Sunday 8 August 2021

THE POWER OF THE BRAND

 

As architecture becomes the work of brands like Gehry and Hadid et.al. – see: https://voussoirs.blogspot.com/2021/04/hadid-in-new-york.html - one sees the strength of brands in our COVID world too. Just mention Pfizer and AstraZeneca, and everyone knows, and has an opinion and a preference. The importance of the name seems to have been made clear in a recent ABC News report that told that the Australian-made AstraZeneca vaccine has had to be re-branded for European approval.


'A Gehry'

'An Hadid'



The following text was sent to news outlets in response to this reading, but the world seems to want to keep this matter quiet. So far, only one report on this issue has been seen. Given the apparent absurdity of the circumstance and its potential implications, one has two options to ponder: the first is that the whole affair is a hoax; the second is that Australia is keen to keep the matter under wraps as there is already a problem with the acceptance of AstraZeneca that this situation would only aggravate, stirring more doubt into an already touchy circumstance.#



The mention of 'blood clots' immediately brings AstraZeneca to mind.


The hoax, or false news, theory arises not only from the unusual situation where a licensed product is not accepted in the same manner as the original; but also because of the proposed name of the vaccine – Vaxzevria – that seems a simplistic, somewhat crude phonic reference to ‘vax every Australian.’



Who knows just what is going on?





ROOVAX – FOR EVERY AUSTRALIAN



After all of the hype about Australian’s AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine, we are now being told that, because this government-preferred, Australian-made version is not a vaccine that has been approved in Europe, it has to be rebranded. It is to be called Vaxzevria: see - https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-08-06/astrazeneca-vaccine-rebrand-vaxzevria-covid-9/100356980



Just what is going on? One can recall early reports explaining that, because this vaccine was being made under licence, each batch had to be checked by AstraZeneca in Oxford to ensure the quality was up to standard. This story was given as the cause for the slow start: we had to get it right.


AstraZeneca, Oxford


What has happened? Australia has been putting a vaccine labelled AstraZeneca into the arms of its citizens, ensuring everyone that it is a quality product that the UK has used so successfully. Now we are told that it is something else other than AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine, that is to be called Vaxzevria in order to be authorised overseas.



If one had been asked: “Do you want a Vaxzevria or a Pfizer?” the answer would have been clear. One might as well been asked if one wanted the Russian or Chinese COVID-19 vaccine, or a Pfizer; but some had no choice.




The Australian government has ordered 50 million jabs of this product that it has already suggested should not be used on the majority of the population. Now we discover that it has not been approved in Europe; that it means almost nothing to the rest of the world. How much more money has to be wasted? We have seen millions disappear on airport land, water buybacks, sports facilities, and car parks, but very little on new quarantine centres. A drunken sailor would be more prudent.



The question that had just been asked of the British High Commission - why does the UK only accept those vaccinated in Europe, the USA, and the UK? - has now been answered. Australia is using a vaccine that, for some unknown reason, has not been acknowledged by the rest of the world as AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine; but it is being given to us as the AstraZeneca COVID-19 jab. What has been put into our arms? Why the reluctance of Europe to authorise this licensed product?




The incompetence of this government is astonishing. Do we now know why Australians are not allowed to travel overseas: is it to conceal the fact that Australian vaccinations mean nothing? A portion of Australian citizens are now in limbo, like those left stranded overseas, left with ‘not-AstraZeneca’ jabs that are apparently meaningless. Is this why politicians preferred to get Pfizer?




One wonders what has happened to the AstraZeneca licence. It seems that this information will remain as secret as everything else this government seeks to cover up. It has bungled the return of its citizens; it has bungled the vaccine roll out; and now one wonders if it has bungled the vaccine itself. It is a very poor show.




And now we get Vaxzevria. One can imagine the discussion around the table:

“Let’s call it Roovax; for every Australian.”

“The idea of a vax for every Aussie brand is good. It will be a subliminal encouragement to get vaccinated.”

“VaxeveryA?”

“We want something more ‘scientific-Latin’ looking: why not Vaxzevria?”

“Great!”





So the answer to the question when one rocks up for the jab has now been made easier because of the government’s inept handling of what it says is a good vaccine: “Do you want chalk or cheese?” - for this is what the whole farce has turned into.




One wonders: did I get an AstraZeneca or a Vaxzevria? What will my card say? We have been told we received the AstraZeneca jabs, but these apparently mean nothing. How could the situation end up in such a mess when the government’s intentions are so pure – pure self-interest?




The questions arising out of this muddle are:

If AstraZeneca* is not AstraZeneca, then what is it?

If AstraZeneca is AstraZeneca, then why do we need to change the name to get European authorisation? AstraZeneca seems OK in the UK.

If the product has to be acknowledged as the Australian-made AstraZeneca, then why has the name changed to the scary, challenging, more mysterious Vaxzevria?

Might the more inclusive and self-explanatory AustraZeneca have done the job better, in a clearer, less confusing and less confronting manner?




Or is there a lot more to this mess than has been suggested?

What is the government hiding this time?

Is a vaccine by any other name the same?

A person skilled in marketing would have to say, “No.”

The whole point of branding is differentiation. It seems to the ordinary person that Vaxzevria is not AstraZeneca.

The situation is made more puzzling when one considers our era that has brands that maintain their prestige and reputation on products made in any country, even under licence, without any apology, problems, or complications.

What is different with AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine?





#
In various circumstances in life, one hears the reference to the 'mother' theory that sees a mother's response as a reasonable test of reality: Would this be acceptable to your mother? What might your mother say?

Well, in this situation, one has the luxury of being able to report on what mother actually said. Mother has regular contacts with her helpers who are all unvaccinated. She gleans information from these people as well as from commentary on the news. Her statement on the AstraZeneca vaccinations is simple and to the point: "There are a lot more blood clotting problems than they are admitting to. They only count the dead ones."
Prior to this, when the argument about the benefit of the AZ vaccination was explained to her, mother noted: "It might not kill you, but it will hasten your death."
So much for the 'real world' information.

Mother's latest analysis of the jabs is:
AstraZeneca gives blood clots;
Pfizer gives heart complications;
Moderna leaves one with a sore arm.
She is now waiting for the Moderna vaccine.

It is very likely she will never be vaccinated; there will always be an excuse for another delay with another problem gleaned from the daily chat with her helpers who know the 'real' world.
When we explain that unvaccinated folk have died, the message is met with a quiet "Mmmmm."
Mother has never mentioned that there are reports that Pfizer enlarges the breasts!

*
The term AstraZeneca has become the reference to the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccination in ordinary, everyday language.


No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.