Europe

Wednesday May 12, 2021

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Wednesday May 12, 2021

What happens when people get two different COVID-19 vaccines?

As some experts continue to warn of very rare side effects associated with the AstraZeneca vaccine, Canadian health officials are now reviewing the research on mixing various COVID-19 shots.

May 6, 2020

A study of a “mismatched” vaccine regimen is underway in the U.K. — but some scientists say there’s reason to believe that administering two doses of different products could boost a person’s immune response beyond what can be achieved by giving the same shot twice.

The National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI) caused some confusion earlier this month when it said the viral vector shot from AstraZeneca is not the “preferred” product given its associated risk of vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT) — a condition that causes blood clots. That warning came out after hundreds of thousands of Canadians had received the AstraZeneca vaccine already.

According to the Ontario Science Table, estimates of the frequency of VITT in individuals who have received the AstraZeneca vaccine now range from 1 case in 26,000 to 1 case in 127,000 doses administered.

The risk of developing this side effect, combined with an uncertain delivery schedule for future supply, has prompted some provinces to consider pausing AstraZeneca vaccinations altogether.

Researchers at Oxford University in the U.K. launched a study in early February to explore the possible benefits of alternating different COVID-19 vaccines. According to the lead scientists, the study is “looking for clues as to how to increase the breadth of protection against new virus strains.”

March 31, 2021

The study — otherwise known as the COVID-19 Heterologous Prime Boost study, or “Com-COV” — is collecting data to determine whether receiving two different types of vaccine generates an immune response at least equal to the response that follows receiving the same product twice. (A “heterologous” vaccination regimen is one that uses more than one product.)

Dr. Helen Fletcher is a professor of immunology at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine in the U.K. She said a “mismatched” vaccine program would deliver some practical benefits — vaccine delivery logistics would be greatly simplified — but there could be another good reason to pursue a mixed-dose regimen.

“I’m excited about the study because I think it’s likely that the immune response will be even better if you mix and match vaccines,” Fletcher said in an interview with CBC News.

Dr. Theresa Tam, Canada’s chief public health officer, said last week the current guidance is for AstraZeneca recipients to get a second dose of the same product, but NACI is now reviewing the Oxford research on mixing AstraZeneca with an mRNA shot.

“There will be further advice forthcoming on that second dose based on the evolving science. We should watch this space,” Tam said. 

Will Canada shorten the time between shots? Possibly. NACI said in early March that, given the limited vaccine supply, provinces and territories may want to wait up to 16 weeks between first and second doses to give more people at least some level of protection.

The provinces have since followed this guidance, with a few exceptions. For example, many long-term care home residents have been fully vaccinated on the timeline recommended by the vaccine makers. Pfizer calls for a second dose 21 days after the first, while Moderna stipulates the second shot should come 28 days later. (CBC) 

 

 

Tuesday May 11, 2021

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Tuesday May 11, 2021

Poorer countries might not get vaccinated until 2023

High-income countries have purchased more than half of the Covid-19 vaccine supply to date, and low-income countries, just 9 percent, according to Duke University’s Global Health Innovation Center. This is why a country like the US is close to vaccinating half its population with one dose while the rate in a place like Guinea is less than 1 percent and not budging.

April 27, 2021

“That’s not just unconscionable, but it also is very much against the interests of high-income countries,” Georgetown global health law professor Lawrence Gostin told Vox in January. With the virus continuing to circulate, and variants picking up pace around the globe, outbreaks in the poorest countries will pose a threat to the world. 

It’s not an accident that many of the world’s first-approved Covid-19 vaccines — from companies like Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Moderna — were developed and rolled out in high-income countries. As the pandemic took hold last year, wealthier nations — including the US, UK, and EU block — began making deals with the pharmaceutical companies that were developing Covid-19 vaccines, which also happened to be headquartered within their borders.

January 28, 2021

These bilateral deals involved governments essentially giving the companies billions of dollars to speed up research and development in exchange for priority access to vaccines, should they prove to be effective. But the deals also pushed poorer countries, which didn’t have the resources to pre-purchase millions of doses of vaccines that might not even get approved for market, further down the access line.

Rich countries could donate more doses to poorer countries — a move global health groups have been calling for for months and one that’s starting to happen in response to the crisis in India. 

Rich countries could also simply start investing more in helping poorer countries respond to the crisis. They could answer Covax’s call for more donor funds, for example. Or Omer called for something akin to PEPFAR, America’s global health program to combat AIDS around the world. Launched under George W. Bush in 2003, to date, it’s provided $90 billion toward fighting AIDS. (Vox) 

 

Friday November 8, 2019

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Friday November 8, 2019

Western Order Reels on Berlin Wall Anniversary

June 19, 2018

The stage is set at the Brandenburg Gate, the dignitaries are assembling — but 30 years on, is there much cause to celebrate the fall of the Berlin Wall?

