French President Emmanuel Macron leaves after visiting a pharmacy amid COVID-19 pandemic in Valenciennes, France March 23, 2021. Yoan Valat/Pool via REUTERS

 

PARIS (Reuters) - European leaders failed to see that COVID-19 vaccines would be developed as soon as they were and this was why rollouts in the EU now lagged behind some other countries, French President Emmanuel Macron said in an interview broadcast on Wednesday.

 

"Everybody, all the experts said: Never in the history of mankind was a vaccine developed in less than a year," Macron told Greek television channel ERT.

 

"We didn't shoot for the stars. That should be a lesson for all of us. We were wrong to lack ambition, to lack the madness, I would say, to say: It's possible, let's do it," Macron said, in a rare admission of failure in the pandemic.

 

European Union leaders are struggling to speed up vaccinations, trailing countries like Britain and the United Sattes and facing supply delays.

Macron himself has been criticised at home for a faltering rollout which has been slowed by bureaucracy and public mistrust of vaccines.

 

"We didn't think it would happen that quickly... You can give that to the Americans, as early as the summer of 2020 they said: let's pull out all the stops and do it," Macron said.

 

"As far as we're concerned, we didn't go fast enough, strong enough on this. We thought the vaccines would take time to take off."

 

The EU tightened its oversight of coronavirus vaccine exports on Wednesday, giving it greater scope to block shipments to countries with higher inoculation rates such as Britain, or which are not sharing doses they produce.

 

(Reporting by Michel Rose; Editing by Angus MacSwan)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2021-03-25

 

- Whatever you're going through, the Samaritans are here for you

- Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking COVID-19 updates

15 minutes ago, webfact said:

Macron himself has been criticised at home for a faltering rollout which has been slowed by bureaucracy and public mistrust of vaccines.

Bureaucracy problems within the EU ? Must be a misprint

2 hours ago, RichardColeman said:

Bureaucracy problems within the EU ?

It’s the bureaucracy of countries like France and Germany. The rollout has never been in the scope of the EU. Maybe it should’ve been, then the results would’ve been better than what some of the countries are doing now. 
 

The success of the joint procurement should’ve encouraged the countries to also organize the other parts of the chain together through the EU rather than going it alone through their bureaucracies. 

... and on an ongoing basis, perhaps it might be wise for national leaders to avoid undermining public confidence in one of the vaccines?

The EU didn't shoot for the stars - they shot for the feet!

 

6 hours ago, RichardColeman said:

Bureaucracy problems within the EU ? Must be a misprint

Thank god Britain got out.

15 minutes ago, hotchilli said:

Thank god Britain got out.

How would a hypothetical Dexit or Frexit have changed those countries’ bureaucratic structures? Brexit also didn’t change the UK’s bureaucratic structures, at least not in any ways that wouldn’t have been possible as an EU member. 
 

Again the one thing has nothing to do with the other, but if it helps with sugarcoating the Brexit Desaster...

Macron was correct, the French couldn't do it in a year, their vaccine failed and was cancelled.

 

2 hours ago, ukrules said:

Macron was correct, the French couldn't do it in a year, their vaccine failed and was cancelled.

not really French the "big pharmas" are not really linked to a single country anymore:

• the Pfizer jab comes from a German startup
• astrazeneca is half swedish (and ironically the swedes suspended the AZ jab for precautionary reasons)
• Johnson & Johnson is in fact also Janssen from the Netherlands
• ...

 

as for Sanofi, which does have a history in France with the institut Pasteur 

 

they tried a different technological solution first : adjuvanted recombinant protein-based and the first test did yield less than 50% immunisation, they are doing a second version now

 

in the meantime,

• they will produce 12 millions doses a month at Marcy-l’Etoile (Rhône) of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine
• they will implement the final production step of 125 millions doses for Pfizer-BioNTech this year

 

 

and they will also start soon phase 2 with an ARNm vaccine (with GSK)

 

 

do you think it was a bad idea to try to develop a vaccine using a different approach?

 

 

For me, I note there is a lot of criticism of Sanofi, for not getting the right vaccine the first time

I think this is mostly undeserved and they were right to try "something else", which could have saved the day if the other techs (mostly ARMm techno) didn't work. At the time there was a lot of uncertainty and no one could say whether a vaccine was even possible

25 minutes ago, Hi from France said:

not really French the "big pharmas" are not really linked to a single country anymore:

• the Pfizer jab comes from a German startup
• astrazeneca is half swedish (and ironically the swedes suspended the AZ jab for precautionary reasons)
• Johnson & Johnson is in fact also Janssen from the Netherlands
• ...

