It is indeed. And to answer your point last night, when you said that you chose your wife whereas the UK didn't choose the Lisbon treaty; absolutely wrong. The country, in the shape of the democratically elected government, did indeed choose the Lisbon Treaty.
No I never said the UK didn't choose the Lisbon Treaty. What I said was that I didn't choose it.
The UK in the form of Gordon Brown and Tony Blair reneging on their last election manifesto chose it - and what was the result afterwards? The UK rejected that party and elected Cameron and has never looked back leading to Brexit.
Do you see the point yet? Democracy should rest with the public ultimately and no Parliament can or should bind its successors. Blair and Brown reneging on their manifesto by signing Lisbon was a disreputable way to act. The public by voting 4 General Election and 1 Referendum in a row have reversed that.
Brown signing Lisbon having promised at the election not to is not the same as me choosing my own wife. It is more comparable to one "elder" choosing everyone's partner, compelling them to get married, then saying there is no way to get divorced without leaving the tribe. Now people have chosen to leave the tribe.
My point is and was that you may not have chosen it but the country did. Democratically. Now of course you may want every decision the government makes to be run by you but I see some problems with that.
"The Country" chose to sign the Lisbon Treaty.
So the analogy stands. You, by getting married, gave up some of your personal sovereignty and ability to go whoring but were wholly sovereign nevertheless as you could at any time go whoring and could indeed leave the marriage.
That you choose to stay in your marriage (which I hope will last for many years) is therefore a compromise of your personal sovereignty.
The country did not democratically.
The government did breaching its manifesto promise - there is nothing democratic about that. The government lost its next election, that is democratic.
So under the principle of "no Parliament can bind its successor" then the rogue Parliament of Brown signing Lisbon in breach of his manifesto commitment not to do so without a referendum ought to have been able to be reversed by the next Parliament. But its wasn't possible.
That I choose to stay in my marriage is not a compromise of my personal sovereignty, it is my choice. If I choose to end it I can do so. The UK could not reverse what Brown did signing Lisbon without leaving the EU altogether - so thankfully we have now taken that course. I am sure you must applaud that since it was the only option left post-Brown right?
Anything the government does, including not following its manifesto, is a democratic act as the people will have voted in a government which they should have realised could not follow its manifesto.
I doubt most people expect the government to do the opposite of its manifesto. But democracy doesn't end the day of the election or once Parliament passes a law.
The principle you keep ignoring that is a key element of Parliamentary Democracy is that no Parliament can bind it's successors. If a government does something we dislike not a part of its manifesto (like Lisbon) then we can elect a different government to reverse that.
The EU made laws irreversible. That is why it is antidemocratic.
Given Brown passed Lisbon in breach of the manifesto and against the public's wishes how do you think the public can or should get it democratically reversed?
Anything a democratically-elected government does is democratic.
Even banning all future elections?
It would be the act of a democratically-elected government so yes.
We differ in the source of Parliament’s authority (the government’s authority only comes from the royal prerogative plus its ability to control parliament)
My view is that parliament is the elected representative body of the demos. They have authority over most day to day decisions during their term. But to “change the rules of the game” - leaving the EU, Scottish independence or the length of their own mandate for example - you need to refer back to the people for a specific mandate
Scots by 47% to 17% also want MPs to pass the Deal so further evidence Sturgeon and Blackford have made a huge gaffe telling SNP MPs to oppose the Deal against the will of the people of Scotland!
AZ really completely fucked up the trial didn't they. As in completey and utterly fucked it. Useless company. They've also completely fucked up the manufacturing as well aiui. Honestly, I'd rather have had a competent company in charge even if they refused the cost price pledge, at least we'd have had a proper trial and they wouldn't have completely shit the bed on manufacturing. The Pfizer trial was absolutely brilliant, well thought out and no fuck ups.
If we didn't have this mega emergency the MHRA should have refused and sent AZ back to conduct a new trial with 20k participants on the HD/FD version. Honestly, I think they still should and they should put it up for approval again in a few months.
How likely is it one company is completely fucked up and useless and another absolutely brilliant when they recruit the same type of people? Extreme and unhelpful hyperbole.
Have you seen some tech company disasters....they often weren't for the quality of the people (on paper) they hired.
Isn't the issue that the screw ups occurred in Brazil rather than the UK and it was very much a case of picking a country where sufficient cases were available to validate the results.
» show previous quotes So Scotland should leave the EU with no deal?
Scotland should have remained in the EU and will be back in as soon as possible after independence. Unfortunately being a colony we were forced out by our Colonial Masters against our will.
Brexit makes the case for independence unanswerable. 55% of Scots wanted to stay in the UK, but 62% wanted to stay in the EU. We were dragged out by the English. It has switched me from Unionist to Nationalist.
Not really 'unanswerable'. It depends how much importance you attach to membership of each? The turnout for the EU referendum was much lower than for the 2014 one.
There is a counterargument of course. Who in their right minds would want Scotland to endure another 4 or 5 years like the UK has since the EU referendum? I appreciate the "right minds" part excludes a significant part of the population but even so....
Let me guess, ‘right minds’ will be those who want the nasty Natz to shut up and go away? Of course many of those right minds were Pom Pom girls for the 4 or 5 years that the UK has endured since the EU referendum.
Still, good to see the Unionist offer taking shape.
Nice to see you are so on the ball this morning Divvie.
Especially “joyous and civic”.
If Holyrood does withhold its consent motion does that have any practical implication or is it just fuel for the grievance machine?
In a democracy it would mean something , in the UK dictatorship it will be symbolic only.
Holyrood doesn’t have authority over international treaties in the same way that a vote of Basingstoke and Deane District Council would have no impact either
AZ really completely fucked up the trial didn't they. As in completey and utterly fucked it. Useless company. They've also completely fucked up the manufacturing as well aiui. Honestly, I'd rather have had a competent company in charge even if they refused the cost price pledge, at least we'd have had a proper trial and they wouldn't have completely shit the bed on manufacturing. The Pfizer trial was absolutely brilliant, well thought out and no fuck ups.
If we didn't have this mega emergency the MHRA should have refused and sent AZ back to conduct a new trial with 20k participants on the HD/FD version. Honestly, I think they still should and they should put it up for approval again in a few months.
How likely is it one company is completely fucked up and useless and another absolutely brilliant when they recruit the same type of people? Extreme and unhelpful hyperbole.
Have you seen some tech company disasters....they often weren't for the quality of the people (on paper) they hired.
Successful companies could often have turned into disasters too, the boundaries between success and failure are far more often slim than between absolutely brilliant and f***ing useless.
AZ really completely fucked up the trial didn't they. As in completey and utterly fucked it. Useless company. They've also completely fucked up the manufacturing as well aiui. Honestly, I'd rather have had a competent company in charge even if they refused the cost price pledge, at least we'd have had a proper trial and they wouldn't have completely shit the bed on manufacturing. The Pfizer trial was absolutely brilliant, well thought out and no fuck ups.
If we didn't have this mega emergency the MHRA should have refused and sent AZ back to conduct a new trial with 20k participants on the HD/FD version. Honestly, I think they still should and they should put it up for approval again in a few months.
Let us not forget the University of Oxford's role in all of this.
Were they responsible for trial design? Or is that the manufacturer's responsibility?
AZ really completely fucked up the trial didn't they. As in completey and utterly fucked it. Useless company. They've also completely fucked up the manufacturing as well aiui. Honestly, I'd rather have had a competent company in charge even if they refused the cost price pledge, at least we'd have had a proper trial and they wouldn't have completely shit the bed on manufacturing. The Pfizer trial was absolutely brilliant, well thought out and no fuck ups.
If we didn't have this mega emergency the MHRA should have refused and sent AZ back to conduct a new trial with 20k participants on the HD/FD version. Honestly, I think they still should and they should put it up for approval again in a few months.
Let us not forget the University of Oxford's role in all of this.
And the test subjects based in far flung countries because there were not enough cases in the UK at the time, let’s hope they don’t get forgotten in the rush to pat ourselves on the back.
» show previous quotes So Scotland should leave the EU with no deal?
Scotland should have remained in the EU and will be back in as soon as possible after independence. Unfortunately being a colony we were forced out by our Colonial Masters against our will.
Nope.
Scotland had two choices in 2014
a) you are part of the U.K. demos b) you are a distinct demos
You chose (a)
Therefore when there was a vote of the U.K. demos in 2016 you voted as part of it.
The only scenario where your claim would be true is if you had voted for independence in 2014 abut it hadn’t yet been completed by the time Brexit happened and the EU turned out to be a rigid and impracticable organisation
Thanks, it’s these types of lofty pronouncements from afar that have been sadly lacking in the constitutional debate. Let’s hope the people of Scotland sit up and take notice.
I do hope that the people of Scotland do take notice of facts.
I know it’s inconvenient for your political objectives but I can’t help that.
Does the fact that Scots were told that if they wanted to stay in the EU they had to vote No, and then it turned out that the opposite was true, not bother you at all? If you were Scottish do you think you'd be OK with it?
There is a difference between being wrong when you make a statement based on the known facts and “lying”.
