I like the conflation of 'moral, societal and contractual'...
But I don't think that displays delusion - it illustrates exactly what Kyriakides is trying to do.
Yes, that seemed a telling phrase. Seemed like a possible admission they know contractually AZ are covered in this situation, but that they not absolved morally and focusing the public on that.
Which is entirely irrelevant to the accusations on contract.
Even that argument is a pile of poo, though, as it's not as though they're contemplating distributing any of the vaccine outside of the EU. It's merely reframing an attempt to strong-arm, (im)pure and simple.
In the same way Kyriakides claimed they helped 'fund the development' of the vaccine - which really isn't the same thing as signing a contract for a supply of it, quite some time after the UK had funded its development.
It's shameless, but given our current image in the EU, it will probably be effective in political terms within the EU, even though it won't change the supply situation.
I can't find any reference to extending 12 weeks being policy...all I can see is some articles from a couple of weeks ago saying it is a possible in worst case scenario, but highly unlikely.
Problem is that this isn't quite so clear cut. As me and @Luckyguy1983 were discussing the other day, having AZ manufacturing here does give us much more control over the finished product but we are still reliant on componentry, materials, and services from the EU for its manufacture.
I can't find any reference to extending 12 weeks being policy...all I can see is some articles from a couple of weeks ago saying it is a possible in worst case scenario, but highly unlikely.
According to the article, it's actually said that vaccines made in the UK should form part of the vaccines that the EU receives - that's not quite the same thing. If AZN is meeting it's (best efforts, presumably) contractual commitments to the UK then it would be expected that excess capacity would be used to meet contractual commitments elsewhere. It's surely inevitable that the UK factories will be sending some to the EU, at least in time, as the EU-based Pfizer factories are sending vaccines to us (as we have a contract to receive those).
AZN aren't meeting their UK commitments at the moment. No where near. They were supposed to deliver 4m doses last week, they delivered 2m. And all of this is way behind the 30m they promised months ago.
Yep, I maybe should have put 'when' rather than 'if' to be clearer, meant 'in the event that'. As a statement, the quote is really pretty meaningless - 'the contract says we'll get supply from factories including UK and we expect that' - as they will, no doubt, in time. But it sounds tough and 'stop giving those pesky Brits the vaccines that were supposed to be for us' which may play well in some quarters and deflects attention from the obvious procurement failings.
According to the article, it's actually said that vaccines made in the UK should form part of the vaccines that the EU receives - that's not quite the same thing. If AZN is meeting it's (best efforts, presumably) contractual commitments to the UK then it would be expected that excess capacity would be used to meet contractual commitments elsewhere. It's surely inevitable that the UK factories will be sending some to the EU, at least in time, as the EU-based Pfizer factories are sending vaccines to us (as we have a contract to receive those).
AZN aren't meeting their UK commitments at the moment. No where near. They were supposed to deliver 4m doses last week, they delivered 2m. And all of this is way behind the 30m they promised months ago.
Bulk vaccine manufacturing is hard. How often do we get full delivery of the annual flu vaccine orders ? (Not very.)
Leave the EU tick, end free movement tick, keep Nissan in Sunderland tick, reduce the influence of the City of London tick
A smaller City is on my (very short) list of TBOBs - tangible benefits of Brexit. Trouble is, the bits I wanted to be smaller - the spivvy cowboy bits - are those likely to prosper. So it's come off. All that's left on there now is cheaper tampons and houses.
Yet houses can only be reduced in price by either less demand (people dying / leaving the UK), more supply (see nimbys), higher interest rates or restricted bank lending.
None of those items have anything to do with Brexit - so basically we've left and got slightly cheaper tampons.
Aren't the EU scrapping the minimum VAT on tampons from 2022?
So we've got 5 % off tampons for a year. Rather less than 1 month's worth of free tampons.
Didn't see that on a bus.
Oh. The tampon TBOB is time limited then. I hadn't Dominic Rabb'd that.
Jeez, what have they got against Puerto Rico? That ones simpler, has some bipartisan support and they just voted about it.
Get in line
Although the Puerto Rico referendum in 2017 was a fairly tight 52:48 affair (well 52.52:47.48 but it looks better with some inaccurate rounding). It's a somewhat complex issue as a majority do not support the status quo, but there is division between statehood within the US and some form of independence.
The state of public opinion in DC itself is a good deal clearer.
Sure but they voted in 2020 too and it doesnt seem like US institutions stop doing things just because the public is pretty divided, if one side has a majority.
And the 2020 referendum was a plain Yes/No questions
Should Puerto Rico be admitted immediately into the Union as a State?
Now that my parents and I have received our first jab I'm quite content for the UK and AZN to send some of our jabs to the EU in exchange for full equivalency in the financial services sector and ensuring the French are forced to honour the Treaty of Troyes.
I think Ursula Von Der Leyen and Stella Kyriakides both need to lose their jobs over this. The Commission had a totally ill-conceived strategy and the attempt to shift the blame is bringing the EU into disrepute.
Yes. The EU needs a Loyal Opposition - loyal to the EU institutions, but bringing much needed critical scrutiny to the current executive running those institutions. Just as we have with an Opposition in the Commons.
If one were to develop in response to this it would be a major step forward, but I fear it isn't going to happen.
According to the article, it's actually said that vaccines made in the UK should form part of the vaccines that the EU receives - that's not quite the same thing. If AZN is meeting it's (best efforts, presumably) contractual commitments to the UK then it would be expected that excess capacity would be used to meet contractual commitments elsewhere. It's surely inevitable that the UK factories will be sending some to the EU, at least in time, as the EU-based Pfizer factories are sending vaccines to us (as we have a contract to receive those).
“The UK agreement was reached in June, three months before the European one. As you could imagine, the UK government said the supply coming out of the UK supply chain would go to the UK first. Basically, that's how it is. In the EU agreement it is mentioned that the manufacturing sites in the UK were an option for Europe, but only later. But we're moving very quickly, the supply in the UK is very rapid. The government is vaccinating 2.5 million people a week, about 500,000 a day, our vaccine supply is growing quickly. As soon as we have reached a sufficient number of vaccinations in the UK, we will be able to use that site to help Europe as well. But the contract with the UK was signed first and the UK, of course, said “you supply us first”, and this is fair enough. This vaccine was developed with the UK government, Oxford and with us as well. As soon as we can, we'll help the EU. I mean, as a company we are half Swedish and half British. In fact, we're global, of course, but we are European as much as we are British".
my bold
I wonder if the issue in dispute is something like this. What if the UK supply chain is mentioned in the contract both as being available after the UK has received x million doses and expected to kick in in January.
Then the delay in the UK has faced in receiving the doses so far means the UK supply chain is no longer available at this stage as the x million doses condition has not been met. AZ decide that takes priority over a January timetable and are covered by best endeavours. The EU (stretching their case?) for internal PR and blame purposes argue January should be honoured, otherwise best endeavours are not met.