The iconic moment of 1989 crowned a year of revolution that toppled communist regimes across the Soviet bloc, marking the end of the Cold War and the start of a hopeful new era.

The global divisions caused by the 1991 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq stopped that in its tracks. Optimism quickly turned to cynicism, economic boom to bust, and electorates began to look for new answers.

June 9, 2018

Today, the western liberal order that prevailed in 1989 is crumbling. Vladimir Putin’s Russia is resurgent, communist China is the world’s second-biggest economy, and the U.S. under Donald Trump openly scorns multilateralism, belittles NATO and calls the European Union a foe.

But even as the west looks spent, it’s too early to administer the last rites.

The global climate emergency upends politics as we know it and represents a chance for the west to lead, even if Greta Thunberg complains it’s not enough. Europe is a green energy powerhouse. Environmental concerns top the EU’s agenda. Germany’s Green party is vying for first place in opinion polls.

A Green chancellor of Europe’s dominant country: Few could have imagined that in 1989. (Financial Post)

In 1989, a suggestion was drawn in my comic strip Alas & Alack that Donald Trump would buy the Berlin Wall. Interesting prophesy on how history would eventually play out with a future U.S. President and his penchant for walls and keeping people divided.


 

Friday November 16, 2018

November 16, 2018

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Friday November 16, 2018

The Brutal Reality Of Brexit

June 25, 2016

Theresa May’s chickens are coming home to roost. The deal she agreed with Brussels is unravelling fast, and her premiership along with it. So far, seven of her ministers have resigned. Letters calling for her replacement are pouring in to the powerful chairman of the Conservative Party’s 1922 Committee: once he receives 48 letters, there could be a vote of confidence in her leadership, and perhaps a leadership challenge. Other Tories are calling for a second referendum. Meanwhile, the Labour party is slavering at the possibility of an early General Election. The political crisis that has been simmering since 2016 has erupted with a vengeance.

The political fallout from Mrs. May’s latest attempt to square the Brexit circle is understandable. Her Brexit deal is horrible. It would lock the UK into a “frozen Brexit”, neither in the EU nor completely out of it.  The U.K. would be forced to accept EU decisions over which it would have no say, and continuing to contribute to the EU budget despite no longer being a member. It would also be unable to enact its own trade deals with the rest of the world until the freeze ended. And it would be unable to end the freeze unilaterally.

June 22, 2016

The idea is that this “frozen Brexit” would initially be only for a transitional period ending in December 2020, when it would be superseded by a free trade agreement. But the proposal allows this date to be extended, if necessary for decades, if no free trade agreement is negotiated. And if the transition ends without a free trade agreement, then the entire U.K. would remain in a customs union with the EU indefinitely, but Northern Ireland would have a closer relationship with the EU than the rest of the U.K.

For Brexiters and Remainers alike, this is the worst of all possible solutions. But horrible though it is, this deal satisfies the conditions set by Mrs. May in her Lancaster House speech. It also satisfies the EU’s conditions. No other proposal achieves this. It is, therefore, the best deal available. The U.K. Government has struck a deal that allows Britain to have its cake and eat it – but the cake tastes so disgusting that no-one wants to eat it. (Source: Forbes) 

 

Friday May 11, 2018

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Friday May 11, 2018

The world is nervously watching as the gloves come off between Iran and Israel

Israel says that it’s done with strikes on Iran — for now. France fears an escalation. Iran has its finger on the trigger. But, really, it’s Russian President Vladimir Putin who sits in the hot seat.

July 15, 2015

Where once the US would have been the brake on spikes in Syrian violence, there is a real possibility President Donald Trump’s withdrawal from the 2015 Iran nuclear deal is greasing the wheels towards a wider regional war.

In recent months, the world’s top diplomat, UN Secretary-General António Guterres, has warned that Israeli and Iranian tit-for-tat strikes in Syria could quickly boil over to a regional conflagration.

Overnight, rockets fired by Iranian forces from inside Syria toward Israel triggered a forewarned robust response from Israel’s military — targeting Iranian military assets in Syria.

Since early February, when Israel says it shot down an Iranian drone laden with explosives that was launched from Syria, the Israeli Defense Forces have increased retaliatory strikes in Syria at Iranian targets.

Some of those strikes are reported to have killed several Iranian fighters. Yet until this point there had been no Iranian retaliation.

The sudden surge in the exchange of rockets Wednesday night — on the heels of Trump’s exit from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action — hints that Iran has suspended its strategic restraint.

If so, the likelihood that the Iranian-Israeli confrontation will escalate increases. (Source: CNN) 

 

SaveSave