Ridiculous to think that Boris wasn't genuinely upset.
Nobody likes to be blamed for things they've done.
Upset and sorrow are two different things though. If he was truly sorry then we wouldn't be ploughing on with the same failed policies and same failed ministers who have overseen at least 60,000 completely needless deaths and an economic disaster that will cost us £500bn in additional debt.
If a hotel quarantine policy is introduced later today (I hope it is) then will there be any other European country that has gone further than that?
(Hotel quarantine for "hotspot" countries, making quarantine at home mandatory for anywhere else, some details over how that will be enforced still to be worked out).
Pedant mode.. that's not further, that's the same.
A huge difference relevant to the Trump/Boris comparisons is that Trump lacks an empathetic bone in his body and denied and disowned and did not have the vaccine roll-out triumph. Boris' government have made many mistakes, but Boris does empathy and has very authentically taken responsibility fully and shown genuine sorrow. In addition, the HMG has had far more successes in its COVID response than its most ardent critics are willing to admit - not just the vaccine and its rollout, but also testing and genomic sequencing, and much of Rishi's economic response (again, not without it fair and unfair criticisms).
I don't agree about the economic response, which I think has been poor, but I'd agree about the rest, and add expanding health service capacity, and keeping the public mostly on board with the measures they've taken.
The government has been good at testing, but without a decent tracing network, there's much less point.
It would only be interesting, indeed astonishing, if such caveats weren't in the contract.
It is completely inconceivable that the contract wouldn't include lots of such caveats. There is absolutely no way AZ would have given a firm commitment on delivery dates for a brand-new vaccine, involving new production facilities and dependent on other suppliers who themselves were also doing things for the first time, all in a super-fast timescale.
As AZ CEO has continually stated the contract is based on best endeavors.
I'm actually surprised how polite he is being in public considering the games the EU seem to be playing.
I don't know what the EU think they're playing at. They really are in a negotiation where AZ hold all the cards. After all, if the EU get too bolshie AZ have the option to simply walk away from the contract, close their European factory and concentrate on other markets.
And there is exactly feck all the EU can do about it.
So the 'win' here for the EU is they accept a lower delivery than they want, and the lose is that they get none at all.
Wrong. The EU is one of the largest markets for pharmaceuticals in the world. That gives them a lot of muscle. AZ will not want to antagonise them more than necessary, so no, AZ do not hold all the cards, far from it.
So - just to be clear - the EU might ban AZ from operating in the EU altogether if they decide to abrogate a contract?
Which would cause no medicine shortages of any kind, I trust?
The EU are behaving like complete fools. It's like watching the DUP over Theresa May's deal - only worse, because you expect the DUP to behave like idiots.
No of course they won't. This is a storm in a tea cup. They are using their buying muscle to influence a company. This is the reality of large scale corporate selling and buying willy waving. It is just not normally so public as this, because the public isn't interested. Oh, and in case you didn't know, the UK government regularly tries to coerce companies, bully them if you like, by threats or inferences of lost contracts for those that don't tow the line
It would only be interesting, indeed astonishing, if such caveats weren't in the contract.
It is completely inconceivable that the contract wouldn't include lots of such caveats. There is absolutely no way AZ would have given a firm commitment on delivery dates for a brand-new vaccine, involving new production facilities and dependent on other suppliers who themselves were also doing things for the first time, all in a super-fast timescale.
As AZ CEO has continually stated the contract is based on best endeavors.
I'm actually surprised how polite he is being in public considering the games the EU seem to be playing.
I don't know what the EU think they're playing at. They really are in a negotiation where AZ hold all the cards. After all, if the EU get too bolshie AZ have the option to simply walk away from the contract, close their European factory and concentrate on other markets.
And there is exactly feck all the EU can do about it.
So the 'win' here for the EU is they accept a lower delivery than they want, and the lose is that they get none at all.
Wrong. The EU is one of the largest markets for pharmaceuticals in the world. That gives them a lot of muscle. AZ will not want to antagonise them more than necessary, so no, AZ do not hold all the cards, far from it.
This is the kind of stuff that can turn it into a large market and producer to just being a large buyer of pharmaceutical products. There's no doubt that pharma companies from across the world want to sell to EU countries, but the question is whether those pharma companies will want to make the product in Europe given all of the latest shenanigans. Like the IMB over here, it won't move any business but I think it definitely plays into future decision making. Why risk export restrictions in the EU when you can go to Switzerland and enjoy tariff/quota free exports of pharmaceutical goods and services.
I can't disagree with what you say regarding Switzerland, and of course Switzerland does have a very strong pharma and healthcare sector. However, I do think the media are getting a little silly about this. Corporate decisions on where product is manufactured is rarely influenced by storms in teacups like this. It is influenced by a multitude of things, but in particular access to finance, supply chains routes to market and, perhaps more than anything in pharma, access to talent.
I have no doubt about that as well, but the issue for the EU is that it has got Switzerland and the UK sitting on its borders wrt pharma. Those are two very easy markets to work in with a highly skilled workforce, a strong regulator and a tariff/quota free deal with the EU for pharmaceutical products.
This, IMO, is ultimately a self defeating stance from the EU and talking about export restrictions is a retrograde step that will get pharma companies to start looking at contingency plans.
Best performing countries for Covid vaccine doses given out:
Israel (9.05 million) 47.90 per 100 population UAE (9.77 million) 27.107 per 100 population United Kingdom (67 million) 10.79 per 100 population
...
European Union (446 million) 2.11 per 100 population
Still @Nigel_Foremain reckons "big" "muscle" works when it comes to pharmaceuticals. "Big" doesn't work. "Muscle" doesn't work.
Small countries nimbly looking after themselves works.
Bear in mind, that % covers the entire population. But 21% of the UK population is under 18. So, as we have no plans to vaccinate Da Yoof yet, we have actually jabbed 10.79m of the total 53m pool - we have done over 20% of the adult population of the UK.
And we have probably jabbed a million more by now - so we are at 22.5% as of this moment.
It would only be interesting, indeed astonishing, if such caveats weren't in the contract.
It is completely inconceivable that the contract wouldn't include lots of such caveats. There is absolutely no way AZ would have given a firm commitment on delivery dates for a brand-new vaccine, involving new production facilities and dependent on other suppliers who themselves were also doing things for the first time, all in a super-fast timescale.
As AZ CEO has continually stated the contract is based on best endeavors.
I'm actually surprised how polite he is being in public considering the games the EU seem to be playing.
I don't know what the EU think they're playing at. They really are in a negotiation where AZ hold all the cards. After all, if the EU get too bolshie AZ have the option to simply walk away from the contract, close their European factory and concentrate on other markets.
And there is exactly feck all the EU can do about it.
So the 'win' here for the EU is they accept a lower delivery than they want, and the lose is that they get none at all.
Wrong. The EU is one of the largest markets for pharmaceuticals in the world. That gives them a lot of muscle. AZ will not want to antagonise them more than necessary, so no, AZ do not hold all the cards, far from it.
This is the kind of stuff that can turn it into a large market and producer to just being a large buyer of pharmaceutical products. There's no doubt that pharma companies from across the world want to sell to EU countries, but the question is whether those pharma companies will want to make the product in Europe given all of the latest shenanigans. Like the IMB over here, it won't move any business but I think it definitely plays into future decision making. Why risk export restrictions in the EU when you can go to Switzerland and enjoy tariff/quota free exports of pharmaceutical goods and services.
I can't disagree with what you say regarding Switzerland, and of course Switzerland does have a very strong pharma and healthcare sector. However, I do think the media are getting a little silly about this. Corporate decisions on where product is manufactured is rarely influenced by storms in teacups like this. It is influenced by a multitude of things, but in particular access to finance, supply chains routes to market and, perhaps more than anything in pharma, access to talent.
But what would PB discuss if it weren't for the daily storms in its crockery!
Ridiculous to think that Boris wasn't genuinely upset.
Nobody likes to be blamed for things they've done.
Upset and sorrow are two different things though. If he was truly sorry then we wouldn't be ploughing on with the same failed policies and same failed ministers who have overseen at least 60,000 completely needless deaths and an economic disaster that will cost us £500bn in additional debt.
If a hotel quarantine policy is introduced later today (I hope it is) then will there be any other European country that has gone further than that?
(Hotel quarantine for "hotspot" countries, making quarantine at home mandatory for anywhere else, some details over how that will be enforced still to be worked out).
Sounds like their at home policy will be similar to our pre-existing one and the hotspot countries sounds like what's expected to be announced today. So same policy across the British Isles essentially.
Best performing countries for Covid vaccine doses given out:
Israel (9.05 million) 47.90 per 100 population UAE (9.77 million) 27.107 per 100 population United Kingdom (67 million) 10.79 per 100 population
...
European Union (446 million) 2.11 per 100 population
Still @Nigel_Foremain reckons "big" "muscle" works when it comes to pharmaceuticals. "Big" doesn't work. "Muscle" doesn't work.
Small countries nimbly looking after themselves works.
Bear in mind, that % covers the entire population. But 21% of the UK population is under 18. So, as we have no plans to vaccinate Da Yoof yet, we have actually jabbed 10.79m of the total 53m pool - we have done over 20% of the adult population of the UK.
And we have probably jabbed a million more by now - so we are at 22.5% as of this moment.
And Sky have just announced the German government have denounced the 8% AZ story as fake news
The Politico reporting seems quite good for figuring out what's actually going on in Europe. Or at least explaining the motivations of the different parties.
It would only be interesting, indeed astonishing, if such caveats weren't in the contract.
It is completely inconceivable that the contract wouldn't include lots of such caveats. There is absolutely no way AZ would have given a firm commitment on delivery dates for a brand-new vaccine, involving new production facilities and dependent on other suppliers who themselves were also doing things for the first time, all in a super-fast timescale.
As AZ CEO has continually stated the contract is based on best endeavors.
I'm actually surprised how polite he is being in public considering the games the EU seem to be playing.
I don't know what the EU think they're playing at. They really are in a negotiation where AZ hold all the cards. After all, if the EU get too bolshie AZ have the option to simply walk away from the contract, close their European factory and concentrate on other markets.
And there is exactly feck all the EU can do about it.
So the 'win' here for the EU is they accept a lower delivery than they want, and the lose is that they get none at all.
Wrong. The EU is one of the largest markets for pharmaceuticals in the world. That gives them a lot of muscle. AZ will not want to antagonise them more than necessary, so no, AZ do not hold all the cards, far from it.
So - just to be clear - the EU might ban AZ from operating in the EU altogether if they decide to abrogate a contract?
Which would cause no medicine shortages of any kind, I trust?
The EU are behaving like complete fools. It's like watching the DUP over Theresa May's deal - only worse, because you expect the DUP to behave like idiots.
No of course they won't. This is a storm in a tea cup. They are using their buying muscle to influence a company. This is the reality of large scale corporate selling and buying willy waving. It is just not normally so public as this, because the public isn't interested. Oh, and in case you didn't know, the UK government regularly tries to coerce companies, bully them if you like, by threats or inferences of lost contracts for those that don't tow the line
How often do they do it this publicly?
Edit - incidentally, in saying that I am assuming the EU had no connection to the fake story in Handelsblatt, which appeared to be deliberately designed to damage AZ and was completely false.
