll give you that.

jamesrr39 6y ago
Sorry, I didn't mean to be offensive with the "weasel words" comment, simply that is the term for this kind of "much quoted figure" kind of text (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word). Thanks for providing a link to the EMA press release though. On the note of that press release, the title of the page is "EMA recommends COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca for authorisation in the EU", which I wouldn't consider anti-AZ, and reading the text it states in the same paragraph that it's talking about "reduction in the number of symptomatic COVID-19 cases in people given the vaccine". Anyway, I didn't mean to offend, just calling out what I saw, others may have a different opinion to me of course.

mutatio 6y ago

France for a start: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-56252028 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-56252028 Possibly worse situation in Germany where blatent misinformation was published regarding the Oxford vaccine. Consider the gravity of this given Germany's population is far more "anti-vac" than say the UK. The EU and Germany/France in particular did a stellar job of destroying the Oxford vaccine's credibility.

jamesrr39 6y ago
I'm not sure if you read my comment? But like I said, on the national level (for example France in the link you posted) I remember hearing some negative comments, but on the EU commission level (the institution that sits in Brussels), I don't remember hearing anything explicitly negative. Happy to be proved wrong though.
- g_p 6y ago
  Not aware of having seen any statements from the EC itself on the topic (it was approved by the EMA for all ages), but I think it unlikely the EC itself would have said anything, if only for one simple self-centred reason: It would be shooting itself in the foot to admit the vaccines it had bought in a group-buy scheme were ineffective or in any way sub-standard. Member states would be furious, and Ursula would have been gone. This article has a summary of statements from different politicians - https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-what-eu-leaders-said-about-astrazeneca-vaccine-and-the-data-forcing-a-rethink-12233495 https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-what-eu-leaders-said-abo... The closest I can see for the EC is one from Ursula, with the article reporting: "She then suggested the UK had compromised on "safety and efficacy" by approving the jab so early, despite the EMA reaching the same conclusions as the UK's internationally-respected MHRA which approved the vaccine." (That is realistically just her attempts to excuse a slower approval process that ultimately reached exactly the same outcome)