 

as for Sanofi, which does have a history in France with the institut Pasteur 

 

they tried a different technological solution first : adjuvanted recombinant protein-based and the first test did yield less than 50% immunisation, they are doing a second version now

 

in the meantime,

• they will produce 12 millions doses a month at Marcy-l’Etoile (Rhône) of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine
• they will implement the final production step of 125 millions doses for Pfizer-BioNTech this year

 

 

and they will also start soon phase 2 with an ARNm vaccine (with GSK)

 

 

do you think it was a bad idea to try to develop a vaccine using a different approach?

 

 

For me, I note there is a lot of criticism of Sanofi, for not getting the right vaccine the first time

I think this is mostly undeserved and they were right to try "something else", which could have saved the day if the other techs (mostly ARMm techno) didn't work. At the time there was a lot of uncertainty and no one could say whether a vaccine was even possible

Good point!

The rate of clinical success of innovative medicine R&D is very low. It was not possible to predict in advance which project would be successful. Increasing the variety of innovation is the best way to make sure one or a few innovation variants may be selected. It's basically a Darwinist process.

1 hour ago, Hi from France said:

For me, I note there is a lot of criticism of Sanofi, for not getting the right vaccine the first time

 

Any of the candidate vaccines could have failed to work, including both the Pfizer and Oxford vaccine which went on to be manufactured by AstraZeneca.

 

It's worth noting that AstraZeneca had nothing to do with the Oxford vaccine until they were asked to manufacture it by the UK government.

 

I note that AstraZeneca have reportedly said they wouldn't do this without profit again due to the incredibly bad treatment they're getting from the EU.

 

In fact I expect huge swathes of industry to leave the EU directly because of EU actions, the consequences of blocking delivery between a public company and a foreign government based on some political whim are going to be very far reaching in an incredibly bad way for the future of manufacturing in the EU.

 

For example : No foreign government will ever rely on a supply chain which contains critical ingredients if they are passing through the European Union when there are alternatives. If there are no alternatives then there soon will be.

 

India has also made a similar mistake, the pharmaceutical giants of the world will relocate to avoid politically motivated government caused problems.

 

1 hour ago, ukrules said:

 

Any of the candidate vaccines could have failed to work, including both the Pfizer and Oxford vaccine which went on to be manufactured by AstraZeneca.

 

It's worth noting that AstraZeneca had nothing to do with the Oxford vaccine until they were asked to manufacture it by the UK government.

 

I note that AstraZeneca have reportedly said they wouldn't do this without profit again due to the incredibly bad treatment they're getting from the EU.

I'm skeptical Source one this? Do they not have the EU as their biggest customer?

 

 

1 hour ago, ukrules said:

In fact I expect huge swathes of industry to leave the EU directly because of EU actions, the consequences of blocking delivery between a public company and a foreign government based on some political whim are going to be very far reaching in an incredibly bad way for the future of manufacturing in the EU.

 

For example : No foreign government will ever rely on a supply chain which contains critical ingredients if they are passing through the European Union when there are alternatives. If there are no alternatives then there soon will be.

 

my idea is this is the end of a "world supply chain" for vaccines, in the future there will be a US supply chain, a Chinese supply chain and a European Supply chain.

 

.. as a consequence the UK would not be able to use the EU supply chain on a "first come first served", private contract basis like they just did, getting the EU to produce 11 millions doses of Pfizer with a priority delivery for them.

 

 

The UK might set his own small supply chain (costly and dangerous if the single vaccine you develop is not the right one) or have a partnership with India ?

 

but as we just saw, India can do the same as the USA: suddenly decide to keep all their production to themselves.

 

When the USA or India decide to keep 100% of their production, and deliver nothing to the UK; the UK is very kind, cool and understanding.

.. but should the EU decide to do the same, it become a scandal in the UK, why?

 

 

15 hours ago, webfact said:

"We didn't think it would happen that quickly... You can give that to the Americans, as early as the summer of 2020 they said: let's pull out all the stops and do it," Macron said.

 

Oooh.  How inconvenient.  Would that be under the Bad Orange Man?  You know...  the one who mismanaged things so badly that a vaccine was developed, tested, and in distribution faster than any time in history?

Off-topic posts removed.  The topic is about the EU's vaccine problems.  

 

7 hours ago, ukrules said:

 

Any of the candidate vaccines could have failed to work, including both the Pfizer and Oxford vaccine which went on to be manufactured by AstraZeneca.