Either it was a lie at the time, or circumstances have changed significantly since 2014. Either way a second referendum is justified. You didn't answer my question. How do you think you would feel about all this if you were Scottish? Do you think you'd be OK with it?
Fuck me, you've done it now, Chuck's going to launch into his 'My family, the Scotch years' spiel.
I thought he comes from a family of benevolent Irish landlords? I may have misplaced by copy of Burke's Peerage so can't be wholly sure.
No, they got everywhere, but only the best everywhere. Descended from the Great Montrose as I recall, though Chuck rather revealed his lack of mccredentials by thinking 'bonnie fechter' was an insult.
AZ really completely fucked up the trial didn't they. As in completey and utterly fucked it. Useless company. They've also completely fucked up the manufacturing as well aiui. Honestly, I'd rather have had a competent company in charge even if they refused the cost price pledge, at least we'd have had a proper trial and they wouldn't have completely shit the bed on manufacturing. The Pfizer trial was absolutely brilliant, well thought out and no fuck ups.
If we didn't have this mega emergency the MHRA should have refused and sent AZ back to conduct a new trial with 20k participants on the HD/FD version. Honestly, I think they still should and they should put it up for approval again in a few months.
How likely is it one company is completely fucked up and useless and another absolutely brilliant when they recruit the same type of people? Extreme and unhelpful hyperbole.
Have you seen some tech company disasters....they often weren't for the quality of the people (on paper) they hired.
Isn't the issue that the screw ups occurred in Brazil rather than the UK and it was very much a case of picking a country where sufficient cases were available to validate the results.
No...the tale of the oxford vaccine contains loads of mistakes and illogical decisions from Oxford deciding the manufacturer had messed up the dosage, when it was their measurements, to use of different placebos, to not recruiting enough oldies, the list goes on.
As Max said, no emergency, they would have been sent back to have another go.
AZ really completely fucked up the trial didn't they. As in completey and utterly fucked it. Useless company. They've also completely fucked up the manufacturing as well aiui. Honestly, I'd rather have had a competent company in charge even if they refused the cost price pledge, at least we'd have had a proper trial and they wouldn't have completely shit the bed on manufacturing. The Pfizer trial was absolutely brilliant, well thought out and no fuck ups.
If we didn't have this mega emergency the MHRA should have refused and sent AZ back to conduct a new trial with 20k participants on the HD/FD version. Honestly, I think they still should and they should put it up for approval again in a few months.
You think on a matter this serious the regulators have decided to unprofessionally and unethically approved it for use due to what, external pressure?
That's a very serious and incendiary accusation.
Absent proof of the regulators being corrupt might it be that they consider evidence shows it's safe despite the concerns raised around the trials?
I'm not suggesting it's unsafe and 62% is plenty to be getting on with, however, there is data showing potential for a 95% effective formula which doesn't need a 12 week gap between jabs. AZ also very obviously fucked up the trial. The MHRA should have given this provisional approval and also sent them back for a completely new trial that isn't completely fucked up like this one was.
I think it's fair to recognise that AZ have made mistakes in the trial process, they should rectify them even if it means running a new trial.
If the evidence is it is not unsafe then the level of vitriol seems unwarranted notwithstanding fucks ups, which obviously they can be criticised for if that is the case, as already some are suggesting it is ineffective at 62% and we don't want the anti-vaxxers to think problems in the trials mean even the 62% is not safe.
All the reports are the EU won't approve the Oxford vaccine anytime soon. I wonder if European countries will go to a single dose strategy?
Astra Zeneca haven’t submitted an application yet - and when they do I suspect the EMA will take its time.
I’m surprised at that. I suspect the EU is being misleading.
Typically you don’t officially “submit an application” until *all the data* is available. The regulators don’t start looking until that point because they want to look at the totality of the data.
The MHRA allowed what is called a “rolling submission” - you file each chapter (tox, preclinical, CMC, clinical etc) as it is available.
I don’t know whether the EMA allowed a rolling submission for Jenner/AZ but I would be surprised if they didn’t.
My guess is that the EMA is engaging in some pre-emptive blame shifting relying on journalists taking them at face value and Astra not wanting get into a public fight with its regulator
Thanks - do you think EMA capacity has been affected by their bolt from London?
We've been through this. Charles is wrong. Anyone in the EU could apply for the rolling process but only the UK did.
The vaccine expertise for the EU previously resided in the UK with the MHRA. All such related matters were referred to the UK for this reason.
Since Brexit and the separation the MHRA's application for a rolling review only applied to the UK (it would previously have applied to the whole of the EU). Any other EU regulatory body could have applied for one but as the expertise was not there (I'm guessing?) none did.
So if anything Brexit meant that the EU received its green light later than the UK. Which I suppose for the Brexiters is a huge win.
The vaccines have gained *emergency authorisation* which is different. Safety trials continue. Due to FoI some info is freely available in the USA that I don't think is issued to the public here or in the EU.
Pfizer and Moderna aren't vaccines, nor are coronavirus vaccines necessarily as useful in a risk-benefit comparison as influenza vaccines. Effective treatment protocols have been pioneered by Dr Pierre Kory and many others but some rich people don't want us to know about them.
PB is a great betting site. But too many people since Feb 2020 have seemed unable to think for themselves.
Enjoy your (mostly unnecessary) jabs But if in doubt be sceptical and ask 'Cui bono'. 4-5 PB contributors clearly do.
Blimey.
I am very much on the side of those such as @contrarian who believe the cost/benefit has become badly skewed, and that the government is implementing some deeply anti-liberty (was about to say anti-democratic!) measures although I am perhaps not as emphatic as he is.
AZ really completely fucked up the trial didn't they. As in completey and utterly fucked it. Useless company. They've also completely fucked up the manufacturing as well aiui. Honestly, I'd rather have had a competent company in charge even if they refused the cost price pledge, at least we'd have had a proper trial and they wouldn't have completely shit the bed on manufacturing. The Pfizer trial was absolutely brilliant, well thought out and no fuck ups.
If we didn't have this mega emergency the MHRA should have refused and sent AZ back to conduct a new trial with 20k participants on the HD/FD version. Honestly, I think they still should and they should put it up for approval again in a few months.
Let us not forget the University of Oxford's role in all of this.
And the test subjects based in far flung countries because there were not enough cases in the UK at the time, let’s hope they don’t get forgotten in the rush to pat ourselves on the back.
I fear that you are missing the sarcasm of a Cambridge graduate. But yes, indeed.
Scots by 47% to 17% also want MPs to pass the Deal so further evidence Sturgeon and Blackford have made a huge gaffe telling SNP MPs to oppose the Deal against the will of the people of Scotland!
The will of the people of Scotland was not to leave the EU in the first place. In absentia of that then a deal will be grudgingly accepted more than no deal would have been.
The SNP will oppose it, WM will still pass it anyway, most people in Scotland will not give a fig about the hows and why of it.
There may be some mis-step in the way the SNP have framed it - abstaining would probably have made more sense in a purely politically consistent way - but you boringly persist with the "huge gaffe" line. It's not going to move the dial in any meaningful way.
Scots by 47% to 17% also want MPs to pass the Deal so further evidence Sturgeon and Blackford have made a huge gaffe telling SNP MPs to oppose the Deal against the will of the people of Scotland!
Been looking at the new feed of case by age and admissions by age data from PHE - so far they have data for England...
The following is the full year. Note that the reason for the massive numbers in the later part of the year is mass testing - which allows us to see what is going on.
2 things stand out
- The number of daily cases for the elderly is relatively small and quite stable. - The big numbers in the recent wave are from the 15-44 and 45-64 groups - This may well explain why there isn't a surge in deaths - yet.
All correct of course and we can only speculate what case numbers were like in mid March for example (100,000 new infections every day perhaps?).
We know a lot more about the virus now than we did then but the problem is one of behaviours. Insufficient numbers of people have changed their behaviour enough to prevent or slow down transmission. I said this in August - it was our own desire to get back to "normal" that would be our undoing.
Is it a question of self-discipline, fatigue, fear or something else? I don't know but there are a significant minority of people who have, I suspected, not altered their behaviour at all during this. For them, living their life on their terms is all that matters. My inner Thatcherite tells me there's an issue around self-responsibility and that notion extends beyond oneself to those around us but I might be wrong.
AZ really completely fucked up the trial didn't they. As in completey and utterly fucked it. Useless company. They've also completely fucked up the manufacturing as well aiui. Honestly, I'd rather have had a competent company in charge even if they refused the cost price pledge, at least we'd have had a proper trial and they wouldn't have completely shit the bed on manufacturing. The Pfizer trial was absolutely brilliant, well thought out and no fuck ups.
If we didn't have this mega emergency the MHRA should have refused and sent AZ back to conduct a new trial with 20k participants on the HD/FD version. Honestly, I think they still should and they should put it up for approval again in a few months.
How likely is it one company is completely fucked up and useless and another absolutely brilliant when they recruit the same type of people? Extreme and unhelpful hyperbole.
Have you seen some tech company disasters....they often weren't for the quality of the people (on paper) they hired.
