Another point not really spoken about, is that for a number of smaller countries the U.K. approval will be seen as sufficient authority for them to also roll out the vaccine when they can get it.
Well done to everyone involved! Now for getting the public on board with it and vaccines into people. Special mention to people like Andy Burnham, doing his best to depoliticise the situation.
Actually the point that Brexit has enabled us to approve and therefore roll out the vaccine slightly more quickly is a valid one. We have, ladies and gentlemen, found the first and almost certainly the last actual positive of Brexit.
You must know the last point is daft - the ability to make quicker decisions will manifest itself as a benefit many times in the future, on many issues.
Really? Such as?
You're only limited by your imagination.
If you can't think of any examples when making quick decisions can be a benefit then I think your imagination is weak. I've long argued for nimbleness and agility as a strength.
The idea that the UK is going to be consistently nimble and agile is somewhat fanciful. We haven't exactly been nimble and agile in reforming taxation, or social care, or the NHS, or dealing with the decline of the High Street, or dealing with US mega-corporations abusing international tax rule, or setting up the computer systems and customs infrastructure for Brexit in 3 weeks time. And it certainly will never be nimble and agile under Boris - he's an even bigger ditherer than Brown.
The UK won't be led by Boris Johnson forever, we hold elections every 4-5 years and if you want a change then you can change the government every 4-5 years (or sooner if no confidence etc happens).
If Starmer has a bright idea that can improve the country and he puts that forward rather than abstaining on it then the country can choose to vote for him easier than we can reform 28 nations of the EU.
Not really, because so many things in the modern world involve negotiations with other countries. The EU speeds that up, not slows it down.
But the EU doesn't always want what we want.
We don't always want what 'we' want either.
Much better just to agree to whatever the EU thinks it wants then?
The EU is a polity. If we're part of it, then we're part of it. There's no us and them unless we leave.
Nonsense, there is always us and them. There are layers of us and them. Atomisation exists at multiple levels.
Do you think that because they're part of the UK that Nicola Sturgeon is the same "us" as Boris Johnson?
Are you part of the same "us" as me?
In this equation you are an individual voter, the UK is an amalgamation of all UK voters, and the EU is an amalgamation of all EU voters. It's perfectly possible that what you want is more aligned with the collective EU than with the collective UK.
Its possible but not true on average since your vote is greatly watered down by the 27 other nations in Europe, whereas on average across the UK your vote counts much, much more.
Yes but the majority of British voters are not Conservatives. It is reasonable to say that the Lab, LD, SNP, Green, SF and PC parties are in aggregate the majority and more aligned with the EU polity.
"Dr June Raine, chief executive of British regulator the MHRA, is asked whether the UK no longer being part of the EU made any difference to the speed the regulator was able to complete the authorisation.
She says the regulator has been able to authorise the supply of the vaccine using provisions under European law which exist until 1 January.
“Our speed or our progress has been totally dependent on the availability of data in our rolling review and the rigorous assessment and independent advice we have received," she adds. "
One thing puzzles me: health is a devolved responsibility, yet the vaccination programme and purchasing seems to be happening at UK government level. Does anyone know how that works?
What I don't know is how many EU countries are relying only on the EU purchase scheme - any that are may experience a significant delay by the sounds of things.
Yesterday it was reported Macron said that France would be starting their vaccination scheme in April. Which did seem a bit pessimistic.
Perhaps they'll buy the Chinese vaccine. Or is that a Chinese antidote?
One thing puzzles me: health is a devolved responsibility, yet the vaccination programme and purchasing seems to be happening at UK government level. Does anyone know how that works?
Actually the point that Brexit has enabled us to approve and therefore roll out the vaccine slightly more quickly is a valid one. We have, ladies and gentlemen, found the first and almost certainly the last actual positive of Brexit.
You must know the last point is daft - the ability to make quicker decisions will manifest itself as a benefit many times in the future, on many issues.
Really? Such as?
You're only limited by your imagination.
If you can't think of any examples when making quick decisions can be a benefit then I think your imagination is weak. I've long argued for nimbleness and agility as a strength.
The idea that the UK is going to be consistently nimble and agile is somewhat fanciful. We haven't exactly been nimble and agile in reforming taxation, or social care, or the NHS, or dealing with the decline of the High Street, or dealing with US mega-corporations abusing international tax rule, or setting up the computer systems and customs infrastructure for Brexit in 3 weeks time. And it certainly will never be nimble and agile under Boris - he's an even bigger ditherer than Brown.
The UK won't be led by Boris Johnson forever, we hold elections every 4-5 years and if you want a change then you can change the government every 4-5 years (or sooner if no confidence etc happens).
If Starmer has a bright idea that can improve the country and he puts that forward rather than abstaining on it then the country can choose to vote for him easier than we can reform 28 nations of the EU.
Not really, because so many things in the modern world involve negotiations with other countries. The EU speeds that up, not slows it down.
But the EU doesn't always want what we want.
We don't always want what 'we' want either.
Much better just to agree to whatever the EU thinks it wants then?
The EU is a polity. If we're part of it, then we're part of it. There's no us and them unless we leave.
Nonsense, there is always us and them. There are layers of us and them. Atomisation exists at multiple levels.
Do you think that because they're part of the UK that Nicola Sturgeon is the same "us" as Boris Johnson?
Are you part of the same "us" as me?
In this equation you are an individual voter, the UK is an amalgamation of all UK voters, and the EU is an amalgamation of all EU voters. It's perfectly possible that what you want is more aligned with the collective EU than with the collective UK.
Its possible but not true on average since your vote is greatly watered down by the 27 other nations in Europe, whereas on average across the UK your vote counts much, much more.
Yes but the majority of British voters are not Conservatives. It is reasonable to say that the Lab, LD, SNP, Green, SF and PC parties are in aggregate the majority and more aligned with the EU polity.
Certainly, I am.
Tories got 47.2% of the English vote, that's good enough for a majority as far as I'm concerned.
Adding up a rainbow doesn't make them the same colour.
One thing puzzles me: health is a devolved responsibility, yet the vaccination programme and purchasing seems to be happening at UK government level. Does anyone know how that works?
NHS Scotland staff will have to buy their vaccine with their Christmas bonus
One thing puzzles me: health is a devolved responsibility, yet the vaccination programme and purchasing seems to be happening at UK government level. Does anyone know how that works?
One imagines that the three devolved nations will just pay Westminster for it out of whatever budget they get as an accounting exercise.
One thing puzzles me: health is a devolved responsibility, yet the vaccination programme and purchasing seems to be happening at UK government level. Does anyone know how that works?
How long have they had to prepare, and from the report it looks as if they aren't taking into account it can be stored at the more favourably temperature for a few days?
Indeed, all of this is just unnecessary. Celebrate that next week 800,000 NHS workers will receive the first jab and that we're finally on the way to living normally again. No need to gloat that we're first in the world, it could very easily have turned out differently.
I'm not sure it's such a wonderful thing to be the first to roll out mass vaccination with a new drug. While it is very unlikely that there will be any major problems, I think I'd still prefer to wait a week or two to see if there are any side-effects that only become apparent when the vaccine is administered on a large scale.
Actually the point that Brexit has enabled us to approve and therefore roll out the vaccine slightly more quickly is a valid one. We have, ladies and gentlemen, found the first and almost certainly the last actual positive of Brexit.
We have approved it. We haven't rolled out anything, yet.
Every sinue of your being strives every day to find the negatives that in your mind helps with your BDS and it is sad to see
Most every sane person would be joyful over this news and it commences on monday
Anti-Brexit rhetoric seems to be much more important than the Covid vaccine to many on here
There's not much to talk about with respect to the vaccine. I mean, it's great news and I am sure we are all in agreement on that. Brexit means we have approved it before the EU. Assuming this doesn't mean that corners were cut in the process then you can put that in the Brexit dividend column, alongside no longer paying into the EU budget. I'm not sure what else is in there.
Lady in press conference said it was our relationship with the EU which made it quicker than it will be next year
Actually the point that Brexit has enabled us to approve and therefore roll out the vaccine slightly more quickly is a valid one. We have, ladies and gentlemen, found the first and almost certainly the last actual positive of Brexit.
We have approved it. We haven't rolled out anything, yet.
Every sinue of your being strives every day to find the negatives that in your mind helps with your BDS and it is sad to see
Most every sane person would be joyful over this news and it commences on monday
Anti-Brexit rhetoric seems to be much more important than the Covid vaccine to many on here
There's not much to talk about with respect to the vaccine. I mean, it's great news and I am sure we are all in agreement on that. Brexit means we have approved it before the EU. Assuming this doesn't mean that corners were cut in the process then you can put that in the Brexit dividend column, alongside no longer paying into the EU budget. I'm not sure what else is in there.
Lady in press conference said it was our relationship with the EU which made it quicker than it will be next year
Didn't she say it was done according to EU law, presumably because of the transition agreement?
Actually the point that Brexit has enabled us to approve and therefore roll out the vaccine slightly more quickly is a valid one. We have, ladies and gentlemen, found the first and almost certainly the last actual positive of Brexit.
You must know the last point is daft - the ability to make quicker decisions will manifest itself as a benefit many times in the future, on many issues.
Really? Such as?
You're only limited by your imagination.
If you can't think of any examples when making quick decisions can be a benefit then I think your imagination is weak. I've long argued for nimbleness and agility as a strength.
The idea that the UK is going to be consistently nimble and agile is somewhat fanciful. We haven't exactly been nimble and agile in reforming taxation, or social care, or the NHS, or dealing with the decline of the High Street, or dealing with US mega-corporations abusing international tax rule, or setting up the computer systems and customs infrastructure for Brexit in 3 weeks time. And it certainly will never be nimble and agile under Boris - he's an even bigger ditherer than Brown.
The UK won't be led by Boris Johnson forever, we hold elections every 4-5 years and if you want a change then you can change the government every 4-5 years (or sooner if no confidence etc happens).
If Starmer has a bright idea that can improve the country and he puts that forward rather than abstaining on it then the country can choose to vote for him easier than we can reform 28 nations of the EU.
Not really, because so many things in the modern world involve negotiations with other countries. The EU speeds that up, not slows it down.
But the EU doesn't always want what we want.
We don't always want what 'we' want either.
Much better just to agree to whatever the EU thinks it wants then?
The EU is a polity. If we're part of it, then we're part of it. There's no us and them unless we leave.