According to the article, it's actually said that vaccines made in the UK should form part of the vaccines that the EU receives - that's not quite the same thing. If AZN is meeting it's (best efforts, presumably) contractual commitments to the UK then it would be expected that excess capacity would be used to meet contractual commitments elsewhere. It's surely inevitable that the UK factories will be sending some to the EU, at least in time, as the EU-based Pfizer factories are sending vaccines to us (as we have a contract to receive those).
AZN aren't meeting their UK commitments at the moment. No where near. They were supposed to deliver 4m doses last week, they delivered 2m. And all of this is way behind the 30m they promised months ago.
And we were pretty mad about it too. Its surprising though that serious people are at the toddler phase of anger response.
Hardly worth AZ getting too puffy in response with a body like the EU, or any government, but after achieving great things the companies with their vaccines probably feel hard done by despite production failings.
My understanding was that it wasn't so much anger, in the UK government, as frustration, with a dollop of "what can we all do to fix this?"
According to the article, it's actually said that vaccines made in the UK should form part of the vaccines that the EU receives - that's not quite the same thing. If AZN is meeting it's (best efforts, presumably) contractual commitments to the UK then it would be expected that excess capacity would be used to meet contractual commitments elsewhere. It's surely inevitable that the UK factories will be sending some to the EU, at least in time, as the EU-based Pfizer factories are sending vaccines to us (as we have a contract to receive those).
AZN aren't meeting their UK commitments at the moment. No where near. They were supposed to deliver 4m doses last week, they delivered 2m. And all of this is way behind the 30m they promised months ago.
Bulk vaccine manufacturing is hard. How often do we get full delivery of the annual flu vaccine orders ? (Not very.)
I wasn't criticising, just stating a fact, that EU have gone into full Cartman meltdown when we have and are continuing to face similar issues, but so far the government have been dealing with it very calmly and quietly.
According to the article, it's actually said that vaccines made in the UK should form part of the vaccines that the EU receives - that's not quite the same thing. If AZN is meeting it's (best efforts, presumably) contractual commitments to the UK then it would be expected that excess capacity would be used to meet contractual commitments elsewhere. It's surely inevitable that the UK factories will be sending some to the EU, at least in time, as the EU-based Pfizer factories are sending vaccines to us (as we have a contract to receive those).
“The UK agreement was reached in June, three months before the European one. As you could imagine, the UK government said the supply coming out of the UK supply chain would go to the UK first. Basically, that's how it is. In the EU agreement it is mentioned that the manufacturing sites in the UK were an option for Europe, but only later. But we're moving very quickly, the supply in the UK is very rapid. The government is vaccinating 2.5 million people a week, about 500,000 a day, our vaccine supply is growing quickly. As soon as we have reached a sufficient number of vaccinations in the UK, we will be able to use that site to help Europe as well. But the contract with the UK was signed first and the UK, of course, said “you supply us first”, and this is fair enough. This vaccine was developed with the UK government, Oxford and with us as well. As soon as we can, we'll help the EU. I mean, as a company we are half Swedish and half British. In fact, we're global, of course, but we are European as much as we are British".
my bold
I dont think we have sufficient vaccine or that our vaccine supply is growing quickly enough.
Mrs BJO had her first jab today and the date of the 2nd jab was crossed out on the AZN card. The vaccine centre she visited said they had been told this morning not to hand out cards with 2nd jab dates on and to warn people it could be 20 weeks before the 2nd jab.
"Government intends to give everyone a first jab before doing 2nd jabs at 12 weeks, and we have had to cross out appointment dates"
It seems to me that the EU haven't got a contractual leg to stand on so are resorting to emotional blackmail, bluster, low politics and thinly veiled threats instead.
They have got a leg. Best efforts contract. Efforts are not best. That's the leg.
According to the article, it's actually said that vaccines made in the UK should form part of the vaccines that the EU receives - that's not quite the same thing. If AZN is meeting it's (best efforts, presumably) contractual commitments to the UK then it would be expected that excess capacity would be used to meet contractual commitments elsewhere. It's surely inevitable that the UK factories will be sending some to the EU, at least in time, as the EU-based Pfizer factories are sending vaccines to us (as we have a contract to receive those).
The boxes should be sent with Union Jacks and "Gift from the people of the United Kingdom" on them, just as the EU ensures its flag is all over anything it does.
You could have the boxes play GSTQ when they were opened, similar to some ghastly birthday cards.
It's the same story - first time was a tragedy, this time is a farce (and rather entertaining).
With Porsche they were at least a recognised financial entity - they were making far more from derivative trading than they were from making cars for years before they engineered the squeeze. Short sellers - in a market that had been created by people failing to take account of counter party risk - failed to take into account counter-party risk when making their trades and didn't comprehend the volume fo available shares to cover the shorts was far, far, far too low.
With GME it is seemingly a horde of retail investors acting in unison creating the squeeze.
Which is why it's so entertaining - what should have been a sure oneway bet (beyond the 2020 console release, gaming is going digital so retail is dead) has instead become a problem because some of the short sellers bet rather too much.
According to the article, it's actually said that vaccines made in the UK should form part of the vaccines that the EU receives - that's not quite the same thing. If AZN is meeting it's (best efforts, presumably) contractual commitments to the UK then it would be expected that excess capacity would be used to meet contractual commitments elsewhere. It's surely inevitable that the UK factories will be sending some to the EU, at least in time, as the EU-based Pfizer factories are sending vaccines to us (as we have a contract to receive those).
“The UK agreement was reached in June, three months before the European one. As you could imagine, the UK government said the supply coming out of the UK supply chain would go to the UK first. Basically, that's how it is. In the EU agreement it is mentioned that the manufacturing sites in the UK were an option for Europe, but only later. But we're moving very quickly, the supply in the UK is very rapid. The government is vaccinating 2.5 million people a week, about 500,000 a day, our vaccine supply is growing quickly. As soon as we have reached a sufficient number of vaccinations in the UK, we will be able to use that site to help Europe as well. But the contract with the UK was signed first and the UK, of course, said “you supply us first”, and this is fair enough. This vaccine was developed with the UK government, Oxford and with us as well. As soon as we can, we'll help the EU. I mean, as a company we are half Swedish and half British. In fact, we're global, of course, but we are European as much as we are British".
my bold
I dont think we have sufficient vaccine or that our vaccine supply is growing quickly enough.
Mrs BJO had her first jab today and the date of the 2nd jab was crossed out on the AZN card. The vaccine centre she visited said they had been told this morning not to hand out cards with 2nd jab dates on and to warn people it could be 20 weeks before the 2nd jab.
"Government intends to give everyone a first jab before doing 2nd jabs at 12 weeks, and we have had to cross out appointment dates"
NHS chief just today said second doses will be prioritised:
As well as lots of caveats around 'best endeavours, I bet there are two further conditions in the AZ-EU contract:
1. 'Subject to approval by the EMA', which would be an interesting one to bring into the mix.
2. A clause stipulating that AZ won't favour other clients over the EU. The EU might think this gives them the right to dip into our supplies, but I doubt whether a proper reading of the various contracts would support that, assuming the AZ lawyers know what they are doing (which is a very, very good assumption).
I mean it is a bunch of half-rate politicians that couldn't make it in national politics vs. lawyers that probably charge thousands an hour.