Isn't the issue that the screw ups occurred in Brazil rather than the UK and it was very much a case of picking a country where sufficient cases were available to validate the results.
No...the tale of the oxford vaccine contains loads of mistakes and illogical decisions from Oxford deciding the manufacturer had messed up the dosage, when it was their measurements, to use of different placebos, to not recruiting enough oldies, the list goes on.
As Max said, no emergency, they would have been sent back to have another go.
Yup, the placebo change over mid trial stands out as completely stupid. Without a global pandemic on it would be enough to ask for a new trial alone. I think they did recruit enough old people but much later on rather than properly randomised meaning the mistake HD/FD didn't have any over 55s in the cohort.
I think the MHRA should ask for another trial, the FDA probably will before they approve it.
Ha! May opening by saying her deal was better than the clown’s!
For Remainers like her and HYUFD who voted to Remain in the Single Market and Remain in the Customs Union and didn't accept they lost the Referendum maybe.
But that is why she was ousted and is history. Good riddance to her and her deal.
If you wanted to Remain in the Single Market and Customs Union then you should have voted to Remain in the Referendum. But that is over, her side lost.
If I read things correctly from the previous tweet as n ow added by me, the press release is that issued by Mr Leonard. So now Mr Sarwar is issuing a statement to the opposite effect. Yet he and his fellow critics backed down from challenging Mr Leonard recently.
Now she’s pointing out that the UK will still be involved in lots of joint committees with the EU, many of which with powers over the new arrangements, and reminding that we will still be following lots of EU rules and standards. Great trolling of the leavers.
All the reports are the EU won't approve the Oxford vaccine anytime soon. I wonder if European countries will go to a single dose strategy?
Astra Zeneca haven’t submitted an application yet - and when they do I suspect the EMA will take its time.
I’m surprised at that. I suspect the EU is being misleading.
Typically you don’t officially “submit an application” until *all the data* is available. The regulators don’t start looking until that point because they want to look at the totality of the data.
The MHRA allowed what is called a “rolling submission” - you file each chapter (tox, preclinical, CMC, clinical etc) as it is available.
I don’t know whether the EMA allowed a rolling submission for Jenner/AZ but I would be surprised if they didn’t.
My guess is that the EMA is engaging in some pre-emptive blame shifting relying on journalists taking them at face value and Astra not wanting get into a public fight with its regulator
Thanks - do you think EMA capacity has been affected by their bolt from London?
We've been through this. Charles is wrong. Anyone in the EU could apply for the rolling process but only the UK did.
The vaccine expertise for the EU previously resided in the UK with the MHRA. All such related matters were referred to the UK for this reason.
Since Brexit and the separation the MHRA's application for a rolling review only applied to the UK (it would previously have applied to the whole of the EU). Any other EU regulatory body could have applied for one but as the expertise was not there (I'm guessing?) none did.
So if anything Brexit meant that the EU received its green light later than the UK. Which I suppose for the Brexiters is a huge win.
A “rolling review” is agreed between the company and the regulator. It’s effectively a way of fast tracking - in a normal review the same data is available at the same time but the regulator won’t look at it u til the whole package is complete
It’s different from the conditional vs emergency approval which is what I think you are referring to where the MHRA chose to use the process and the EMA did not. (And I wasn’t wrong on that one either).
And I’m sure that Belgium and France appreciate you overlooking their long-standing expertise in vaccines. Ever heard of Louis Pasteur?
She’s trying to rescue her reputation now, attacking Bozo’s deal for having nothing for services.
She has a point. There are clearly points where her deal was better. But she still couldn't sell cold beer in the Sahara on a hot summer's day and that is one of the reasons we are in this mess. A little humility would not go amiss.
Scots by 47% to 17% also want MPs to pass the Deal so further evidence Sturgeon and Blackford have made a huge gaffe telling SNP MPs to oppose the Deal against the will of the people of Scotland!
AZ really completely fucked up the trial didn't they. As in completey and utterly fucked it. Useless company. They've also completely fucked up the manufacturing as well aiui. Honestly, I'd rather have had a competent company in charge even if they refused the cost price pledge, at least we'd have had a proper trial and they wouldn't have completely shit the bed on manufacturing. The Pfizer trial was absolutely brilliant, well thought out and no fuck ups.
If we didn't have this mega emergency the MHRA should have refused and sent AZ back to conduct a new trial with 20k participants on the HD/FD version. Honestly, I think they still should and they should put it up for approval again in a few months.
You think on a matter this serious the regulators have decided to unprofessionally and unethically approved it for use due to what, external pressure?
That's a very serious and incendiary accusation.
Absent proof of the regulators being corrupt might it be that they consider evidence shows it's safe despite the concerns raised around the trials?
I'm not suggesting it's unsafe and 62% is plenty to be getting on with, however, there is data showing potential for a 95% effective formula which doesn't need a 12 week gap between jabs. AZ also very obviously fucked up the trial. The MHRA should have given this provisional approval and also sent them back for a completely new trial that isn't completely fucked up like this one was.
I think it's fair to recognise that AZ have made mistakes in the trial process, they should rectify them even if it means running a new trial.
If the evidence is it is not unsafe then the level of vitriol seems unwarranted notwithstanding fucks ups, which obviously they can be criticised for if that is the case, as already some are suggesting it is ineffective at 62% and we don't want the anti-vaxxers to think problems in the trials mean even the 62% is not safe.
Sinopharm reckons 79% efficacy for theirs, surprisingly little debate on Facebook about this....
Can we just spare a thought for Andrew Wakefield, a guy who will go down as somehow having really kick-started the anti-vaccine movement and who I believe (and somewhat appropriately) is now in the spirituial home of modern quackery with a white coat on, thge USA.
15 years ago, most of us thought it was the Tory party that would be broken by the issue of the European Union.
Now, it looks as though most of the damage has actually been sustained by the Labour Party.
Compared to the Tories, the various Nationalists & the LibDems, Labour still look broken to pieces on the issue.
I have come round to thinking SKS has made a bad mistake -- there is absolutely no point in whipping this vote & forcing recalcitrant Remainer Labour MPs to vote for it. He should had left it a free vote for his MPs.
SKS has just stored up bitterness for 2021 by forcing some MPs to vote against the dictates of their conscience.
For the Red Wallers, much more important is what the next Labour manifesto says about Europe. Thsi bill is not important. All SKS has done is contribute to a false feeling of unity so Boris can have his big triumph.
All the reports are the EU won't approve the Oxford vaccine anytime soon. I wonder if European countries will go to a single dose strategy?
Astra Zeneca haven’t submitted an application yet - and when they do I suspect the EMA will take its time.
I’m surprised at that. I suspect the EU is being misleading.
Typically you don’t officially “submit an application” until *all the data* is available. The regulators don’t start looking until that point because they want to look at the totality of the data.
The MHRA allowed what is called a “rolling submission” - you file each chapter (tox, preclinical, CMC, clinical etc) as it is available.
I don’t know whether the EMA allowed a rolling submission for Jenner/AZ but I would be surprised if they didn’t.
My guess is that the EMA is engaging in some pre-emptive blame shifting relying on journalists taking them at face value and Astra not wanting get into a public fight with its regulator
Thanks - do you think EMA capacity has been affected by their bolt from London?
We've been through this. Charles is wrong. Anyone in the EU could apply for the rolling process but only the UK did.
The vaccine expertise for the EU previously resided in the UK with the MHRA. All such related matters were referred to the UK for this reason.
Since Brexit and the separation the MHRA's application for a rolling review only applied to the UK (it would previously have applied to the whole of the EU). Any other EU regulatory body could have applied for one but as the expertise was not there (I'm guessing?) none did.
So if anything Brexit meant that the EU received its green light later than the UK. Which I suppose for the Brexiters is a huge win.
The vaccines have gained *emergency authorisation* which is different. Safety trials continue. Due to FoI some info is freely available in the USA that I don't think is issued to the public here or in the EU.
Pfizer and Moderna aren't vaccines, nor are coronavirus vaccines necessarily as useful in a risk-benefit comparison as influenza vaccines. Effective treatment protocols have been pioneered by Dr Pierre Kory and many others but some rich people don't want us to know about them.
PB is a great betting site. But too many people since Feb 2020 have seemed unable to think for themselves.
Enjoy your (mostly unnecessary) jabs But if in doubt be sceptical and ask 'Cui bono'. 4-5 PB contributors clearly do.
Blimey.
I am very much on the side of those such as @contrarian who believe the cost/benefit has become badly skewed, and that the government is implementing some deeply anti-liberty (was about to say anti-democratic!) measures although I am perhaps not as emphatic as he is.
But to dismiss the vaccines?!
Venturing into pseudo-science does a disservice to those who have been very concerned about the loss of liberty aspects of this crisis.
» show previous quotes So Scotland should leave the EU with no deal?
Scotland should have remained in the EU and will be back in as soon as possible after independence. Unfortunately being a colony we were forced out by our Colonial Masters against our will.