Nonsense, there is always us and them. There are layers of us and them. Atomisation exists at multiple levels.
Do you think that because they're part of the UK that Nicola Sturgeon is the same "us" as Boris Johnson?
Are you part of the same "us" as me?
In this equation you are an individual voter, the UK is an amalgamation of all UK voters, and the EU is an amalgamation of all EU voters. It's perfectly possible that what you want is more aligned with the collective EU than with the collective UK.
Its possible but not true on average since your vote is greatly watered down by the 27 other nations in Europe, whereas on average across the UK your vote counts much, much more.
Yes but the majority of British voters are not Conservatives. It is reasonable to say that the Lab, LD, SNP, Green, SF and PC parties are in aggregate the majority and more aligned with the EU polity.
Certainly, I am.
Tories got 47.2% of the English vote, that's good enough for a majority as far as I'm concerned.
Adding up a rainbow doesn't make them the same colour.
No, but all are closer to the EU politically than to the Tories. There will be exceptions within that rainbow, but also within the Tory vote.
You do concisely point out why the Union is doomed by Brexit.
It's a weird situation where the vast bulk of the detail has been sorted out but nobody wants to take ownership of the over-arching principles that govern that detail.
We have a raft of settled arrangements that could be slid in place on 1st January as ad hoc arrangements in lieu of a "deal". Just do that and carry on talking.
You mean an extension?
I think there is a big difference between an extension agreed as part of a final deal and one one used to delay getting a final deal/one that allows further time for negotiation (delete as applicable.
Actually the point that Brexit has enabled us to approve and therefore roll out the vaccine slightly more quickly is a valid one. We have, ladies and gentlemen, found the first and almost certainly the last actual positive of Brexit.
We have approved it. We haven't rolled out anything, yet.
Every sinue of your being strives every day to find the negatives that in your mind helps with your BDS and it is sad to see
Most every sane person would be joyful over this news and it commences on monday
Anti-Brexit rhetoric seems to be much more important than the Covid vaccine to many on here
There's not much to talk about with respect to the vaccine. I mean, it's great news and I am sure we are all in agreement on that. Brexit means we have approved it before the EU. Assuming this doesn't mean that corners were cut in the process then you can put that in the Brexit dividend column, alongside no longer paying into the EU budget. I'm not sure what else is in there.
Lady in press conference said it was our relationship with the EU which made it quicker than it will be next year
Didn't she say it was done according to EU law, presumably because of the transition agreement?
It sounds as though it has been approved under EU emergency authorisation rules, which in turn means that wasn't a benefit of Brexit after all, and presumably also that EU27 countries could authorise it immediately under the same rules.
Perhaps we should give them free copies of the MHRA internal reports to help them speed things up.
Actually the point that Brexit has enabled us to approve and therefore roll out the vaccine slightly more quickly is a valid one. We have, ladies and gentlemen, found the first and almost certainly the last actual positive of Brexit.
You must know the last point is daft - the ability to make quicker decisions will manifest itself as a benefit many times in the future, on many issues.
Really? Such as?
You're only limited by your imagination.
If you can't think of any examples when making quick decisions can be a benefit then I think your imagination is weak. I've long argued for nimbleness and agility as a strength.
The idea that the UK is going to be consistently nimble and agile is somewhat fanciful. We haven't exactly been nimble and agile in reforming taxation, or social care, or the NHS, or dealing with the decline of the High Street, or dealing with US mega-corporations abusing international tax rule, or setting up the computer systems and customs infrastructure for Brexit in 3 weeks time. And it certainly will never be nimble and agile under Boris - he's an even bigger ditherer than Brown.
The UK won't be led by Boris Johnson forever, we hold elections every 4-5 years and if you want a change then you can change the government every 4-5 years (or sooner if no confidence etc happens).
If Starmer has a bright idea that can improve the country and he puts that forward rather than abstaining on it then the country can choose to vote for him easier than we can reform 28 nations of the EU.
Not really, because so many things in the modern world involve negotiations with other countries. The EU speeds that up, not slows it down.
But the EU doesn't always want what we want.
We don't always want what 'we' want either.
Much better just to agree to whatever the EU thinks it wants then?
The EU is a polity. If we're part of it, then we're part of it. There's no us and them unless we leave.
Nonsense, there is always us and them. There are layers of us and them. Atomisation exists at multiple levels.
Do you think that because they're part of the UK that Nicola Sturgeon is the same "us" as Boris Johnson?
Are you part of the same "us" as me?
In this equation you are an individual voter, the UK is an amalgamation of all UK voters, and the EU is an amalgamation of all EU voters. It's perfectly possible that what you want is more aligned with the collective EU than with the collective UK.
Its possible but not true on average since your vote is greatly watered down by the 27 other nations in Europe, whereas on average across the UK your vote counts much, much more.
Yes but the majority of British voters are not Conservatives. It is reasonable to say that the Lab, LD, SNP, Green, SF and PC parties are in aggregate the majority and more aligned with the EU polity.
Certainly, I am.
Tories got 47.2% of the English vote, that's good enough for a majority as far as I'm concerned.
Adding up a rainbow doesn't make them the same colour.
More politically, remember that the Conservative vote share barely changed between 1979 and 1992. It didn't change that much between 2017 and 2019. Yet the outcome in terms of Parliamentary seats varied a lot. It all depended on how much, and how efficiently, the rainbow was spread or focussed.
And with that, I have stuff to do. Stay safe until the jab, folks.
Actually the point that Brexit has enabled us to approve and therefore roll out the vaccine slightly more quickly is a valid one. We have, ladies and gentlemen, found the first and almost certainly the last actual positive of Brexit.
You must know the last point is daft - the ability to make quicker decisions will manifest itself as a benefit many times in the future, on many issues.
Really? Such as?
You're only limited by your imagination.
If you can't think of any examples when making quick decisions can be a benefit then I think your imagination is weak. I've long argued for nimbleness and agility as a strength.
The idea that the UK is going to be consistently nimble and agile is somewhat fanciful. We haven't exactly been nimble and agile in reforming taxation, or social care, or the NHS, or dealing with the decline of the High Street, or dealing with US mega-corporations abusing international tax rule, or setting up the computer systems and customs infrastructure for Brexit in 3 weeks time. And it certainly will never be nimble and agile under Boris - he's an even bigger ditherer than Brown.
The UK won't be led by Boris Johnson forever, we hold elections every 4-5 years and if you want a change then you can change the government every 4-5 years (or sooner if no confidence etc happens).
If Starmer has a bright idea that can improve the country and he puts that forward rather than abstaining on it then the country can choose to vote for him easier than we can reform 28 nations of the EU.
Not really, because so many things in the modern world involve negotiations with other countries. The EU speeds that up, not slows it down.
But the EU doesn't always want what we want.
We don't always want what 'we' want either.
Much better just to agree to whatever the EU thinks it wants then?
The EU is a polity. If we're part of it, then we're part of it. There's no us and them unless we leave.
Nonsense, there is always us and them. There are layers of us and them. Atomisation exists at multiple levels.
Do you think that because they're part of the UK that Nicola Sturgeon is the same "us" as Boris Johnson?
Are you part of the same "us" as me?
In this equation you are an individual voter, the UK is an amalgamation of all UK voters, and the EU is an amalgamation of all EU voters. It's perfectly possible that what you want is more aligned with the collective EU than with the collective UK.
Its possible but not true on average since your vote is greatly watered down by the 27 other nations in Europe, whereas on average across the UK your vote counts much, much more.
Yes but the majority of British voters are not Conservatives. It is reasonable to say that the Lab, LD, SNP, Green, SF and PC parties are in aggregate the majority and more aligned with the EU polity.
Certainly, I am.
Tories got 47.2% of the English vote, that's good enough for a majority as far as I'm concerned.
Adding up a rainbow doesn't make them the same colour.
No, but all are closer to the EU politically than to the Tories. There will be exceptions within that rainbow, but also within the Tory vote.
You do concisely point out why the Union is doomed by Brexit.
I want the Union to end for the same reasons I think independence is a good thing on both issues though so two birds, one stone as far as I'm concerned.
I don't think you can reasonably say all Labour/LD/Green/SF/PC voters are unanimously closer to EU politics than they are UK either.
And if Starmer wins the next election then, what next? Would you still count Labour voters as closer to EU politics than UK politics? Brexit gives them full control if they win an election.
I'm by nature an optimist - but I fear short sightedness - on both sides - means it will be no deal.
Boris Johnson will always feel the scorn and contempt of history for No Dealing during a pandemic.
The ghosts of Eden and Chamberlain will be able to say in good conscience 'No longer the worst!'
They already won't - Cameron probably beats both of them for stupidest policy decision of all time.
The referendum train was coming long before Dave.
Perhaps, but he was solely responsible for framing and choreographing it in such an inevitably catastrophic way. Even if Remain had won it wouldn't have settled anything.
I think it would. Even a narrow win would not have set off demands for another try - part of the pro-referendum thing was the Irish second vote - "They make us vote until we give them the answer we want".
I was expecting a narrow win, followed by peace and quiet until the whole country charged out of the EU, a number of years later, over the creation of an EU wide health service.
The question will never be settled permanently. 2000 years of history suggests that the question of European involvement and integration is never completely answered.
I think we will keep cycling in and out of different levels of integration with the continent. Being isolated before we joined weakened our economy to the point that we overcame our superiority complex and joined up. Over time our economy improved sufficiently that our superiority complex re-emerged and we left. Now we are likely to see our economy fade again thanks to our isolation, until we are weak enough that we want to join up again. And so the cycle will repeat itself.
Um, no.
Why not?
Because it's a totally made up piece of shite. There is no evidence that EEC membership had any accelerative affect on GDP growth (or whatever measure you wish to use) - in fact it appears to have flatlined in the years immediately following accession, which doesn't speak to a glorious economic feeding frenzy does it? The economic rationale for joining was to get inside the tariff walls, but tariffs declined as a factor over the years anyway.
Our accession coincided with the first oil crisis and the three day week, which is why the mid 70s were not great from a growth point of view. Anyway, we are talking about long term processes not things which happen overnight. Joining the EEC/EU boosted trade and trade boosts productivity, that's why forecasters at the OBR and BOE and in the private sector expect leaving to lower our GDP, relative to if we had stayed in. We were the sick man of Europe outside the EU, and our relative growth performance improved significantly as members. Nothing is certain in the world of Economic forecasting, but I think it is more likely than not that our relative economic performance will now decline, and eventually we may be forced to once again petition for membership from a position of weakness. Probably decades away though, the English superiority complex is a stubborn beast.
