Northern Europe during Pandemic -- Summers 2020 & 2021 & onwards

[boatman61]

Things are getting interesting..
Follow the money..

Ursula von der Leyen hauled over the coals after refusing to publish text messages to Pfizer chief..
The Commission's president publicly admitted exchanging private messages with Albert Bourla about the deal in April last year in a bid to speed up the bloc's ailing vaccine rollout.

In a ruling by Emily O'Reilly, the European ombudsman, Mrs von der Leyen's aides are criticised for their refusal to publish the exchange with the pharmaceutical giant after a freedom of information request.

It has since emerged that in the €35 billion deal, which the commission chief boasted of personally negotiating, the cost of each individual vaccine rose from €15.50 to €19.50 (£12.90 to £16.20).

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world...?ocid=msedgntp

[laird]

Looks like international travel is opening up , the Philippines announced that foreigners will be welcome after Feb 10th , PCR test required and self monitoring for 7 days
The cost of the flights to get there are a bit high in comparison with pre covid
Starting to look more of a let's get on with it attitude

[Zippee]

'.. Conclusions:
You don't have to be Billy the Boy Genius to figure this out.

Red and white wines - and especially sparkling wines which are only allowed to be called champagne if they come from France - are typically consumed outside on the patio with a few of your wealthy chums while admiring the view across the sparkling Mediterranean.

Beer and cider - on the other hand - tends to be guzzled in grubby and overcrowded 'workin class ' public bars. Nothing to do with the drink, everything to do with the drinkers.

I'm really at a loss in re your logic. The article had zero to do with social class, it merely made a correlation (not cause) insofar as amount of wine vs beer/cider. Try reading the post again:

1. Up to 14 glasses of red wine/wk = 10-17% less Covid
2. Less than 5 glasses of white/champagne = 8% less
3. 2 glasses of fortified wine - 12% less
4. 0 drinks = more likely
5. 4 glassed of liquor = no effect
6. more than 14 ounces of anything = more likely
7. 1 glass of beer/cider = more likely from the first glass, and increasing with more glasses.

The point is clear: wine helps but only to 14 oz, liquor has no effect, and beer/cider hurts starting from the first glass. If you're calling beer and cider drinkers "guzzlers", that's on you.

Nothing to do with the drinkers, everything to do with the drink and the amount.

People who drank 14 glasses of red wine or fewer per week were 10-17% less likely to get COVID-19.

However, those who drank fewer than five glasses of white wine or Champagne per week were only 8% less likely to get the virus.

People who drank only two glasses of fortified wine per week reduced the risk by 12%.

Those who do not drink at all were more likely to get COVID-19, while people who drink up to four glasses of liquor per week had no more or less chance of getting the virus. The study added that it's important to remember that the data is just a pattern, not a direct effect of alcohol on COVID-19.

People who drank more than the UK guidelines of 14 "units" of alcohol (i.e. glass of wine) had a higher risk of getting COVID-19 than those who stayed within the guidelines.

The study showed that people who drink beer and cider had a higher risk of getting COVID-19 starting at just one drink, and 28% higher at five or more drinks per week.

Cheers!

[Exile]

Oh boy . . . pretty sure Ping's comment was meant to be tongue-in-cheek. Some more of that Aussie humor and all that. But I, for one, refuse to believe any of it unless thoroughly fact-checked, exhaustively peer-reviewed, and it doesn't come up during Senator Johnson's hearing!

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Zippee

I'm really at a loss in re your logic. The article had zero to do with social class, it merely made a correlation (not cause) insofar as amount of wine vs beer/cider. Try reading the post again:

1. Up to 14 glasses of red wine/wk = 10-17% less Covid
2. Less than 5 glasses of white/champagne = 8% less
3. 2 glasses of fortified wine - 12% less
4. 0 drinks = more likely
5. 4 glassed of liquor = no effect
6. more than 14 ounces of anything = more likely
7. 1 glass of beer/cider = more likely from the first glass, and increasing with more glasses.

The point is clear: wine helps but only to 14 oz, liquor has no effect, and beer/cider hurts starting from the first glass. If you're calling beer and cider drinkers "guzzlers", that's on you.