Brexit makes the case for independence unanswerable. 55% of Scots wanted to stay in the UK, but 62% wanted to stay in the EU. We were dragged out by the English. It has switched me from Unionist to Nationalist.
Not really 'unanswerable'. It depends how much importance you attach to membership of each? The turnout for the EU referendum was much lower than for the 2014 one.
There is a counterargument of course. Who in their right minds would want Scotland to endure another 4 or 5 years like the UK has since the EU referendum? I appreciate the "right minds" part excludes a significant part of the population but even so....
🙋🏻♂
Do most Brexiteers regret what the country has endured in the last 4 to 5 years? Or do they view it as a price worth paying to get laws applying to this country made in this country?
Seems logical for the Scots to do the same.
Speaking for myself I have often reflected on whether this has been worth it. The division in the country, the neglect of many far more important issues, the loss of an excellent PM and Chancellor, Mrs May, there is much to regret. I am glad we are finally at the end of the process (well, sort of) but if I had known how badly this country was going to be divided by this would I have voted for it in the first place? Tbh, my answer varies from day to day.
What I am much clearer about is that this is the last thing Scotland needs (and it would be multiple times more difficult) right now. Last time around we did significant damage to our tax base and financial services industry even although we voted to remain. But I am a democrat and will accept the decision of the majority in May.
Are you the same David who thinks that actually leaving the EU with significantly reduced financial services access will be water off a duck's back?
» show previous quotes So Scotland should leave the EU with no deal?
Scotland should have remained in the EU and will be back in as soon as possible after independence. Unfortunately being a colony we were forced out by our Colonial Masters against our will.
Nope.
Scotland had two choices in 2014
a) you are part of the U.K. demos b) you are a distinct demos
You chose (a)
Therefore when there was a vote of the U.K. demos in 2016 you voted as part of it.
The only scenario where your claim would be true is if you had voted for independence in 2014 abut it hadn’t yet been completed by the time Brexit happened and the EU turned out to be a rigid and impracticable organisation
Thanks, it’s these types of lofty pronouncements from afar that have been sadly lacking in the constitutional debate. Let’s hope the people of Scotland sit up and take notice.
I do hope that the people of Scotland do take notice of facts.
I know it’s inconvenient for your political objectives but I can’t help that.
Does the fact that Scots were told that if they wanted to stay in the EU they had to vote No, and then it turned out that the opposite was true, not bother you at all? If you were Scottish do you think you'd be OK with it?
There is a difference between being wrong when you make a statement based on the known facts and “lying”.
Either it was a lie at the time, or circumstances have changed significantly since 2014. Either way a second referendum is justified. You didn't answer my question. How do you think you would feel about all this if you were Scottish? Do you think you'd be OK with it?
My assessment wouldn’t change based on emotional criteria such as nationality.
There is a third option, which I hold: the situation may have changed but that doesn’t justify an immediate repeat referendum. Who judges what “significant” is?
Been looking at the new feed of case by age and admissions by age data from PHE - so far they have data for England...
The following is the full year. Note that the reason for the massive numbers in the later part of the year is mass testing - which allows us to see what is going on.
2 things stand out
- The number of daily cases for the elderly is relatively small and quite stable. - The big numbers in the recent wave are from the 15-44 and 45-64 groups - This may well explain why there isn't a surge in deaths - yet.
All correct of course and we can only speculate what case numbers were like in mid March for example (100,000 new infections every day perhaps?).
We know a lot more about the virus now than we did then but the problem is one of behaviours. Insufficient numbers of people have changed their behaviour enough to prevent or slow down transmission. I said this in August - it was our own desire to get back to "normal" that would be our undoing.
Is it a question of self-discipline, fatigue, fear or something else? I don't know but there are a significant minority of people who have, I suspected, not altered their behaviour at all during this. For them, living their life on their terms is all that matters. My inner Thatcherite tells me there's an issue around self-responsibility and that notion extends beyond oneself to those around us but I might be wrong.
We have seen quite a few people here, who regard putting off a holiday until June as un-thinkable. An interesting facet of this is the idea that "I don't *seem* to have the virus, so I'm probably ok. So I can do what I want."
I wonder if this relates to the extreme reactions to calls from the Track-And-Trace teams have received - abuse, even death threats. For telling people that they have a positive result. Suddenly faced by responsibility.....
» show previous quotes So Scotland should leave the EU with no deal?
Scotland should have remained in the EU and will be back in as soon as possible after independence. Unfortunately being a colony we were forced out by our Colonial Masters against our will.
Brexit makes the case for independence unanswerable. 55% of Scots wanted to stay in the UK, but 62% wanted to stay in the EU. We were dragged out by the English. It has switched me from Unionist to Nationalist.
Not really 'unanswerable'. It depends how much importance you attach to membership of each? The turnout for the EU referendum was much lower than for the 2014 one.
Most Scots didn't expect the English to vote to leave, so there wasn't the urgency to vote in 2016. After all, we were told in 2014 that if we voted No then we would stay in the EU. Who could have guessed that that was a flat out lie?
It wasn’t a lie.
At that time Brexit hadn’t been voted for (and I don’t think the referendum had even been announced).
No statement about the future looks at every conceivable scenario
OK. So circumstances have changed in ways people couldn't even have conceived since 2014, is that what you're saying? I take it you agree that Scotland should have another referendum then in light of this.
Yes, circumstances changed.
And I gave no problem with Scotland having another vote, say in 20 years
Voting again and again until you get the answer you want is undemocratic
You really are a pompous over privileged arsehole of epic proportions.
She’s trying to rescue her reputation now, attacking Bozo’s deal for having nothing for services.
She has a point. There are clearly points where her deal was better. But she still couldn't sell cold beer in the Sahara on a hot summer's day and that is one of the reasons we are in this mess. A little humility would not go amiss.
TBF to her, she had the likes of Messrs Johnson, Gove, and Francois, so to speak, publicly urinating in her beer-jugs behind her back but very visible to the customer. So I wouldn't blame her as much as you do.
Hancock dropping a hint that schools may not be re-opening after all
I have been very keen on the schools remaining open because the consequences for children's education, especially those from poorer backgrounds, have been horrendous. But in the face of the new variant and with mass vaccination under way keeping them closed for January is a no brainer, it really is.
The knock on consequences may well be the cancellation of exams in England and Wales, just as we have suffered in Scotland. I think that this could still be avoided but it unquestionably becomes more difficult as the playing field gets tilted ever more in favour of those who are getting effective distance learning and against those who aren't.
The problem is, for the reasons you give to avoid cancelling exams we need to have sensible planning for distance learning and catch up sessions from April onwards. And that just hasn’t happened. Some students have actually missed around 60% of the normal teaching time they would have had for their GCSEs. Others, hardly anything. How can you make a judgement about their ability based on a common exam under the circumstances?
What worries me is not so much cancelling them but the fact that it is becoming absolutely painfully obvious that nobody has thought of alternative forms of assessment. If History, Geography, English, languages and the creative arts had been switched to externally moderated coursework - a perfectly feasible option - it might just have been possible to salvage exams for maths and science. But nobody made the effort to think and have plans in place.
Edit - incidentally if it’s a ‘no brainer’ the government still won’t do it, as while they have no brains they are so dim even a no brainer wouldn’t compute.
Hancock started to answer the question this morning, but stopped himself after suggesting new restrictions on education would be needed, saying that our Gav will announce the details later. My guess is a delayed opening for the new term, perhaps with teachers vaccinated meanwhile.
Teachers should be vaccinated early but don't overlook older pupils and the parents who gather outside the school gates to collect their children at chucking out time.
Notice Sky and BBC have switched away from the HOC just before Blackford stands up
I don't think there's a correlation.
They had a strapline saying they were going to the vaccine briefing at 1030 am, so it probably just got going a bit late.
If he'd been less of a timewasting prat with that stupid meaningless division that wasted quarter of an hour with nobody talking, let alone all those "points of order" then he'd have been called before they cut away.
15 years ago, most of us thought it was the Tory party that would be broken by the issue of the European Union.
Now, it looks as though most of the damage has actually been sustained by the Labour Party.
Compared to the Tories, the various Nationalists & the LibDems, Labour still look broken to pieces on the issue.
I have come round to thinking SKS has made a bad mistake -- there is absolutely no point in whipping this vote & forcing recalcitrant Remainer Labour MPs to vote for it. He should had left it a free vote for his MPs.
SKS has just stored up bitterness for 2021 by forcing some MPs to vote against the dictates of their conscience.
For the Red Wallers, much more important is what the next Labour manifesto says about Europe. Thsi bill is not important. All SKS has done is contribute to a false feeling of unity so Boris can have his big triumph.
Listening to Starmer in parliament today, ruthlessly criticising many aspects of the trade deal, makes one wonder why he is voting for it. It is also a bit rich coming from someone who said ANY deal is better than no deal.
He`s trying to butter both sides of his bread. He may fail on both fronts.
"Scottish Labour has found itself trapped in a no-win dilemma over Brexit after it decided to back a Scottish National party motion against the Brexit deal in Holyrood later on Wednesday - in direct contradiction to Keir Starmer’s stance at Westminster.
