Opinion Domestic Politics BF style

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

Ford Fairlane said:
Don't hold back, Mike. ;)

Click to expand...

Almost time for Mike to come out of retirement and bring back his Friday News Review program. There are enough drongos in parliament and around the world to match some of his stuff from the 80's and 90's - Prime Minister and Folk hero Bob Hope, Treasurer Scrooge, Opposition leader Andrew Gaucci, Premiers Never Wrong and Joh Bonkers-Bananas, President Hop a Long Cassidy, PM Gladys Hacksaw, Chuck Yablonsci reporting from the USA, Martin Raincoat from Britain and Peter Gravy from Canberra.
 
It makes perfect sense that CSL should have had a major role in Australia's plan to be self sufficient in supply of CV19 vaccine.

But in a government riven with rumours of preference for mates, my suspicions are aroused with associations such the following:

.....former senior Liberal staffer Kieran Schneemann was the head of government affairs (read:lobbying) at AstraZeneca Australia.

Schneemann was a senior adviser to John Howard.

Was the enforced CSL/AZ tandem the only binary option?

CSL/Sinopharm or CSL/Sputnik?

I would have thought Morrison would have hurled himself at those options.

Either that or he would have hurled.
 
Last edited:
Lawnchair Larry said:
It makes perfect sense that CSL should have had a major role in Australia's plan to be self sufficient in supply of CV19 vaccine.

But in a government riven with rumours of preference for mates, my suspicions are aroused with associations such the following:

.....former senior Liberal staffer Kieran Schneemann was the head of government affairs (read:lobbying) at AstraZeneca Australia.

Schneemann was a senior adviser to John Howard.

Was the enforced CSL/AZ tandem the only binary option?

CSL/Sinopharm or CSL/Sputnik?

I would have thought Morrison would have hurled himself at those options.

Either that or he would have hurled.
Click to expand...
Do you reckon Anglo Australian's would have gone with a Russian or Chinese vaccine over an Oxford Uni one?? Howard Florey taught and did research at Oxford Uni (as well as Cambridge in 1920's and 1930's). They were never going to ignore these factors.
 
RussellEbertHandball said:
Do you reckon Anglo Australian's would have gone with a Russian or Chinese vaccine over an Oxford Uni one?? Howard Florey taught and did research at Oxford Uni (as well as Cambridge in 1920's and 1930's). They were never going to ignore these factors.
Click to expand...
Didn't we do something recently to s**t the Russians and bring about fond memories from the propaganda filled Cold War?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

edgie said:
Didn't we do something recently to sh*t the Russians and bring about fond memories from the propaganda filled Cold War?
Click to expand...
Abbott threatened to shirtfront Putin? Malaysian Jumbo plane shot down over Ukraine by Russian backed rebels?
 
Lawnchair Larry said:
It makes perfect sense that CSL should have had a major role in Australia's plan to be self sufficient in supply of CV19 vaccine.

But in a government riven with rumours of preference for mates, my suspicions are aroused with associations such the following:

.....former senior Liberal staffer Kieran Schneemann was the head of government affairs (read:lobbying) at AstraZeneca Australia.

Schneemann was a senior adviser to John Howard.

Was the enforced CSL/AZ tandem the only binary option?

CSL/Sinopharm or CSL/Sputnik?

I would have thought Morrison would have hurled himself at those options.

Either that or he would have hurled.
Click to expand...

I recall the reason given - early on - was that CSL already had the core systems in place required to build the "traditional" AZ vaccine, where Pfizer's ground breaking mRNA required either machines we didn't yet have along with the IP rights.

Early in the pandemic, surrounded by unknowns, it's not unreasonable to "feel the of value" of going for an assured local supply chain and the traditional vacc that fits that ... vs the more "moonshot" looking at the time Pfizer but then you're also 100% responsible for the bet. Remember there was also the UQ vacc that didn't reach the trial goals. So overall we did have a bit more than just the one horse in the race, one frontrunner and one local outsider if you like, but lets not give scottyfrommarketing too much credit for what might look like a deliberate conscious 'hedge'.
 
RussellEbertHandball said:
Do you reckon Anglo Australian's would have gone with a Russian or Chinese vaccine over an Oxford Uni one?? Howard Florey taught and did research at Oxford Uni (as well as Cambridge in 1920's and 1930's). They were never going to ignore these factors.
Click to expand...

The long term commercial and research links and even personal relationships between US and EU pharma ... and our PBS negotiators and our TGA approvers would have a lot to do with it too.

Trust and relationships. All the positive aspects. Not even a need to go to the negatives of Sino- or Soviet- sourcing which are fairly easy to articulate ;)
 
Portology said:
The long term commercial and research links and even personal relationships between US and EU pharma ... and our PBS negotiators and our TGA approvers would have a lot to do with it too.

Trust and relationships. All the positive aspects. Not even a need to go to the negatives of Sino- or Soviet- sourcing which are fairly easy to articulate ;)
Click to expand...
All true, and what you wrote previously I didn't raise because CSL (which was set up as a government body in 1916 and worked on the 1918-20 Spanish flu) don't have facilities to make mRNA virus and neither does anyone else in Oz.

Could you imagine any politician successfully selling that they have organised for CSL or any company to have gone into partnership with Russian and Chinese organisations and Australians should use those vaccines?

Do you reckon anyone would trust those organisations are being fully transparent with all cases that had a bad reaction to their vaccine and any deaths? That Russian and Chinese governments are releasing all the facts? How much skepticism is their that the Chinese covid numbers aren't real, aren't close enough to what happened in December 2019 to April 2020? What about the first few months of the outbreak in Russia? Don't you remember how skeptical people were 12-14 months ago about the Russian numbers?
 