Actually the point that Brexit has enabled us to approve and therefore roll out the vaccine slightly more quickly is a valid one. We have, ladies and gentlemen, found the first and almost certainly the last actual positive of Brexit.
We have approved it. We haven't rolled out anything, yet.
Every sinue of your being strives every day to find the negatives that in your mind helps with your BDS and it is sad to see
Most every sane person would be joyful over this news and it commences on monday
Anti-Brexit rhetoric seems to be much more important than the Covid vaccine to many on here
There's not much to talk about with respect to the vaccine. I mean, it's great news and I am sure we are all in agreement on that. Brexit means we have approved it before the EU. Assuming this doesn't mean that corners were cut in the process then you can put that in the Brexit dividend column, alongside no longer paying into the EU budget. I'm not sure what else is in there.
Lady in press conference said it was our relationship with the EU which made it quicker than it will be next year
Didn't she say it was done according to EU law, presumably because of the transition agreement?
Yes and that it made things easier. Very good press conference clear and well managed, no waffle or politicking shame the others aren’t
One thing puzzles me: health is a devolved responsibility, yet the vaccination programme and purchasing seems to be happening at UK government level. Does anyone know how that works?
How long have they had to prepare, and from the report it looks as if they aren't taking into account it can be stored at the more favourably temperature for a few days?
It is still a logistical nightmare. In Leicester it will be hospital staff first, but also primary and social care, but protecting those does indirectly protect care home residents. Leicester racecourse will be our offsite location,
Actually the point that Brexit has enabled us to approve and therefore roll out the vaccine slightly more quickly is a valid one. We have, ladies and gentlemen, found the first and almost certainly the last actual positive of Brexit.
You must know the last point is daft - the ability to make quicker decisions will manifest itself as a benefit many times in the future, on many issues.
Really? Such as?
You're only limited by your imagination.
If you can't think of any examples when making quick decisions can be a benefit then I think your imagination is weak. I've long argued for nimbleness and agility as a strength.
The idea that the UK is going to be consistently nimble and agile is somewhat fanciful. We haven't exactly been nimble and agile in reforming taxation, or social care, or the NHS, or dealing with the decline of the High Street, or dealing with US mega-corporations abusing international tax rule, or setting up the computer systems and customs infrastructure for Brexit in 3 weeks time. And it certainly will never be nimble and agile under Boris - he's an even bigger ditherer than Brown.
The UK won't be led by Boris Johnson forever, we hold elections every 4-5 years and if you want a change then you can change the government every 4-5 years (or sooner if no confidence etc happens).
If Starmer has a bright idea that can improve the country and he puts that forward rather than abstaining on it then the country can choose to vote for him easier than we can reform 28 nations of the EU.
Not really, because so many things in the modern world involve negotiations with other countries. The EU speeds that up, not slows it down.
But the EU doesn't always want what we want.
We don't always want what 'we' want either.
Much better just to agree to whatever the EU thinks it wants then?
The EU is a polity. If we're part of it, then we're part of it. There's no us and them unless we leave.
Nonsense, there is always us and them. There are layers of us and them. Atomisation exists at multiple levels.
Do you think that because they're part of the UK that Nicola Sturgeon is the same "us" as Boris Johnson?
Are you part of the same "us" as me?
In this equation you are an individual voter, the UK is an amalgamation of all UK voters, and the EU is an amalgamation of all EU voters. It's perfectly possible that what you want is more aligned with the collective EU than with the collective UK.
Its possible but not true on average since your vote is greatly watered down by the 27 other nations in Europe, whereas on average across the UK your vote counts much, much more.
Yes but the majority of British voters are not Conservatives. It is reasonable to say that the Lab, LD, SNP, Green, SF and PC parties are in aggregate the majority and more aligned with the EU polity.
Certainly, I am.
Tories got 47.2% of the English vote, that's good enough for a majority as far as I'm concerned.
Adding up a rainbow doesn't make them the same colour.
You could probably blend the 2.1% Brexit & UKIP purple into the Tory blue for the purposes of finding whether a majority are aligned with the EU or not.
Indeed, all of this is just unnecessary. Celebrate that next week 800,000 NHS workers will receive the first jab and that we're finally on the way to living normally again. No need to gloat that we're first in the world, it could very easily have turned out differently.
So when we're behind everyone else it's right to declaim it from the rooftops, but when a political decision we made works out on the upside, we should be terribly polite and not mention it? Ok then.
Indeed, all of this is just unnecessary. Celebrate that next week 800,000 NHS workers will receive the first jab and that we're finally on the way to living normally again. No need to gloat that we're first in the world, it could very easily have turned out differently.
We (the whole world that is) have been incredibly lucky that this pandemic came along at a time when we could develop not just one but three, four or five viable vaccines, two of which appear to provide ~95% protection.
It could have been a lot worse - without a vaccine the herd immunity people would be correct: the only way out would have been through, with the many millions of deaths that would have entailed. We could affect the rate of spread & thereby the load on our health services & save people by slowing the infection but that would have been the limit of our powers. 1918 all over again?
We should definitely be celebrating. It’s a triumph of modern immunology.
Actually the point that Brexit has enabled us to approve and therefore roll out the vaccine slightly more quickly is a valid one. We have, ladies and gentlemen, found the first and almost certainly the last actual positive of Brexit.
You must know the last point is daft - the ability to make quicker decisions will manifest itself as a benefit many times in the future, on many issues.
Really? Such as?
You're only limited by your imagination.
If you can't think of any examples when making quick decisions can be a benefit then I think your imagination is weak. I've long argued for nimbleness and agility as a strength.
The idea that the UK is going to be consistently nimble and agile is somewhat fanciful. We haven't exactly been nimble and agile in reforming taxation, or social care, or the NHS, or dealing with the decline of the High Street, or dealing with US mega-corporations abusing international tax rule, or setting up the computer systems and customs infrastructure for Brexit in 3 weeks time. And it certainly will never be nimble and agile under Boris - he's an even bigger ditherer than Brown.
The UK won't be led by Boris Johnson forever, we hold elections every 4-5 years and if you want a change then you can change the government every 4-5 years (or sooner if no confidence etc happens).
If Starmer has a bright idea that can improve the country and he puts that forward rather than abstaining on it then the country can choose to vote for him easier than we can reform 28 nations of the EU.
Not really, because so many things in the modern world involve negotiations with other countries. The EU speeds that up, not slows it down.
But the EU doesn't always want what we want.
We don't always want what 'we' want either.
Much better just to agree to whatever the EU thinks it wants then?
The EU is a polity. If we're part of it, then we're part of it. There's no us and them unless we leave.
Nonsense, there is always us and them. There are layers of us and them. Atomisation exists at multiple levels.
Do you think that because they're part of the UK that Nicola Sturgeon is the same "us" as Boris Johnson?
Are you part of the same "us" as me?
In this equation you are an individual voter, the UK is an amalgamation of all UK voters, and the EU is an amalgamation of all EU voters. It's perfectly possible that what you want is more aligned with the collective EU than with the collective UK.
Its possible but not true on average since your vote is greatly watered down by the 27 other nations in Europe, whereas on average across the UK your vote counts much, much more.
Yes but the majority of British voters are not Conservatives. It is reasonable to say that the Lab, LD, SNP, Green, SF and PC parties are in aggregate the majority and more aligned with the EU polity.
Certainly, I am.
Tories got 47.2% of the English vote, that's good enough for a majority as far as I'm concerned.
Adding up a rainbow doesn't make them the same colour.
More politically, remember that the Conservative vote share barely changed between 1979 and 1992. It didn't change that much between 2017 and 2019. Yet the outcome in terms of Parliamentary seats varied a lot. It all depended on how much, and how efficiently, the rainbow was spread or focussed.
And with that, I have stuff to do. Stay safe until the jab, folks.
Technically white is not the same colour as red, orange, yellow, green etc 😜
Mr. Sandpit, interesting comment. Do Mercedes care about 2nd place so much?
It could have implications if they're running next to one another. But if Russell were on for a win, it'd look pretty heartless to take that away from him.
The more the media cover this vaccine story the clearer it is becoming that the UK on this are the first in the world and before the US and EU
It is naive in the extreme not to expect Boris and others not to make a big play on this story
Hats off to Johnson. He speculated over the potential vaccines and it worked out.
CNN has this article under the headline "UK wins global race to approve Covid vaccine" on their homepage. Not often you see a positive headline for Britain in international media outlets these days, but I suppose it's nice.
One thing puzzles me: health is a devolved responsibility, yet the vaccination programme and purchasing seems to be happening at UK government level. Does anyone know how that works?
How long have they had to prepare, and from the report it looks as if they aren't taking into account it can be stored at the more favourably temperature for a few days?
It is still a logistical nightmare. In Leicester it will be hospital staff first, but also primary and social care, but protecting those does indirectly protect care home residents. Leicester racecourse will be our offsite location,
The practical problems of getting the vaccine to care homes was mentioned in the press conference this morning:
Q: Will people in care homes really get priority, given the logistical problems of delivering the vaccine?
Lim says there will be “some flexibility” in view of the operational constraints. The JCVI is advising that care home residents should come first. But he says whether that is possible will depend on circumstances.
I am not betting on this market, because I don't understand what the bookies will actually interpret as No Deal.
I suspect this is cock up. I wouldn't expect such a notice to pop up in the guidance before officially announced. Perhaps there is a second draft guidance.
One thing puzzles me: health is a devolved responsibility, yet the vaccination programme and purchasing seems to be happening at UK government level. Does anyone know how that works?
One imagines that the three devolved nations will just pay Westminster for it out of whatever budget they get as an accounting exercise.
with massive uplift no doubt including the union jack
One thing puzzles me: health is a devolved responsibility, yet the vaccination programme and purchasing seems to be happening at UK government level. Does anyone know how that works?
How long have they had to prepare, and from the report it looks as if they aren't taking into account it can be stored at the more favourably temperature for a few days?
It is still a logistical nightmare. In Leicester it will be hospital staff first, but also primary and social care, but protecting those does indirectly protect care home residents. Leicester racecourse will be our offsite location,
The practical problems of getting the vaccine to care homes was mentioned in the press conference this morning:
Q: Will people in care homes really get priority, given the logistical problems of delivering the vaccine?