Von der Leyen is leagues above corporate lawyer material.
Very amusing. 😂
She'd make partner at Freshfields, no problem. People overestimate how hard it is to be successful in the private sector professional services industry. It's not that hard at all. Even I managed it before "the fall".
Now that my parents and I have received our first jab I'm quite content for the UK and AZN to send some of our jabs to the EU in exchange for full equivalency in the financial services sector and ensuring the French are forced to honour the Treaty of Troyes.
FOR THE GREATER GOOD.
I'd settle for the French honouring Picquigny, on the understanding the £10,000 agreed in perpetuity is inflation adjusted and paid up, fully backdated to 1483.
To be fair - I know that is out of character for me - I think they will get AZN vaccines from the UK plant. What they are unlikely to get are the vaccines earlier to the detriment of the UK. Which is why this is just so much bluster and deflection to hide the most monumental f**k up.
I can't find any reference to extending 12 weeks being policy...all I can see is some articles from a couple of weeks ago saying it is a possible in worst case scenario, but highly unlikely.
Did you check Skwawkbox?
No our local vaccine centre told us.
Is that good enough source or do you have a better one?
We are more f*cked than a stepmom on Pornhub when our 18 month clearing exemption ends and it isn't permanently renewed.
But those of us in the financial services sector we rank lower than fish.
It's quite amazing really. We had better hope for equivalence.
One of the chaps who is really impacted by this was a heavy backer of Brexit.
He is wistfully saying if you wanted to wilfully destroy the City of London/the UK's financial services pre-eminence then it would look a lot like Boris Johnson's Brexit deal.
There's a side betting market going on here, when will 'anti big bang' day happen, I'm going for the 4th of July 2022, plenty of people have gone for much earlier.
You can see it that's for sure.
I never thought Brexit would be drop on your foot bad for the UK/The City just a gradual diminution of influence and a gradual seeping away of importance. Things are moving a tad quicker than I had thought.
As for the EU/US deal what did we think? That the EU wouldn't be looking to do trade deals with the US also? The difference seems to be, however, that they have managed to do one.
I'm a hope for the best/prepare for the worst kind of guy, but even this is a gutting experience.
I'm genuinely mystified that the party of Margaret Thatcher decided that fish (revenue fuck all) was more important than financial services.
I thought that the pressure would emerge for a good deal for the sector because economical and financial reality would become apparent.
But it looks like the EU are looking for decent alternatives to using the UK, the fact the US is prepared to sign up the EU risk management requirements tells me that EU will be able leverage their size to get what they want.
It was a deal breaker for the UK but not for the Yanks, I suspect the the US will sign up to other things as well to pick up from carcasses of the UK financial services sector.
It's blooming obvious but equally only in retrospect (even if retrospect is 2ms after the announcement).
The US can accept a lot if the rules don't impact their current business and there is extra money to be made from it.
And in one single move London moves than equality with New York to equality with New Jersey (and other back office locations).
I think what will happen is plenty of UK financial institutions will set up US based subsidiaries, if they don't already have them, and book the trades in the US, so the profits and transactions taxes move from the UK to the US and to a lesser extent the EU.
As an aside, next Monday and Tuesday we have a webinar scheduled which is talking about disastrous thing for the City of London/financial services sector that has fallen under the radar.
With us withdrawing from lots of data and intelligence sharing agreements, London might be unable to deal with countries outside the EU as their companies will need proper audit trails and the ability to spot/deal with financial crimes.
There's not enough dodgy Russians and Sheikhs to make up for that potential revenue loss.
That's right. Smaller Good City. Bigger Bad City. Lose/Lose. I hate what we're doing. So would most Leavers if they understood it. And why are we doing it? To serve the personal political ambitions of one man. Boris Johnson. It's an absolute scandal. It's a sin.
When the history of Britain in the 21st century is written the main chapter will start with the triumphant London Olympics by Mayor of London Boris Johnson and go through the descent that Brexit caused up to the separation of the UK following June 2022's (illegal) Scottish Independence referendum.
And Boris's name will be front and centre all the way through it.
I don't think it's controversial to say the EU are taking the piss here.
We just need to ignore it and continue on as we are doing. The vaccine roll-out is going well. We don't need to engage with this nonsense.
We might not want to engage, but if they ban exports that causes the UK problems.
Well if they ban exports of Pfizer we ban exports of AZ and everyone loses.
Ultimately I don't think anyone is going to ban exports. This is just a load of hot air.
If they ban exports then the UK, US and Switzerland will respond in kind, as you pointed out yesterday the production of pharmaceutical products is hugely integrated. I also think it would lead to a very large exodus of pharma from the EU, even in the short term in the middle of a pandemic. Those kinds of business restrictions would prevent them from fulfilling contracts signed with other clients in good faith. What would, for example, Israel do, it's whole programme is dependent on timely supply from Pfizer out of Belgium.
This whole thing was so predictable when the commission took everything over, the lack of production subsidies is really what the issue is in the EU. Both the UK and US took a proactive approach and subsidised it's industries to ensure domestic supply and eventually oversupply. The EU relied on the free market, it was the wrong approach and instead of fixing the original problem they are making threats.
"Not only is the EU three months behind the UK on technical glitch fixes, but also because of the bloc’s bureaucratic delay in signing a contract, AstraZeneca pledged a “best effort” not a commitment to fulfil the order numbers. Soriot went on to say…
“… we didn’t commit with the EU, by the way. It’s not a commitment we have to Europe: it’s a best effort, we said we are going to make our best effort. The reason why we said that is because Europe at the time wanted to be supplied more or less at the same time as the UK, even though the contract was signed three months later. So we said, “ok, we’re going to do our best, we’re going to try, but we cannot commit contractually because we are three months behind UK”.”
And what do we have here
"This afternoon, Madrid cancelled all planned vaccinations for two weeks as Spain ran out of supplies. Germany last night formally demanded that EU grant it powers to block the export of all vaccines produced within the EU. "
I can't find any reference to extending 12 weeks being policy...all I can see is some articles from a couple of weeks ago saying it is a possible in worst case scenario, but highly unlikely.
Did you check Skwawkbox?
No our local vaccine centre told us.
Is that good enough source or do you have a better one?
Mrs C had her (AZN) vaccine this morning and was told 12 weeks to the second. I had a Pfizer one on 16th and was told 8 weeks.
I don't think it's controversial to say the EU are taking the piss here.
We just need to ignore it and continue on as we are doing. The vaccine roll-out is going well. We don't need to engage with this nonsense.
We might not want to engage, but if they ban exports that causes the UK problems.
Well if they ban exports of Pfizer we ban exports of AZ and everyone loses.
Ultimately I don't think anyone is going to ban exports. This is just a load of hot air.
If they ban exports then the UK, US and Switzerland will respond in kind, as you pointed out yesterday the production of pharmaceutical products is hugely integrated. I also think it would lead to a very large exodus of pharma from the EU, even in the short term in the middle of a pandemic. Those kinds of business restrictions would prevent them from fulfilling contracts signed with other clients in good faith. What would, for example, Israel do, it's whole programme is dependent on timely supply from Pfizer out of Belgium.
