They are very very organised if they can make a mRNA protein sequence that is âalmostâ identical to the original. Would be better to use them to make the original than prosecute them.
Having made all that fuss about not getting enough of it, it now appears some of Europe does not want to use the AZ vaccine for their most vulnerable citizens. This seems to me to be counter-scientific.
A single AZ vaccine dose has been shown to give 76% efficacy after three weeks and 0 hospitalisations up to 12 weeks - figure from a new study of 12,500 recipients
1 Like
Youâre talking bollocks. The article I posted is full of citations.
This is their citation for the claim that Oxford pledged to donate vaccine rights:
This is their citation for the head of the Jenner institute saying âI personally donât believe that in a time of pandemic there should be exclusive licenses,â
This is their source for the Bill Gates quotes (admittedly they donât provide the complete link here but they clearly state the quotes were reported by Bloomberg).
Theyâve used direct quotes from a number of named individuals thereâs one or two unnamed officials mentioned for lesser points but sometimes that is unavoidable.
It all looks like pretty solid journalism to me.
ÂŁ4 a pop is what theyâve offered during the pandemic itâs after the pandemic, the yearly boosters and dealing with any future outbreaks where the profiteering concerns are focused.
1 Like
Bazza II, you miss the point being made completely, so put your bollocks back in your wet knickers.
Did you actually read the âsourcesâ?
The Oxford university link does not say it âpledgesâ to do anything, it says:
- OU and OUI will expedite access to Oxford IP to enable global deployment at scale of associated products and services to address the COVID-19 pandemic
- The default approach of the University and OUI regarding (1) will be to offer non-exclusive, royalty-free licences to support free of charge, at-cost or cost + limited margin supply as appropriate, and only for the duration of the pandemic, as defined by the WHO
- Licence terms for supplying downstream (post-pandemic) commercial markets will be the subject of a separate agreement
- The grant to a Licensee of access to IP under (1) does not guarantee it will be granted downstream commercial rights
- Where relevant University IP is licensed to support commercial sales after the point at which the pandemic is declared by the WHO (or other appropriate body) to be over, such licences will carry appropriate financial terms to allow the University to reinvest proceeds in research and teaching.
The University and Oxford University Innovation Ltd will wherever possible adhere to the above principles, subject to our obligations to 3rd party funders and to cases where the overarching principle (1) can only be achieved by a different approach. All licences granted under these principles will preserve the Universityâs academic research freedoms to publish and use the IP for teaching and research purposes.
So the article you mention seem to make up a âfactâ the university âpledgedâ to donate vaccine rights, yet the last paragraph clearly states âsubject to our obligations to 3rd party fundersâ âŠ
Not so great journalism really⊠more distorting a short entry on a web page
The point being that said articles are distorting âsources of informationâ to support a POV, in this case they (and you) seem annoyed that there are commercial companies getting IP that was in your opinion partly funded by tax payers⊠this is not really true⊠UK Government, according to the VTF, made early investment (risk assessed) by advance ordering million doses in exchange for early access on approvals and also that profits would be invested in a new research program⊠Its quite easy to assume the current commercial arrangements fall within âobligations to 3rd Party fundersâ. The fact its non-profit at ÂŁ4 a dose during the pandemic is fully aligned with
- The default approach of the University and OUI regarding (1) will be to offer non-exclusive, royalty-free licences to support free of charge, at-cost or cost + limited margin supply as appropriate, and only for the duration of the pandemic , as defined by the WHO
Anyway, point was simple⊠web based media is just as biassed and often poorly researched as MSM⊠sources rarely cited properly, and are often simply other opinion pieces or as in the above, distorted
Looks to me you are shouting at a cloud based on lack of information and/or actually having read the source materialâŠ
At the risk of bringing that one up again 
More to do with being âtooâ scientific and not moderating their statistics thresholds in time of crisis⊠according to the Koch Institute, the over 65 patient segment in the study population was too small/not sufficiently powered to demonstrate a statistically significant effect⊠they dont want to set a precedent for future arguments or I guess legal challenges should
Living up to German stereotype!
2 Likes
France is among several European countries whose health authorities have recommended the AstraZeneca drug should not be given to older people. Germany, Austria and Sweden have all limited it for over-65s, Poland for over-60s and Belgium for over-55s.
Makes you wonder what all the fuss was about last week - unless this is a political decision so that the respective leaders of those countries can avoid some awkward questions from their electorate.
Any way, if they donât want it, maybe we could have their output because Hancock has said the supply is the limiting factor for increasing our roll out
1 Like
Vaccinated!
10 Likes
Which one? âŠnot there is likely to be any real difference. 
The Danish government has announced plans to introduce a digital document with which people will be able to prove they have an up-to-date coronavirus vaccine.
This is going to be a thing - no vaccine no travel / season ticket / restaurant booking etc
2 Likes
I really cannot see that happening, the civil liberties people will be up in arms about it.
I know, I know, for the greater good and all that.
Also can you imagine the money that the black market would make out of this?
Just ordered a new printer 
Iâm sure they will. Funny they donât seem to care that their passports are scanned saying when and where they are travelling, season tickets are scanned at the turnstiles saying exactly who is attending, and debit cards let banks know what restaurant you are in and what you had for dessert.
I guess this is just the tipping point 
I would wait until the first lawsuits land. I caught covid because you let someone on the plane who wasnât vaccinated.
Actually the travel thing will be a lesser issue - it will be no different to having to get malaria jabs or yellow fever when travelling now and will be stipulated by the destination country.
If businesses decide that for the safety of their staff, they donât want unvaccinated people on the premises, its going to be hard to argue against, particularly if the news that the vaccines cut transmission bears out.
Itâs not really the digital certificate itâs more the creation of a segregated society. Being the devilâs advocate :- if people donât want the vaccine that is their choice but their choice shouldnât preclude them from being able to join in to society.
Canât go and have a meal out because I havenât had THE vaccine
Canât go to the cinema because I havenât had THE vaccine
Itâs almost apartheid, why not send them to another part of the country to live where they can lead their vaccine free lives?
Having a malaria or yellow fever jab is not mandatory though, is it??
And if you start with the Covid vaccine where to next?
What about the choice of everyone else not wanting to be in the vicinity of someone who has a higher chance of carrying and transmitting the disease
In some countries you have to show proof of yellow fever
4 Likes
Itâs a double edged sword isnât it? Sort of analogous to freedom of speech. What about the people that get upset by something someone has said under their right to freedom of speech.
And to be honest I donât know what the answer isâŠ