Lim says there will be “some flexibility” in view of the operational constraints. The JCVI is advising that care home residents should come first. But he says whether that is possible will depend on circumstances.
Apart from anything else, before the NHS staff go round a bunch of care homes touching everyone, it would be wise that they are vaccinated first. The risk of superspreaders causing an outbreak would otherwise be quite significant.
One thing puzzles me: health is a devolved responsibility, yet the vaccination programme and purchasing seems to be happening at UK government level. Does anyone know how that works?
How long have they had to prepare, and from the report it looks as if they aren't taking into account it can be stored at the more favourably temperature for a few days?
It is still a logistical nightmare. In Leicester it will be hospital staff first, but also primary and social care, but protecting those does indirectly protect care home residents. Leicester racecourse will be our offsite location,
The practical problems of getting the vaccine to care homes was mentioned in the press conference this morning:
Q: Will people in care homes really get priority, given the logistical problems of delivering the vaccine?
Lim says there will be “some flexibility” in view of the operational constraints. The JCVI is advising that care home residents should come first. But he says whether that is possible will depend on circumstances.
Apart from anything else, before the NHS staff go round a bunch of care homes touching everyone, it would be wise that they are vaccinated first. The risk of superspreaders causing an outbreak would otherwise be quite significant.
Yes. In fact I'd have thought that the very first people who should get the vaccine ought to be the vaccinators themselves.
I am not betting on this market, because I don't understand what the bookies will actually interpret as No Deal.
I suspect this is cock up. I wouldn't expect such a notice to pop up in the guidance before officially announced. Perhaps there is a second draft guidance.
It was officially announced a few weeks ago remember?
After the deadline for a deal was missed Boris said that we were officially preparing for WTO terms now. WTO references were put on the websites etc then.
Talks resumed after Barnier moved but the WTO references were not removed then. The official policy today is WTO, if a deal changes that then it changes it, but as things stand we are officially preparing for no deal.
One thing puzzles me: health is a devolved responsibility, yet the vaccination programme and purchasing seems to be happening at UK government level. Does anyone know how that works?
How long have they had to prepare, and from the report it looks as if they aren't taking into account it can be stored at the more favourably temperature for a few days?
It is still a logistical nightmare. In Leicester it will be hospital staff first, but also primary and social care, but protecting those does indirectly protect care home residents. Leicester racecourse will be our offsite location,
The practical problems of getting the vaccine to care homes was mentioned in the press conference this morning:
Q: Will people in care homes really get priority, given the logistical problems of delivering the vaccine?
Lim says there will be “some flexibility” in view of the operational constraints. The JCVI is advising that care home residents should come first. But he says whether that is possible will depend on circumstances.
Apart from anything else, before the NHS staff go round a bunch of care homes touching everyone, it would be wise that they are vaccinated first. The risk of superspreaders causing an outbreak would otherwise be quite significant.
Yes. In fact I'd have thought that the very first people who should get the vaccine ought to be the vaccinators themselves.
Actually the point that Brexit has enabled us to approve and therefore roll out the vaccine slightly more quickly is a valid one. We have, ladies and gentlemen, found the first and almost certainly the last actual positive of Brexit.
We have approved it. We haven't rolled out anything, yet.
Every sinue of your being strives every day to find the negatives that in your mind helps with your BDS and it is sad to see
Most every sane person would be joyful over this news and it commences on monday
Anti-Brexit rhetoric seems to be much more important than the Covid vaccine to many on here
There's not much to talk about with respect to the vaccine. I mean, it's great news and I am sure we are all in agreement on that. Brexit means we have approved it before the EU. Assuming this doesn't mean that corners were cut in the process then you can put that in the Brexit dividend column, alongside no longer paying into the EU budget. I'm not sure what else is in there.
Lady in press conference said it was our relationship with the EU which made it quicker than it will be next year
Didn't she say it was done according to EU law, presumably because of the transition agreement?
Yes and that it made things easier. Very good press conference clear and well managed, no waffle or politicking shame the others aren’t
Purely for interest (I think that the UK government has done well on vaccine procurement) does that mean that it's the same EU law that applies in EU countries until the end of this year, i.e. that even if we were still EU members, the MHRA could have made this approval? My understanding of the situation and reading of https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/hmaema-statement-approval-vaccines suggests not (certainly not for the approaches of Pfizer and Moderna, AZ vaccine probably not too as it's a modified rather than inactivated/attenuated virus).
I'm by nature an optimist - but I fear short sightedness - on both sides - means it will be no deal.
Boris Johnson will always feel the scorn and contempt of history for No Dealing during a pandemic.
The ghosts of Eden and Chamberlain will be able to say in good conscience 'No longer the worst!'
They already won't - Cameron probably beats both of them for stupidest policy decision of all time.
The referendum train was coming long before Dave.
Perhaps, but he was solely responsible for framing and choreographing it in such an inevitably catastrophic way. Even if Remain had won it wouldn't have settled anything.
I think it would. Even a narrow win would not have set off demands for another try - part of the pro-referendum thing was the Irish second vote - "They make us vote until we give them the answer we want".
I was expecting a narrow win, followed by peace and quiet until the whole country charged out of the EU, a number of years later, over the creation of an EU wide health service.
The question will never be settled permanently. 2000 years of history suggests that the question of European involvement and integration is never completely answered.
I think we will keep cycling in and out of different levels of integration with the continent. Being isolated before we joined weakened our economy to the point that we overcame our superiority complex and joined up. Over time our economy improved sufficiently that our superiority complex re-emerged and we left. Now we are likely to see our economy fade again thanks to our isolation, until we are weak enough that we want to join up again. And so the cycle will repeat itself.
Um, no.
Why not?
Because it's a totally made up piece of shite. There is no evidence that EEC membership had any accelerative affect on GDP growth (or whatever measure you wish to use) - in fact it appears to have flatlined in the years immediately following accession, which doesn't speak to a glorious economic feeding frenzy does it? The economic rationale for joining was to get inside the tariff walls, but tariffs declined as a factor over the years anyway.
Our accession coincided with the first oil crisis and the three day week, which is why the mid 70s were not great from a growth point of view. Anyway, we are talking about long term processes not things which happen overnight. Joining the EEC/EU boosted trade and trade boosts productivity, that's why forecasters at the OBR and BOE and in the private sector expect leaving to lower our GDP, relative to if we had stayed in. We were the sick man of Europe outside the EU, and our relative growth performance improved significantly as members. Nothing is certain in the world of Economic forecasting, but I think it is more likely than not that our relative economic performance will now decline, and eventually we may be forced to once again petition for membership from a position of weakness. Probably decades away though, the English superiority complex is a stubborn beast.
As I suggested yesterday, some on the EU side are starting to see positives in no-deal - which makes that outcome much more likely.
As mentioned several time previously, January is going to be a meltdown without a deal...
Since the EU position is now that a deal can be struck even after the transition arrangements expire, it means that France in particular sees very distinct possibilities in delaying and watching the UK economy mashed so badly that by the end of the first month Doris will have to fold not just on today´s outstanding issues but equally will have to go back and concede on previous agreements, since "nothing is agreed until all agreed". Just before the Daily Express starts shouting the odds, I think we should remember who placed us in this disastrous position... Step forward the guilty men: Johnson, Gove, Redwood et al. 2021 is unlikely to be a good year for them.... or indeed us.
Mr. Sandpit, interesting comment. Do Mercedes care about 2nd place so much?
It could have implications if they're running next to one another. But if Russell were on for a win, it'd look pretty heartless to take that away from him.
I think if it were Lewis in the car, they’d agree to engineer a win for Valtteri if they were clearly ahead. I don’t think they’d be blatant about denying George the win, but varying the strategies could achieve the same. Or maybe they sat GR down and said here’s the opportunity, but our goal for the weekend is to secure the Championship 1-2.
One thing puzzles me: health is a devolved responsibility, yet the vaccination programme and purchasing seems to be happening at UK government level. Does anyone know how that works?
How long have they had to prepare, and from the report it looks as if they aren't taking into account it can be stored at the more favourably temperature for a few days?
It is still a logistical nightmare. In Leicester it will be hospital staff first, but also primary and social care, but protecting those does indirectly protect care home residents. Leicester racecourse will be our offsite location,
The practical problems of getting the vaccine to care homes was mentioned in the press conference this morning:
Q: Will people in care homes really get priority, given the logistical problems of delivering the vaccine?
Lim says there will be “some flexibility” in view of the operational constraints. The JCVI is advising that care home residents should come first. But he says whether that is possible will depend on circumstances.
Apart from anything else, before the NHS staff go round a bunch of care homes touching everyone, it would be wise that they are vaccinated first. The risk of superspreaders causing an outbreak would otherwise be quite significant.
Yes. In fact I'd have thought that the very first people who should get the vaccine ought to be the vaccinators themselves.
It will be six weeks minimum for them to be immune, so realistically, hard to see care home residents getting it before end Jan, even then storage and transportation are an issue.
As I suggested yesterday, some on the EU side are starting to see positives in no-deal - which makes that outcome much more likely.
As mentioned several time previously, January is going to be a meltdown without a deal...
Since the EU position is now that a deal can be struck even after the transition arrangements expire, it means that France in particular sees very distinct possibilities in delaying and watching the UK economy mashed so badly that by the end of the first month Doris will have to fold not just on today´s outstanding issues but equally will have to go back and concede on previous agreements, since "nothing is agreed until all agreed". Just before the Daily Express starts shouting the odds, I think we should remember who placed us in this disastrous position... Step forward the guilty men: Johnson, Gove, Redwood et al. 2021 is unlikely to be a good year for them.... or indeed us.
🥱
Alternatively meltdown doesn't happen, the French fishermen have no fish now, we have no reason to fear transition now since we've already done it, there is no level playing field and talks resume between equal partners with the EU forced to now admit that we did indeed hold all the cards.
One thing puzzles me: health is a devolved responsibility, yet the vaccination programme and purchasing seems to be happening at UK government level. Does anyone know how that works?
One imagines that the three devolved nations will just pay Westminster for it out of whatever budget they get as an accounting exercise.
with massive uplift no doubt including the union jack
But do ministers in the devolved administrations have friends who will be able to provide the much needed consultancy/logistics at the reasonable rate of a few million £ on securing their share of UK stocks?
