It was always voluntary.AFAIK, “cocooning” as a restriction only applied to Lockdown One. It’s been voluntary since.
It was always voluntary.AFAIK, “cocooning” as a restriction only applied to Lockdown One. It’s been voluntary since.
Think we might be ok.... saw this on Twitter:Think he might as been claiming that at the same time as Q2 vaccine supplies from our good friends in AZ seem to be in doubt......
We should another state of the union address after the 9pm news. Indeed after every news bulliton from now on.....
Pfizer are going to be producing more and that'll certainly help. J&J will be approved but reading US media they too are having difficulties with production.Except now the EU are disputing the story and the figures used. So what has been factored in? Is there is a big surprise in store if AZ manage to deliver more?? They are also factoring in vaccines that have not been approved yet. Know its hard but the messaging is still poor.
Of course they are dependent on supply but when you have a press conference basically saying vaccines are the main or only way out of this, then you need to very clear about supplies you do have before you start using specific % targets. If they had factored in less Q2 supply from AZ this evening, then would they have told us if there hadnt been a leak at EU level through Reuters. And now that the EU are disputing the story, what is the potential upside to us if they do deliver. Why wasn't that part of the message?Pfizer are going to be producing more and that'll certainly help. J&J will be approved but reading US media they too are having difficulties with production.
The government can only go on what's planned and if those 3rd parties don't fulfil those plans there's very little that can be done.
Was it a leak though? I did read that they knew about the reduction and factored it in.Of course they are dependent on supply but when you have a press conference basically saying vaccines are the main or only way out of this, then you need to very clear about supplies you do have before you start using specific % targets. If they had factored in less Q2 supply from AZ this evening, then would they have told us if there hadnt been a leak at EU level through Reuters. And now that the EU are disputing the story, what is the potential upside to us if they do deliver. Why wasn't that part of the message?
My reading is that AZ are trying to fulfil the contracted amount of 180m doses. The EU merely said the figures quoted in the Reuters story were not correct ie 40m using 50% reduction is 90m of which we get 1m .When asked about the huge reduction which had never been flagged before, he said the Government factored it in. What exactly did they factor in? Now both the company and the EU are denying the story saying supply lines from outside the EU will be used. If this is true, then the ambitious figures used last night are actually Conservative and out of date already. I simply want to know what they are basing their statements on. He basically admitted they adjusted the targets on the back of a reuturs story that both sides are now denying.
Targets from @MichealMartinTD's speech on the % of over 18s who will have received a first dose:
- 40% by end-April
- 64% by end-May
- 82% by end-June
Quite simply because a simple message is more effective than a confusing one. Sunny you ask them to improve their messaging but if they followed your advice it would result in more criticism as people simply do not want to hear messaging that has a whole load of conditions built into it.Why don't they say that?
If AZ do complete 180m doses then it's upside and more people get vaccinated and the projections changed accordingly.They said they adjusted their figures to take account of the 60% drop in supplies from AZ that was reported. The company have come out and stated that they will deliver all 180m doses they are contractually obliged to using supply lines outside the EU.
I have no issue with contingencies. I have no issue with people saying they don't know. I do have an issue with the leader of the country standing there giving very specific vaccination targets telling us that they had adjusted their schedule to take account of the drop in supply that was reported in the media but apparently is being denied. We are not talking tens of thousands of doses here. We are talking hundreds of thousands. So if they have a schedule which they based on not receiving hundreds of thousands of doses, I want to know what they based that on other than a media story and if it is not true, those vaccination plans announced last night have changed significantly within a hour of him being on air. Why don't they say that?
We still can't get proper real time data on vaccines supplied and vaccines administered. Its not exactly rocket science. They have said vaccines are the only plan they have out of this. They don't exactly inspire confidence.
And now that the EU are disputing the story, what is the potential upside to us if they do deliver. Why wasn't that part of the message?
Once again, where I have once asked for certainty???Most people don't want the complicated message with all the variables laid out. In fairness, if they were to include all potential impacts on supply, they'd have to give multiple potential timelines based on all the moving parts. We'd have a timeline based on AZ meeting their commitments, another with them only delivering 50%, another with them maybe making 75%, then another number of variations with and without the J&J vaccine getting approval and then delivering various volumes, and then more variants for the other suppliers too. It'd be a confusing mess.
If you want absolute certainty, then you have to wait until you have the vaccine at the point of administration. If you want to give people advance notice, you take the data you have available, factor in your confidence level of the suppliers delivering on commitments, your confidence that more suppliers will have their vaccines approved and then come up with a schedule that is hopefully a little on the conservative side so that they have a good chance of exceeding expectations by a small margin.
...the UK approach to delaying the second dose could risk an increase in variants. Logically that sounds plausible to me and I wonder how much consideration the UK have given to this, especially in their eagerness to set firm dates for reopening everything.