This whole thing was so predictable when the commission took everything over, the lack of production subsidies is really what the issue is in the EU. Both the UK and US took a proactive approach and subsidised it's industries to ensure domestic supply and eventually oversupply. The EU relied on the free market, it was the wrong approach and instead of fixing the original problem they are making threats.
I can't find any reference to extending 12 weeks being policy...all I can see is some articles from a couple of weeks ago saying it is a possible in worst case scenario, but highly unlikely.
Did you check Skwawkbox?
No our local vaccine centre told us.
Is that good enough source or do you have a better one?
Mrs C had her (AZN) vaccine this morning and was told 12 weeks to the second. I had a Pfizer one on 16th and was told 8 weeks.
My aunt got hers done this morning as well, again given an exact appointment for 2nd dose at 12 weeks.
My father got his done 2 weeks ago, not given one. It was we will contact you.
I just think there are slight differences regionally about exactly how they are doing this.
It seems to me that the EU haven't got a contractual leg to stand on so are resorting to emotional blackmail, bluster, low politics and thinly veiled threats instead.
They have got a leg. Best efforts contract. Efforts are not best. That's the leg.
Prove it - how many years do you think that would take?
To be fair - I know that is out of character for me - I think they will get AZN vaccines from the UK plant. What they are unlikely to get are the vaccines earlier to the detriment of the UK. Which is why this is just so much bluster and deflection to hide the most monumental f**k up.
“The UK agreement was reached in June, three months before the European one. As you could imagine, the UK government said the supply coming out of the UK supply chain would go to the UK first. Basically, that's how it is. In the EU agreement it is mentioned that the manufacturing sites in the UK were an option for Europe, but only later. But we're moving very quickly, the supply in the UK is very rapid. The government is vaccinating 2.5 million people a week, about 500,000 a day, our vaccine supply is growing quickly. As soon as we have reached a sufficient number of vaccinations in the UK, we will be able to use that site to help Europe as well. But the contract with the UK was signed first and the UK, of course, said “you supply us first”, and this is fair enough. This vaccine was developed with the UK government, Oxford and with us as well. As soon as we can, we'll help the EU. I mean, as a company we are half Swedish and half British. In fact, we're global, of course, but we are European as much as we are British".
As well as lots of caveats around 'best endeavours, I bet there are two further conditions in the AZ-EU contract:
1. 'Subject to approval by the EMA', which would be an interesting one to bring into the mix.
2. A clause stipulating that AZ won't favour other clients over the EU. The EU might think this gives them the right to dip into our supplies, but I doubt whether a proper reading of the various contracts would support that, assuming the AZ lawyers know what they are doing (which is a very, very good assumption).
I mean it is a bunch of half-rate politicians that couldn't make it in national politics vs. lawyers that probably charge thousands an hour.
Von der Leyen is leagues above corporate lawyer material.
Very amusing. 😂
She'd make partner at Freshfields, no problem. People overestimate how hard it is to be successful in the private sector professional services industry. It's not that hard at all. Even I managed it before "the fall".
Is your point that it mostly requires networking skills and hard work rather than technical ability, or that the individuals who get to the top just aren't that impressive generally?
On the former, I'd agree with you, but that still means VdL is out of her depth against AZ's in-house team plus whatever advisors they have. On the latter, I tend to disagree.
People who get to the top ARE generally impressive. I was just taking issue with the view that a top eurocrat would be less so than a top corporate lawyer. It's the opposite if anything imo.
Leave the EU tick, end free movement tick, keep Nissan in Sunderland tick, reduce the influence of the City of London tick
A smaller City is on my (very short) list of TBOBs - tangible benefits of Brexit. Trouble is, the bits I wanted to be smaller - the spivvy cowboy bits - are those likely to prosper. So it's come off. All that's left on there now is cheaper tampons and houses.
Yet houses can only be reduced in price by either less demand (people dying / leaving the UK), more supply (see nimbys), higher interest rates or restricted bank lending.
None of those items have anything to do with Brexit - so basically we've left and got slightly cheaper tampons.
Aren't the EU scrapping the minimum VAT on tampons from 2022?
So we've got 5 % off tampons for a year. Rather less than 1 month's worth of free tampons.
Didn't see that on a bus.
Oh. The tampon TBOB is time limited then. I hadn't Dominic Rabb'd that.
No it isn't. Stuart is, I believe , referring to the difference in time between us removing VAT and the likely time the EU will follow suit.
I don't think it's controversial to say the EU are taking the piss here.
We just need to ignore it and continue on as we are doing. The vaccine roll-out is going well. We don't need to engage with this nonsense.
We might not want to engage, but if they ban exports that causes the UK problems.
Well if they ban exports of Pfizer we ban exports of AZ and everyone loses.
Ultimately I don't think anyone is going to ban exports. This is just a load of hot air.
If they ban exports then the UK, US and Switzerland will respond in kind, as you pointed out yesterday the production of pharmaceutical products is hugely integrated. I also think it would lead to a very large exodus of pharma from the EU, even in the short term in the middle of a pandemic. Those kinds of business restrictions would prevent them from fulfilling contracts signed with other clients in good faith. What would, for example, Israel do, it's whole programme is dependent on timely supply from Pfizer out of Belgium.
This whole thing was so predictable when the commission took everything over, the lack of production subsidies is really what the issue is in the EU. Both the UK and US took a proactive approach and subsidised it's industries to ensure domestic supply and eventually oversupply. The EU relied on the free market, it was the wrong approach and instead of fixing the original problem they are making threats.
Israel would be a bit pissed off if the exports were banned. Unless the EU is so vindictive it will only ban exports to the UK?
According to the article, it's actually said that vaccines made in the UK should form part of the vaccines that the EU receives - that's not quite the same thing. If AZN is meeting it's (best efforts, presumably) contractual commitments to the UK then it would be expected that excess capacity would be used to meet contractual commitments elsewhere. It's surely inevitable that the UK factories will be sending some to the EU, at least in time, as the EU-based Pfizer factories are sending vaccines to us (as we have a contract to receive those).
“The UK agreement was reached in June, three months before the European one. As you could imagine, the UK government said the supply coming out of the UK supply chain would go to the UK first. Basically, that's how it is. In the EU agreement it is mentioned that the manufacturing sites in the UK were an option for Europe, but only later. But we're moving very quickly, the supply in the UK is very rapid. The government is vaccinating 2.5 million people a week, about 500,000 a day, our vaccine supply is growing quickly. As soon as we have reached a sufficient number of vaccinations in the UK, we will be able to use that site to help Europe as well. But the contract with the UK was signed first and the UK, of course, said “you supply us first”, and this is fair enough. This vaccine was developed with the UK government, Oxford and with us as well. As soon as we can, we'll help the EU. I mean, as a company we are half Swedish and half British. In fact, we're global, of course, but we are European as much as we are British".
my bold
I dont think we have sufficient vaccine or that our vaccine supply is growing quickly enough.
Mrs BJO had her first jab today and the date of the 2nd jab was crossed out on the AZN card. The vaccine centre she visited said they had been told this morning not to hand out cards with 2nd jab dates on and to warn people it could be 20 weeks before the 2nd jab.