Actually the point that Brexit has enabled us to approve and therefore roll out the vaccine slightly more quickly is a valid one. We have, ladies and gentlemen, found the first and almost certainly the last actual positive of Brexit.
You must know the last point is daft - the ability to make quicker decisions will manifest itself as a benefit many times in the future, on many issues.
Really? Such as?
You're only limited by your imagination.
If you can't think of any examples when making quick decisions can be a benefit then I think your imagination is weak. I've long argued for nimbleness and agility as a strength.
The idea that the UK is going to be consistently nimble and agile is somewhat fanciful. We haven't exactly been nimble and agile in reforming taxation, or social care, or the NHS, or dealing with the decline of the High Street, or dealing with US mega-corporations abusing international tax rule, or setting up the computer systems and customs infrastructure for Brexit in 3 weeks time. And it certainly will never be nimble and agile under Boris - he's an even bigger ditherer than Brown.
The UK won't be led by Boris Johnson forever, we hold elections every 4-5 years and if you want a change then you can change the government every 4-5 years (or sooner if no confidence etc happens).
If Starmer has a bright idea that can improve the country and he puts that forward rather than abstaining on it then the country can choose to vote for him easier than we can reform 28 nations of the EU.
Not really, because so many things in the modern world involve negotiations with other countries. The EU speeds that up, not slows it down.
But the EU doesn't always want what we want.
We don't always want what 'we' want either.
Much better just to agree to whatever the EU thinks it wants then?
The EU is a polity. If we're part of it, then we're part of it. There's no us and them unless we leave.
Nonsense, there is always us and them. There are layers of us and them. Atomisation exists at multiple levels.
Do you think that because they're part of the UK that Nicola Sturgeon is the same "us" as Boris Johnson?
Are you part of the same "us" as me?
In this equation you are an individual voter, the UK is an amalgamation of all UK voters, and the EU is an amalgamation of all EU voters. It's perfectly possible that what you want is more aligned with the collective EU than with the collective UK.
Its possible but not true on average since your vote is greatly watered down by the 27 other nations in Europe, whereas on average across the UK your vote counts much, much more.
Yes but the majority of British voters are not Conservatives. It is reasonable to say that the Lab, LD, SNP, Green, SF and PC parties are in aggregate the majority and more aligned with the EU polity.
Certainly, I am.
Tories got 47.2% of the English vote, that's good enough for a majority as far as I'm concerned.
Adding up a rainbow doesn't make them the same colour.
'Adding up a rainbow doesn't make the same colour?'.
Yes of course it does! Time for elevenses. take a break!
Actually the point that Brexit has enabled us to approve and therefore roll out the vaccine slightly more quickly is a valid one. We have, ladies and gentlemen, found the first and almost certainly the last actual positive of Brexit.
You must know the last point is daft - the ability to make quicker decisions will manifest itself as a benefit many times in the future, on many issues.
Really? Such as?
You're only limited by your imagination.
If you can't think of any examples when making quick decisions can be a benefit then I think your imagination is weak. I've long argued for nimbleness and agility as a strength.
The idea that the UK is going to be consistently nimble and agile is somewhat fanciful. We haven't exactly been nimble and agile in reforming taxation, or social care, or the NHS, or dealing with the decline of the High Street, or dealing with US mega-corporations abusing international tax rule, or setting up the computer systems and customs infrastructure for Brexit in 3 weeks time. And it certainly will never be nimble and agile under Boris - he's an even bigger ditherer than Brown.
The UK won't be led by Boris Johnson forever, we hold elections every 4-5 years and if you want a change then you can change the government every 4-5 years (or sooner if no confidence etc happens).
If Starmer has a bright idea that can improve the country and he puts that forward rather than abstaining on it then the country can choose to vote for him easier than we can reform 28 nations of the EU.
Not really, because so many things in the modern world involve negotiations with other countries. The EU speeds that up, not slows it down.
But the EU doesn't always want what we want.
We don't always want what 'we' want either.
Much better just to agree to whatever the EU thinks it wants then?
The EU is a polity. If we're part of it, then we're part of it. There's no us and them unless we leave.
Nonsense, there is always us and them. There are layers of us and them. Atomisation exists at multiple levels.
Do you think that because they're part of the UK that Nicola Sturgeon is the same "us" as Boris Johnson?
Are you part of the same "us" as me?
In this equation you are an individual voter, the UK is an amalgamation of all UK voters, and the EU is an amalgamation of all EU voters. It's perfectly possible that what you want is more aligned with the collective EU than with the collective UK.
Its possible but not true on average since your vote is greatly watered down by the 27 other nations in Europe, whereas on average across the UK your vote counts much, much more.
Yes but the majority of British voters are not Conservatives. It is reasonable to say that the Lab, LD, SNP, Green, SF and PC parties are in aggregate the majority and more aligned with the EU polity.
Certainly, I am.
Tories got 47.2% of the English vote, that's good enough for a majority as far as I'm concerned.
Adding up a rainbow doesn't make them the same colour.
'Adding up a rainbow doesn't make the same colour?'.
Yes of course it does! Time for elevenses. take a break!
One thing puzzles me: health is a devolved responsibility, yet the vaccination programme and purchasing seems to be happening at UK government level. Does anyone know how that works?
How long have they had to prepare, and from the report it looks as if they aren't taking into account it can be stored at the more favourably temperature for a few days?
It is still a logistical nightmare. In Leicester it will be hospital staff first, but also primary and social care, but protecting those does indirectly protect care home residents. Leicester racecourse will be our offsite location,
The practical problems of getting the vaccine to care homes was mentioned in the press conference this morning:
Q: Will people in care homes really get priority, given the logistical problems of delivering the vaccine?
Lim says there will be “some flexibility” in view of the operational constraints. The JCVI is advising that care home residents should come first. But he says whether that is possible will depend on circumstances.
Apart from anything else, before the NHS staff go round a bunch of care homes touching everyone, it would be wise that they are vaccinated first. The risk of superspreaders causing an outbreak would otherwise be quite significant.
Yes. In fact I'd have thought that the very first people who should get the vaccine ought to be the vaccinators themselves.
It will be six weeks minimum for them to be immune, so realistically, hard to see care home residents getting it before end Jan, even then storage and transportation are an issue.
Would someone recently vaccinated return a positive PCR test, and is it in any way possible they could be transmitters of the disease to others?
Did any of the trials test those living with participants?
I suppose another advantage of using Pfizer vaccine next week on frontline NHS is if (hopefully) in a week or two we get AstraZenica approval then the NHS can take that into the care homes without the supercold storage needed and with NHS staff working on it having already had round one of their own dose.
I'm by nature an optimist - but I fear short sightedness - on both sides - means it will be no deal.
Boris Johnson will always feel the scorn and contempt of history for No Dealing during a pandemic.
The ghosts of Eden and Chamberlain will be able to say in good conscience 'No longer the worst!'
They already won't - Cameron probably beats both of them for stupidest policy decision of all time.
The referendum train was coming long before Dave.
Perhaps, but he was solely responsible for framing and choreographing it in such an inevitably catastrophic way. Even if Remain had won it wouldn't have settled anything.
I think it would. Even a narrow win would not have set off demands for another try - part of the pro-referendum thing was the Irish second vote - "They make us vote until we give them the answer we want".
I was expecting a narrow win, followed by peace and quiet until the whole country charged out of the EU, a number of years later, over the creation of an EU wide health service.
The question will never be settled permanently. 2000 years of history suggests that the question of European involvement and integration is never completely answered.
I think we will keep cycling in and out of different levels of integration with the continent. Being isolated before we joined weakened our economy to the point that we overcame our superiority complex and joined up. Over time our economy improved sufficiently that our superiority complex re-emerged and we left. Now we are likely to see our economy fade again thanks to our isolation, until we are weak enough that we want to join up again. And so the cycle will repeat itself.
Um, no.
Why not?
Because it's a totally made up piece of shite. There is no evidence that EEC membership had any accelerative affect on GDP growth (or whatever measure you wish to use) - in fact it appears to have flatlined in the years immediately following accession, which doesn't speak to a glorious economic feeding frenzy does it? The economic rationale for joining was to get inside the tariff walls, but tariffs declined as a factor over the years anyway.
Our accession coincided with the first oil crisis and the three day week, which is why the mid 70s were not great from a growth point of view. Anyway, we are talking about long term processes not things which happen overnight. Joining the EEC/EU boosted trade and trade boosts productivity, that's why forecasters at the OBR and BOE and in the private sector expect leaving to lower our GDP, relative to if we had stayed in. We were the sick man of Europe outside the EU, and our relative growth performance improved significantly as members. Nothing is certain in the world of Economic forecasting, but I think it is more likely than not that our relative economic performance will now decline, and eventually we may be forced to once again petition for membership from a position of weakness. Probably decades away though, the English superiority complex is a stubborn beast.
Yes. So as I said, totally made up shite.
Not really, no.
Oh, well don't hold back on the actual facts that support your argument, I'm all ears.
Do sky news really need to put what tier the person they are interviewing is in? I think it would be more of a public service to state any political leanings / connections than the fact a bloke in Reading is in Tier x...
One thing puzzles me: health is a devolved responsibility, yet the vaccination programme and purchasing seems to be happening at UK government level. Does anyone know how that works?
How long have they had to prepare, and from the report it looks as if they aren't taking into account it can be stored at the more favourably temperature for a few days?
It is still a logistical nightmare. In Leicester it will be hospital staff first, but also primary and social care, but protecting those does indirectly protect care home residents. Leicester racecourse will be our offsite location,
The practical problems of getting the vaccine to care homes was mentioned in the press conference this morning:
Q: Will people in care homes really get priority, given the logistical problems of delivering the vaccine?
Lim says there will be “some flexibility” in view of the operational constraints. The JCVI is advising that care home residents should come first. But he says whether that is possible will depend on circumstances.
Apart from anything else, before the NHS staff go round a bunch of care homes touching everyone, it would be wise that they are vaccinated first. The risk of superspreaders causing an outbreak would otherwise be quite significant.
Yes. In fact I'd have thought that the very first people who should get the vaccine ought to be the vaccinators themselves.
It will be six weeks minimum for them to be immune, so realistically, hard to see care home residents getting it before end Jan, even then storage and transportation are an issue.