 

It's worth noting that AstraZeneca had nothing to do with the Oxford vaccine until they were asked to manufacture it by the UK government.

 

I note that AstraZeneca have reportedly said they wouldn't do this without profit again due to the incredibly bad treatment they're getting from the EU.

 

In fact I expect huge swathes of industry to leave the EU directly because of EU actions, the consequences of blocking delivery between a public company and a foreign government based on some political whim are going to be very far reaching in an incredibly bad way for the future of manufacturing in the EU.

 

For example : No foreign government will ever rely on a supply chain which contains critical ingredients if they are passing through the European Union when there are alternatives. If there are no alternatives then there soon will be.

 

India has also made a similar mistake, the pharmaceutical giants of the world will relocate to avoid politically motivated government caused problems.

 

You forgot to mention the US. You put the blame on India while the main reason India cannot supply the expected quantities to UK is that exports of critical ingredients is restricted by the US. It also affects UK and the EU to some extent. 

 

You are right on one point: that's the end of (at least part of) global supply chains. The EU will not make again the mistake to rely on a supply chain outside the EU, India will do the same, China and the US already have an integrated value chain. The UK will try to do the same re available resources.

 

In case of scarcity of supply, the other countries will be screwed: if they order from UK they will find out there is a UK first clause in contracts that prevents them from being supplied on time, the EU will learn the lesson and use similar clauses, India may do the same too, and all of them will have laws to restrict exports if needed.

The EU is failing because it was so slow. I'm fed up of the EU complaining about AstraZeneca not delivering it's quotas, whilst at the same time these countries within the EU are:

 

1)  Refusing to give the vaccine to it's population. Macron is the biggest culprit.

2) Damaging the reputation of the vaccine by constantly questioning it's efficacy. Again, Macron's fault.

3) Sitting on unused stockpiles of the vaccine. Germany and France have only used half of their doses, and a lot of countries have paused the AstraZeneca roll-out. Merkel & Macron again...

4) No countries have actually reported asing all of their stock. 

 

What do you want EU? Do you want the vaccine and are going to use it?

Easy to blame a company that is admittedly failing at delivering the agreed upon amount of doses, but it's a bit harder when you look at how many doses they have, and their behaviour towards it.

 

On 3/25/2021 at 7:25 AM, cocoonclub said:

It’s the bureaucracy of countries like France and Germany. The rollout has never been in the scope of the EU. Maybe it should’ve been, then the results would’ve been better than what some of the countries are doing now. 
 

The success of the joint procurement should’ve encouraged the countries to also organize the other parts of the chain together through the EU rather than going it alone through their bureaucracies. 

 

quote from your post.

 

"The success of the joint procurement". That is the point where I nearly fell out of my chair with laughter.

 

Try as I may I cannot find anything that even looks like "The success of the joint procurement".

 

But that is what the EU commission was designed for. To take over the responsibilities of each member nation. to control aspects of each nation as one and to deal with problems like this should they happen.

 

Well it did happen and everyone can see the result.

 

All for one and one for all.     55555555555555

France has actually had two covid vaccine flops, "Sanofi" and "Pasteur Institute" which was partnered with US Merck.

 

'Humiliation': French see Covid-19 vaccine flops as sign of decline:

 

With the world-renowned research centre that bears his name in Paris, the Pasteur Institute, as well as leading pharma group Sanofi, the country looked well positioned in the race to produce a jab against the novel coronavirus.

But the Pasteur Institute announced Monday that it was abandoning research on its most promising prospect, while Sanofi – an early frontunner in the vaccine race – has said its candidate for inoculation will not be ready before the end of 2021 at best.

 

The failure of French Covid vaccine research so far touches on several sensitive issues for the country.

The political class and many voters have long worried about France's relative decline in power and influence – the ominous "déclassement" – in an increasingly globalised world.

This tendency is seen by many analysts as part of the explanation for strong support for the far-right party of Marine Le Pen, whose rhetoric is tinged with nostalgia for the past.

 

https://www.france24.com/en/france/20210126-humiliation-french-see-covid-19-vaccine-flops-as-sign-of-decline

1 hour ago, 2530Ubon said:

4) No countries have actually reported asing all of their stock

You gave a few reason for that, but you forgot the main one: unlike in UK the time gap between 1st and 2nd jab is 3 weeks. On top of it, AZ is not reliable for timely supplies. It means they have to keep the 2nd jab after they inoculate the first jab. So no wonder that, in some countries, only half of their stock has been used, as most of the remaking stock will be used for 2nd jabs.