It would only be interesting, indeed astonishing, if such caveats weren't in the contract.
It is completely inconceivable that the contract wouldn't include lots of such caveats. There is absolutely no way AZ would have given a firm commitment on delivery dates for a brand-new vaccine, involving new production facilities and dependent on other suppliers who themselves were also doing things for the first time, all in a super-fast timescale.
As AZ CEO has continually stated the contract is based on best endeavors.
I'm actually surprised how polite he is being in public considering the games the EU seem to be playing.
I don't know what the EU think they're playing at. They really are in a negotiation where AZ hold all the cards. After all, if the EU get too bolshie AZ have the option to simply walk away from the contract, close their European factory and concentrate on other markets.
And there is exactly feck all the EU can do about it.
So the 'win' here for the EU is they accept a lower delivery than they want, and the lose is that they get none at all.
Wrong. The EU is one of the largest markets for pharmaceuticals in the world. That gives them a lot of muscle. AZ will not want to antagonise them more than necessary, so no, AZ do not hold all the cards, far from it.
This is the kind of stuff that can turn it into a large market and producer to just being a large buyer of pharmaceutical products. There's no doubt that pharma companies from across the world want to sell to EU countries, but the question is whether those pharma companies will want to make the product in Europe given all of the latest shenanigans. Like the IMB over here, it won't move any business but I think it definitely plays into future decision making. Why risk export restrictions in the EU when you can go to Switzerland and enjoy tariff/quota free exports of pharmaceutical goods and services.
IIRC this was the kind of thing that India used to try and do, in various industries, many years ago. Trying to political;y control companies and their products. Which resulted in a lot of big outfits keeping their manufacturing and IP outside India.
Bearing in mind, there is now a large alternative manufacturing centre just off the north coast of the EU as well, where many of them already have significant production capacity.
Switzerland as well, which has a huge pharmaceuticals industry and an amazing pool of talent and expertise. It's really such an odd stance for the EU to take but shows the underlying insecurities that they have.
So London is now going to have to compete with a NY finance industry that has full equivalence in the EU. I can’t see how those parts of the market survive. If they haven’t left already they will now.
"The report added the industry will also likely see dark liquidity “re-gravitating back to London” as the UK looks to champion alternative pools of liquidity to attract non-EU activity. The UK’s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) recently lowered the LIS threshold for EU-listed stocks to €15,000 making dark trading more attractive and less restrictive."
You wouldn't know what dark liquidity is if it asked to join you and Bob Hope for lunch.
Anonymous large scale trades, away from public exchanges? Effectively a private sale where investors deal outside of the glare of normal public exchange, price and participants not being disclosed.
And it just got easier...
LOL. And loving the question mark.
How and why did it just get easier?
LOL. I'll give you the full chapter and verse, after I've next had dinner with Andrew Bailey....
Legitimate for politicians to take a stance different to that of the advice (not that either side will acknowledge that when their opponent does it) but given the subject matter I hope they have detailed reasons of why they;ve reached a different conclusion.
So London is now going to have to compete with a NY finance industry that has full equivalence in the EU. I can’t see how those parts of the market survive. If they haven’t left already they will now.
"The report added the industry will also likely see dark liquidity “re-gravitating back to London” as the UK looks to champion alternative pools of liquidity to attract non-EU activity. The UK’s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) recently lowered the LIS threshold for EU-listed stocks to €15,000 making dark trading more attractive and less restrictive."
You wouldn't know what dark liquidity is if it asked to join you and Bob Hope for lunch.
Anonymous large scale trades, away from public exchanges? Effectively a private sale where investors deal outside of the glare of normal public exchange, price and participants not being disclosed.
And it just got easier...
LOL. And loving the question mark.
How and why did it just get easier?
LOL. I'll give you the full chapter and verse, after I've next had dinner with Andrew Bailey....
It would only be interesting, indeed astonishing, if such caveats weren't in the contract.
It is completely inconceivable that the contract wouldn't include lots of such caveats. There is absolutely no way AZ would have given a firm commitment on delivery dates for a brand-new vaccine, involving new production facilities and dependent on other suppliers who themselves were also doing things for the first time, all in a super-fast timescale.
As AZ CEO has continually stated the contract is based on best endeavors.
I'm actually surprised how polite he is being in public considering the games the EU seem to be playing.
I don't know what the EU think they're playing at. They really are in a negotiation where AZ hold all the cards. After all, if the EU get too bolshie AZ have the option to simply walk away from the contract, close their European factory and concentrate on other markets.
And there is exactly feck all the EU can do about it.
So the 'win' here for the EU is they accept a lower delivery than they want, and the lose is that they get none at all.
Wrong. The EU is one of the largest markets for pharmaceuticals in the world. That gives them a lot of muscle. AZ will not want to antagonise them more than necessary, so no, AZ do not hold all the cards, far from it.
So - just to be clear - the EU might ban AZ from operating in the EU altogether if they decide to abrogate a contract?
Which would cause no medicine shortages of any kind, I trust?
The EU are behaving like complete fools. It's like watching the DUP over Theresa May's deal - only worse, because you expect the DUP to behave like idiots.
No of course they won't. This is a storm in a tea cup. They are using their buying muscle to influence a company. This is the reality of large scale corporate selling and buying willy waving. It is just not normally so public as this, because the public isn't interested. Oh, and in case you didn't know, the UK government regularly tries to coerce companies, bully them if you like, by threats or inferences of lost contracts for those that don't tow the line
You're so small minded you just can't comprehend that the EU may be doing the wrong thing on anything. Instead no matter what the subject you have such a one-tracked mind, you can't accept anything good from independence and anything the EU does wrong is to be brushed away.
"EU good . . . nationalists bad . . . Big . . . muscle . . . Hulk Smash! Hulk Smash! Hulk Smash!"
I've been criticising the UK Government all thread (and for months) for not going far enough on controlling the border and saying if the schools are closed then all international travellers (except those like lorry drivers for whom it is literally essentially) should face mandatory hotel quarantine.
You just can't do the same can you? So small minded and petty.
If GOP senators don't bar him from office he will be running in 2024.
I'm not sure I agree for several reasons, although accept it's a serious possibility.
Obstacles include:
1. He has serious legal and possibly financial problems separate from impeachment.
2. He is deeply personal hurt by defeat and won't run if he doesn't think he'll win.
3. Many of his biggest defenders don't want him to stand due either to personal ambition or a belief he won't win - they will stand by him but remind him of 2.
4. He will be 78. Whilst he seems in surprisingly robust form for a man with his risk factors, and it didn't stop Biden, quite a lot can happen medically in four years in your late 70s if you're obese and so on.
It's fascinating. The GOP is infected by far right populism going by the name of MAGA. If they split into GOP and MAGA, the Dems win. If they don't split they have to either purge MAGA or become MAGA. But they can't purge MAGA without fostering the split which they must avoid. Ergo they must become MAGA. But MAGA can't work under a career politician. It needs a charismatic celebrity outsider to front it. That's an essential part of its USP. It needs Donald Trump. But Donald Trump will not be standing for all of the reasons you list and more. So, if they go this route, who will it be? Tucker Carlson? Alex Jones? This has the feel of a series of logic steps, each impeccable, leading to a ludicrous conclusion. Which is one of the reasons it is so fascinating.
At the time, everyone thought Donald Trump being President was an absolute joke. What seems ludicrous now may be obvious in hindsight.
I think repub voters will forgive MAGA candidates and they will forgive Reaganites.
What they will not forgive are candidates who are not angry as hell with the democrats and their policies. They will not tolerate trimmers, deal doers, consensus seekers. They think they are in a fight (even a war) and they want candidates who share that attitude.
There are two issues - one is winning the nomination, the other the Presidency (or Senate or House or Governor race as relevant).
Sure, you need to be angry to at least some degree to get the nomination in either party. Before Trump, there's long been a tradition of appealing to the base in the primaries and tacking to the centre after that.
But once you have the nomination, where do MAGA people (or indeed radicals in the Democrats) go? Ultimately - helped by Sanders and others being a little more magnanimous than in 2016 - Democrat radicals voted in large numbers for the moderate deal-maker, Biden. In November, very large numbers of Republicans saw no problem voting for both Trump and a moderate like Collins or a critic like Sasse - indeed, Collins won most Trump voters plus some Biden voters.
I don't think these fundamentals change. No doubt if Trump is never on a ballot again, a proportion of his base will never vote again. But the large majority will, even if with much less enthusiasm. And bear in mind that grudging, reluctant votes count exactly the same as enthusiastic, flag-waving ones.
It would only be interesting, indeed astonishing, if such caveats weren't in the contract.
It is completely inconceivable that the contract wouldn't include lots of such caveats. There is absolutely no way AZ would have given a firm commitment on delivery dates for a brand-new vaccine, involving new production facilities and dependent on other suppliers who themselves were also doing things for the first time, all in a super-fast timescale.
As AZ CEO has continually stated the contract is based on best endeavors.
I'm actually surprised how polite he is being in public considering the games the EU seem to be playing.
I don't know what the EU think they're playing at. They really are in a negotiation where AZ hold all the cards. After all, if the EU get too bolshie AZ have the option to simply walk away from the contract, close their European factory and concentrate on other markets.
And there is exactly feck all the EU can do about it.
So the 'win' here for the EU is they accept a lower delivery than they want, and the lose is that they get none at all.
Wrong. The EU is one of the largest markets for pharmaceuticals in the world. That gives them a lot of muscle. AZ will not want to antagonise them more than necessary, so no, AZ do not hold all the cards, far from it.
So - just to be clear - the EU might ban AZ from operating in the EU altogether if they decide to abrogate a contract?
Which would cause no medicine shortages of any kind, I trust?
The EU are behaving like complete fools. It's like watching the DUP over Theresa May's deal - only worse, because you expect the DUP to behave like idiots.
The EU feels that AZ have legged them over. So they are making a fuss. A resolution will be found that puts the EU in a better position than if they had not made a fuss. This is what I predict. Bet I'm right.
It would only be interesting, indeed astonishing, if such caveats weren't in the contract.
It is completely inconceivable that the contract wouldn't include lots of such caveats. There is absolutely no way AZ would have given a firm commitment on delivery dates for a brand-new vaccine, involving new production facilities and dependent on other suppliers who themselves were also doing things for the first time, all in a super-fast timescale.
As AZ CEO has continually stated the contract is based on best endeavors.
I'm actually surprised how polite he is being in public considering the games the EU seem to be playing.
I don't know what the EU think they're playing at. They really are in a negotiation where AZ hold all the cards. After all, if the EU get too bolshie AZ have the option to simply walk away from the contract, close their European factory and concentrate on other markets.
And there is exactly feck all the EU can do about it.
So the 'win' here for the EU is they accept a lower delivery than they want, and the lose is that they get none at all.
Wrong. The EU is one of the largest markets for pharmaceuticals in the world. That gives them a lot of muscle. AZ will not want to antagonise them more than necessary, so no, AZ do not hold all the cards, far from it.
This is the kind of stuff that can turn it into a large market and producer to just being a large buyer of pharmaceutical products. There's no doubt that pharma companies from across the world want to sell to EU countries, but the question is whether those pharma companies will want to make the product in Europe given all of the latest shenanigans. Like the IMB over here, it won't move any business but I think it definitely plays into future decision making. Why risk export restrictions in the EU when you can go to Switzerland and enjoy tariff/quota free exports of pharmaceutical goods and services.