Would someone recently vaccinated return a positive PCR test, and is it in any way possible they could be transmitters of the disease to others?
Did any of the trials test those living with participants?
I think the Antigen test is for a different epitope, otherwise it wouldn't be possible to test cases in the trials.
The other issue is how people who have already had Covid-19 (about 15% of my Trust) react to the vaccine.
I suppose another advantage of using Pfizer vaccine next week on frontline NHS is if (hopefully) in a week or two we get AstraZenica approval then the NHS can take that into the care homes without the supercold storage needed and with NHS staff working on it having already had round one of their own dose.
Fingers crossed.
But even for Pfizer, you need 2 jabs, 3 weeks apart and then wait a week for it to be effective....so they won't be safe until after Christmas.
Wonder if / when we will see approval of the two other vaccines? Given moderna one is very similar to Pfizer, hopefully very shortly.
I don't think it's been submitted yet as we won't get deliveries of it until April at the earliest. The AZ vaccine has already begun being delivered so I think that's the current priority.
One thing puzzles me: health is a devolved responsibility, yet the vaccination programme and purchasing seems to be happening at UK government level. Does anyone know how that works?
How long have they had to prepare, and from the report it looks as if they aren't taking into account it can be stored at the more favourably temperature for a few days?
It is still a logistical nightmare. In Leicester it will be hospital staff first, but also primary and social care, but protecting those does indirectly protect care home residents. Leicester racecourse will be our offsite location,
The practical problems of getting the vaccine to care homes was mentioned in the press conference this morning:
Q: Will people in care homes really get priority, given the logistical problems of delivering the vaccine?
Lim says there will be “some flexibility” in view of the operational constraints. The JCVI is advising that care home residents should come first. But he says whether that is possible will depend on circumstances.
Apart from anything else, before the NHS staff go round a bunch of care homes touching everyone, it would be wise that they are vaccinated first. The risk of superspreaders causing an outbreak would otherwise be quite significant.
Yes. In fact I'd have thought that the very first people who should get the vaccine ought to be the vaccinators themselves.
It will be six weeks minimum for them to be immune, so realistically, hard to see care home residents getting it before end Jan, even then storage and transportation are an issue.
I thought it was four weeks. From the Guardian live blog today:
Pirmohamed says the vaccine will be effective seven days after the second dose has been administered. But there is some protection from 12 days after the first dose.
It would be interesting to have some figures on the degree to which the effectiveness varies with time.
Wonder if / when we will see approval of the two other vaccines? Given moderna one is very similar to Pfizer, hopefully very shortly.
I don't think it's been submitted yet as we won't get deliveries of it until April at the earliest. The AZ vaccine has already begun being delivered so I think that's the current priority.
I didn't realise we were having to wait until April for it. We are going to need to hope that AZ is kosher after all then.
I suppose another advantage of using Pfizer vaccine next week on frontline NHS is if (hopefully) in a week or two we get AstraZenica approval then the NHS can take that into the care homes without the supercold storage needed and with NHS staff working on it having already had round one of their own dose.
Fingers crossed.
From the early data the AZ vaccine may be most effective in the under 55s and the Pfizer one in the over 55s. The programmes should reflect that and giving care home residents the less effective one doesn't make sense.
I'm by nature an optimist - but I fear short sightedness - on both sides - means it will be no deal.
Boris Johnson will always feel the scorn and contempt of history for No Dealing during a pandemic.
The ghosts of Eden and Chamberlain will be able to say in good conscience 'No longer the worst!'
They already won't - Cameron probably beats both of them for stupidest policy decision of all time.
The referendum train was coming long before Dave.
Perhaps, but he was solely responsible for framing and choreographing it in such an inevitably catastrophic way. Even if Remain had won it wouldn't have settled anything.
I think it would. Even a narrow win would not have set off demands for another try - part of the pro-referendum thing was the Irish second vote - "They make us vote until we give them the answer we want".
I was expecting a narrow win, followed by peace and quiet until the whole country charged out of the EU, a number of years later, over the creation of an EU wide health service.
The question will never be settled permanently. 2000 years of history suggests that the question of European involvement and integration is never completely answered.
I think we will keep cycling in and out of different levels of integration with the continent. Being isolated before we joined weakened our economy to the point that we overcame our superiority complex and joined up. Over time our economy improved sufficiently that our superiority complex re-emerged and we left. Now we are likely to see our economy fade again thanks to our isolation, until we are weak enough that we want to join up again. And so the cycle will repeat itself.
Um, no.
Why not?
Because it's a totally made up piece of shite. There is no evidence that EEC membership had any accelerative affect on GDP growth (or whatever measure you wish to use) - in fact it appears to have flatlined in the years immediately following accession, which doesn't speak to a glorious economic feeding frenzy does it? The economic rationale for joining was to get inside the tariff walls, but tariffs declined as a factor over the years anyway.
Our accession coincided with the first oil crisis and the three day week, which is why the mid 70s were not great from a growth point of view. Anyway, we are talking about long term processes not things which happen overnight. Joining the EEC/EU boosted trade and trade boosts productivity, that's why forecasters at the OBR and BOE and in the private sector expect leaving to lower our GDP, relative to if we had stayed in. We were the sick man of Europe outside the EU, and our relative growth performance improved significantly as members. Nothing is certain in the world of Economic forecasting, but I think it is more likely than not that our relative economic performance will now decline, and eventually we may be forced to once again petition for membership from a position of weakness. Probably decades away though, the English superiority complex is a stubborn beast.
Yes. So as I said, totally made up shite.
Not really, no.
Oh, well don't hold back on the actual facts that support your argument, I'm all ears.
Says the guy who never ever presents actual facts.
Wonder if / when we will see approval of the two other vaccines? Given moderna one is very similar to Pfizer, hopefully very shortly.
I don't think it's been submitted yet as we won't get deliveries of it until April at the earliest. The AZ vaccine has already begun being delivered so I think that's the current priority.
According to the Leicester Mercury, the Pfizer vaccine is in Leicester, guarded by the military!
I suppose another advantage of using Pfizer vaccine next week on frontline NHS is if (hopefully) in a week or two we get AstraZenica approval then the NHS can take that into the care homes without the supercold storage needed and with NHS staff working on it having already had round one of their own dose.
Fingers crossed.
But even for Pfizer, you need 2 jabs, 3 weeks apart and then wait a week for it to be effective....so they won't be safe until after Christmas.
Define safe?
Care homes get visitors including doctors, nurses etc on a daily basis. So an NHS vaccinator doesn't need to have two doses before going into the care home any more than the homes staff do.
I suppose another advantage of using Pfizer vaccine next week on frontline NHS is if (hopefully) in a week or two we get AstraZenica approval then the NHS can take that into the care homes without the supercold storage needed and with NHS staff working on it having already had round one of their own dose.
Fingers crossed.
But even for Pfizer, you need 2 jabs, 3 weeks apart and then wait a week for it to be effective....so they won't be safe until after Christmas.
The US government has got monopoly on deliveries of Moderna from December to March. From April it will be manufactured on licence in Switzerland and those initial deliveries will go to the Switzerland (15m) and the UK (7m).
I suppose another advantage of using Pfizer vaccine next week on frontline NHS is if (hopefully) in a week or two we get AstraZenica approval then the NHS can take that into the care homes without the supercold storage needed and with NHS staff working on it having already had round one of their own dose.
Fingers crossed.
From the early data the AZ vaccine may be most effective in the under 55s and the Pfizer one in the over 55s. The programmes should reflect that and giving care home residents the less effective one doesn't make sense.
Wonder if / when we will see approval of the two other vaccines? Given moderna one is very similar to Pfizer, hopefully very shortly.
I don't think it's been submitted yet as we won't get deliveries of it until April at the earliest. The AZ vaccine has already begun being delivered so I think that's the current priority.
According to the Leicester Mercury, the Pfizer vaccine is in Leicester, guarded by the military!
The logistics behind this must be absolutely amazing. Massive respect for all involved.
I suppose another advantage of using Pfizer vaccine next week on frontline NHS is if (hopefully) in a week or two we get AstraZenica approval then the NHS can take that into the care homes without the supercold storage needed and with NHS staff working on it having already had round one of their own dose.
Fingers crossed.
But even for Pfizer, you need 2 jabs, 3 weeks apart and then wait a week for it to be effective....so they won't be safe until after Christmas.
The US government has got monopoly on deliveries of Moderna from December to March. From April it will be manufactured on licence in Switzerland and those initial deliveries will go to the Switzerland (15m) and the UK (7m).
I understand the protectionism for US supply of it, but how come such a large delay before it is allowed to be made under licence?
I would have thought they would be keen to make as much as possible as fast as possible, especially if AZ is approved in EU and is 1/10 of the price.
I suppose another advantage of using Pfizer vaccine next week on frontline NHS is if (hopefully) in a week or two we get AstraZenica approval then the NHS can take that into the care homes without the supercold storage needed and with NHS staff working on it having already had round one of their own dose.
Fingers crossed.
But even for Pfizer, you need 2 jabs, 3 weeks apart and then wait a week for it to be effective....so they won't be safe until after Christmas.
The US government has got monopoly on deliveries of Moderna from December to March. From April it will be manufactured on licence in Switzerland and those initial deliveries will go to the Switzerland (15m) and the UK (7m).
I can understand why the US got a monopoly. I don't understand why it's taking until April for the Swiss to start manufacturing though. Unless there's technical limitations.
How are the Americans hurt by the Swiss starting sooner? Even if it can't be flown from Switzerland to the States, and if it can just do that and it's more stock.
One thing puzzles me: health is a devolved responsibility, yet the vaccination programme and purchasing seems to be happening at UK government level. Does anyone know how that works?
How long have they had to prepare, and from the report it looks as if they aren't taking into account it can be stored at the more favourably temperature for a few days?
It is still a logistical nightmare. In Leicester it will be hospital staff first, but also primary and social care, but protecting those does indirectly protect care home residents. Leicester racecourse will be our offsite location,
The practical problems of getting the vaccine to care homes was mentioned in the press conference this morning:
Q: Will people in care homes really get priority, given the logistical problems of delivering the vaccine?
Lim says there will be “some flexibility” in view of the operational constraints. The JCVI is advising that care home residents should come first. But he says whether that is possible will depend on circumstances.
Apart from anything else, before the NHS staff go round a bunch of care homes touching everyone, it would be wise that they are vaccinated first. The risk of superspreaders causing an outbreak would otherwise be quite significant.