Nothing to do with the drinkers, everything to do with the drink and the amount.

I think Montanan runs a wine bar and is trying to boost his sales.. I read the Mayo Clinic link in the post and there's no mention whatsoever about helping against Covid.. in fact there's no study about Covid linked.
Lots about how it 'May' help against heart attacks.. so maybe the reference is to the myocarditis that is triggered in some folks as a result of the vaccine and, lets face it.. it is from a site dedicated to Californian wines..
Follow the money..

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Things are getting interesting..
Follow the money..

Ursula von der Leyen hauled over the coals after refusing to publish text messages to Pfizer chief..
The Commission's president publicly admitted exchanging private messages with Albert Bourla about the deal in April last year in a bid to speed up the bloc's ailing vaccine rollout.

In a ruling by Emily O'Reilly, the European ombudsman, Mrs von der Leyen's aides are criticised for their refusal to publish the exchange with the pharmaceutical giant after a freedom of information request.

It has since emerged that in the €35 billion deal, which the commission chief boasted of personally negotiating, the cost of each individual vaccine rose from €15.50 to €19.50 (£12.90 to £16.20).

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world...?ocid=msedgntp

actually the EU secured the worlds cheapest vaccine ( AZ) at half the oprice of the UK and without providing legal indemnities to the manufacturers

But the main reason the UK received more dozes initially , was the EU vaccine producing countries allowed 1/3 of all EU vaccines to be exported, primarily to the UK, it could have prevented this by law, as the USA did, or by contract law as the UK did , In contrast until later in 2021, The UK did not export any vaccines at all

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2...-vaccinations/

For example all Phizer vaccines in the UK actually came from EU plants.

SO you can thank the munificance of the EU that it did not acceded to germanys pressure to ban vaccine exports

Its unfortunate that Brexit nonsense , lies and mistruths means that very selective versions of news reality get circulated for UK consumption

[boatman61]

[QUOTE=goboatingnow;3564153]actually the EU secured the worlds cheapest vaccine ( AZ) at half the oprice of the UK and without providing legal indemnities to the manufacturers

But the main reason the UK received more dozes initially , was the EU vaccine producing countries allowed 1/3 of all EU vaccines to be exported, primarily to the UK, it could have prevented this by law, as the USA did, or by contract law as the UK did , In contrast until later in 2021, The UK did not export any vaccines at all

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2...-vaccinations/

For example all Phizer vaccines in the UK actually came from EU plants.

SO you can thank the munificance of the EU that it did not acceded to germanys pressure to ban vaccine exports

Its unfortunate that Brexit nonsense , lies and mistruths means that very selective versions of news reality get circulated for UK consumption[/QUOTE)

Is that not whats been happening all over the world.. as for AZ being sold at -50% of cost, I find that hard to believe.
https://www.politico.eu/article/the-...eca-contracts/
Another little extract from another source...
That principle has also been applied to the biggest players. The EU financially supported the development of the BioNTech and Pfizer vaccine and has obtained a lower price per dose ($14.70 than the US ($19.50). The Moderna vaccine’s development was subsidised by the US government, and it will cost the US about $15 a dose, while the EU is paying $18.

The Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine is much cheaper, although neither the UK nor the US can match the EU’s $2.15 deal: they are expecting to pay about $3 and $4, respectively, per dose.
But I guess your brother? at Pfizer can prove me wrong.
Seems the $14.70 for Pfizer deal was sold out by VDL.. and they did try to block vaccine exports when VDL tried playing the Article 16 card.. so much for 'EU Munificence'..

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Is that not whats been happening all over the world.. as for AZ being sold at -50% of cost, I find that hard to believe.
https://www.politico.eu/article/the-...eca-contracts/
Another little extract from another source...
That principle has also been applied to the biggest players. The EU financially supported the development of the BioNTech and Pfizer vaccine and has obtained a lower price per dose ($14.70 than the US ($19.50). The Moderna vaccine’s development was subsidised by the US government, and it will cost the US about $15 a dose, while the EU is paying $18.

The Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine is much cheaper, although neither the UK nor the US can match the EU’s $2.15 deal: they are expecting to pay about $3 and $4, respectively, per dose.
But I guess your brother? at Pfizer can prove me wrong.
Seems the $14.70 for Pfizer deal was sold out by VDL..

All I know( from over the BBQ talk ) is that Pfizer supplied and is supplying mRNA vaccines at several different price points , its cheaper now that they have vastly increased their production but it never was a " cheap vaccine ". My brother always maintained until Covid Pfizer had little interest in vaccines ( the worlds biggest supplier is French) but the Covid deal ( which Biontech handled Pfizer on a plate ) changed their mind , for the moment at least. My brother also mentioned that the cost of transport and specialised warehousing , will likely dwarf the actual price of the dose. He also said the mRNA vaccine is actually very simple to bulk manufacture ( the combining of 7 liquids)

VDL has a lot of enemies within the EU , and my daughter who is in the commission burst out laughing ( she was home over christmas ) when VDL claims she negotiated the vaccine deal my daughter actually mentioned the EU negotiator who did the actual deal .( some back room boofin). All these EU deals are always worked out by professionals. The EU had a lot of issues with the vaccine contract as major EU countries especially Germany kept doing side deals and threatening to block vaccine exports from Germany. the EU has bought ( it seems ) mRNA vaccines at several price points depending on which particular contract you look at, some dearer, some cheaper

IN the end the delays in vaccinations actually didn't come down to supply issues at all, Europe is the world centre for vaccine hesitancy for many years and this proved far more troublesome then supply issues. Countries like Denmark and Ireland using the EU supply chains actually ended up well beating the UK to second dose vaccination as the UKs initiative ran into the sand after a good start.

[boatman61]

I thought Frances attempts at vaccine production was a complete flop...

https://www.france24.com/en/france/2...ign-of-decline

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by boatman61

I thought Frances attempts at vaccine production was a complete flop...

https://www.france24.com/en/france/2...ign-of-decline

my brother said they ( Sanofi) screwed up their trial and have to rerun it completely , He said as far as he's aware the actual vaccine is quite capable , but they have one of the worlds biggest manufacturing capacity for vaccines

"In the rapidly evolving landscape of the pandemic, we have taken a forward-looking approach to our vaccine development. On December 15th, Sanofi and GSK announced positive preliminary results of a study investigating the safety and immune response with their vaccine candidate as a booster regardless of primary vaccine received (mRNA or adenovirus vector-based vaccines). Sanofi continues its ongoing phase 3 trial of the vaccine following a recommendation from the Data Safety and Monitoring Board (DSMB), an independent data oversight body. The DSMB identified no safety concerns and recommended the trial continue into early 2022 to collect and provide the data necessary for regulatory submissions."

Sanofi would be more interested in the long term prospects , vaccine companies are not historically light footed commercially or from a process perspective . ( note this is not my view, more BBQ talk ) my brother reckons they are happily to plod along to see what happens to Az and Pfizer and see where it all goes

[El Pinguino]

Originally Posted by Zippee

I'm really at a loss in re your logic. The article had zero to do with social class, it merely made a correlation (not cause) insofar as amount of wine vs beer/cider. Try reading the post again:

1. Up to 14 glasses of red wine/wk = 10-17% less Covid
2. Less than 5 glasses of white/champagne = 8% less
3. 2 glasses of fortified wine - 12% less
4. 0 drinks = more likely
5. 4 glassed of liquor = no effect
6. more than 14 ounces of anything = more likely
7. 1 glass of beer/cider = more likely from the first glass, and increasing with more glasses.

The point is clear: wine helps but only to 14 oz, liquor has no effect, and beer/cider hurts starting from the first glass. If you're calling beer and cider drinkers "guzzlers", that's on you.

Nothing to do with the drinkers, everything to do with the drink and the amount.

I find it truly remarkable that you cannot see the logic.
By and large wine drinkers will drink their wine either at home with a meal or if they drink outside the home they will drink either indoors at a table with a few friends in restaurant or- if in the middle of the day- outdoors in the same situation. All these scenarios have a reduced chance of covid transmission.