I can't disagree with what you say regarding Switzerland, and of course Switzerland does have a very strong pharma and healthcare sector. However, I do think the media are getting a little silly about this. Corporate decisions on where product is manufactured is rarely influenced by storms in teacups like this. It is influenced by a multitude of things, but in particular access to finance, supply chains routes to market and, perhaps more than anything in pharma, access to talent.
So long as it remains a storm in a teacup. There are clearly arguments going on in Europe between those who want to damp the whole thing down, and those who want to escalate to something more serious.
It would only be interesting, indeed astonishing, if such caveats weren't in the contract.
It is completely inconceivable that the contract wouldn't include lots of such caveats. There is absolutely no way AZ would have given a firm commitment on delivery dates for a brand-new vaccine, involving new production facilities and dependent on other suppliers who themselves were also doing things for the first time, all in a super-fast timescale.
As AZ CEO has continually stated the contract is based on best endeavors.
I'm actually surprised how polite he is being in public considering the games the EU seem to be playing.
I don't know what the EU think they're playing at. They really are in a negotiation where AZ hold all the cards. After all, if the EU get too bolshie AZ have the option to simply walk away from the contract, close their European factory and concentrate on other markets.
And there is exactly feck all the EU can do about it.
So the 'win' here for the EU is they accept a lower delivery than they want, and the lose is that they get none at all.
Wrong. The EU is one of the largest markets for pharmaceuticals in the world. That gives them a lot of muscle. AZ will not want to antagonise them more than necessary, so no, AZ do not hold all the cards, far from it.
So - just to be clear - the EU might ban AZ from operating in the EU altogether if they decide to abrogate a contract?
Which would cause no medicine shortages of any kind, I trust?
The EU are behaving like complete fools. It's like watching the DUP over Theresa May's deal - only worse, because you expect the DUP to behave like idiots.
The EU feels that AZ have legged them over. So they are making a fuss. A resolution will be found that puts the EU in a better position than if they had not made a fuss. This is what I predict. Bet I'm right.
If GOP senators don't bar him from office he will be running in 2024.
I'm not sure I agree for several reasons, although accept it's a serious possibility.
Obstacles include:
1. He has serious legal and possibly financial problems separate from impeachment.
2. He is deeply personal hurt by defeat and won't run if he doesn't think he'll win.
3. Many of his biggest defenders don't want him to stand due either to personal ambition or a belief he won't win - they will stand by him but remind him of 2.
4. He will be 78. Whilst he seems in surprisingly robust form for a man with his risk factors, and it didn't stop Biden, quite a lot can happen medically in four years in your late 70s if you're obese and so on.
It's fascinating. The GOP is infected by far right populism going by the name of MAGA. If they split into GOP and MAGA, the Dems win. If they don't split they have to either purge MAGA or become MAGA. But they can't purge MAGA without fostering the split which they must avoid. Ergo they must become MAGA. But MAGA can't work under a career politician. It needs a charismatic celebrity outsider to front it. That's an essential part of its USP. It needs Donald Trump. But Donald Trump will not be standing for all of the reasons you list and more. So, if they go this route, who will it be? Tucker Carlson? Alex Jones? This has the feel of a series of logic steps, each impeccable, leading to a ludicrous conclusion. Which is one of the reasons it is so fascinating.
At the time, everyone thought Donald Trump being President was an absolute joke. What seems ludicrous now may be obvious in hindsight.
And Carlson, for instance, is sufficiently intelligent and superficially plausible to be extremely dangerous.
He's quite a short price - so that is not just your view.
It would only be interesting, indeed astonishing, if such caveats weren't in the contract.
It is completely inconceivable that the contract wouldn't include lots of such caveats. There is absolutely no way AZ would have given a firm commitment on delivery dates for a brand-new vaccine, involving new production facilities and dependent on other suppliers who themselves were also doing things for the first time, all in a super-fast timescale.
As AZ CEO has continually stated the contract is based on best endeavors.
I'm actually surprised how polite he is being in public considering the games the EU seem to be playing.
I don't know what the EU think they're playing at. They really are in a negotiation where AZ hold all the cards. After all, if the EU get too bolshie AZ have the option to simply walk away from the contract, close their European factory and concentrate on other markets.
And there is exactly feck all the EU can do about it.
So the 'win' here for the EU is they accept a lower delivery than they want, and the lose is that they get none at all.
Wrong. The EU is one of the largest markets for pharmaceuticals in the world. That gives them a lot of muscle. AZ will not want to antagonise them more than necessary, so no, AZ do not hold all the cards, far from it.
So - just to be clear - the EU might ban AZ from operating in the EU altogether if they decide to abrogate a contract?
Which would cause no medicine shortages of any kind, I trust?
The EU are behaving like complete fools. It's like watching the DUP over Theresa May's deal - only worse, because you expect the DUP to behave like idiots.
No of course they won't. This is a storm in a tea cup. They are using their buying muscle to influence a company. This is the reality of large scale corporate selling and buying willy waving. It is just not normally so public as this, because the public isn't interested. Oh, and in case you didn't know, the UK government regularly tries to coerce companies, bully them if you like, by threats or inferences of lost contracts for those that don't tow the line
The current line on the BBC is that the EU is resisting German demands to block exports of Covid vaccines, arguing that it is better to ask companies about where they are sending them, rather than blocking them. If the EU doesn't come to an agreement with AZN, I suppose it is possible that it won't then be able to resist demands from member states to stop exporting the Pfizer vaccine.
The only "influence" people like Sheridan should be having is as an example of what not to be in life.
She's getting paid to enjoy herself. Good for her, she's a great example of what to be in life.
I don't blame her, but it is a profoundly depressing comment on the superficiality of the influencer lifestyle. Not least is the lack of transparency of how her adverts are disguised as social media posts for the gullible.
I suppose there will always be feckless youths, and it is just my inner Puritan showing.
There are policies guiding most of it - you need to flag up paid posts etc. I am a little surprised that she's doing it all on 11,500 follow era though, that's really tiny.
I'm also a bit surprised that these people aren't seeing more negative response to their posts when it's clear they're flouting the rules. Surely even generation brain-dead aren't just 'liking' everything when it's clear someone is taking the piss out of them.
If she has 11k followers, she’s not making any money on social media. She’s either on holiday, or making money in a much older profession...
It would only be interesting, indeed astonishing, if such caveats weren't in the contract.
It is completely inconceivable that the contract wouldn't include lots of such caveats. There is absolutely no way AZ would have given a firm commitment on delivery dates for a brand-new vaccine, involving new production facilities and dependent on other suppliers who themselves were also doing things for the first time, all in a super-fast timescale.
As AZ CEO has continually stated the contract is based on best endeavors.
I'm actually surprised how polite he is being in public considering the games the EU seem to be playing.
I don't know what the EU think they're playing at. They really are in a negotiation where AZ hold all the cards. After all, if the EU get too bolshie AZ have the option to simply walk away from the contract, close their European factory and concentrate on other markets.
And there is exactly feck all the EU can do about it.
So the 'win' here for the EU is they accept a lower delivery than they want, and the lose is that they get none at all.
Wrong. The EU is one of the largest markets for pharmaceuticals in the world. That gives them a lot of muscle. AZ will not want to antagonise them more than necessary, so no, AZ do not hold all the cards, far from it.
This is the kind of stuff that can turn it into a large market and producer to just being a large buyer of pharmaceutical products. There's no doubt that pharma companies from across the world want to sell to EU countries, but the question is whether those pharma companies will want to make the product in Europe given all of the latest shenanigans. Like the IMB over here, it won't move any business but I think it definitely plays into future decision making. Why risk export restrictions in the EU when you can go to Switzerland and enjoy tariff/quota free exports of pharmaceutical goods and services.
I can't disagree with what you say regarding Switzerland, and of course Switzerland does have a very strong pharma and healthcare sector. However, I do think the media are getting a little silly about this. Corporate decisions on where product is manufactured is rarely influenced by storms in teacups like this. It is influenced by a multitude of things, but in particular access to finance, supply chains routes to market and, perhaps more than anything in pharma, access to talent.
But what would PB discuss if it weren't for the daily storms in its crockery!
However, such actions create mood music, as it were.
Some years ago, a chap I knew investigated putting a factory in an ex-industrial part of Northern England vs putting it in the far East. The sum of his experiences was
- They don't really want factories in that part of Northern England. - They seem to be really happy to have factories in the far East.
So the company built its factory.... where?
And later on, when they had to create another facility, they didn't even bother with a trip North.
The only "influence" people like Sheridan should be having is as an example of what not to be in life.
She's getting paid to enjoy herself. Good for her, she's a great example of what to be in life.
I don't blame her, but it is a profoundly depressing comment on the superficiality of the influencer lifestyle. Not least is the lack of transparency of how her adverts are disguised as social media posts for the gullible.
I suppose there will always be feckless youths, and it is just my inner Puritan showing.
There are policies guiding most of it - you need to flag up paid posts etc. I am a little surprised that she's doing it all on 11,500 follow era though, that's really tiny.
I'm also a bit surprised that these people aren't seeing more negative response to their posts when it's clear they're flouting the rules. Surely even generation brain-dead aren't just 'liking' everything when it's clear someone is taking the piss out of them.
If she has 11k followers, she’s not making any money on social media. She’s either on holiday, or making money in a much older profession...
Does she not even know to buy followers to at least make it appear like she is vaguely popular to try and start a snowball effect?
It would only be interesting, indeed astonishing, if such caveats weren't in the contract.
It is completely inconceivable that the contract wouldn't include lots of such caveats. There is absolutely no way AZ would have given a firm commitment on delivery dates for a brand-new vaccine, involving new production facilities and dependent on other suppliers who themselves were also doing things for the first time, all in a super-fast timescale.
As AZ CEO has continually stated the contract is based on best endeavors.
I'm actually surprised how polite he is being in public considering the games the EU seem to be playing.
I don't know what the EU think they're playing at. They really are in a negotiation where AZ hold all the cards. After all, if the EU get too bolshie AZ have the option to simply walk away from the contract, close their European factory and concentrate on other markets.
And there is exactly feck all the EU can do about it.
So the 'win' here for the EU is they accept a lower delivery than they want, and the lose is that they get none at all.
Wrong. The EU is one of the largest markets for pharmaceuticals in the world. That gives them a lot of muscle. AZ will not want to antagonise them more than necessary, so no, AZ do not hold all the cards, far from it.
So - just to be clear - the EU might ban AZ from operating in the EU altogether if they decide to abrogate a contract?
Which would cause no medicine shortages of any kind, I trust?
The EU are behaving like complete fools. It's like watching the DUP over Theresa May's deal - only worse, because you expect the DUP to behave like idiots.
No of course they won't. This is a storm in a tea cup. They are using their buying muscle to influence a company. This is the reality of large scale corporate selling and buying willy waving. It is just not normally so public as this, because the public isn't interested. Oh, and in case you didn't know, the UK government regularly tries to coerce companies, bully them if you like, by threats or inferences of lost contracts for those that don't tow the line
The current line on the BBC is that the EU is resisting German demands to block exports of Covid vaccines, arguing that it is better to ask companies about where they are sending them, rather than blocking them. If the EU doesn't come to an agreement with AZN, I suppose it is possible that it won't then be able to resist demands from member states to stop exporting the Pfizer vaccine.