Yes. In fact I'd have thought that the very first people who should get the vaccine ought to be the vaccinators themselves.
It will be six weeks minimum for them to be immune, so realistically, hard to see care home residents getting it before end Jan, even then storage and transportation are an issue.
Would someone recently vaccinated return a positive PCR test, and is it in any way possible they could be transmitters of the disease to others?
Did any of the trials test those living with participants?
I think the Antigen test is for a different epitope, otherwise it wouldn't be possible to test cases in the trials.
The other issue is how people who have already had Covid-19 (about 15% of my Trust) react to the vaccine.
Thanks. Good luck to yourself and everyone involved!
I'm struggling to see what incentive the EU actually has to do a deal before 1 Jan. Surely it would be better from their POV to let the UK dangle in the wind for a month or two before coming back to the table next year?
Actually the point that Brexit has enabled us to approve and therefore roll out the vaccine slightly more quickly is a valid one. We have, ladies and gentlemen, found the first and almost certainly the last actual positive of Brexit.
You must know the last point is daft - the ability to make quicker decisions will manifest itself as a benefit many times in the future, on many issues.
Really? Such as?
You're only limited by your imagination.
If you can't think of any examples when making quick decisions can be a benefit then I think your imagination is weak. I've long argued for nimbleness and agility as a strength.
The idea that the UK is going to be consistently nimble and agile is somewhat fanciful. We haven't exactly been nimble and agile in reforming taxation, or social care, or the NHS, or dealing with the decline of the High Street, or dealing with US mega-corporations abusing international tax rule, or setting up the computer systems and customs infrastructure for Brexit in 3 weeks time. And it certainly will never be nimble and agile under Boris - he's an even bigger ditherer than Brown.
The UK won't be led by Boris Johnson forever, we hold elections every 4-5 years and if you want a change then you can change the government every 4-5 years (or sooner if no confidence etc happens).
If Starmer has a bright idea that can improve the country and he puts that forward rather than abstaining on it then the country can choose to vote for him easier than we can reform 28 nations of the EU.
Not really, because so many things in the modern world involve negotiations with other countries. The EU speeds that up, not slows it down.
But the EU doesn't always want what we want.
We don't always want what 'we' want either.
Much better just to agree to whatever the EU thinks it wants then?
The EU is a polity. If we're part of it, then we're part of it. There's no us and them unless we leave.
Nonsense, there is always us and them. There are layers of us and them. Atomisation exists at multiple levels.
Do you think that because they're part of the UK that Nicola Sturgeon is the same "us" as Boris Johnson?
Are you part of the same "us" as me?
In this equation you are an individual voter, the UK is an amalgamation of all UK voters, and the EU is an amalgamation of all EU voters. It's perfectly possible that what you want is more aligned with the collective EU than with the collective UK.
Its possible but not true on average since your vote is greatly watered down by the 27 other nations in Europe, whereas on average across the UK your vote counts much, much more.
Yes but the majority of British voters are not Conservatives. It is reasonable to say that the Lab, LD, SNP, Green, SF and PC parties are in aggregate the majority and more aligned with the EU polity.
Certainly, I am.
Tories got 47.2% of the English vote, that's good enough for a majority as far as I'm concerned.
Adding up a rainbow doesn't make them the same colour.
'Adding up a rainbow doesn't make the same colour?'.
Yes of course it does! Time for elevenses. take a break!
No it makes a new different colour.
But white isn't a colour- not in physics. It's a thing we interpret, but there isn't a wavelength that corresponds to white light. It's a combination of different colours added up. When our brain thinks "white", it's because the red, green and blue sensors in our eyes are firing at once.
I suppose another advantage of using Pfizer vaccine next week on frontline NHS is if (hopefully) in a week or two we get AstraZenica approval then the NHS can take that into the care homes without the supercold storage needed and with NHS staff working on it having already had round one of their own dose.
Fingers crossed.
But even for Pfizer, you need 2 jabs, 3 weeks apart and then wait a week for it to be effective....so they won't be safe until after Christmas.
The US government has got monopoly on deliveries of Moderna from December to March. From April it will be manufactured on licence in Switzerland and those initial deliveries will go to the Switzerland (15m) and the UK (7m).
I understand the protectionism for US supply of it, but how come such a large delay before it is allowed to be made under licence?
I suppose another advantage of using Pfizer vaccine next week on frontline NHS is if (hopefully) in a week or two we get AstraZenica approval then the NHS can take that into the care homes without the supercold storage needed and with NHS staff working on it having already had round one of their own dose.
Fingers crossed.
But even for Pfizer, you need 2 jabs, 3 weeks apart and then wait a week for it to be effective....so they won't be safe until after Christmas.
The US government has got monopoly on deliveries of Moderna from December to March. From April it will be manufactured on licence in Switzerland and those initial deliveries will go to the Switzerland (15m) and the UK (7m).
I can understand why the US got a monopoly. I don't understand why it's taking until April for the Swiss to start manufacturing though. Unless there's technical limitations.
How are the Americans hurt by the Swiss starting sooner? Even if it can't be flown from Switzerland to the States, and if it can just do that and it's more stock.
The production deal was just a bit late, these things take a lot of time to set up. The domestic deliveries of the AZ vaccine have only just started and they started that process in April. I think they only started planning for production in Europe in August. The monopoly on supply for the US is part of the warp speed investment programme and US based production, I think it's why Pfizer rejected the warp speed programme.
Despite all the excitable comments from malcolmg and other hard Nats on here and elsewhere, when it comes down to it the Scottish people will know where their bread is buttered and vote against independence. As they did in 2014.
Although it's academic as of course we won't be having a vote as a generation has not yet passed!
One thing puzzles me: health is a devolved responsibility, yet the vaccination programme and purchasing seems to be happening at UK government level. Does anyone know how that works?
How long have they had to prepare, and from the report it looks as if they aren't taking into account it can be stored at the more favourably temperature for a few days?
It is still a logistical nightmare. In Leicester it will be hospital staff first, but also primary and social care, but protecting those does indirectly protect care home residents. Leicester racecourse will be our offsite location,
The practical problems of getting the vaccine to care homes was mentioned in the press conference this morning:
Q: Will people in care homes really get priority, given the logistical problems of delivering the vaccine?
Lim says there will be “some flexibility” in view of the operational constraints. The JCVI is advising that care home residents should come first. But he says whether that is possible will depend on circumstances.
Apart from anything else, before the NHS staff go round a bunch of care homes touching everyone, it would be wise that they are vaccinated first. The risk of superspreaders causing an outbreak would otherwise be quite significant.
Yes. In fact I'd have thought that the very first people who should get the vaccine ought to be the vaccinators themselves.
I'm by nature an optimist - but I fear short sightedness - on both sides - means it will be no deal.
Boris Johnson will always feel the scorn and contempt of history for No Dealing during a pandemic.
The ghosts of Eden and Chamberlain will be able to say in good conscience 'No longer the worst!'
They already won't - Cameron probably beats both of them for stupidest policy decision of all time.
The referendum train was coming long before Dave.
Perhaps, but he was solely responsible for framing and choreographing it in such an inevitably catastrophic way. Even if Remain had won it wouldn't have settled anything.
I think it would. Even a narrow win would not have set off demands for another try - part of the pro-referendum thing was the Irish second vote - "They make us vote until we give them the answer we want".
I was expecting a narrow win, followed by peace and quiet until the whole country charged out of the EU, a number of years later, over the creation of an EU wide health service.
The question will never be settled permanently. 2000 years of history suggests that the question of European involvement and integration is never completely answered.
I think we will keep cycling in and out of different levels of integration with the continent. Being isolated before we joined weakened our economy to the point that we overcame our superiority complex and joined up. Over time our economy improved sufficiently that our superiority complex re-emerged and we left. Now we are likely to see our economy fade again thanks to our isolation, until we are weak enough that we want to join up again. And so the cycle will repeat itself.
Um, no.
Why not?
Because it's a totally made up piece of shite. There is no evidence that EEC membership had any accelerative affect on GDP growth (or whatever measure you wish to use) - in fact it appears to have flatlined in the years immediately following accession, which doesn't speak to a glorious economic feeding frenzy does it? The economic rationale for joining was to get inside the tariff walls, but tariffs declined as a factor over the years anyway.
Our accession coincided with the first oil crisis and the three day week, which is why the mid 70s were not great from a growth point of view. Anyway, we are talking about long term processes not things which happen overnight. Joining the EEC/EU boosted trade and trade boosts productivity, that's why forecasters at the OBR and BOE and in the private sector expect leaving to lower our GDP, relative to if we had stayed in. We were the sick man of Europe outside the EU, and our relative growth performance improved significantly as members. Nothing is certain in the world of Economic forecasting, but I think it is more likely than not that our relative economic performance will now decline, and eventually we may be forced to once again petition for membership from a position of weakness. Probably decades away though, the English superiority complex is a stubborn beast.
Yes. So as I said, totally made up shite.
Not really, no.
Oh, well don't hold back on the actual facts that support your argument, I'm all ears.
Here's a suggestion. If you're interested in having a serious discussion with someone, don't call their arguments "made up shite". There is a lot of evidence in the economics literature that trade enhances productivity. There is also a lot of evidence that being a member of the EU boosted UK exports. Hence, it is plausible that exiting the EU single market will reduce UK productivity relative to staying in. That is indeed the considered view of most economic forecasters, including at the BOE and OBR. So if this is indeed "made up shite" then I would suggest you take it up with them. Here's a fact for you. In the ten years prior to joining the EEC/EU, the UK economy grew more slowly than that of France, Germany or Italy. Since joining, its economy has grown faster than those of the three big EU economies. That is certainly consistent with the view that being in the EU was good for the British economy.
One thing puzzles me: health is a devolved responsibility, yet the vaccination programme and purchasing seems to be happening at UK government level. Does anyone know how that works?
How long have they had to prepare, and from the report it looks as if they aren't taking into account it can be stored at the more favourably temperature for a few days?
It is still a logistical nightmare. In Leicester it will be hospital staff first, but also primary and social care, but protecting those does indirectly protect care home residents. Leicester racecourse will be our offsite location,
The practical problems of getting the vaccine to care homes was mentioned in the press conference this morning:
Q: Will people in care homes really get priority, given the logistical problems of delivering the vaccine?