To the consternation of his internal critics, Richard Leonard, the party’s Scottish leader, announced on Tuesday the party would vote with the SNP to reject the deal by arguing it would cause unjustified economic damage in Scotland."
On the Graun feed - more there if wanted. The other surprise, at least in view of what was being said on this forum yesterday, is that Ian Murray, MP for Morningside Matrons, is very much supporting Mr Starmer and voting for the deal.
Doing the right thing. Speaking as a Conservative for Murray.
» show previous quotes So Scotland should leave the EU with no deal?
Scotland should have remained in the EU and will be back in as soon as possible after independence. Unfortunately being a colony we were forced out by our Colonial Masters against our will.
Brexit makes the case for independence unanswerable. 55% of Scots wanted to stay in the UK, but 62% wanted to stay in the EU. We were dragged out by the English. It has switched me from Unionist to Nationalist.
Not really 'unanswerable'. It depends how much importance you attach to membership of each? The turnout for the EU referendum was much lower than for the 2014 one.
Most Scots didn't expect the English to vote to leave, so there wasn't the urgency to vote in 2016. After all, we were told in 2014 that if we voted No then we would stay in the EU. Who could have guessed that that was a flat out lie?
It wasn’t a lie.
At that time Brexit hadn’t been voted for (and I don’t think the referendum had even been announced).
No statement about the future looks at every conceivable scenario
OK. So circumstances have changed in ways people couldn't even have conceived since 2014, is that what you're saying? I take it you agree that Scotland should have another referendum then in light of this.
Yes, circumstances changed.
And I gave no problem with Scotland having another vote, say in 20 years
Voting again and again until you get the answer you want is undemocratic
Democracy doesn't have a 20 year timespan, it has a 5 year timespan.
Parliament lasts 5 years not 20 years.
2021 is the next scheduled Holyrood elections. That is not "voting again and again" it is a regularly scheduled election.
If the Scots elect a government committed to another referendum that is not "voting again and again" it is democracy in action.
It’s not within the remit of the Scottish government to determine whether there is a referendum
The British could elect a government committed to requiring the French to implement the Treaty of Troyes but that wouldn’t make it a democratic requirement
But we are not going to agree on this so let’s not bother to rehearse the same old arguments
Why does the NHS app still keep giving those "verifying exposure info" messages.
I must have had at least 50, none of which have led to anything and afaik no action is supposed to be taken by me, apart from waiting for further messages! Ridiculous, just message me when it thinks I should take action.
"Scottish Labour has found itself trapped in a no-win dilemma over Brexit after it decided to back a Scottish National party motion against the Brexit deal in Holyrood later on Wednesday - in direct contradiction to Keir Starmer’s stance at Westminster.
To the consternation of his internal critics, Richard Leonard, the party’s Scottish leader, announced on Tuesday the party would vote with the SNP to reject the deal by arguing it would cause unjustified economic damage in Scotland."
On the Graun feed - more there if wanted. The other surprise, at least in view of what was being said on this forum yesterday, is that Ian Murray, MP for Morningside Matrons, is very much supporting Mr Starmer and voting for the deal.
Doing the right thing. Speaking as a Conservative for Murray.
Mphm. A brave thing to do, even so, in Scotland. But he's not the one facing reelection in 2021.
Scots by 47% to 17% also want MPs to pass the Deal so further evidence Sturgeon and Blackford have made a huge gaffe telling SNP MPs to oppose the Deal against the will of the people of Scotland!
» show previous quotes So Scotland should leave the EU with no deal?
Scotland should have remained in the EU and will be back in as soon as possible after independence. Unfortunately being a colony we were forced out by our Colonial Masters against our will.
Brexit makes the case for independence unanswerable. 55% of Scots wanted to stay in the UK, but 62% wanted to stay in the EU. We were dragged out by the English. It has switched me from Unionist to Nationalist.
Not really 'unanswerable'. It depends how much importance you attach to membership of each? The turnout for the EU referendum was much lower than for the 2014 one.
There is a counterargument of course. Who in their right minds would want Scotland to endure another 4 or 5 years like the UK has since the EU referendum? I appreciate the "right minds" part excludes a significant part of the population but even so....
🙋🏻♂
Do most Brexiteers regret what the country has endured in the last 4 to 5 years? Or do they view it as a price worth paying to get laws applying to this country made in this country?
Seems logical for the Scots to do the same.
Speaking for myself I have often reflected on whether this has been worth it. The division in the country, the neglect of many far more important issues, the loss of an excellent PM and Chancellor, Mrs May, there is much to regret. I am glad we are finally at the end of the process (well, sort of) but if I had known how badly this country was going to be divided by this would I have voted for it in the first place? Tbh, my answer varies from day to day.
What I am much clearer about is that this is the last thing Scotland needs (and it would be multiple times more difficult) right now. Last time around we did significant damage to our tax base and financial services industry even although we voted to remain. But I am a democrat and will accept the decision of the majority in May.
Are you the same David who thinks that actually leaving the EU with significantly reduced financial services access will be water off a duck's back?
Yes. Edinburgh is in an entirely different position than London. It is a satellite and services based centre servicing London. London is arguably the most important international financial centre in the world and utterly dominant in the European time zone. Edinburgh is far more dependent upon London than London is the EU.
But I have also been critical of this deal because it does not include financial services as Mrs May has just pointed out. Hopefully this will be a short term problem.
» show previous quotes So Scotland should leave the EU with no deal?
Scotland should have remained in the EU and will be back in as soon as possible after independence. Unfortunately being a colony we were forced out by our Colonial Masters against our will.
Nope.
Scotland had two choices in 2014
a) you are part of the U.K. demos b) you are a distinct demos
You chose (a)
Therefore when there was a vote of the U.K. demos in 2016 you voted as part of it.
The only scenario where your claim would be true is if you had voted for independence in 2014 abut it hadn’t yet been completed by the time Brexit happened and the EU turned out to be a rigid and impracticable organisation
Thanks, it’s these types of lofty pronouncements from afar that have been sadly lacking in the constitutional debate. Let’s hope the people of Scotland sit up and take notice.
I do hope that the people of Scotland do take notice of facts.
I know it’s inconvenient for your political objectives but I can’t help that.
Does the fact that Scots were told that if they wanted to stay in the EU they had to vote No, and then it turned out that the opposite was true, not bother you at all? If you were Scottish do you think you'd be OK with it?
There is a difference between being wrong when you make a statement based on the known facts and “lying”.
Either it was a lie at the time, or circumstances have changed significantly since 2014. Either way a second referendum is justified. You didn't answer my question. How do you think you would feel about all this if you were Scottish? Do you think you'd be OK with it?
My assessment wouldn’t change based on emotional criteria such as nationality.
There is a third option, which I hold: the situation may have changed but that doesn’t justify an immediate repeat referendum. Who judges what “significant” is?
I dunno, maybe the democratically elected government of Scotland?
» show previous quotes So Scotland should leave the EU with no deal?
Scotland should have remained in the EU and will be back in as soon as possible after independence. Unfortunately being a colony we were forced out by our Colonial Masters against our will.
Brexit makes the case for independence unanswerable. 55% of Scots wanted to stay in the UK, but 62% wanted to stay in the EU. We were dragged out by the English. It has switched me from Unionist to Nationalist.
Not really 'unanswerable'. It depends how much importance you attach to membership of each? The turnout for the EU referendum was much lower than for the 2014 one.
Most Scots didn't expect the English to vote to leave, so there wasn't the urgency to vote in 2016. After all, we were told in 2014 that if we voted No then we would stay in the EU. Who could have guessed that that was a flat out lie?
It wasn’t a lie.
At that time Brexit hadn’t been voted for (and I don’t think the referendum had even been announced).
No statement about the future looks at every conceivable scenario
OK. So circumstances have changed in ways people couldn't even have conceived since 2014, is that what you're saying? I take it you agree that Scotland should have another referendum then in light of this.
Yes, circumstances changed.
And I gave no problem with Scotland having another vote, say in 20 years
Voting again and again until you get the answer you want is undemocratic
Democracy doesn't have a 20 year timespan, it has a 5 year timespan.
Parliament lasts 5 years not 20 years.
2021 is the next scheduled Holyrood elections. That is not "voting again and again" it is a regularly scheduled election.
If the Scots elect a government committed to another referendum that is not "voting again and again" it is democracy in action.
It’s not within the remit of the Scottish government to determine whether there is a referendum
The British could elect a government committed to requiring the French to implement the Treaty of Troyes but that wouldn’t make it a democratic requirement
But we are not going to agree on this so let’s not bother to rehearse the same old arguments
The French are a foreign nation. Are the Scots?
Your "again and again" or "generation" or "20 year" arguments are just fluff. Elections are routinely held every five years for a reason.
Either you respect Scottish democracy or you do not. It is a simple enough question. Do you respect Scottish democracy: yes or no?
I sense she is above all else a Conservative Party loyalist, so will be pleased enough, but I'd be surprised if there were not some less charitable sentiment in there too.