Beer drinkers on the other hand may just have a few beers at home or at a friend's barbie - but many will do their beer drinking in crowded bars where the risk of contracting covid is greatly enhanced.

Thus it is not the type of alcohol that is consumed but the environment in which it is consumed - a bit like the link between Babycham and pregnancy.

It is rather worrying that you cannot see this.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

I find it truly remarkable that you cannot see the logic.
By and large wine drinkers will drink their wine either at home with a meal or if they drink outside the home they will drink either indoors at a table with a few friends in restaurant or- if in the middle of the day- outdoors in the same situation. All these scenarios have a reduced chance of covid transmission.

Beer drinkers on the other hand may just have a few beers at home or at a friend's barbie - but many will do their beer drinking in crowded bars where the risk of contracting covid is greatly enhanced.

Thus it is not the type of alcohol that is consumed but the environment in which it is consumed - a bit like the link between Babycham and pregnancy.

It is rather worrying that you cannot see this.

Humor aside, there could be some truth to this. Did the study account for these environmental factors or did it rely solely on controlled "laboratory" conditions? Are the scientists who conduct the study, and their colleagues who peer-review it, aware of such variables or simply focused on the biological/chemical factors? Was the data produced using lab tests, surveys, or what?

Either way, I doubt anyone is going to change their drinking habits based on this, but it may be telling about the often inconsistent results from other studies we so often see. Or maybe more about a fast-moving pandemic with data accumulation and analysis an inherently slow process. All the more important to keep an open mind and not suppress alternative points of view.

[Zippee]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

I find it truly remarkable that you cannot see the logic.
By and large wine drinkers will drink their wine either at home with a meal or if they drink outside the home they will drink either indoors at a table with a few friends in restaurant or- if in the middle of the day- outdoors in the same situation. All these scenarios have a reduced chance of covid transmission.

Beer drinkers on the other hand may just have a few beers at home or at a friend's barbie - but many will do their beer drinking in crowded bars where the risk of contracting covid is greatly enhanced.

Thus it is not the type of alcohol that is consumed but the environment in which it is consumed - a bit like the link between Babycham and pregnancy.

It is rather worrying that you cannot see this.

Try not to worry too much about my superior intelligence, lol...

The click-bait article was clear in that amount, not social class or environment, was being reported. Your characterization of beer/cider bar room "guzzlers" is for you to own. And need I point out that many bars are closed for Covid? Perhaps you've never been to an AA meeting where all your class and location based suppositions would be quickly corrected. Nor will the data support you, sorry, but enough.

We will agree to disagree. Be well. Let's discuss real issues...

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Exile

Humor aside, there could be some truth to this. Did the study account for these environmental factors or did it rely solely on controlled "laboratory" conditions? Are the scientists who conduct the study, and their colleagues who peer-review it, aware of such variables or simply focused on the biological/chemical factors? Was the data produced using lab tests, surveys, or what?

Either way, I doubt anyone is going to change their drinking habits based on this, but it may be telling about the often inconsistent results from other studies we so often see. Or maybe more about a fast-moving pandemic with data accumulation and analysis an inherently slow process. All the more important to keep an open mind and not suppress alternative points of view.

It was conducted by six Chinese scientists sat in China.. oh, and it refers to the Tannins so drinking proper tea is likely just as good.. real tea, not the fancy nancy designer crap..
Obviously Zippee has little experience of Brit Pubs/Clubs that the working stiffs frequent on Friday and Saturday nights..

[Exile]

Originally Posted by boatman61

It was conducted by six Chinese scientists sat in China.. oh, and it refers to the Tannins so drinking proper tea is likely just as good.. real tea, not the fancy nancy designer crap..
Obviously Zippee has little experience of Brit Pubs/Clubs that the working stiffs frequent on Friday and Saturday nights..

Or the ones in Aussie! I've visited there, along with NZ, and let's just say it's enthusiastic. Not sure what AA meetings and the other points are about, but suffice it to say let's hope we can all get back to "owning" some beer guzzling in crowded bars, whether we're actual participants or mere spectators!