And then how long until the US, UK, Switzerland and others retaliate in kind with export bans to the EU? Our pharmaceutical industries are highly, highly integrated with each other and for one of these four to decide to not be part of it would be a huge disaster for the whole world.
Honestly there is nothing to be gained by this kind of posturing. The EU fucked up their procurement process and now they need to live with it and pay AZ and others loads of money to subsidise manufacturing capacity. That's the way out of it, not threats of export bans.
If GOP senators don't bar him from office he will be running in 2024.
I'm not sure I agree for several reasons, although accept it's a serious possibility.
Obstacles include:
1. He has serious legal and possibly financial problems separate from impeachment.
2. He is deeply personal hurt by defeat and won't run if he doesn't think he'll win.
3. Many of his biggest defenders don't want him to stand due either to personal ambition or a belief he won't win - they will stand by him but remind him of 2.
4. He will be 78. Whilst he seems in surprisingly robust form for a man with his risk factors, and it didn't stop Biden, quite a lot can happen medically in four years in your late 70s if you're obese and so on.
It's fascinating. The GOP is infected by far right populism going by the name of MAGA. If they split into GOP and MAGA, the Dems win. If they don't split they have to either purge MAGA or become MAGA. But they can't purge MAGA without fostering the split which they must avoid. Ergo they must become MAGA. But MAGA can't work under a career politician. It needs a charismatic celebrity outsider to front it. That's an essential part of its USP. It needs Donald Trump. But Donald Trump will not be standing for all of the reasons you list and more. So, if they go this route, who will it be? Tucker Carlson? Alex Jones? This has the feel of a series of logic steps, each impeccable, leading to a ludicrous conclusion. Which is one of the reasons it is so fascinating.
At the time, everyone thought Donald Trump being President was an absolute joke. What seems ludicrous now may be obvious in hindsight.
And Carlson, for instance, is sufficiently intelligent and superficially plausible to be extremely dangerous.
He's quite a short price - so that is not just your view.
He's one of the few nutters who can present as a normal human being.
I would not be laying him for the nomination unless the odds get shorter still.
If GOP senators don't bar him from office he will be running in 2024.
I'm not sure I agree for several reasons, although accept it's a serious possibility.
Obstacles include:
1. He has serious legal and possibly financial problems separate from impeachment.
2. He is deeply personal hurt by defeat and won't run if he doesn't think he'll win.
3. Many of his biggest defenders don't want him to stand due either to personal ambition or a belief he won't win - they will stand by him but remind him of 2.
4. He will be 78. Whilst he seems in surprisingly robust form for a man with his risk factors, and it didn't stop Biden, quite a lot can happen medically in four years in your late 70s if you're obese and so on.
It's fascinating. The GOP is infected by far right populism going by the name of MAGA. If they split into GOP and MAGA, the Dems win. If they don't split they have to either purge MAGA or become MAGA. But they can't purge MAGA without fostering the split which they must avoid. Ergo they must become MAGA. But MAGA can't work under a career politician. It needs a charismatic celebrity outsider to front it. That's an essential part of its USP. It needs Donald Trump. But Donald Trump will not be standing for all of the reasons you list and more. So, if they go this route, who will it be? Tucker Carlson? Alex Jones? This has the feel of a series of logic steps, each impeccable, leading to a ludicrous conclusion. Which is one of the reasons it is so fascinating.
At the time, everyone thought Donald Trump being President was an absolute joke. What seems ludicrous now may be obvious in hindsight.
Yes indeed. It was ludicrous, yet it happened. But I'm sticking to my general rule that ludicrous things do NOT happen. Rules needs exceptions and so long as these are 'once-in-a-blue' they remain rules.
Who's your early tip (if you have one) for GOP nomination?
So London is now going to have to compete with a NY finance industry that has full equivalence in the EU. I can’t see how those parts of the market survive. If they haven’t left already they will now.
"The report added the industry will also likely see dark liquidity “re-gravitating back to London” as the UK looks to champion alternative pools of liquidity to attract non-EU activity. The UK’s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) recently lowered the LIS threshold for EU-listed stocks to €15,000 making dark trading more attractive and less restrictive."
Yep. By being "nimble and cutting corners" - in line with the new Trotters Inc persona for Global Britain - the City will be able to attract even more "dark liquidity" than it does at the moment. It will be able to go from being a big player in that space to pretty much cornering the market. Much personal remuneration will accrue to the highly skilled participants and they will spend it on "service industries" some of which may be liable to VAT and hence some tax might be collected. Cheers will ring out in the Red Wall as some of this "trickles up" to them in the form of a lick of paint for the town centre.
That's a lick of paint more than they will have seen whilst they had a Labour MP!
If GOP senators don't bar him from office he will be running in 2024.
I'm not sure I agree for several reasons, although accept it's a serious possibility.
Obstacles include:
1. He has serious legal and possibly financial problems separate from impeachment.
2. He is deeply personal hurt by defeat and won't run if he doesn't think he'll win.
3. Many of his biggest defenders don't want him to stand due either to personal ambition or a belief he won't win - they will stand by him but remind him of 2.
4. He will be 78. Whilst he seems in surprisingly robust form for a man with his risk factors, and it didn't stop Biden, quite a lot can happen medically in four years in your late 70s if you're obese and so on.
It's fascinating. The GOP is infected by far right populism going by the name of MAGA. If they split into GOP and MAGA, the Dems win. If they don't split they have to either purge MAGA or become MAGA. But they can't purge MAGA without fostering the split which they must avoid. Ergo they must become MAGA. But MAGA can't work under a career politician. It needs a charismatic celebrity outsider to front it. That's an essential part of its USP. It needs Donald Trump. But Donald Trump will not be standing for all of the reasons you list and more. So, if they go this route, who will it be? Tucker Carlson? Alex Jones? This has the feel of a series of logic steps, each impeccable, leading to a ludicrous conclusion. Which is one of the reasons it is so fascinating.
At the time, everyone thought Donald Trump being President was an absolute joke. What seems ludicrous now may be obvious in hindsight.
Yes indeed. It was ludicrous, yet it happened. But I'm sticking to my general rule that ludicrous things do NOT happen. Rules needs exceptions and so long as these are 'once-in-a-blue' they remain rules.
Who's your early tip (if you have one) for GOP nomination?
It would only be interesting, indeed astonishing, if such caveats weren't in the contract.
It is completely inconceivable that the contract wouldn't include lots of such caveats. There is absolutely no way AZ would have given a firm commitment on delivery dates for a brand-new vaccine, involving new production facilities and dependent on other suppliers who themselves were also doing things for the first time, all in a super-fast timescale.
As AZ CEO has continually stated the contract is based on best endeavors.
I'm actually surprised how polite he is being in public considering the games the EU seem to be playing.
I don't know what the EU think they're playing at. They really are in a negotiation where AZ hold all the cards. After all, if the EU get too bolshie AZ have the option to simply walk away from the contract, close their European factory and concentrate on other markets.
And there is exactly feck all the EU can do about it.
So the 'win' here for the EU is they accept a lower delivery than they want, and the lose is that they get none at all.
Wrong. The EU is one of the largest markets for pharmaceuticals in the world. That gives them a lot of muscle. AZ will not want to antagonise them more than necessary, so no, AZ do not hold all the cards, far from it.
So - just to be clear - the EU might ban AZ from operating in the EU altogether if they decide to abrogate a contract?
Which would cause no medicine shortages of any kind, I trust?
The EU are behaving like complete fools. It's like watching the DUP over Theresa May's deal - only worse, because you expect the DUP to behave like idiots.
No of course they won't. This is a storm in a tea cup. They are using their buying muscle to influence a company. This is the reality of large scale corporate selling and buying willy waving. It is just not normally so public as this, because the public isn't interested. Oh, and in case you didn't know, the UK government regularly tries to coerce companies, bully them if you like, by threats or inferences of lost contracts for those that don't tow the line
The current line on the BBC is that the EU is resisting German demands to block exports of Covid vaccines, arguing that it is better to ask companies about where they are sending them, rather than blocking them. If the EU doesn't come to an agreement with AZN, I suppose it is possible that it won't then be able to resist demands from member states to stop exporting the Pfizer vaccine.
And then how long until the US, UK, Switzerland and others retaliate in kind with export bans to the EU? Our pharmaceutical industries are highly, highly integrated with each other and for one of these four to decide to not be part of it would be a huge disaster for the whole world.
Honestly there is nothing to be gained by this kind of posturing. The EU fucked up their procurement process and now they need to live with it and pay AZ and others loads of money to subsidise manufacturing capacity. That's the way out of it, not threats of export bans.
As I said, it doesn't look like it is the EU that is looking for an export ban. On the contrary, the EU is resisting the pressure from its member states for an export ban.
If GOP senators don't bar him from office he will be running in 2024.
I'm not sure I agree for several reasons, although accept it's a serious possibility.
Obstacles include:
1. He has serious legal and possibly financial problems separate from impeachment.
2. He is deeply personal hurt by defeat and won't run if he doesn't think he'll win.
3. Many of his biggest defenders don't want him to stand due either to personal ambition or a belief he won't win - they will stand by him but remind him of 2.
4. He will be 78. Whilst he seems in surprisingly robust form for a man with his risk factors, and it didn't stop Biden, quite a lot can happen medically in four years in your late 70s if you're obese and so on.
It's fascinating. The GOP is infected by far right populism going by the name of MAGA. If they split into GOP and MAGA, the Dems win. If they don't split they have to either purge MAGA or become MAGA. But they can't purge MAGA without fostering the split which they must avoid. Ergo they must become MAGA. But MAGA can't work under a career politician. It needs a charismatic celebrity outsider to front it. That's an essential part of its USP. It needs Donald Trump. But Donald Trump will not be standing for all of the reasons you list and more. So, if they go this route, who will it be? Tucker Carlson? Alex Jones? This has the feel of a series of logic steps, each impeccable, leading to a ludicrous conclusion. Which is one of the reasons it is so fascinating.
At the time, everyone thought Donald Trump being President was an absolute joke. What seems ludicrous now may be obvious in hindsight.
I think repub voters will forgive MAGA candidates and they will forgive Reaganites.
What they will not forgive are candidates who are not angry as hell with the democrats and their policies. They will not tolerate trimmers, deal doers, consensus seekers. They think they are in a fight (even a war) and they want candidates who share that attitude.
There are two issues - one is winning the nomination, the other the Presidency (or Senate or House or Governor race as relevant).
Sure, you need to be angry to at least some degree to get the nomination in either party. Before Trump, there's long been a tradition of appealing to the base in the primaries and tacking to the centre after that.
But once you have the nomination, where do MAGA people (or indeed radicals in the Democrats) go? Ultimately - helped by Sanders and others being a little more magnanimous than in 2016 - Democrat radicals voted in large numbers for the moderate deal-maker, Biden. In November, very large numbers of Republicans saw no problem voting for both Trump and a moderate like Collins or a critic like Sasse - indeed, Collins won most Trump voters plus some Biden voters.