"Government intends to give everyone a first jab before doing 2nd jabs at 12 weeks, and we have had to cross out appointment dates"
NHS chief just today said second doses will be prioritised:
Well thats interesting and the complete opposite of what we were told today when Mrs BJ came out with no date and a warning it could be 20 weeks for 2nd dose.
I was offered AZN this morning as her Carer but declined
I don't think it's controversial to say the EU are taking the piss here.
We just need to ignore it and continue on as we are doing. The vaccine roll-out is going well. We don't need to engage with this nonsense.
We might not want to engage, but if they ban exports that causes the UK problems.
Well if they ban exports of Pfizer we ban exports of AZ and everyone loses.
Ultimately I don't think anyone is going to ban exports. This is just a load of hot air.
If they ban exports then the UK, US and Switzerland will respond in kind, as you pointed out yesterday the production of pharmaceutical products is hugely integrated. I also think it would lead to a very large exodus of pharma from the EU, even in the short term in the middle of a pandemic. Those kinds of business restrictions would prevent them from fulfilling contracts signed with other clients in good faith. What would, for example, Israel do, it's whole programme is dependent on timely supply from Pfizer out of Belgium.
This whole thing was so predictable when the commission took everything over, the lack of production subsidies is really what the issue is in the EU. Both the UK and US took a proactive approach and subsidised it's industries to ensure domestic supply and eventually oversupply. The EU relied on the free market, it was the wrong approach and instead of fixing the original problem they are making threats.
Israel would be a bit pissed off if the exports were banned. Unless the EU is so vindictive it will only ban exports to the UK?
Doesn't that then become an actual trade war, it would also show that the treaty we literally just signed 4 weeks ago means nothing.
Not going to happen. That really would be morally indefensible.
Agreed. But it does kind of highlight where the issues are. The EU is screaming about not being delivered a vaccine they haven't even certified yet - almost 4 weeks after it was certified in the UK. This whole row does smack very much of an attempt to deflect from massive failings in the EU's own approval and delivery system.
According to the article, it's actually said that vaccines made in the UK should form part of the vaccines that the EU receives - that's not quite the same thing. If AZN is meeting it's (best efforts, presumably) contractual commitments to the UK then it would be expected that excess capacity would be used to meet contractual commitments elsewhere. It's surely inevitable that the UK factories will be sending some to the EU, at least in time, as the EU-based Pfizer factories are sending vaccines to us (as we have a contract to receive those).
“The UK agreement was reached in June, three months before the European one. As you could imagine, the UK government said the supply coming out of the UK supply chain would go to the UK first. Basically, that's how it is. In the EU agreement it is mentioned that the manufacturing sites in the UK were an option for Europe, but only later. But we're moving very quickly, the supply in the UK is very rapid. The government is vaccinating 2.5 million people a week, about 500,000 a day, our vaccine supply is growing quickly. As soon as we have reached a sufficient number of vaccinations in the UK, we will be able to use that site to help Europe as well. But the contract with the UK was signed first and the UK, of course, said “you supply us first”, and this is fair enough. This vaccine was developed with the UK government, Oxford and with us as well. As soon as we can, we'll help the EU. I mean, as a company we are half Swedish and half British. In fact, we're global, of course, but we are European as much as we are British".
my bold
I dont think we have sufficient vaccine or that our vaccine supply is growing quickly enough.
Mrs BJO had her first jab today and the date of the 2nd jab was crossed out on the AZN card. The vaccine centre she visited said they had been told this morning not to hand out cards with 2nd jab dates on and to warn people it could be 20 weeks before the 2nd jab.
"Government intends to give everyone a first jab before doing 2nd jabs at 12 weeks, and we have had to cross out appointment dates"
NHS chief just today said second doses will be prioritised:
Well thats interesting and the complete opposite of what we were told today when Mrs BJ came out with no date and a warning it could be 20 weeks for 2nd dose.
I was offered AZN this morning as her Carer but declined
Most likely out of an abundance of caution more than anything. If I were you I'd keep following up to get the second slot, just incase she falls through the gaps.
According to the article, it's actually said that vaccines made in the UK should form part of the vaccines that the EU receives - that's not quite the same thing. If AZN is meeting it's (best efforts, presumably) contractual commitments to the UK then it would be expected that excess capacity would be used to meet contractual commitments elsewhere. It's surely inevitable that the UK factories will be sending some to the EU, at least in time, as the EU-based Pfizer factories are sending vaccines to us (as we have a contract to receive those).
“The UK agreement was reached in June, three months before the European one. As you could imagine, the UK government said the supply coming out of the UK supply chain would go to the UK first. Basically, that's how it is. In the EU agreement it is mentioned that the manufacturing sites in the UK were an option for Europe, but only later. But we're moving very quickly, the supply in the UK is very rapid. The government is vaccinating 2.5 million people a week, about 500,000 a day, our vaccine supply is growing quickly. As soon as we have reached a sufficient number of vaccinations in the UK, we will be able to use that site to help Europe as well. But the contract with the UK was signed first and the UK, of course, said “you supply us first”, and this is fair enough. This vaccine was developed with the UK government, Oxford and with us as well. As soon as we can, we'll help the EU. I mean, as a company we are half Swedish and half British. In fact, we're global, of course, but we are European as much as we are British".
my bold
I dont think we have sufficient vaccine or that our vaccine supply is growing quickly enough.
Mrs BJO had her first jab today and the date of the 2nd jab was crossed out on the AZN card. The vaccine centre she visited said they had been told this morning not to hand out cards with 2nd jab dates on and to warn people it could be 20 weeks before the 2nd jab.
"Government intends to give everyone a first jab before doing 2nd jabs at 12 weeks, and we have had to cross out appointment dates"
NHS chief just today said second doses will be prioritised:
According to the article, it's actually said that vaccines made in the UK should form part of the vaccines that the EU receives - that's not quite the same thing. If AZN is meeting it's (best efforts, presumably) contractual commitments to the UK then it would be expected that excess capacity would be used to meet contractual commitments elsewhere. It's surely inevitable that the UK factories will be sending some to the EU, at least in time, as the EU-based Pfizer factories are sending vaccines to us (as we have a contract to receive those).
“The UK agreement was reached in June, three months before the European one. As you could imagine, the UK government said the supply coming out of the UK supply chain would go to the UK first. Basically, that's how it is. In the EU agreement it is mentioned that the manufacturing sites in the UK were an option for Europe, but only later. But we're moving very quickly, the supply in the UK is very rapid. The government is vaccinating 2.5 million people a week, about 500,000 a day, our vaccine supply is growing quickly. As soon as we have reached a sufficient number of vaccinations in the UK, we will be able to use that site to help Europe as well. But the contract with the UK was signed first and the UK, of course, said “you supply us first”, and this is fair enough. This vaccine was developed with the UK government, Oxford and with us as well. As soon as we can, we'll help the EU. I mean, as a company we are half Swedish and half British. In fact, we're global, of course, but we are European as much as we are British".
my bold
I dont think we have sufficient vaccine or that our vaccine supply is growing quickly enough.