59 minutes ago, candide said:

You gave a few reason for that, but you forgot the main one: unlike in UK the time gap between 1st and 2nd jab is 3 weeks. On top of it, AZ is not reliable for timely supplies. It means they have to keep the 2nd jab after they inoculate the first jab. So no wonder that, in some countries, only half of their stock has been used, as most of the remaking stock will be used for 2nd jabs.

Try again: https://www.newstatesman.com/world/europe/2021/03/why-are-millions-doses-astrazeneca-covid-19-vaccines-lying-unused-eu-countries

 

Quote

The German health ministry said last week that it had used just 15 per cent of the AstraZeneca doses it has received as people across the country refuse the jab. In Saxony, the German Red Cross told the news programme ZDF Heute that only 20 to 30 appointments were being booked for AstraZeneca jabs daily in the state. 
 
Across Europe, a similar story is playing out. France had issued just 16 per cent of its AstraZeneca doses as of 25 February, Italy a fifth and Spain a third. By contrast, uptake of the Pfizer jab hovers around 80 per cent, according to data from the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, an EU agency. 

 

34 minutes ago, 2530Ubon said:

Try again: https://www.newstatesman.com/world/europe/2021/03/why-are-millions-doses-astrazeneca-covid-19-vaccines-lying-unused-eu-countries

 

 

I did not state there were not other reasons, but "one or the reasons" is the necessity to store the second jab, in particular under supply uncertainty. That's maths.

 

Now if you want to explain me that keeping the second jab does not increase stocks, you're welcome.

 

BTW, the numbers quoted in the article are out of date.

5 hours ago, candide said:

BTW, the numbers quoted in the article are out of date.

You can find some in my recent posts. 

 

22nd of March = 50% stocks had been used in Germany, and the campaign must have caught up since 

7 hours ago, candide said:

You gave a few reason for that, but you forgot the main one: unlike in UK the time gap between 1st and 2nd jab is 3 weeks. On top of it, AZ is not reliable for timely supplies. It means they have to keep the 2nd jab after they inoculate the first jab. So no wonder that, in some countries, only half of their stock has been used, as most of the remaking stock will be used for 2nd jabs.

I'm pretty sure Germany and other countries in Europe recommend giving the same dose max interval period of 12 weeks the same as the UK for AZ

 

You say that Europe is giving the second shot after 3 weeks, I hope not, goes against all scientific advice!

14 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

I'm pretty sure Germany and other countries in Europe recommend giving the same dose max interval period of 12 weeks the same as the UK for AZ

 

You say that Europe is giving the second shot after 3 weeks, I hope not, goes against all scientific advice!

It's not true it's "all scientific advice". Only part of scientists support it, mainly in UK.

It's three weeks according to manufacturers' specifications and tests. Only UK doest it, as far as I know. In France, for example, they don't even allow people to make an appointment after 3 weeks. While AZ agreed with the 12 weeks gap, Pfizer did not and keeps it's 3 weeks recommendation.

Contrary to your statement, an alleged increased efficiency was not the reason UK chose to extend the gap duration, it was to get a higher level of immunity faster. I personnaly think it's a smart tactic with AZ vaccine, not sure for Pfizer as they don't support it.

26 minutes ago, candide said:

It's not true it's "all scientific advice". Only part of scientists support it, mainly in UK.

It's three weeks according to manufacturers' specifications and tests. Only UK doest it, as far as I know. In France, for example, they don't even allow people to make an appointment after 3 weeks. While AZ agreed with the 12 weeks gap, Pfizer did not and keeps it's 3 weeks recommendation.

Contrary to your statement, an alleged increased efficiency was not the reason UK chose to extend the gap duration, it was to get a higher level of immunity faster. I personnaly think it's a smart tactic with AZ vaccine, not sure for Pfizer as they don't support it.

I beg to differ, the 4 large phase 3 trials were carried out with a minimum 4 week interval second dose to a maximum 12 weeks. The AZ vaccine has not even been tested with a 3 week interval so yes against all scientific advice to be giving it like that.

 

Not sure why you bring Pfizer into this as its nothing to do with it.

 

https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=Germany+approves+AstraZeneca+for+over-65s%2C+extends+gap+between+doses

 

Looks like Germany agree with UK then.................^^^^^

 

If you're still not convinced take a look at the Licensing regimen in the approval granted by the EU for the AZ vaccine. Page 8. States a 4 - 12 week period. 