I don't think these fundamentals change. No doubt if Trump is never on a ballot again, a proportion of his base will never vote again. But the large majority will, even if with much less enthusiasm. And bear in mind that grudging, reluctant votes count exactly the same as enthusiastic, flag-waving ones.
I don;t think the moderation or otherwise of the standpoint is that much of a factor. What repub voters cannot abide is repub politicos seeking consensus with a democrat party they see as more hostile to them than ever.
Look at Liz Cheney. The Wyoming party was swamped with angry messages from voters when she sided with the democrats over impeachment. She is going to be primaried for certain now.
It would only be interesting, indeed astonishing, if such caveats weren't in the contract.
It is completely inconceivable that the contract wouldn't include lots of such caveats. There is absolutely no way AZ would have given a firm commitment on delivery dates for a brand-new vaccine, involving new production facilities and dependent on other suppliers who themselves were also doing things for the first time, all in a super-fast timescale.
As AZ CEO has continually stated the contract is based on best endeavors.
I'm actually surprised how polite he is being in public considering the games the EU seem to be playing.
I don't know what the EU think they're playing at. They really are in a negotiation where AZ hold all the cards. After all, if the EU get too bolshie AZ have the option to simply walk away from the contract, close their European factory and concentrate on other markets.
And there is exactly feck all the EU can do about it.
So the 'win' here for the EU is they accept a lower delivery than they want, and the lose is that they get none at all.
Wrong. The EU is one of the largest markets for pharmaceuticals in the world. That gives them a lot of muscle. AZ will not want to antagonise them more than necessary, so no, AZ do not hold all the cards, far from it.
So - just to be clear - the EU might ban AZ from operating in the EU altogether if they decide to abrogate a contract?
Which would cause no medicine shortages of any kind, I trust?
The EU are behaving like complete fools. It's like watching the DUP over Theresa May's deal - only worse, because you expect the DUP to behave like idiots.
No of course they won't. This is a storm in a tea cup. They are using their buying muscle to influence a company. This is the reality of large scale corporate selling and buying willy waving. It is just not normally so public as this, because the public isn't interested. Oh, and in case you didn't know, the UK government regularly tries to coerce companies, bully them if you like, by threats or inferences of lost contracts for those that don't tow the line
The current line on the BBC is that the EU is resisting German demands to block exports of Covid vaccines, arguing that it is better to ask companies about where they are sending them, rather than blocking them. If the EU doesn't come to an agreement with AZN, I suppose it is possible that it won't then be able to resist demands from member states to stop exporting the Pfizer vaccine.
And then how long until the US, UK, Switzerland and others retaliate in kind with export bans to the EU? Our pharmaceutical industries are highly, highly integrated with each other and for one of these four to decide to not be part of it would be a huge disaster for the whole world.
Honestly there is nothing to be gained by this kind of posturing. The EU fucked up their procurement process and now they need to live with it and pay AZ and others loads of money to subsidise manufacturing capacity. That's the way out of it, not threats of export bans.
As I said, it doesn't look like it is the EU that is looking for an export ban. On the contrary, the EU is resisting the pressure from its member states for an export ban.
As you point out they might have to give in if AZ is unable to accommodate their idiotic request to divert supplies from the UK.
A huge difference relevant to the Trump/Boris comparisons is that Trump lacks an empathetic bone in his body and denied and disowned and did not have the vaccine roll-out triumph. Boris' government have made many mistakes, but Boris does empathy and has very authentically taken responsibility fully and shown genuine sorrow. In addition, the HMG has had far more successes in its COVID response than its most ardent critics are willing to admit - not just the vaccine and its rollout, but also testing and genomic sequencing, and much of Rishi's economic response (again, not without it fair and unfair criticisms).
I don't agree about the economic response, which I think has been poor, but I'd agree about the rest, and add expanding health service capacity, and keeping the public mostly on board with the measures they've taken.
The government has been good at testing, but without a decent tracing network, there's much less point.
On the economic front, perhaps my comparator - the US response - colours my evaluation of Rishi.
Scottish posters' reporting of the vaccine rollout has, I think, given us the reason for the massive drug problems there. They're all huge Rolling Stones fans and, like Bobby Gillespie, they want to be Jaggers.
If GOP senators don't bar him from office he will be running in 2024.
I'm not sure I agree for several reasons, although accept it's a serious possibility.
Obstacles include:
1. He has serious legal and possibly financial problems separate from impeachment.
2. He is deeply personal hurt by defeat and won't run if he doesn't think he'll win.
3. Many of his biggest defenders don't want him to stand due either to personal ambition or a belief he won't win - they will stand by him but remind him of 2.
4. He will be 78. Whilst he seems in surprisingly robust form for a man with his risk factors, and it didn't stop Biden, quite a lot can happen medically in four years in your late 70s if you're obese and so on.
It's fascinating. The GOP is infected by far right populism going by the name of MAGA. If they split into GOP and MAGA, the Dems win. If they don't split they have to either purge MAGA or become MAGA. But they can't purge MAGA without fostering the split which they must avoid. Ergo they must become MAGA. But MAGA can't work under a career politician. It needs a charismatic celebrity outsider to front it. That's an essential part of its USP. It needs Donald Trump. But Donald Trump will not be standing for all of the reasons you list and more. So, if they go this route, who will it be? Tucker Carlson? Alex Jones? This has the feel of a series of logic steps, each impeccable, leading to a ludicrous conclusion. Which is one of the reasons it is so fascinating.
At the time, everyone thought Donald Trump being President was an absolute joke. What seems ludicrous now may be obvious in hindsight.
I think repub voters will forgive MAGA candidates and they will forgive Reaganites.
What they will not forgive are candidates who are not angry as hell with the democrats and their policies. They will not tolerate trimmers, deal doers, consensus seekers. They think they are in a fight (even a war) and they want candidates who share that attitude.
There are two issues - one is winning the nomination, the other the Presidency (or Senate or House or Governor race as relevant).
Sure, you need to be angry to at least some degree to get the nomination in either party. Before Trump, there's long been a tradition of appealing to the base in the primaries and tacking to the centre after that.
But once you have the nomination, where do MAGA people (or indeed radicals in the Democrats) go? Ultimately - helped by Sanders and others being a little more magnanimous than in 2016 - Democrat radicals voted in large numbers for the moderate deal-maker, Biden. In November, very large numbers of Republicans saw no problem voting for both Trump and a moderate like Collins or a critic like Sasse - indeed, Collins won most Trump voters plus some Biden voters.
I don't think these fundamentals change. No doubt if Trump is never on a ballot again, a proportion of his base will never vote again. But the large majority will, even if with much less enthusiasm. And bear in mind that grudging, reluctant votes count exactly the same as enthusiastic, flag-waving ones.
I don;t think the moderation or otherwise of the standpoint is that much of a factor. What repub voters cannot abide is repub politicos seeking consensus with a democrat party they see as more hostile to them than ever.
Look at Liz Cheney. The Wyoming party was swamped with angry messages from voters when she sided with the democrats over impeachment. She is going to be primaried for certain now.
On topic, I didn't expect enough GOP members to flip but I do wonder whether Rand Paul's move might provide a template for the rest of the party. Vote against the trial on the grounds that it's unconstitutional, then boycott the whole thing. That way you never have to cast a vote against Trump, you can run against the Democrats for ignoring the constitution and/or playing politics instead of dealing with more pressing issues, and he gets convicted 55-0 and you don't have to worry about the deluded old cretin running for your nomination again.
Is the best plan for the GOP to take 2 weeks off from the Senate and leave the Democrats to it.
Best performing countries for Covid vaccine doses given out:
Israel (9.05 million) 47.90 per 100 population UAE (9.77 million) 27.107 per 100 population United Kingdom (67 million) 10.79 per 100 population
...
European Union (446 million) 2.11 per 100 population
Still @Nigel_Foremain reckons "big" "muscle" works when it comes to pharmaceuticals. "Big" doesn't work. "Muscle" doesn't work.
Small countries nimbly looking after themselves works.
Bear in mind, that % covers the entire population. But 21% of the UK population is under 18. So, as we have no plans to vaccinate Da Yoof yet, we have actually jabbed 10.79m of the total 53m pool - we have done over 20% of the adult population of the UK.
And we have probably jabbed a million more by now - so we are at 22.5% as of this moment.
You've jumbled up your figures. You've taken "10.79", which was a percentage, and turned it into an amount in millions, then converted that back to a percentage of 53m adult population.
If GOP senators don't bar him from office he will be running in 2024.
I'm not sure I agree for several reasons, although accept it's a serious possibility.
Obstacles include:
1. He has serious legal and possibly financial problems separate from impeachment.
2. He is deeply personal hurt by defeat and won't run if he doesn't think he'll win.
3. Many of his biggest defenders don't want him to stand due either to personal ambition or a belief he won't win - they will stand by him but remind him of 2.
4. He will be 78. Whilst he seems in surprisingly robust form for a man with his risk factors, and it didn't stop Biden, quite a lot can happen medically in four years in your late 70s if you're obese and so on.
It's fascinating. The GOP is infected by far right populism going by the name of MAGA. If they split into GOP and MAGA, the Dems win. If they don't split they have to either purge MAGA or become MAGA. But they can't purge MAGA without fostering the split which they must avoid. Ergo they must become MAGA. But MAGA can't work under a career politician. It needs a charismatic celebrity outsider to front it. That's an essential part of its USP. It needs Donald Trump. But Donald Trump will not be standing for all of the reasons you list and more. So, if they go this route, who will it be? Tucker Carlson? Alex Jones? This has the feel of a series of logic steps, each impeccable, leading to a ludicrous conclusion. Which is one of the reasons it is so fascinating.
At the time, everyone thought Donald Trump being President was an absolute joke. What seems ludicrous now may be obvious in hindsight.
Yes indeed. It was ludicrous, yet it happened. But I'm sticking to my general rule that ludicrous things do NOT happen. Rules needs exceptions and so long as these are 'once-in-a-blue' they remain rules.
Who's your early tip (if you have one) for GOP nomination?
I keep of thinking Ted Cruz.
Cruz is very slimy, and neither the traditional Republicans nor the MAGAists really like him, which was why his presence in the race was so helpful to Trump last time - no one wanted to unify around Cruz to oppose Trump until it was too late. He can win primaries in deeply religious states, but not much else.
It would only be interesting, indeed astonishing, if such caveats weren't in the contract.
It is completely inconceivable that the contract wouldn't include lots of such caveats. There is absolutely no way AZ would have given a firm commitment on delivery dates for a brand-new vaccine, involving new production facilities and dependent on other suppliers who themselves were also doing things for the first time, all in a super-fast timescale.
As AZ CEO has continually stated the contract is based on best endeavors.
I'm actually surprised how polite he is being in public considering the games the EU seem to be playing.
I don't know what the EU think they're playing at. They really are in a negotiation where AZ hold all the cards. After all, if the EU get too bolshie AZ have the option to simply walk away from the contract, close their European factory and concentrate on other markets.
And there is exactly feck all the EU can do about it.
So the 'win' here for the EU is they accept a lower delivery than they want, and the lose is that they get none at all.
Wrong. The EU is one of the largest markets for pharmaceuticals in the world. That gives them a lot of muscle. AZ will not want to antagonise them more than necessary, so no, AZ do not hold all the cards, far from it.