Mrs BJO had her first jab today and the date of the 2nd jab was crossed out on the AZN card. The vaccine centre she visited said they had been told this morning not to hand out cards with 2nd jab dates on and to warn people it could be 20 weeks before the 2nd jab.
"Government intends to give everyone a first jab before doing 2nd jabs at 12 weeks, and we have had to cross out appointment dates"
We had our Pfizer vaccinations last Saturday and we had a card with the record of the first vaccination including the batch number, location and date
The Doctor told us the next vaccination would be within 11 weeks and of course we were told to come back with the card to be updated then. There was no entry at all on the line under the first vaccination as they do not know the date, but neither the batch number or vaccination location. I do question your comment that the a card was filled in with a crossed out second date and this 20 week allegation
If we take into account your comments on the fake news of 8% effectiveness of the AZ vaccine, then I do wonder whether you just want to make mischief in a subject that is far too serious for that
... This whole thing was so predictable when the commission took everything over, the lack of production subsidies is really what the issue is in the EU. Both the UK and US took a proactive approach and subsidised it's industries to ensure domestic supply and eventually oversupply. The EU relied on the free market, it was the wrong approach and instead of fixing the original problem they are making threats.
Yes, I think that is the crucial point. The UK (and I think also the US with Operation Warp Speed) took a gamble early on by putting money into production capacity without knowing whether the vaccines would actually work and be safe. It was a well-judged gamble (thanks, Kate Bingham) which has been spectacularly successful. At worst, we might have wasted a few hundred million quid, but that's nothing in the context of this pandemic, and as it has turned out, we've gained months. The EU was very late to that game, and is now unfortunately left behind.
This is the most ridiculous way to trash your brand
The EU's brand or AstraZeneca's brand?
The latters is already trashed isn't it?
Why? Don't tell me you still believe that 8% nonsense you were gleefully spouting earlier.
I didnt spout anything I just asked for clarity and speculated we were up shit creek if the reports were true.
What % is right for AZN RobD do tell. Do you believe AZN has enhanced their reputation or damaged it I think the latter
For Pfizer its all pretty straight forward for AZN the opposite unless you can point me to an official source that gives effectiveness
The German government has officially said the 8% claims were baseless.
Good.
Any idea what the % is with AZN
Its 95% with Pfizer
Pick any number between 9 and 99 with AZN??
The like-for-like comparison figure is 89%
If you want to do a "confidence interval for over 75 subsample" BS spin then Pfizers is a range from an extreme of -13% (13% more likely to catch Covid than if unvaccinated) through to 100%. Which is why you don't use confidence interval subsamples in the way you are.
As well as lots of caveats around 'best endeavours, I bet there are two further conditions in the AZ-EU contract:
1. 'Subject to approval by the EMA', which would be an interesting one to bring into the mix.
2. A clause stipulating that AZ won't favour other clients over the EU. The EU might think this gives them the right to dip into our supplies, but I doubt whether a proper reading of the various contracts would support that, assuming the AZ lawyers know what they are doing (which is a very, very good assumption).
I mean it is a bunch of half-rate politicians that couldn't make it in national politics vs. lawyers that probably charge thousands an hour.
Von der Leyen is leagues above corporate lawyer material.
Very amusing. 😂
She'd make partner at Freshfields, no problem. People overestimate how hard it is to be successful in the private sector professional services industry. It's not that hard at all. Even I managed it before "the fall".
From my experience from the outside of places like that she'd fit in admirably. Incompetent at any actual job but very good at political maneuvering to ensure that she comes out on top.
Politics is a genuine and crucial skill. You can't succeed in large, white collar environments without it. It's not a substitute for competence. Indeed most people with great political skills are good at other things too. It's a common observation of people who lack this skill that others have outperformed them purely due to it. But that's usually sour grapes. It's that trope whereby "Inspector Morse" solves crimes but "Strange" just (iho) counts the paperclips. Or that the NHS always has "too many managers" and "not enough doctors and nurses". Etc.
Great stuff but I presume Norn Iron has still administered the most vaccines as a % of the population. Disappointing numbers today, still over 300k in the UK which is incredible but I was getting used to those 500k days!
According to the article, it's actually said that vaccines made in the UK should form part of the vaccines that the EU receives - that's not quite the same thing. If AZN is meeting it's (best efforts, presumably) contractual commitments to the UK then it would be expected that excess capacity would be used to meet contractual commitments elsewhere. It's surely inevitable that the UK factories will be sending some to the EU, at least in time, as the EU-based Pfizer factories are sending vaccines to us (as we have a contract to receive those).
“The UK agreement was reached in June, three months before the European one. As you could imagine, the UK government said the supply coming out of the UK supply chain would go to the UK first. Basically, that's how it is. In the EU agreement it is mentioned that the manufacturing sites in the UK were an option for Europe, but only later. But we're moving very quickly, the supply in the UK is very rapid. The government is vaccinating 2.5 million people a week, about 500,000 a day, our vaccine supply is growing quickly. As soon as we have reached a sufficient number of vaccinations in the UK, we will be able to use that site to help Europe as well. But the contract with the UK was signed first and the UK, of course, said “you supply us first”, and this is fair enough. This vaccine was developed with the UK government, Oxford and with us as well. As soon as we can, we'll help the EU. I mean, as a company we are half Swedish and half British. In fact, we're global, of course, but we are European as much as we are British".
my bold
I dont think we have sufficient vaccine or that our vaccine supply is growing quickly enough.
Mrs BJO had her first jab today and the date of the 2nd jab was crossed out on the AZN card. The vaccine centre she visited said they had been told this morning not to hand out cards with 2nd jab dates on and to warn people it could be 20 weeks before the 2nd jab.
"Government intends to give everyone a first jab before doing 2nd jabs at 12 weeks, and we have had to cross out appointment dates"
We had our Pfizer vaccinations last Saturday and we had a card with the record of the first vaccination including the batch number, location and date
The Doctor told us the next vaccination would be within 11 weeks and of course we were told to come back with the card to be updated then. There was no entry at all on the line under the first vaccination as they do not know the date, but neither the batch number or vaccination location. I do question your comment that the a card was filled in with a crossed out second date and this 20 week allegation
If we take into account your comments on the fake news of 8% effectiveness of the AZ vaccine, then I do wonder whether you just want to make mischief in a subject that is far too serious for that
I highly doubt if the jabbers on the front line have any real insight one way or another. They don't even know what delivery they are getting next week, let alone to be able to proclaim 20 weeks. Sounds more like somebody ideally speculating based on a bad week of deliveries, saying well if this continues we won't be able to do by 12 weeks, could even 20.
My father, like you, wasn't given a specific date, just we will contact you.
As well as lots of caveats around 'best endeavours, I bet there are two further conditions in the AZ-EU contract:
1. 'Subject to approval by the EMA', which would be an interesting one to bring into the mix.
2. A clause stipulating that AZ won't favour other clients over the EU. The EU might think this gives them the right to dip into our supplies, but I doubt whether a proper reading of the various contracts would support that, assuming the AZ lawyers know what they are doing (which is a very, very good assumption).