Schulzenfest said:
Dunno how it works in the US but in South Australia you can be convicted of murder for being 'recklessly indifferent' to causing death. Whether Chauvin intentionally killed Floyd, only one person knows for sure, but he sure as sh*t was recklessly indifferent to keeping him alive.
Click to expand...
Same law in Brazil. One of the things we learn while studying Criminal Law is the difference between what could roughly be translated as "eventual intent" and "conscious negligence."

In both cases, one does something knowing the risks. However, in the latter ("conscious negligence"), one trusts that nothing bad will happen from it; while, in the former ("eventual intent"), one simply does not care whether something bad happens. Let's say someone dies from the action. In such a scenario, "eventual intent" would lead to a murder verdict; "conscious negligence," to manslaughter.

---

1954 said:
When compared to many of the US states the penalties for serious crimes in this country are ridiculously light, eg a case I saw on tv recently where a bloke got 2 life terms for murdering his wife and her mother, and he was released after serving only 8 years. o_O
Click to expand...

Not that much different from here. Maximum penalty is 30 years, regardless; and one can get out after 1/3 of the sentence is observed.
 
GremioPower said:
Same law in Brazil. One of the things we learn while studying Criminal Law is the difference between what could roughly be translated as "eventual intent" and "conscious negligence."

In both cases, one does something knowing the risks. However, in the latter ("conscious negligence"), one trusts that nothing bad will happen from it; while, in the former ("eventual intent"), one simply does not care whether something bad happens. Let's say someone dies from the action. In such a scenario, "eventual intent" would lead to a murder verdict; "conscious negligence," to manslaughter.

---



Not that much different from here. Maximum penalty is 30 years, regardless; and one can get out after 1/3 of the sentence is observed.
Click to expand...

I saw an episode of a US crime series on fox recently where the actual perpetrators are shown during the arrest process and the police interviews, and where the 16 yo accessory to the totally senseless shooting of a diner in a restaurant received a 20 year prison term, and the shooter, an 18 yo was imprisoned for life, which in Florida is apparently 55 years.

It's difficult to get a handle on the US crime scene as depicted in programmes like 48 Hours because they may give a false impression (possibly deliberately), but if the percentage of young African American men killing each other over what could be seen by many as extremely trivial matters is anywhere near accurate then it must be a huge problem.
 
The sheer continuity of rorting is jaw dropping. I have no doubt that the Opposition has a capability for similar transgressions but I do doubt at the breakneck pace of this Government.

thenewdaily.com.au

'Car park rorts' is 'sports rorts on sterioids' as government grants queryed

Labor has branded the community grants scandal "car park rorts", after it was found grants were distributed as election promises in the 2019 campaign.
thenewdaily.com.au thenewdaily.com.au
 
RussellEbertHandball said:
All true, and what you wrote previously I didn't raise because CSL (which was set up as a government body in 1916 and worked on the 1918-20 Spanish flu) don't have facilities to make mRNA virus and neither does anyone else in Oz.
Click to expand...
We do have a facility to manufacture mRNA:
indaily.com.au

Australian vaccine manufacturing race at starting line - InDaily

The federal government wants a show of interest from drug manufacturers to make advanced mRNA COVID vaccines in Australia, with an approach to market beginning today.
indaily.com.au indaily.com.au

Unsurprisingly it is a surplus to requirement old Pfizer facility at Thebarton.

As far as I am aware the Astra Zeneca dose has not been approved by the US FDA.
Why?
The AZ trial was a dogs dinner.
You submit a clinical trial protocol to the US FDA, and deviate from it due to incompetence, you can expect trouble. Administering a half dose instead of a full dose at the first injection, without testing the dose is incompetent.

I am surprised that the TGA approved AZ given how closely we follow FDA leadership.
A historical examination of the AZ dose is found here:

www.theguardian.com

The Oxford vaccine: the trials and tribulations of a world-saving jab

Amid bemusement from scientists at the deluge of often undeserved criticism, the Guardian pieces together the story behind the vaccine’s successes and failures
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
 
Last edited:
Lawnchair Larry said:
We do have a facility to manufacture mRNA:
indaily.com.au

Australian vaccine manufacturing race at starting line - InDaily

The federal government wants a show of interest from drug manufacturers to make advanced mRNA COVID vaccines in Australia, with an approach to market beginning today.
indaily.com.au indaily.com.au

Unsurprisingly it is a surplus to requirement old Pfizer facility at Thebarton.

As far as I am aware the Astra Zeneca dose has not been approved by the US FDA.
Why?
The AZ trial was a dogs dinner.
You submit a clinical trial protocol to the US FDA, and deviate from it due to incompetence, you can expect trouble. Administering a half dose instead of a full dose at the first injection, without testing the dose is incompetent.

I am surprised that the TGA approved AZ given how closely we follow FDA leadership.
A historical examination of the AZ dose is found here:

www.theguardian.com

The Oxford vaccine: the trials and tribulations of a world-saving jab

Amid bemusement from scientists at the deluge of often undeserved criticism, the Guardian pieces together the story behind the vaccine’s successes and failures
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
Click to expand...
They cant make them next week is the point. The article talks about being able to do it in 12 months time. Which is good for down the track but doesnt solve the immediate problems.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GremioPower
Opinion Education BF-style
Replies
0
Views
137
GremioPower
GremioPower

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top