This is the kind of stuff that can turn it into a large market and producer to just being a large buyer of pharmaceutical products. There's no doubt that pharma companies from across the world want to sell to EU countries, but the question is whether those pharma companies will want to make the product in Europe given all of the latest shenanigans. Like the IMB over here, it won't move any business but I think it definitely plays into future decision making. Why risk export restrictions in the EU when you can go to Switzerland and enjoy tariff/quota free exports of pharmaceutical goods and services.
I can't disagree with what you say regarding Switzerland, and of course Switzerland does have a very strong pharma and healthcare sector. However, I do think the media are getting a little silly about this. Corporate decisions on where product is manufactured is rarely influenced by storms in teacups like this. It is influenced by a multitude of things, but in particular access to finance, supply chains routes to market and, perhaps more than anything in pharma, access to talent.
But what would PB discuss if it weren't for the daily storms in its crockery!
Actually that's a good point. Everyone maturely beard stroking and making balanced, thoughtful, detached contributions on the issues of the day? I'd be kissing that off in no time and drifting off to 8chan.
Best performing countries for Covid vaccine doses given out:
Israel (9.05 million) 47.90 per 100 population UAE (9.77 million) 27.107 per 100 population United Kingdom (67 million) 10.79 per 100 population
...
European Union (446 million) 2.11 per 100 population
Still @Nigel_Foremain reckons "big" "muscle" works when it comes to pharmaceuticals. "Big" doesn't work. "Muscle" doesn't work.
Small countries nimbly looking after themselves works.
Bear in mind, that % covers the entire population. But 21% of the UK population is under 18. So, as we have no plans to vaccinate Da Yoof yet, we have actually jabbed 10.79m of the total 53m pool - we have done over 20% of the adult population of the UK.
And we have probably jabbed a million more by now - so we are at 22.5% as of this moment.
And Sky have just announced the German government have denounced the 8% AZ story as fake news
@ MarqueeMark. That was 10.79% of our total population, not 10.79m. See yesterday's discussion on innumeracy. 5/4 of 10.79% is roughly 13.5% of the eligible population have received first jabs, not 22.5%
It would only be interesting, indeed astonishing, if such caveats weren't in the contract.
It is completely inconceivable that the contract wouldn't include lots of such caveats. There is absolutely no way AZ would have given a firm commitment on delivery dates for a brand-new vaccine, involving new production facilities and dependent on other suppliers who themselves were also doing things for the first time, all in a super-fast timescale.
As AZ CEO has continually stated the contract is based on best endeavors.
I'm actually surprised how polite he is being in public considering the games the EU seem to be playing.
I don't know what the EU think they're playing at. They really are in a negotiation where AZ hold all the cards. After all, if the EU get too bolshie AZ have the option to simply walk away from the contract, close their European factory and concentrate on other markets.
And there is exactly feck all the EU can do about it.
So the 'win' here for the EU is they accept a lower delivery than they want, and the lose is that they get none at all.
Wrong. The EU is one of the largest markets for pharmaceuticals in the world. That gives them a lot of muscle. AZ will not want to antagonise them more than necessary, so no, AZ do not hold all the cards, far from it.
So - just to be clear - the EU might ban AZ from operating in the EU altogether if they decide to abrogate a contract?
Which would cause no medicine shortages of any kind, I trust?
The EU are behaving like complete fools. It's like watching the DUP over Theresa May's deal - only worse, because you expect the DUP to behave like idiots.
I hope this is just posturing. If the EU went as far as blocking vaccine shipments to the UK, it would make all other cross-Channel difficulties over the last 75 years look trivial by comparison.
A huge difference relevant to the Trump/Boris comparisons is that Trump lacks an empathetic bone in his body and denied and disowned and did not have the vaccine roll-out triumph. Boris' government have made many mistakes, but Boris does empathy and has very authentically taken responsibility fully and shown genuine sorrow. In addition, the HMG has had far more successes in its COVID response than its most ardent critics are willing to admit - not just the vaccine and its rollout, but also testing and genomic sequencing, and much of Rishi's economic response (again, not without it fair and unfair criticisms).
Agree he's no Trump - said so many times - but I'm not happy with having that as the bar he has to clear to get a pass mark.
If GOP senators don't bar him from office he will be running in 2024.
I'm not sure I agree for several reasons, although accept it's a serious possibility.
Obstacles include:
1. He has serious legal and possibly financial problems separate from impeachment.
2. He is deeply personal hurt by defeat and won't run if he doesn't think he'll win.
3. Many of his biggest defenders don't want him to stand due either to personal ambition or a belief he won't win - they will stand by him but remind him of 2.
4. He will be 78. Whilst he seems in surprisingly robust form for a man with his risk factors, and it didn't stop Biden, quite a lot can happen medically in four years in your late 70s if you're obese and so on.
It's fascinating. The GOP is infected by far right populism going by the name of MAGA. If they split into GOP and MAGA, the Dems win. If they don't split they have to either purge MAGA or become MAGA. But they can't purge MAGA without fostering the split which they must avoid. Ergo they must become MAGA. But MAGA can't work under a career politician. It needs a charismatic celebrity outsider to front it. That's an essential part of its USP. It needs Donald Trump. But Donald Trump will not be standing for all of the reasons you list and more. So, if they go this route, who will it be? Tucker Carlson? Alex Jones? This has the feel of a series of logic steps, each impeccable, leading to a ludicrous conclusion. Which is one of the reasons it is so fascinating.
It does not necessarily have to be a celebrity, though Trump or one of his family could carry the torch again in 2024, Cruz or Hawley who are Trumpites but not Trumps could equally do it.
Pence might also be a middle ground between the establishment in the GOP and the MAGA crowd
Police in at the Wrexham vaccine site. I reckon it'll be a hoax bomb threat by antivaxxers. 10 years inside if it's a hoax, life if there's an actual bomb there. Other possibility is flooding.
It would only be interesting, indeed astonishing, if such caveats weren't in the contract.
It is completely inconceivable that the contract wouldn't include lots of such caveats. There is absolutely no way AZ would have given a firm commitment on delivery dates for a brand-new vaccine, involving new production facilities and dependent on other suppliers who themselves were also doing things for the first time, all in a super-fast timescale.
As AZ CEO has continually stated the contract is based on best endeavors.
I'm actually surprised how polite he is being in public considering the games the EU seem to be playing.
I don't know what the EU think they're playing at. They really are in a negotiation where AZ hold all the cards. After all, if the EU get too bolshie AZ have the option to simply walk away from the contract, close their European factory and concentrate on other markets.
And there is exactly feck all the EU can do about it.
So the 'win' here for the EU is they accept a lower delivery than they want, and the lose is that they get none at all.
Wrong. The EU is one of the largest markets for pharmaceuticals in the world. That gives them a lot of muscle. AZ will not want to antagonise them more than necessary, so no, AZ do not hold all the cards, far from it.
So - just to be clear - the EU might ban AZ from operating in the EU altogether if they decide to abrogate a contract?
Which would cause no medicine shortages of any kind, I trust?
The EU are behaving like complete fools. It's like watching the DUP over Theresa May's deal - only worse, because you expect the DUP to behave like idiots.
No of course they won't. This is a storm in a tea cup. They are using their buying muscle to influence a company. This is the reality of large scale corporate selling and buying willy waving. It is just not normally so public as this, because the public isn't interested. Oh, and in case you didn't know, the UK government regularly tries to coerce companies, bully them if you like, by threats or inferences of lost contracts for those that don't tow the line
The current line on the BBC is that the EU is resisting German demands to block exports of Covid vaccines, arguing that it is better to ask companies about where they are sending them, rather than blocking them. If the EU doesn't come to an agreement with AZN, I suppose it is possible that it won't then be able to resist demands from member states to stop exporting the Pfizer vaccine.
And then how long until the US, UK, Switzerland and others retaliate in kind with export bans to the EU? Our pharmaceutical industries are highly, highly integrated with each other and for one of these four to decide to not be part of it would be a huge disaster for the whole world.
Honestly there is nothing to be gained by this kind of posturing. The EU fucked up their procurement process and now they need to live with it and pay AZ and others loads of money to subsidise manufacturing capacity. That's the way out of it, not threats of export bans.
As I said, it doesn't look like it is the EU that is looking for an export ban. On the contrary, the EU is resisting the pressure from its member states for an export ban.
As you point out they might have to give in if AZ is unable to accommodate their idiotic request to divert supplies from the UK.
Considering the UK has paid a premium to Pfizer to be at the front of the queue with their vaccine, if the EU does block Pfizer doses then there's no way it should then be charged the same premium if doses are delayed due to politics for months.
That would be an act of economic war and the consequences would be immense.
A huge difference relevant to the Trump/Boris comparisons is that Trump lacks an empathetic bone in his body and denied and disowned and did not have the vaccine roll-out triumph. Boris' government have made many mistakes, but Boris does empathy and has very authentically taken responsibility fully and shown genuine sorrow. In addition, the HMG has had far more successes in its COVID response than its most ardent critics are willing to admit - not just the vaccine and its rollout, but also testing and genomic sequencing, and much of Rishi's economic response (again, not without it fair and unfair criticisms).
Agree he's no Trump - said so many times - but I'm not happy with having that as the bar he has to clear to get a pass mark.
And it shouldn't be. This was in response to the last line of Mike's header
If GOP senators don't bar him from office he will be running in 2024.
I'm not sure I agree for several reasons, although accept it's a serious possibility.
Obstacles include:
1. He has serious legal and possibly financial problems separate from impeachment.
2. He is deeply personal hurt by defeat and won't run if he doesn't think he'll win.
3. Many of his biggest defenders don't want him to stand due either to personal ambition or a belief he won't win - they will stand by him but remind him of 2.
4. He will be 78. Whilst he seems in surprisingly robust form for a man with his risk factors, and it didn't stop Biden, quite a lot can happen medically in four years in your late 70s if you're obese and so on.
It's fascinating. The GOP is infected by far right populism going by the name of MAGA. If they split into GOP and MAGA, the Dems win. If they don't split they have to either purge MAGA or become MAGA. But they can't purge MAGA without fostering the split which they must avoid. Ergo they must become MAGA. But MAGA can't work under a career politician. It needs a charismatic celebrity outsider to front it. That's an essential part of its USP. It needs Donald Trump. But Donald Trump will not be standing for all of the reasons you list and more. So, if they go this route, who will it be? Tucker Carlson? Alex Jones? This has the feel of a series of logic steps, each impeccable, leading to a ludicrous conclusion. Which is one of the reasons it is so fascinating.
At the time, everyone thought Donald Trump being President was an absolute joke. What seems ludicrous now may be obvious in hindsight.
Yes indeed. It was ludicrous, yet it happened. But I'm sticking to my general rule that ludicrous things do NOT happen. Rules needs exceptions and so long as these are 'once-in-a-blue' they remain rules.
Who's your early tip (if you have one) for GOP nomination?
I keep of thinking Ted Cruz.
I'm laying him. I think he falls between 2 stools. Too MAGA for GOP and too GOP for MAGA.
It would only be interesting, indeed astonishing, if such caveats weren't in the contract.
It is completely inconceivable that the contract wouldn't include lots of such caveats. There is absolutely no way AZ would have given a firm commitment on delivery dates for a brand-new vaccine, involving new production facilities and dependent on other suppliers who themselves were also doing things for the first time, all in a super-fast timescale.