I mean it is a bunch of half-rate politicians that couldn't make it in national politics vs. lawyers that probably charge thousands an hour.
Von der Leyen is leagues above corporate lawyer material.
Very amusing. 😂
She'd make partner at Freshfields, no problem. People overestimate how hard it is to be successful in the private sector professional services industry. It's not that hard at all. Even I managed it before "the fall".
Is your point that it mostly requires networking skills and hard work rather than technical ability, or that the individuals who get to the top just aren't that impressive generally?
On the former, I'd agree with you, but that still means VdL is out of her depth against AZ's in-house team plus whatever advisors they have. On the latter, I tend to disagree.
People who get to the top ARE generally impressive. I was just taking issue with the view that a top eurocrat would be less so than a top corporate lawyer. It's the opposite if anything imo.
Is she really a "top Eurocrat", though? As I understand it, she was a medium-high level German national politician until relatively recently, when she plucked from relative obscurity (outside her home country, that is) to be the compromise EC President following inconclusive election results and deadlocked talks on who got the job. So, prior to 2019, she would be roughly equivalent to, say, a slightly older version of Gavin Williamson.
When I hear "Eurocrat" I generally think of the bureaucrats who staff the commissions, not the politicians who run them. I would probably agree that the former are more likely to be impressive, same as top level UK civil servants are often more impressive than the Ministers they nominally report to.
... This whole thing was so predictable when the commission took everything over, the lack of production subsidies is really what the issue is in the EU. Both the UK and US took a proactive approach and subsidised it's industries to ensure domestic supply and eventually oversupply. The EU relied on the free market, it was the wrong approach and instead of fixing the original problem they are making threats.
Yes, I think that is the crucial point. The UK (and I think also the US with Operation Warp Speed) took a gamble early on by putting money into production capacity without knowing whether the vaccines would actually work and be safe. It was a well-judged gamble (thanks, Kate Bingham) which has been spectacularly successful. At worst, we might have wasted a few hundred million quid, but that's nothing in the context of this pandemic, and as it has turned out, we've gained months. The EU was very late to that game, and is now unfortunately left behind.
Months? AIUI, the EU is three weeks behind as of the most recent data. 2% as of 24th January, versus the UK's 2% as of 3rd January.
It seems to me that the EU haven't got a contractual leg to stand on so are resorting to emotional blackmail, bluster, low politics and thinly veiled threats instead.
They have got a leg. Best efforts contract. Efforts are not best. That's the leg.
Prove it - how many years do you think that would take?
Best endeavours vs all reasonable endeavours. Legal minefield as anyone in a supply business will tell you. Signing a 'best endeavours' contract is a very dangerous thing to do as a supplier.
On a drilling side, if we leave a nuke tool in the hole with radioactive sources* in it because we got stuck or lost the string then all our agreements with the UK Government say we have to use all reasonable endeavours to get it out. This means that we don't have to spend months and tens of millions of pounds trying to do it. If the agreement says best endeavours then we do have to spend as long as it takes until it is no longer physically possible no matter what the time or cost.
* For reference these are tiny sources which generate gamma rays sufficient to travel about 4 inches into the rock so nothing that is going to produce mutant fish when left 8000ft down in the ground.
Off topic . Does anyone know why TSB mobile and Internet banking is down so much ?
The old system was shit, and when Sabadell screwed up the migration it locked people out for weeks back in 2018, ever since they only do small changes, rather than the big one they need to do, which is why it keeps on going down so often.
There's also speculation that Sabadell want to sell TSB and don't want to spend the money to do a proper upgrade.
According to the article, it's actually said that vaccines made in the UK should form part of the vaccines that the EU receives - that's not quite the same thing. If AZN is meeting it's (best efforts, presumably) contractual commitments to the UK then it would be expected that excess capacity would be used to meet contractual commitments elsewhere. It's surely inevitable that the UK factories will be sending some to the EU, at least in time, as the EU-based Pfizer factories are sending vaccines to us (as we have a contract to receive those).
“The UK agreement was reached in June, three months before the European one. As you could imagine, the UK government said the supply coming out of the UK supply chain would go to the UK first. Basically, that's how it is. In the EU agreement it is mentioned that the manufacturing sites in the UK were an option for Europe, but only later. But we're moving very quickly, the supply in the UK is very rapid. The government is vaccinating 2.5 million people a week, about 500,000 a day, our vaccine supply is growing quickly. As soon as we have reached a sufficient number of vaccinations in the UK, we will be able to use that site to help Europe as well. But the contract with the UK was signed first and the UK, of course, said “you supply us first”, and this is fair enough. This vaccine was developed with the UK government, Oxford and with us as well. As soon as we can, we'll help the EU. I mean, as a company we are half Swedish and half British. In fact, we're global, of course, but we are European as much as we are British".
my bold
I dont think we have sufficient vaccine or that our vaccine supply is growing quickly enough.
Mrs BJO had her first jab today and the date of the 2nd jab was crossed out on the AZN card. The vaccine centre she visited said they had been told this morning not to hand out cards with 2nd jab dates on and to warn people it could be 20 weeks before the 2nd jab.
"Government intends to give everyone a first jab before doing 2nd jabs at 12 weeks, and we have had to cross out appointment dates"
We had our Pfizer vaccinations last Saturday and we had a card with the record of the first vaccination including the batch number, location and date
The Doctor told us the next vaccination would be within 11 weeks and of course we were told to come back with the card to be updated then. There was no entry at all on the line under the first vaccination as they do not know the date, but neither the batch number or vaccination location. I do question your comment that the a card was filled in with a crossed out second date and this 20 week allegation
If we take into account your comments on the fake news of 8% effectiveness of the AZ vaccine, then I do wonder whether you just want to make mischief in a subject that is far too serious for that
Fuck off BigG i would never lie about what we were told that is a disgusting comment
Honestly, the time has come for any who puts flashing lights, flags, and long strings of emojis on their tweets to be catapulted into the nearest active volcano. Don't care who they are or what their saying, get in the lava.
... This whole thing was so predictable when the commission took everything over, the lack of production subsidies is really what the issue is in the EU. Both the UK and US took a proactive approach and subsidised it's industries to ensure domestic supply and eventually oversupply. The EU relied on the free market, it was the wrong approach and instead of fixing the original problem they are making threats.
Yes, I think that is the crucial point. The UK (and I think also the US with Operation Warp Speed) took a gamble early on by putting money into production capacity without knowing whether the vaccines would actually work and be safe. It was a well-judged gamble (thanks, Kate Bingham) which has been spectacularly successful. At worst, we might have wasted a few hundred million quid, but that's nothing in the context of this pandemic, and as it has turned out, we've gained months. The EU was very late to that game, and is now unfortunately left behind.
Months? AIUI, the EU is three weeks behind as of the most recent data. 2% as of 24th January, versus the UK's 2% as of 3rd January.
Yes, but the running rate in the UK is now miles faster, and will stay that way for some time.