This bloke who brought me down and replaced me, saying my Deal was rubbish, goes and agrees the sort of noddy Deal I could have done in 10 minutes if I'd have dropped my "protect the economy and the constitutional integrity of the UK" red line, and gets cheered to the rafters for it.
Is it cos I am not a 'born to rule' public school chancer unencumbered by a sense of duty and public service?
Scots by 47% to 17% also want MPs to pass the Deal so further evidence Sturgeon and Blackford have made a huge gaffe telling SNP MPs to oppose the Deal against the will of the people of Scotland!
» show previous quotes So Scotland should leave the EU with no deal?
Scotland should have remained in the EU and will be back in as soon as possible after independence. Unfortunately being a colony we were forced out by our Colonial Masters against our will.
Nope.
Scotland had two choices in 2014
a) you are part of the U.K. demos b) you are a distinct demos
You chose (a)
Therefore when there was a vote of the U.K. demos in 2016 you voted as part of it.
The only scenario where your claim would be true is if you had voted for independence in 2014 abut it hadn’t yet been completed by the time Brexit happened and the EU turned out to be a rigid and impracticable organisation
Thanks, it’s these types of lofty pronouncements from afar that have been sadly lacking in the constitutional debate. Let’s hope the people of Scotland sit up and take notice.
I do hope that the people of Scotland do take notice of facts.
I know it’s inconvenient for your political objectives but I can’t help that.
Does the fact that Scots were told that if they wanted to stay in the EU they had to vote No, and then it turned out that the opposite was true, not bother you at all? If you were Scottish do you think you'd be OK with it?
There is a difference between being wrong when you make a statement based on the known facts and “lying”.
Either it was a lie at the time, or circumstances have changed significantly since 2014. Either way a second referendum is justified. You didn't answer my question. How do you think you would feel about all this if you were Scottish? Do you think you'd be OK with it?
My assessment wouldn’t change based on emotional criteria such as nationality.
There is a third option, which I hold: the situation may have changed but that doesn’t justify an immediate repeat referendum. Who judges what “significant” is?
The Scottish voters at a national Scottish election.
The Racing Post has published its list of the 20 most influential racing figures of 2020. Joint top are Dr Jerry Hill and Dr Jennifer Pugh, the chief medical officers at the BHA and Irish HRB respectively. It sums up this year.
All the reports are the EU won't approve the Oxford vaccine anytime soon. I wonder if European countries will go to a single dose strategy?
Astra Zeneca haven’t submitted an application yet - and when they do I suspect the EMA will take its time.
I’m surprised at that. I suspect the EU is being misleading.
Typically you don’t officially “submit an application” until *all the data* is available. The regulators don’t start looking until that point because they want to look at the totality of the data.
The MHRA allowed what is called a “rolling submission” - you file each chapter (tox, preclinical, CMC, clinical etc) as it is available.
I don’t know whether the EMA allowed a rolling submission for Jenner/AZ but I would be surprised if they didn’t.
My guess is that the EMA is engaging in some pre-emptive blame shifting relying on journalists taking them at face value and Astra not wanting get into a public fight with its regulator
Thanks - do you think EMA capacity has been affected by their bolt from London?
We've been through this. Charles is wrong. Anyone in the EU could apply for the rolling process but only the UK did.
The vaccine expertise for the EU previously resided in the UK with the MHRA. All such related matters were referred to the UK for this reason.
Since Brexit and the separation the MHRA's application for a rolling review only applied to the UK (it would previously have applied to the whole of the EU). Any other EU regulatory body could have applied for one but as the expertise was not there (I'm guessing?) none did.
So if anything Brexit meant that the EU received its green light later than the UK. Which I suppose for the Brexiters is a huge win.
The vaccines have gained *emergency authorisation* which is different. Safety trials continue. Due to FoI some info is freely available in the USA that I don't think is issued to the public here or in the EU.
Pfizer and Moderna aren't vaccines, nor are coronavirus vaccines necessarily as useful in a risk-benefit comparison as influenza vaccines. Effective treatment protocols have been pioneered by Dr Pierre Kory and many others but some rich people don't want us to know about them.
PB is a great betting site. But too many people since Feb 2020 have seemed unable to think for themselves.
Enjoy your (mostly unnecessary) jabs But if in doubt be sceptical and ask 'Cui bono'. 4-5 PB contributors clearly do.
Blimey.
I am very much on the side of those such as @contrarian who believe the cost/benefit has become badly skewed, and that the government is implementing some deeply anti-liberty (was about to say anti-democratic!) measures although I am perhaps not as emphatic as he is.
But to dismiss the vaccines?!
Venturing into pseudo-science does a disservice to those who have been very concerned about the loss of liberty aspects of this crisis.
p.s. I was an avid remainer campaigner and I have ZERO interest in Brexit now. Not interested in anything about it. It's done. Finito. Get over it and get on with it.
It is essential that the vaccines are delivered in the groupings advised and nobody jumps the queue no matter how wealthy or famous who may think they can buy their way to the front
I would disagree. As soon as supply exceeds the ability of the NHS to deliver it systematically, release it to the open market so as many further agents can deliver it. The coverage would then expand more quickly.
I respect your professional knowledge but if that means the wealthy and famous are able to jump the queue then that is wrong
No, not least because a private AZN jab would cost about the same as a meal out.
If NHS capacity cannot cope with demand, then why restrict delivery rather than open up to other agents. I am only suggesting opening up to private providers when supply exceeds NHS capacity.
Remember that we are dealing with an exhausted NHS at full stretch already.
Don’t the main private providers (eg ELCG) use contracted nurses? I’m not sure there is a reservoir of new trained staff to give the vaccines
It would make sense to use the pharmacy channel but that’s only technically “private” in my view.
I agree about using pharmacies, but why are they only 'technically' private? In my practicing time, certainly at the beginning, they were in a comparable situation to GP's and dentists...... individual practitioners contracted to provide services. There were exceptions.... Boots, the Co-op etc .......but the proportion was something 70-30 towards the individual, or very small groups. However the position has now reversed; at least 70% of pharmacies are controlled by 4 large organisations, and at least two of those organisations...... Boots and Lloyds ...... are owned by US corporations.
In this case you would likely have a mass contract to provide vaccination in a order determined by the government and funded by them. That would be a subcontractor relationship in my view rather than the vaccine being “available privately” in any meaningful sense.
(I’m not sure it is 70% held by the top 4 chains FWIW - from memory there are about 12-13k pharmacies, of which Boots had about 3k, Lloyds 1.5k, Rowlands and Co-op (I forget what they are called these days) about 500-600 each and then Day Lewis at 400.
There are a bunch a smaller chains but almost half are single site proprietor managed pharmacies)
Take the point... an add-on to the current contract for pharmaceutical services.
On numbers, according to the latest figures I could find, from the Pharmaceutical Journal in 2016, the figures are "Large multiples (100 or more pharmacies) make up 49.2% of the community pharmacy market in Great Britain, with 12 companies owning 7,085 pharmacies. Small multiples (6–99 pharmacies) account for 12.4% of the market, with 145 companies owning 1,785 pharmacies, and independents (1–5 pharmacies) control 38.4% of the market, with 4,184 companies owning 5,519 pharmacies."
Glad to see I still have a grip on the corporate ownership landscape in the U.K. pharmacy market...
I sense she is above all else a Conservative Party loyalist, so will be pleased enough, but I'd be surprised if there were not some less charitable sentiment in there too.
This bloke who brought me down and replaced me, saying my Deal was rubbish, goes and agrees the sort of noddy Deal I could have done in 10 minutes if I'd have dropped my "protect the economy and the constitutional integrity of the UK" red line, and gets cheered to the rafters for it.
Is it cos I am not a 'born to rule' public school chancer unencumbered by a sense of duty and public service?
I sense she is above all else a Conservative Party loyalist, so will be pleased enough, but I'd be surprised if there were not some less charitable sentiment in there too.
This bloke who brought me down and replaced me, saying my Deal was rubbish, goes and agrees the sort of noddy Deal I could have done in 10 minutes if I'd have dropped my "protect the economy and the constitutional integrity of the UK" red line, and gets cheered to the rafters for it.
Is it cos I am not a 'born to rule' public school chancer unencumbered by a sense of duty and public service?
Or perhaps because her vision of "protecting the economy" was precisely what was wrong?
She sought to protect the economy be de facto keeping the UK within the Single Market and Customs Union that we had voted to leave. The economy arguments were debated in the referendum and were defeated - her vision of "protecting the economy" was to Remain in the EU.
Scots by 47% to 17% also want MPs to pass the Deal so further evidence Sturgeon and Blackford have made a huge gaffe telling SNP MPs to oppose the Deal against the will of the people of Scotland!
» show previous quotes So Scotland should leave the EU with no deal?
Scotland should have remained in the EU and will be back in as soon as possible after independence. Unfortunately being a colony we were forced out by our Colonial Masters against our will.
Brexit makes the case for independence unanswerable. 55% of Scots wanted to stay in the UK, but 62% wanted to stay in the EU. We were dragged out by the English. It has switched me from Unionist to Nationalist.