As AZ CEO has continually stated the contract is based on best endeavors.
I'm actually surprised how polite he is being in public considering the games the EU seem to be playing.
I don't know what the EU think they're playing at. They really are in a negotiation where AZ hold all the cards. After all, if the EU get too bolshie AZ have the option to simply walk away from the contract, close their European factory and concentrate on other markets.
And there is exactly feck all the EU can do about it.
So the 'win' here for the EU is they accept a lower delivery than they want, and the lose is that they get none at all.
Wrong. The EU is one of the largest markets for pharmaceuticals in the world. That gives them a lot of muscle. AZ will not want to antagonise them more than necessary, so no, AZ do not hold all the cards, far from it.
So - just to be clear - the EU might ban AZ from operating in the EU altogether if they decide to abrogate a contract?
Which would cause no medicine shortages of any kind, I trust?
The EU are behaving like complete fools. It's like watching the DUP over Theresa May's deal - only worse, because you expect the DUP to behave like idiots.
Oh, and in case you didn't know, the UK government regularly tries to coerce companies, bully them if you like, by threats or inferences of lost contracts for those that don't tow the line
Isn't that the point? The EU cannot claim the high ground on government with escapades like this. The poor actions of others doesn't come into it.
If GOP senators don't bar him from office he will be running in 2024.
I'm not sure I agree for several reasons, although accept it's a serious possibility.
Obstacles include:
1. He has serious legal and possibly financial problems separate from impeachment.
2. He is deeply personal hurt by defeat and won't run if he doesn't think he'll win.
3. Many of his biggest defenders don't want him to stand due either to personal ambition or a belief he won't win - they will stand by him but remind him of 2.
4. He will be 78. Whilst he seems in surprisingly robust form for a man with his risk factors, and it didn't stop Biden, quite a lot can happen medically in four years in your late 70s if you're obese and so on.
It's fascinating. The GOP is infected by far right populism going by the name of MAGA. If they split into GOP and MAGA, the Dems win. If they don't split they have to either purge MAGA or become MAGA. But they can't purge MAGA without fostering the split which they must avoid. Ergo they must become MAGA. But MAGA can't work under a career politician. It needs a charismatic celebrity outsider to front it. That's an essential part of its USP. It needs Donald Trump. But Donald Trump will not be standing for all of the reasons you list and more. So, if they go this route, who will it be? Tucker Carlson? Alex Jones? This has the feel of a series of logic steps, each impeccable, leading to a ludicrous conclusion. Which is one of the reasons it is so fascinating.
At the time, everyone thought Donald Trump being President was an absolute joke. What seems ludicrous now may be obvious in hindsight.
I think repub voters will forgive MAGA candidates and they will forgive Reaganites.
What they will not forgive are candidates who are not angry as hell with the democrats and their policies. They will not tolerate trimmers, deal doers, consensus seekers. They think they are in a fight (even a war) and they want candidates who share that attitude.
There are two issues - one is winning the nomination, the other the Presidency (or Senate or House or Governor race as relevant).
Sure, you need to be angry to at least some degree to get the nomination in either party. Before Trump, there's long been a tradition of appealing to the base in the primaries and tacking to the centre after that.
But once you have the nomination, where do MAGA people (or indeed radicals in the Democrats) go? Ultimately - helped by Sanders and others being a little more magnanimous than in 2016 - Democrat radicals voted in large numbers for the moderate deal-maker, Biden. In November, very large numbers of Republicans saw no problem voting for both Trump and a moderate like Collins or a critic like Sasse - indeed, Collins won most Trump voters plus some Biden voters.
I don't think these fundamentals change. No doubt if Trump is never on a ballot again, a proportion of his base will never vote again. But the large majority will, even if with much less enthusiasm. And bear in mind that grudging, reluctant votes count exactly the same as enthusiastic, flag-waving ones.
I don;t think the moderation or otherwise of the standpoint is that much of a factor. What repub voters cannot abide is repub politicos seeking consensus with a democrat party they see as more hostile to them than ever.
Look at Liz Cheney. The Wyoming party was swamped with angry messages from voters when she sided with the democrats over impeachment. She is going to be primaried for certain now.
Firstly, this is a fundamentally different point from punishing people for seeking consensus, which I think is your point. Voting to impeach Trump on a charge of insurrection simply is not the same as doing a deal on an infrastructure package which may have pros and cons but which has some real wins for Wyoming, for instance. Ditto supporting a (broadly popular) measure on clearing up the status of illegal immigrants who have been in the US for many years.
Secondly, a key issue for Trump and those close to him is not simply whether they can call GOP offices and mount a primary challenge. They need to win these things. I don't know how credible this challenger to Cheney is but, if she comes through at a canter (which is perfectly possible) that doesn't just count as a miss for MAGA, it actively damages them. Trump outside the Presidency is very reliant on the fear factor as almost nobody in GOP politics actually LIKES him (he was utterly vile about Cruz's wife in 2016 for instance - these things don't get forgotten). So they need to pick their battles quite carefully.
Best performing countries for Covid vaccine doses given out:
Israel (9.05 million) 47.90 per 100 population UAE (9.77 million) 27.107 per 100 population United Kingdom (67 million) 10.79 per 100 population
...
European Union (446 million) 2.11 per 100 population
Still @Nigel_Foremain reckons "big" "muscle" works when it comes to pharmaceuticals. "Big" doesn't work. "Muscle" doesn't work.
Small countries nimbly looking after themselves works.
Bear in mind, that % covers the entire population. But 21% of the UK population is under 18. So, as we have no plans to vaccinate Da Yoof yet, we have actually jabbed 10.79m of the total 53m pool - we have done over 20% of the adult population of the UK.
And we have probably jabbed a million more by now - so we are at 22.5% as of this moment.
You've jumbled up your figures. You've taken "10.79", which was a percentage, and turned it into an amount in millions, then converted that back to a percentage of 53m adult population.
The UK population (in 2019) was 66,796,807 The under 18s were 14,856,441
Which makes a proportion of 22.24%
The over 18 population is thus 51,940,366
The latest 1st dose number is 6,853,327
So the percentage of over 18s vaccinated is 13.19% The percentage of the total population is 10.26%
If GOP senators don't bar him from office he will be running in 2024.
I'm not sure I agree for several reasons, although accept it's a serious possibility.
Obstacles include:
1. He has serious legal and possibly financial problems separate from impeachment.
2. He is deeply personal hurt by defeat and won't run if he doesn't think he'll win.
3. Many of his biggest defenders don't want him to stand due either to personal ambition or a belief he won't win - they will stand by him but remind him of 2.
4. He will be 78. Whilst he seems in surprisingly robust form for a man with his risk factors, and it didn't stop Biden, quite a lot can happen medically in four years in your late 70s if you're obese and so on.
It's fascinating. The GOP is infected by far right populism going by the name of MAGA. If they split into GOP and MAGA, the Dems win. If they don't split they have to either purge MAGA or become MAGA. But they can't purge MAGA without fostering the split which they must avoid. Ergo they must become MAGA. But MAGA can't work under a career politician. It needs a charismatic celebrity outsider to front it. That's an essential part of its USP. It needs Donald Trump. But Donald Trump will not be standing for all of the reasons you list and more. So, if they go this route, who will it be? Tucker Carlson? Alex Jones? This has the feel of a series of logic steps, each impeccable, leading to a ludicrous conclusion. Which is one of the reasons it is so fascinating.
At the time, everyone thought Donald Trump being President was an absolute joke. What seems ludicrous now may be obvious in hindsight.
And Carlson, for instance, is sufficiently intelligent and superficially plausible to be extremely dangerous.
He's quite a short price - so that is not just your view.
He's one of the few nutters who can present as a normal human being.
I would not be laying him for the nomination unless the odds get shorter still.
The EU project as a whole is hardly undermined by poor behaviour and actions on this issue, but the retreat into pettiness, overt threats and denials to evade responsibility has not been edifying, even though it shows how it really had developed into a proper government, for better and in this case worse.
Best performing countries for Covid vaccine doses given out:
Israel (9.05 million) 47.90 per 100 population UAE (9.77 million) 27.107 per 100 population United Kingdom (67 million) 10.79 per 100 population
...
European Union (446 million) 2.11 per 100 population
Still @Nigel_Foremain reckons "big" "muscle" works when it comes to pharmaceuticals. "Big" doesn't work. "Muscle" doesn't work.
Small countries nimbly looking after themselves works.
Bear in mind, that % covers the entire population. But 21% of the UK population is under 18. So, as we have no plans to vaccinate Da Yoof yet, we have actually jabbed 10.79m of the total 53m pool - we have done over 20% of the adult population of the UK.
And we have probably jabbed a million more by now - so we are at 22.5% as of this moment.
You've jumbled up your figures. You've taken "10.79", which was a percentage, and turned it into an amount in millions, then converted that back to a percentage of 53m adult population.
The UK population (in 2019) was 66,796,807 The under 18s were 14,856,441
Which makes a proportion of 22.24%
The over 18 population is thus 51,940,366
The latest 1st dose number is 6,853,327
So the percentage of over 18s vaccinated is 13.19% The percentage of the total population is 10.26%
I think......
Yes, that's the correct calculation, we're at 13% of the eligibile population.
Best performing countries for Covid vaccine doses given out:
Israel (9.05 million) 47.90 per 100 population UAE (9.77 million) 27.107 per 100 population United Kingdom (67 million) 10.79 per 100 population
...
European Union (446 million) 2.11 per 100 population
Still @Nigel_Foremain reckons "big" "muscle" works when it comes to pharmaceuticals. "Big" doesn't work. "Muscle" doesn't work.
Small countries nimbly looking after themselves works.
Bear in mind, that % covers the entire population. But 21% of the UK population is under 18. So, as we have no plans to vaccinate Da Yoof yet, we have actually jabbed 10.79m of the total 53m pool - we have done over 20% of the adult population of the UK.
And we have probably jabbed a million more by now - so we are at 22.5% as of this moment.
You've jumbled up your figures. You've taken "10.79", which was a percentage, and turned it into an amount in millions, then converted that back to a percentage of 53m adult population.
Ah, my bad. So 7.2m jabbed of 53m is 13.6%. Plus a million more as of now - we are at about 15.5% of the entire pool to be jabbed. Still not shabby.
Best performing countries for Covid vaccine doses given out:
Israel (9.05 million) 47.90 per 100 population UAE (9.77 million) 27.107 per 100 population United Kingdom (67 million) 10.79 per 100 population
...
European Union (446 million) 2.11 per 100 population
Still @Nigel_Foremain reckons "big" "muscle" works when it comes to pharmaceuticals. "Big" doesn't work. "Muscle" doesn't work.
Small countries nimbly looking after themselves works.
Bear in mind, that % covers the entire population. But 21% of the UK population is under 18. So, as we have no plans to vaccinate Da Yoof yet, we have actually jabbed 10.79m of the total 53m pool - we have done over 20% of the adult population of the UK.
And we have probably jabbed a million more by now - so we are at 22.5% as of this moment.
You've jumbled up your figures. You've taken "10.79", which was a percentage, and turned it into an amount in millions, then converted that back to a percentage of 53m adult population.