Lim says there will be “some flexibility” in view of the operational constraints. The JCVI is advising that care home residents should come first. But he says whether that is possible will depend on circumstances.
Apart from anything else, before the NHS staff go round a bunch of care homes touching everyone, it would be wise that they are vaccinated first. The risk of superspreaders causing an outbreak would otherwise be quite significant.
Yes. In fact I'd have thought that the very first people who should get the vaccine ought to be the vaccinators themselves.
It will be six weeks minimum for them to be immune, so realistically, hard to see care home residents getting it before end Jan, even then storage and transportation are an issue.
Would someone recently vaccinated return a positive PCR test, and is it in any way possible they could be transmitters of the disease to others?
Did any of the trials test those living with participants?
Definitely not for the mRNA vaccines, because they just code for the surface protein on the outside of the virus (the "spike") & nothing else. The Oxford vaccine is using a de-activated Chimpanzee virus as a vector I believe, so that shouldn’t be infectious either.
Whether you’d trigger a PCR test depends on whether the viral fragment of DNA / RNA being tested for in the PCR assay was the same as the one in the vaccine. One would hope not, but I can’t actually guarantee that’s the case!
I'm struggling to see what incentive the EU actually has to do a deal before 1 Jan. Surely it would be better from their POV to let the UK dangle in the wind for a month or two before coming back to the table next year?
It depends what happens in those weeks.
Some are convinced the UK collapses into a quivering wreck desperate to make the bad Brexit go away.
That’s awesome. The logistics of getting this to everyone are insanely complex, can see why the military have been charged with it. I expect that, once the programme is underway, we will be seeing helicopters landing in car parks and sports fields
I'm by nature an optimist - but I fear short sightedness - on both sides - means it will be no deal.
Boris Johnson will always feel the scorn and contempt of history for No Dealing during a pandemic.
The ghosts of Eden and Chamberlain will be able to say in good conscience 'No longer the worst!'
They already won't - Cameron probably beats both of them for stupidest policy decision of all time.
The referendum train was coming long before Dave.
Perhaps, but he was solely responsible for framing and choreographing it in such an inevitably catastrophic way. Even if Remain had won it wouldn't have settled anything.
I think it would. Even a narrow win would not have set off demands for another try - part of the pro-referendum thing was the Irish second vote - "They make us vote until we give them the answer we want".
I was expecting a narrow win, followed by peace and quiet until the whole country charged out of the EU, a number of years later, over the creation of an EU wide health service.
The question will never be settled permanently. 2000 years of history suggests that the question of European involvement and integration is never completely answered.
I think we will keep cycling in and out of different levels of integration with the continent. Being isolated before we joined weakened our economy to the point that we overcame our superiority complex and joined up. Over time our economy improved sufficiently that our superiority complex re-emerged and we left. Now we are likely to see our economy fade again thanks to our isolation, until we are weak enough that we want to join up again. And so the cycle will repeat itself.
Um, no.
Why not?
Because it's a totally made up piece of shite. There is no evidence that EEC membership had any accelerative affect on GDP growth (or whatever measure you wish to use) - in fact it appears to have flatlined in the years immediately following accession, which doesn't speak to a glorious economic feeding frenzy does it? The economic rationale for joining was to get inside the tariff walls, but tariffs declined as a factor over the years anyway.
Our accession coincided with the first oil crisis and the three day week, which is why the mid 70s were not great from a growth point of view. Anyway, we are talking about long term processes not things which happen overnight. Joining the EEC/EU boosted trade and trade boosts productivity, that's why forecasters at the OBR and BOE and in the private sector expect leaving to lower our GDP, relative to if we had stayed in. We were the sick man of Europe outside the EU, and our relative growth performance improved significantly as members. Nothing is certain in the world of Economic forecasting, but I think it is more likely than not that our relative economic performance will now decline, and eventually we may be forced to once again petition for membership from a position of weakness. Probably decades away though, the English superiority complex is a stubborn beast.
Yes. So as I said, totally made up shite.
Not really, no.
Oh, well don't hold back on the actual facts that support your argument, I'm all ears.
Says the guy who never ever presents actual facts.
Then call me out on it when it happens. In this case, someone has put forth a bold theory that EEC/EU membership bears the responsibility for our economic growth, but has squat in the way of evidence to support it - these are past events; there is 50 years worth of economic statistics to draw upon.
Comments
Well done to everyone involved! Now for getting the public on board with it and vaccines into people. Special mention to people like Andy Burnham, doing his best to depoliticise the situation.
Certainly, I am.
"Dr June Raine, chief executive of British regulator the MHRA, is asked whether the UK no longer being part of the EU made any difference to the speed the regulator was able to complete the authorisation.
She says the regulator has been able to authorise the supply of the vaccine using provisions under European law which exist until 1 January.
“Our speed or our progress has been totally dependent on the availability of data in our rolling review and the rigorous assessment and independent advice we have received," she adds. "
Adding up a rainbow doesn't make them the same colour.
Careful phrasing there as until now it wasn't an export.
EDIT: Damn BT, don't have that.
You do concisely point out why the Union is doomed by Brexit.
Perhaps we should give them free copies of the MHRA internal reports to help them speed things up.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/76/Prism-rainbow-black-2.svg/1280px-Prism-rainbow-black-2.svg.png
More politically, remember that the Conservative vote share barely changed between 1979 and 1992. It didn't change that much between 2017 and 2019. Yet the outcome in terms of Parliamentary seats varied a lot. It all depended on how much, and how efficiently, the rainbow was spread or focussed.
And with that, I have stuff to do. Stay safe until the jab, folks.
I don't think you can reasonably say all Labour/LD/Green/SF/PC voters are unanimously closer to EU politics than they are UK either.
And if Starmer wins the next election then, what next? Would you still count Labour voters as closer to EU politics than UK politics? Brexit gives them full control if they win an election.
https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/leicester-news/leicester-racecourse-being-prepped-covid-4755021
It could have been a lot worse - without a vaccine the herd immunity people would be correct: the only way out would have been through, with the many millions of deaths that would have entailed. We could affect the rate of spread & thereby the load on our health services & save people by slowing the infection but that would have been the limit of our powers. 1918 all over again?
We should definitely be celebrating. It’s a triumph of modern immunology.
The very act of merging changes them all.
It could have implications if they're running next to one another. But if Russell were on for a win, it'd look pretty heartless to take that away from him.
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/12/02/uk/pfizer-coronavirus-vaccine-uk-intl-hnk/index.html
So says our government at:
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/ireland-providing-services-after-eu-exit?utm_source=7abb6dd8-3409-435e-b850-6af80ef84b8f&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=govuk-notifications&utm_content=immediate#cross-border-trade
I am not betting on this market, because I don't understand what the bookies will actually interpret as No Deal.
Q: Will people in care homes really get priority, given the logistical problems of delivering the vaccine?
Lim says there will be “some flexibility” in view of the operational constraints. The JCVI is advising that care home residents should come first. But he says whether that is possible will depend on circumstances.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2020/dec/02/uk-coronavirus-live-nhs-vaccination-covid-vaccine-pfizer-pmqs-johnson-updates
But I suspect its all spin and theatre before the deal is agreed.
After the deadline for a deal was missed Boris said that we were officially preparing for WTO terms now. WTO references were put on the websites etc then.
Talks resumed after Barnier moved but the WTO references were not removed then. The official policy today is WTO, if a deal changes that then it changes it, but as things stand we are officially preparing for no deal.
Since the EU position is now that a deal can be struck even after the transition arrangements expire, it means that France in particular sees very distinct possibilities in delaying and watching the UK economy mashed so badly that by the end of the first month Doris will have to fold not just on today´s outstanding issues but equally will have to go back and concede on previous agreements, since "nothing is agreed until all agreed". Just before the Daily Express starts shouting the odds, I think we should remember who placed us in this disastrous position... Step forward the guilty men: Johnson, Gove, Redwood et al. 2021 is unlikely to be a good year for them.... or indeed us.
https://twitter.com/DarrenEuronews/status/1334096230796943362?s=20
Sometimes optimists are correct.
It's even possible that @Philip_Thompson will turn out to be correct.
Alternatively meltdown doesn't happen, the French fishermen have no fish now, we have no reason to fear transition now since we've already done it, there is no level playing field and talks resume between equal partners with the EU forced to now admit that we did indeed hold all the cards.
Yes of course it does! Time for elevenses. take a break!
Did any of the trials test those living with participants?
Fingers crossed.
The other issue is how people who have already had Covid-19 (about 15% of my Trust) react to the vaccine.
Pirmohamed says the vaccine will be effective seven days after the second dose has been administered. But there is some protection from 12 days after the first dose.
It would be interesting to have some figures on the degree to which the effectiveness varies with time.
Care homes get visitors including doctors, nurses etc on a daily basis. So an NHS vaccinator doesn't need to have two doses before going into the care home any more than the homes staff do.
I would have thought they would be keen to make as much as possible as fast as possible, especially if AZ is approved in EU and is 1/10 of the price.
How are the Americans hurt by the Swiss starting sooner? Even if it can't be flown from Switzerland to the States, and if it can just do that and it's more stock.
Funnily enough, the same is true for magenta;
https://youtu.be/iPPYGJjKVco
https://twitter.com/KellyIpsosMORI/status/1334106169594548224?s=20
Although it's academic as of course we won't be having a vote as a generation has not yet passed!
There is a lot of evidence in the economics literature that trade enhances productivity. There is also a lot of evidence that being a member of the EU boosted UK exports. Hence, it is plausible that exiting the EU single market will reduce UK productivity relative to staying in. That is indeed the considered view of most economic forecasters, including at the BOE and OBR. So if this is indeed "made up shite" then I would suggest you take it up with them.
Here's a fact for you. In the ten years prior to joining the EEC/EU, the UK economy grew more slowly than that of France, Germany or Italy. Since joining, its economy has grown faster than those of the three big EU economies. That is certainly consistent with the view that being in the EU was good for the British economy.
This is not a day for soundbites. Alok Sharmer feeling the hand of history on his shoulder.
Whether you’d trigger a PCR test depends on whether the viral fragment of DNA / RNA being tested for in the PCR assay was the same as the one in the vaccine. One would hope not, but I can’t actually guarantee that’s the case!
Some are convinced the UK collapses into a quivering wreck desperate to make the bad Brexit go away.
I find that notion peculiar and unlikely.