Not really 'unanswerable'. It depends how much importance you attach to membership of each? The turnout for the EU referendum was much lower than for the 2014 one.
Most Scots didn't expect the English to vote to leave, so there wasn't the urgency to vote in 2016. After all, we were told in 2014 that if we voted No then we would stay in the EU. Who could have guessed that that was a flat out lie?
It wasn’t a lie.
At that time Brexit hadn’t been voted for (and I don’t think the referendum had even been announced).
No statement about the future looks at every conceivable scenario
OK. So circumstances have changed in ways people couldn't even have conceived since 2014, is that what you're saying? I take it you agree that Scotland should have another referendum then in light of this.
Yes, circumstances changed.
And I gave no problem with Scotland having another vote, say in 20 years
Voting again and again until you get the answer you want is undemocratic
If circumstances have changed (and leaving the EU is a massive change for Scotland) then logic dictates you allow another referendum now. Where is the logic in waiting 20 years?
Can you demonstrate the logic? It doesn’t follow.
Constitutional decisions are for an extended period of time. It helps no one to have repeated votes and continuous agitation. (20 is arbitrary but 15-30 would be reasonable. 40 feels too long and 10 too short)
» show previous quotes So Scotland should leave the EU with no deal?
Scotland should have remained in the EU and will be back in as soon as possible after independence. Unfortunately being a colony we were forced out by our Colonial Masters against our will.
Brexit makes the case for independence unanswerable. 55% of Scots wanted to stay in the UK, but 62% wanted to stay in the EU. We were dragged out by the English. It has switched me from Unionist to Nationalist.
Not really 'unanswerable'. It depends how much importance you attach to membership of each? The turnout for the EU referendum was much lower than for the 2014 one.
Most Scots didn't expect the English to vote to leave, so there wasn't the urgency to vote in 2016. After all, we were told in 2014 that if we voted No then we would stay in the EU. Who could have guessed that that was a flat out lie?
It wasn’t a lie.
At that time Brexit hadn’t been voted for (and I don’t think the referendum had even been announced).
No statement about the future looks at every conceivable scenario
OK. So circumstances have changed in ways people couldn't even have conceived since 2014, is that what you're saying? I take it you agree that Scotland should have another referendum then in light of this.
Yes, circumstances changed.
And I gave no problem with Scotland having another vote, say in 20 years
Voting again and again until you get the answer you want is undemocratic
Such as holding rerun general elections in 2017 and 2019 because the party that won them didn't like the result. That kind of thing.
I sense she is above all else a Conservative Party loyalist, so will be pleased enough, but I'd be surprised if there were not some less charitable sentiment in there too.
This bloke who brought me down and replaced me, saying my Deal was rubbish, goes and agrees the sort of noddy Deal I could have done in 10 minutes if I'd have dropped my "protect the economy and the constitutional integrity of the UK" red line, and gets cheered to the rafters for it.
Is it cos I am not a 'born to rule' public school chancer unencumbered by a sense of duty and public service?
Will Theresa May be kicked upstairs in the New Year Honours? It would suit Boris and explain the gong-blocking Blair stories this week.
AZ really completely fucked up the trial didn't they. As in completey and utterly fucked it. Useless company. They've also completely fucked up the manufacturing as well aiui. Honestly, I'd rather have had a competent company in charge even if they refused the cost price pledge, at least we'd have had a proper trial and they wouldn't have completely shit the bed on manufacturing. The Pfizer trial was absolutely brilliant, well thought out and no fuck ups.
If we didn't have this mega emergency the MHRA should have refused and sent AZ back to conduct a new trial with 20k participants on the HD/FD version. Honestly, I think they still should and they should put it up for approval again in a few months.
How likely is it one company is completely fucked up and useless and another absolutely brilliant when they recruit the same type of people? Extreme and unhelpful hyperbole.
Have you seen some tech company disasters....they often weren't for the quality of the people (on paper) they hired.
Isn't the issue that the screw ups occurred in Brazil rather than the UK and it was very much a case of picking a country where sufficient cases were available to validate the results.
No...the tale of the oxford vaccine contains loads of mistakes and illogical decisions from Oxford deciding the manufacturer had messed up the dosage, when it was their measurements, to use of different placebos, to not recruiting enough oldies, the list goes on.
As Max said, no emergency, they would have been sent back to have another go.
Yup, the placebo change over mid trial stands out as completely stupid. Without a global pandemic on it would be enough to ask for a new trial alone. I think they did recruit enough old people but much later on rather than properly randomised meaning the mistake HD/FD didn't have any over 55s in the cohort.
I think the MHRA should ask for another trial, the FDA probably will before they approve it.
I seriously doubt it; they’ll probably just wait for the data from our mass vaccination program. I think this is an excellent (unlike the trial) decision. One good thing from the AZN is that they ran what was effectively a single shot cohort for five months, which looked effective as the full dose & booster. So there is a strong rationale for running with the full dose plus later booster in order to get vaccination started as soon as possible. https://twitter.com/michaelmina_lab/status/1344214591010701312
15 years ago, most of us thought it was the Tory party that would be broken by the issue of the European Union.
Now, it looks as though most of the damage has actually been sustained by the Labour Party.
Compared to the Tories, the various Nationalists & the LibDems, Labour still look broken to pieces on the issue.
I have come round to thinking SKS has made a bad mistake -- there is absolutely no point in whipping this vote & forcing recalcitrant Remainer Labour MPs to vote for it. He should had left it a free vote for his MPs.
SKS has just stored up bitterness for 2021 by forcing some MPs to vote against the dictates of their conscience.
For the Red Wallers, much more important is what the next Labour manifesto says about Europe. Thsi bill is not important. All SKS has done is contribute to a false feeling of unity so Boris can have his big triumph.
Listening to Starmer in parliament today, ruthlessly criticising many aspects of the trade deal, makes one wonder why he is voting for it. It is also a bit rich coming from someone who said ANY deal is better than no deal.
He`s trying to butter both sides of his bread. He may fail on both fronts.
I thought it was good and the kind of grown up politics we have been missing for the last 5 years. The choice is this deal or no deal, it is a no brainer.
I sense she is above all else a Conservative Party loyalist, so will be pleased enough, but I'd be surprised if there were not some less charitable sentiment in there too.
This bloke who brought me down and replaced me, saying my Deal was rubbish, goes and agrees the sort of noddy Deal I could have done in 10 minutes if I'd have dropped my "protect the economy and the constitutional integrity of the UK" red line, and gets cheered to the rafters for it.
Is it cos I am not a 'born to rule' public school chancer unencumbered by a sense of duty and public service?
If true, is it necessarily an advantage? I`m sure pleased that my provenance didn`t mean that I`m `born to rule`.
» show previous quotes So Scotland should leave the EU with no deal?
Scotland should have remained in the EU and will be back in as soon as possible after independence. Unfortunately being a colony we were forced out by our Colonial Masters against our will.
Brexit makes the case for independence unanswerable. 55% of Scots wanted to stay in the UK, but 62% wanted to stay in the EU. We were dragged out by the English. It has switched me from Unionist to Nationalist.
Not really 'unanswerable'. It depends how much importance you attach to membership of each? The turnout for the EU referendum was much lower than for the 2014 one.
Most Scots didn't expect the English to vote to leave, so there wasn't the urgency to vote in 2016. After all, we were told in 2014 that if we voted No then we would stay in the EU. Who could have guessed that that was a flat out lie?
It wasn’t a lie.
At that time Brexit hadn’t been voted for (and I don’t think the referendum had even been announced).
No statement about the future looks at every conceivable scenario
OK. So circumstances have changed in ways people couldn't even have conceived since 2014, is that what you're saying? I take it you agree that Scotland should have another referendum then in light of this.
Yes, circumstances changed.
And I gave no problem with Scotland having another vote, say in 20 years
Voting again and again until you get the answer you want is undemocratic
If circumstances have changed (and leaving the EU is a massive change for Scotland) then logic dictates you allow another referendum now. Where is the logic in waiting 20 years?
Can you demonstrate the logic? It doesn’t follow.
Constitutional decisions are for an extended period of time. It helps no one to have repeated votes and continuous agitation. (20 is arbitrary but 15-30 would be reasonable. 40 feels too long and 10 too short)
No that does not follow and never has followed.
Decisions are for one Parliament only. Always have been. No Parliament can bind its successor.
Where does an "extended period of time" come from? What constitutional settlement or principle determines that?
15 years ago, most of us thought it was the Tory party that would be broken by the issue of the European Union.
Now, it looks as though most of the damage has actually been sustained by the Labour Party.
Compared to the Tories, the various Nationalists & the LibDems, Labour still look broken to pieces on the issue.
I have come round to thinking SKS has made a bad mistake -- there is absolutely no point in whipping this vote & forcing recalcitrant Remainer Labour MPs to vote for it. He should had left it a free vote for his MPs.
SKS has just stored up bitterness for 2021 by forcing some MPs to vote against the dictates of their conscience.
For the Red Wallers, much more important is what the next Labour manifesto says about Europe. Thsi bill is not important. All SKS has done is contribute to a false feeling of unity so Boris can have his big triumph.