 

https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/product-information/covid-19-vaccine-astrazeneca-product-information-approved-chmp-29-january-2021-pending-endorsement_en.pdf

1 hour ago, Bkk Brian said:

I beg to differ, the 4 large phase 3 trials were carried out with a minimum 4 week interval second dose to a maximum 12 weeks. The AZ vaccine has not even been tested with a 3 week interval so yes against all scientific advice to be giving it like that.

 

Not sure why you bring Pfizer into this as its nothing to do with it.

 

https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=Germany+approves+AstraZeneca+for+over-65s%2C+extends+gap+between+doses

 

Looks like Germany agree with UK then.................^^^^^

 

If you're still not convinced take a look at the Licensing regimen in the approval granted by the EU for the AZ vaccine. Page 8. States a 4 - 12 week period. 

 

https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/product-information/covid-19-vaccine-astrazeneca-product-information-approved-chmp-29-january-2021-pending-endorsement_en.pdf

I got mixed up. You're right about AZ, it seems.

 

The reason I mentioned Pfizer is that UK also applies a 12 weeks gap. I also check, some countries apply the initial 3/4 weeks gap (France), and more recently some apply  6 weeks.

About the 12 weeks gap, it seems there are dissentions in UK.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-55777084

10 hours ago, 2530Ubon said:

Try again: https://www.newstatesman.com/world/europe/2021/03/why-are-millions-doses-astrazeneca-covid-19-vaccines-lying-unused-eu-countries

 

 

It seems I'm not the only one able to count that 1+1=2!

 

"The war of words with the EU over vaccines has escalated as France’s foreign minister claimed Britain will struggle to source second Covid jabs but that Brussels would not be “blackmailed” into exporting doses to solve the problem."

 

“The UK is proud to have vaccinated many people with the first dose, but they will have a problem with the second dose,” Le Drian said. “And we are fully vaccinated with two doses, not one. Today we have the same number of fully vaccinated people in France and the United Kingdom."

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/mar/26/france-uk-struggle-source-second-covid-jabs-eu-blackmail

 

On 3/24/2021 at 9:52 PM, webfact said:

"We didn't think it would happen that quickly... You can give that to the Americans, as early as the summer of 2020 they said: let's pull out all the stops and do it," Macron said.

 

"As far as we're concerned, we didn't go fast enough, strong enough on this. We thought the vaccines would take time to take off."

 

The EU tightened its oversight of coronavirus vaccine exports on Wednesday, giving it greater scope to block shipments to countries with higher inoculation rates such as Britain, or which are not sharing doses they produce.

Utterly puerile and typically French that asshat would 'bigup' someone other than UK for their response and in same article berate the latter for 'not sharing' as per reason for their success. UK vaccine program was on the cards from day one and orders in place before you lot even woke up. But about all we expect from this bloke and the eu at large. Wasn't there a fatwa after this tool? 

6 hours ago, candide said:

I got mixed up. You're right about AZ, it seems.

 

The reason I mentioned Pfizer is that UK also applies a 12 weeks gap. I also check, some countries apply the initial 3/4 weeks gap (France), and more recently some apply  6 weeks.

About the 12 weeks gap, it seems there are dissentions in UK.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-55777084

Indeed the AZ vaccine is recommend 12 weeks in a variety of studies now hence why Germany also recommends a 12 week gap of AZ between doses.

 

Yes the UK also applies a 12 week gap for the Pfizer, but not for every age group. A large study with UK health workers confirmed the 12 week period as providing excellent protection however it was on the working age people in health care settings. Whether this is the correct way to go with Pfizer I don't know enough about it? 

 

My mother in the UK who is in the older age group had the Pfizer both doses with just a 3 week gap.

 

 

 

 

5 hours ago, candide said:

It seems I'm not the only one able to count that 1+1=2!

 

"The war of words with the EU over vaccines has escalated as France’s foreign minister claimed Britain will struggle to source second Covid jabs but that Brussels would not be “blackmailed” into exporting doses to solve the problem."

 

“The UK is proud to have vaccinated many people with the first dose, but they will have a problem with the second dose,” Le Drian said. “And we are fully vaccinated with two doses, not one. Today we have the same number of fully vaccinated people in France and the United Kingdom."

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/mar/26/france-uk-struggle-source-second-covid-jabs-eu-blackmail

 

Yes fortunately the French foreign minister has absolutely no involvement with UK internal affairs or information within so he can claim all he wants and it sounds to me like the blackmail is being attempted by him.

 

So what if France has a similar number of fully vaccinated people, that irrelevant. The important issue is whats working to stop people dying and getting seriously sick and the evidence to back that up.