... This whole thing was so predictable when the commission took everything over, the lack of production subsidies is really what the issue is in the EU. Both the UK and US took a proactive approach and subsidised it's industries to ensure domestic supply and eventually oversupply. The EU relied on the free market, it was the wrong approach and instead of fixing the original problem they are making threats.
Yes, I think that is the crucial point. The UK (and I think also the US with Operation Warp Speed) took a gamble early on by putting money into production capacity without knowing whether the vaccines would actually work and be safe. It was a well-judged gamble (thanks, Kate Bingham) which has been spectacularly successful. At worst, we might have wasted a few hundred million quid, but that's nothing in the context of this pandemic, and as it has turned out, we've gained months. The EU was very late to that game, and is now unfortunately left behind.
Months? AIUI, the EU is three weeks behind as of the most recent data. 2% as of 24th January, versus the UK's 2% as of 3rd January.
Would you like to bet on them keeping no more than three weeks behind? We can all see where the trend is going, based on likely future supply levels.
Comments
In the same way Kyriakides claimed they helped 'fund the development' of the vaccine - which really isn't the same thing as signing a contract for a supply of it, quite some time after the UK had funded its development.
It's shameless, but given our current image in the EU, it will probably be effective in political terms within the EU, even though it won't change the supply situation.
That really would be morally indefensible.
Ultimately I don't think anyone is going to ban exports. This is just a load of hot air.
How often do we get full delivery of the annual flu vaccine orders ? (Not very.)
Should Puerto Rico be admitted immediately into the Union as a State?
FOR THE GREATER GOOD.
BBC News - Cyclist Josh Quigley has multiple fractures in second serious crash
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-55825290
If one were to develop in response to this it would be a major step forward, but I fear it isn't going to happen.
Then the delay in the UK has faced in receiving the doses so far means the UK supply chain is no longer available at this stage as the x million doses condition has not been met. AZ decide that takes priority over a January timetable and are covered by best endeavours. The EU (stretching their case?) for internal PR and blame purposes argue January should be honoured, otherwise best endeavours are not met.
Mrs BJO had her first jab today and the date of the 2nd jab was crossed out on the AZN card. The vaccine centre she visited said they had been told this morning not to hand out cards with 2nd jab dates on and to warn people it could be 20 weeks before the 2nd jab.
"Government intends to give everyone a first jab before doing 2nd jabs at 12 weeks, and we have had to cross out appointment dates"
https://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/news/clinical-areas/immunology-and-vaccines/second-covid-vaccine-doses-will-be-prioritised-at-12-weeks-says-nhs-chief/
Is that good enough source or do you have a better one?
And Boris's name will be front and centre all the way through it.
30.1% at least one dose
14.5% two doses
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/covid-vaccine-tracker-global-distribution/
https://twitter.com/GillibrandPeter/status/1354433024184737793?s=20
This whole thing was so predictable when the commission took everything over, the lack of production subsidies is really what the issue is in the EU. Both the UK and US took a proactive approach and subsidised it's industries to ensure domestic supply and eventually oversupply. The EU relied on the free market, it was the wrong approach and instead of fixing the original problem they are making threats.
"Not only is the EU three months behind the UK on technical glitch fixes, but also because of the bloc’s bureaucratic delay in signing a contract, AstraZeneca pledged a “best effort” not a commitment to fulfil the order numbers. Soriot went on to say…
“… we didn’t commit with the EU, by the way. It’s not a commitment we have to Europe: it’s a best effort, we said we are going to make our best effort. The reason why we said that is because Europe at the time wanted to be supplied more or less at the same time as the UK, even though the contract was signed three months later. So we said, “ok, we’re going to do our best, we’re going to try, but we cannot commit contractually because we are three months behind UK”.”
And what do we have here
"This afternoon, Madrid cancelled all planned vaccinations for two weeks as Spain ran out of supplies. Germany last night formally demanded that EU grant it powers to block the export of all vaccines produced within the EU. "
Edit: Although aren't todays figures inflated due to the lack of reporting over the weekend?
My father got his done 2 weeks ago, not given one. It was we will contact you.
I just think there are slight differences regionally about exactly how they are doing this.
“The UK agreement was reached in June, three months before the European one. As you could imagine, the UK government said the supply coming out of the UK supply chain would go to the UK first. Basically, that's how it is. In the EU agreement it is mentioned that the manufacturing sites in the UK were an option for Europe, but only later. But we're moving very quickly, the supply in the UK is very rapid. The government is vaccinating 2.5 million people a week, about 500,000 a day, our vaccine supply is growing quickly. As soon as we have reached a sufficient number of vaccinations in the UK, we will be able to use that site to help Europe as well. But the contract with the UK was signed first and the UK, of course, said “you supply us first”, and this is fair enough. This vaccine was developed with the UK government, Oxford and with us as well. As soon as we can, we'll help the EU. I mean, as a company we are half Swedish and half British. In fact, we're global, of course, but we are European as much as we are British".
my bold
I was offered AZN this morning as her Carer but declined
https://twitter.com/CitySamuel/status/1354461071470448644?s=20
Any idea what the % is with AZN
Its 95% with Pfizer
Pick any number between 9 and 99 with AZN??
Ideological mania can become too costly to maintain
BY SEAN THOMAS"
https://unherd.com/2021/01/after-a-plague-we-cant-afford-wokeness/
The Doctor told us the next vaccination would be within 11 weeks and of course we were told to come back with the card to be updated then. There was no entry at all on the line under the first vaccination as they do not know the date, but neither the batch number or vaccination location. I do question your comment that the a card was filled in with a crossed out second date and this 20 week allegation
If we take into account your comments on the fake news of 8% effectiveness of the AZ vaccine, then I do wonder whether you just want to make mischief in a subject that is far too serious for that
Does anyone know why TSB mobile and Internet banking is down so much ?
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1354463927304933376
If you want to do a "confidence interval for over 75 subsample" BS spin then Pfizers is a range from an extreme of -13% (13% more likely to catch Covid than if unvaccinated) through to 100%. Which is why you don't use confidence interval subsamples in the way you are.
Disappointing numbers today, still over 300k in the UK which is incredible but I was getting used to those 500k days!
My father, like you, wasn't given a specific date, just we will contact you.
When I hear "Eurocrat" I generally think of the bureaucrats who staff the commissions, not the politicians who run them. I would probably agree that the former are more likely to be impressive, same as top level UK civil servants are often more impressive than the Ministers they nominally report to.
On a drilling side, if we leave a nuke tool in the hole with radioactive sources* in it because we got stuck or lost the string then all our agreements with the UK Government say we have to use all reasonable endeavours to get it out. This means that we don't have to spend months and tens of millions of pounds trying to do it. If the agreement says best endeavours then we do have to spend as long as it takes until it is no longer physically possible no matter what the time or cost.
* For reference these are tiny sources which generate gamma rays sufficient to travel about 4 inches into the rock so nothing that is going to produce mutant fish when left 8000ft down in the ground.
There's also speculation that Sabadell want to sell TSB and don't want to spend the money to do a proper upgrade.
https://derbysulzers.com/25308.html
Don't care who they are or what their saying, get in the lava.
https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1354465793245900802?s=20