Labour has always been divided on the issue of the EU. In 1983, there was a manifesto commitment to withdraw from the then EEC. Labour was Eurosceptic long before most Tories had even heard of the term.
There were a very few sceptical Conservatives but the Conservatives were for decades the most pro-European of the main parties. Heath spent most of his political career trying to get this into the EEC and Thatcher was the main proponent of the Yes vote in 1975.
There may still be pro-European Conservatives but they have either been driven to the margins or driven out of the Party completely. Labour continues to accommodate its European factions - the 1975 Referendum was one of the milestones on the journey to the SDP schism.
The journey to Conservative Euro-scepticism began before Bruges with the arguments over the rebate in the early 1980s but from Bruges onward, Euro-scepticism grew and developed - it arguably brought down Thatcher and Cameron and contributed to the party spending more than a decade in Opposition after their worst defeat in decades.
I suspect the next splits will be over environmental policy.
15 years ago, most of us thought it was the Tory party that would be broken by the issue of the European Union.
Now, it looks as though most of the damage has actually been sustained by the Labour Party.
Compared to the Tories, the various Nationalists & the LibDems, Labour still look broken to pieces on the issue.
I have come round to thinking SKS has made a bad mistake -- there is absolutely no point in whipping this vote & forcing recalcitrant Remainer Labour MPs to vote for it. He should had left it a free vote for his MPs.
SKS has just stored up bitterness for 2021 by forcing some MPs to vote against the dictates of their conscience.
For the Red Wallers, much more important is what the next Labour manifesto says about Europe. Thsi bill is not important. All SKS has done is contribute to a false feeling of unity so Boris can have his big triumph.
Listening to Starmer in parliament today, ruthlessly criticising many aspects of the trade deal, makes one wonder why he is voting for it. It is also a bit rich coming from someone who said ANY deal is better than no deal.
He`s trying to butter both sides of his bread. He may fail on both fronts.
I thought it was good and the kind of grown up politics we have been missing for the last 5 years. The choice is this deal or no deal, it is a no brainer.
Agreed that he`s good. Excellent in fact. It`s the relentless politicking that tires me.
Comments
Which is a bit rich from their previous stance.
Descended from the Great Montrose as I recall, though Chuck rather revealed his lack of mccredentials by thinking 'bonnie fechter' was an insult.
We do vote "again and again" - that's democracy. Saying everything is cast in stone and can't change "for a generation" us profoundly undemocratic.
As Max said, no emergency, they would have been sent back to have another go.
I am very much on the side of those such as @contrarian who believe the cost/benefit has become badly skewed, and that the government is implementing some deeply anti-liberty (was about to say anti-democratic!) measures although I am perhaps not as emphatic as he is.
But to dismiss the vaccines?!
LOL.
https://twitter.com/KieranPAndrews/status/1344231075950817280?s=20
The SNP will oppose it, WM will still pass it anyway, most people in Scotland will not give a fig about the hows and why of it.
There may be some mis-step in the way the SNP have framed it - abstaining would probably have made more sense in a purely politically consistent way - but you boringly persist with the "huge gaffe" line. It's not going to move the dial in any meaningful way.
We know a lot more about the virus now than we did then but the problem is one of behaviours. Insufficient numbers of people have changed their behaviour enough to prevent or slow down transmission. I said this in August - it was our own desire to get back to "normal" that would be our undoing.
Is it a question of self-discipline, fatigue, fear or something else? I don't know but there are a significant minority of people who have, I suspected, not altered their behaviour at all during this. For them, living their life on their terms is all that matters. My inner Thatcherite tells me there's an issue around self-responsibility and that notion extends beyond oneself to those around us but I might be wrong.
I think the MHRA should ask for another trial, the FDA probably will before they approve it.
But that is why she was ousted and is history. Good riddance to her and her deal.
If you wanted to Remain in the Single Market and Customs Union then you should have voted to Remain in the Referendum. But that is over, her side lost.
If I read things correctly from the previous tweet as n ow added by me, the press release is that issued by Mr Leonard. So now Mr Sarwar is issuing a statement to the opposite effect. Yet he and his fellow critics backed down from challenging Mr Leonard recently.
Wonder what will happen to SLAB?
A “rolling review” is agreed between the company and the regulator. It’s effectively a way of fast tracking - in a normal review the same data is available at the same time but the regulator won’t look at it u til the whole package is complete
It’s different from the conditional vs emergency approval which is what I think you are referring to where the MHRA chose to use the process and the EMA did not. (And I wasn’t wrong on that one either).
And I’m sure that Belgium and France appreciate you overlooking their long-standing expertise in vaccines. Ever heard of Louis Pasteur?
Can we just spare a thought for Andrew Wakefield, a guy who will go down as somehow having really kick-started the anti-vaccine movement and who I believe (and somewhat appropriately) is now in the spirituial home of modern quackery with a white coat on, thge USA.
15 years ago, most of us thought it was the Tory party that would be broken by the issue of the European Union.
Now, it looks as though most of the damage has actually been sustained by the Labour Party.
Compared to the Tories, the various Nationalists & the LibDems, Labour still look broken to pieces on the issue.
I have come round to thinking SKS has made a bad mistake -- there is absolutely no point in whipping this vote & forcing recalcitrant Remainer Labour MPs to vote for it. He should had left it a free vote for his MPs.
SKS has just stored up bitterness for 2021 by forcing some MPs to vote against the dictates of their conscience.
For the Red Wallers, much more important is what the next Labour manifesto says about Europe. Thsi bill is not important. All SKS has done is contribute to a false feeling of unity so Boris can have his big triumph.
They had a strapline saying they were going to the vaccine briefing at 1030 am, so it probably just got going a bit late.
Who's done more for the UK on an international stage this year: Liz Truss or Dominic Raab?
Easy question for me to answer.
There is a third option, which I hold: the situation may have changed but that doesn’t justify an immediate repeat referendum. Who judges what “significant” is?
I wonder if this relates to the extreme reactions to calls from the Track-And-Trace teams have received - abuse, even death threats. For telling people that they have a positive result. Suddenly faced by responsibility.....
We just need Prince Andrew to be extradited.....
Irony isn't dead.
Vaccine briefing:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/live/bbcnews
Starts at 10.42
He`s trying to butter both sides of his bread. He may fail on both fronts.
The British could elect a government committed to requiring the French to implement the Treaty of Troyes but that wouldn’t make it a democratic requirement
But we are not going to agree on this so let’s not bother to rehearse the same old arguments
I must have had at least 50, none of which have led to anything and afaik no action is supposed to be taken by me, apart from waiting for further messages! Ridiculous, just message me when it thinks I should take action.
Much of a one with his cowardice over defending his glorious Union at the ballot box.
But I have also been critical of this deal because it does not include financial services as Mrs May has just pointed out. Hopefully this will be a short term problem.
Your "again and again" or "generation" or "20 year" arguments are just fluff. Elections are routinely held every five years for a reason.
Either you respect Scottish democracy or you do not. It is a simple enough question. Do you respect Scottish democracy: yes or no?
This bloke who brought me down and replaced me, saying my Deal was rubbish, goes and agrees the sort of noddy Deal I could have done in 10 minutes if I'd have dropped my "protect the economy and the constitutional integrity of the UK" red line, and gets cheered to the rafters for it.
Is it cos I am not a 'born to rule' public school chancer unencumbered by a sense of duty and public service?
Who else?
Hmmm.
Good but not utterly stellar.
Back to Covid. Far more important right now.
😛
She sought to protect the economy be de facto keeping the UK within the Single Market and Customs Union that we had voted to leave. The economy arguments were debated in the referendum and were defeated - her vision of "protecting the economy" was to Remain in the EU.
Constitutional decisions are for an extended period of time. It helps no one to have repeated votes and continuous agitation. (20 is arbitrary but 15-30 would be reasonable. 40 feels too long and 10 too short)
I think this is an excellent (unlike the trial) decision. One good thing from the AZN is that they ran what was effectively a single shot cohort for five months, which looked effective as the full dose & booster. So there is a strong rationale for running with the full dose plus later booster in order to get vaccination started as soon as possible.
https://twitter.com/michaelmina_lab/status/1344214591010701312
Phew, bullet dodged.
Decisions are for one Parliament only. Always have been. No Parliament can bind its successor.
Where does an "extended period of time" come from? What constitutional settlement or principle determines that?
There were a very few sceptical Conservatives but the Conservatives were for decades the most pro-European of the main parties. Heath spent most of his political career trying to get this into the EEC and Thatcher was the main proponent of the Yes vote in 1975.
There may still be pro-European Conservatives but they have either been driven to the margins or driven out of the Party completely. Labour continues to accommodate its European factions - the 1975 Referendum was one of the milestones on the journey to the SDP schism.
The journey to Conservative Euro-scepticism began before Bruges with the arguments over the rebate in the early 1980s but from Bruges onward, Euro-scepticism grew and developed - it arguably brought down Thatcher and Cameron and contributed to the party spending more than a decade in Opposition after their worst defeat in decades.
I suspect the next splits will be over environmental policy.