The UK population (in 2019) was 66,796,807 The under 18s were 14,856,441
Which makes a proportion of 22.24%
The over 18 population is thus 51,940,366
The latest 1st dose number is 6,853,327
So the percentage of over 18s vaccinated is 13.19% The percentage of the total population is 10.26%
I think......
Yes, that's the correct calculation, we're at 13% of the eligibile population.
As of Sunday's numbers - as I say, add in a million more done to get you to now.
If GOP senators don't bar him from office he will be running in 2024.
I'm not sure I agree for several reasons, although accept it's a serious possibility.
Obstacles include:
1. He has serious legal and possibly financial problems separate from impeachment.
2. He is deeply personal hurt by defeat and won't run if he doesn't think he'll win.
3. Many of his biggest defenders don't want him to stand due either to personal ambition or a belief he won't win - they will stand by him but remind him of 2.
4. He will be 78. Whilst he seems in surprisingly robust form for a man with his risk factors, and it didn't stop Biden, quite a lot can happen medically in four years in your late 70s if you're obese and so on.
It's fascinating. The GOP is infected by far right populism going by the name of MAGA. If they split into GOP and MAGA, the Dems win. If they don't split they have to either purge MAGA or become MAGA. But they can't purge MAGA without fostering the split which they must avoid. Ergo they must become MAGA. But MAGA can't work under a career politician. It needs a charismatic celebrity outsider to front it. That's an essential part of its USP. It needs Donald Trump. But Donald Trump will not be standing for all of the reasons you list and more. So, if they go this route, who will it be? Tucker Carlson? Alex Jones? This has the feel of a series of logic steps, each impeccable, leading to a ludicrous conclusion. Which is one of the reasons it is so fascinating.
At the time, everyone thought Donald Trump being President was an absolute joke. What seems ludicrous now may be obvious in hindsight.
And Carlson, for instance, is sufficiently intelligent and superficially plausible to be extremely dangerous.
He's quite a short price - so that is not just your view.
He's one of the few nutters who can present as a normal human being.
I would not be laying him for the nomination unless the odds get shorter still.
Just laying Trump and Cruz atm.
Whatever your personal fetishes, we don’t need a real time commentary.
US college campus they have people wandering around between the dorms waiting to hear the tinkling of a toilet flush, then taking samples of the effluent for analysis their early warning system for dorm outbreaks.
It would only be interesting, indeed astonishing, if such caveats weren't in the contract.
It is completely inconceivable that the contract wouldn't include lots of such caveats. There is absolutely no way AZ would have given a firm commitment on delivery dates for a brand-new vaccine, involving new production facilities and dependent on other suppliers who themselves were also doing things for the first time, all in a super-fast timescale.
As AZ CEO has continually stated the contract is based on best endeavors.
I'm actually surprised how polite he is being in public considering the games the EU seem to be playing.
I don't know what the EU think they're playing at. They really are in a negotiation where AZ hold all the cards. After all, if the EU get too bolshie AZ have the option to simply walk away from the contract, close their European factory and concentrate on other markets.
And there is exactly feck all the EU can do about it.
So the 'win' here for the EU is they accept a lower delivery than they want, and the lose is that they get none at all.
Wrong. The EU is one of the largest markets for pharmaceuticals in the world. That gives them a lot of muscle. AZ will not want to antagonise them more than necessary, so no, AZ do not hold all the cards, far from it.
So - just to be clear - the EU might ban AZ from operating in the EU altogether if they decide to abrogate a contract?
Which would cause no medicine shortages of any kind, I trust?
The EU are behaving like complete fools. It's like watching the DUP over Theresa May's deal - only worse, because you expect the DUP to behave like idiots.
The EU feels that AZ have legged them over. So they are making a fuss. A resolution will be found that puts the EU in a better position than if they had not made a fuss. This is what I predict. Bet I'm right.
Best performing countries for Covid vaccine doses given out:
Israel (9.05 million) 47.90 per 100 population UAE (9.77 million) 27.107 per 100 population United Kingdom (67 million) 10.79 per 100 population
...
European Union (446 million) 2.11 per 100 population
Still @Nigel_Foremain reckons "big" "muscle" works when it comes to pharmaceuticals. "Big" doesn't work. "Muscle" doesn't work.
Small countries nimbly looking after themselves works.
Bear in mind, that % covers the entire population. But 21% of the UK population is under 18. So, as we have no plans to vaccinate Da Yoof yet, we have actually jabbed 10.79m of the total 53m pool - we have done over 20% of the adult population of the UK.
And we have probably jabbed a million more by now - so we are at 22.5% as of this moment.
You've jumbled up your figures. You've taken "10.79", which was a percentage, and turned it into an amount in millions, then converted that back to a percentage of 53m adult population.
The UK population (in 2019) was 66,796,807 The under 18s were 14,856,441
Which makes a proportion of 22.24%
The over 18 population is thus 51,940,366
The latest 1st dose number is 6,853,327
So the percentage of over 18s vaccinated is 13.19% The percentage of the total population is 10.26%
I think......
Yes, that's the correct calculation, we're at 13% of the eligibile population.
Well, at least I'm not like the derivatives trader who rang up to rant about how all the numbers on the system had changed since the day before. I'd only worked in the City for about 3 days, so I asked the ex-trader running the project - "Surely the numbers should move, since the Bank of England just moved the base rate?".
He stared at me for a good 30 seconds. Then asked me why I was asking.....
It would only be interesting, indeed astonishing, if such caveats weren't in the contract.
It is completely inconceivable that the contract wouldn't include lots of such caveats. There is absolutely no way AZ would have given a firm commitment on delivery dates for a brand-new vaccine, involving new production facilities and dependent on other suppliers who themselves were also doing things for the first time, all in a super-fast timescale.
As AZ CEO has continually stated the contract is based on best endeavors.
I'm actually surprised how polite he is being in public considering the games the EU seem to be playing.
I don't know what the EU think they're playing at. They really are in a negotiation where AZ hold all the cards. After all, if the EU get too bolshie AZ have the option to simply walk away from the contract, close their European factory and concentrate on other markets.
And there is exactly feck all the EU can do about it.
So the 'win' here for the EU is they accept a lower delivery than they want, and the lose is that they get none at all.
Wrong. The EU is one of the largest markets for pharmaceuticals in the world. That gives them a lot of muscle. AZ will not want to antagonise them more than necessary, so no, AZ do not hold all the cards, far from it.
So - just to be clear - the EU might ban AZ from operating in the EU altogether if they decide to abrogate a contract?
Which would cause no medicine shortages of any kind, I trust?
The EU are behaving like complete fools. It's like watching the DUP over Theresa May's deal - only worse, because you expect the DUP to behave like idiots.
The EU feels that AZ have legged them over. So they are making a fuss. A resolution will be found that puts the EU in a better position than if they had not made a fuss. This is what I predict. Bet I'm right.
At the detriment to who?
I fear it might be you, Rob. But let's hope not.
It was a legitimate question. The EU are seeking to divert supplies rightfully destined for the UK.
Police in at the Wrexham vaccine site. I reckon it'll be a hoax bomb threat by antivaxxers. 10 years inside if it's a hoax, life if there's an actual bomb there. Other possibility is flooding.
I wonder if there's been anything in the news in the last couple of days to prompt such lunacy...............
Nor does Brussels understand Soriot's argument that the British government had ordered the vaccines earlier. The contract does not speak of the principle of "first come, first served".
“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."
So London is now going to have to compete with a NY finance industry that has full equivalence in the EU. I can’t see how those parts of the market survive. If they haven’t left already they will now.
"The report added the industry will also likely see dark liquidity “re-gravitating back to London” as the UK looks to champion alternative pools of liquidity to attract non-EU activity. The UK’s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) recently lowered the LIS threshold for EU-listed stocks to €15,000 making dark trading more attractive and less restrictive."
Yep. By being "nimble and cutting corners" - in line with the new Trotters Inc persona for Global Britain - the City will be able to attract even more "dark liquidity" than it does at the moment. It will be able to go from being a big player in that space to pretty much cornering the market. Much personal remuneration will accrue to the highly skilled participants and they will spend it on "service industries" some of which may be liable to VAT and hence some tax might be collected. Cheers will ring out in the Red Wall as some of this "trickles up" to them in the form of a lick of paint for the town centre.
That's a lick of paint more than they will have seen whilst they had a Labour MP!
We'll see how gullible they are. I'm keeping the faith for now.
But re the City, the rational fear is that post-Brexit it will be the cowboy bits that flourish. You know what I'm talking about.
It would only be interesting, indeed astonishing, if such caveats weren't in the contract.
It is completely inconceivable that the contract wouldn't include lots of such caveats. There is absolutely no way AZ would have given a firm commitment on delivery dates for a brand-new vaccine, involving new production facilities and dependent on other suppliers who themselves were also doing things for the first time, all in a super-fast timescale.
As AZ CEO has continually stated the contract is based on best endeavors.
I'm actually surprised how polite he is being in public considering the games the EU seem to be playing.
I don't know what the EU think they're playing at. They really are in a negotiation where AZ hold all the cards. After all, if the EU get too bolshie AZ have the option to simply walk away from the contract, close their European factory and concentrate on other markets.
And there is exactly feck all the EU can do about it.
So the 'win' here for the EU is they accept a lower delivery than they want, and the lose is that they get none at all.
Wrong. The EU is one of the largest markets for pharmaceuticals in the world. That gives them a lot of muscle. AZ will not want to antagonise them more than necessary, so no, AZ do not hold all the cards, far from it.
So - just to be clear - the EU might ban AZ from operating in the EU altogether if they decide to abrogate a contract?
Which would cause no medicine shortages of any kind, I trust?
The EU are behaving like complete fools. It's like watching the DUP over Theresa May's deal - only worse, because you expect the DUP to behave like idiots.
Oh, and in case you didn't know, the UK government regularly tries to coerce companies, bully them if you like, by threats or inferences of lost contracts for those that don't tow the line
Isn't that the point? The EU cannot claim the high ground on government with escapades like this. The poor actions of others doesn't come into it.
The EU itself is obviously very reluctant to take the step of banning vaccine exports from the EU, so it needs to be seen to be doing its best to extract what it can from AZ. If it can't, then it may be forced by its member states to say, "sod the moral high ground" and fall back on its legislative power and economic might to get what it wants.
How can you stockpile something you haven't yet made.....i want my Nvidia 3080Ti....why haven't they been stockpiling them.....what do you mean they don't exist yet.
The EU are saying AstraZeneca “should have been stockpiling since October” I wonder if that is in the contract?
You can only start stockpiling at the point you have vaccine to stock pile.
And everything up to that point has lead times so it's possible stockpiling in October was only viable if the order came in June.
We also know that some batches failed quality control so that might be why stockpiling didn't occur then.
As I said earlier the easiest way to resolve this is to ask the EU in public - you seem to wish for the contract to be cancelled. Please confirm or deny that request and watch the reaction.
Comments
The government has been good at testing, but without a decent tracing network, there's much less point.
This, IMO, is ultimately a self defeating stance from the EU and talking about export restrictions is a retrograde step that will get pharma companies to start looking at contingency plans.
And we have probably jabbed a million more by now - so we are at 22.5% as of this moment.
Doesn't sound like they're going any further.
Enraged at AstraZeneca over shortfall, EU calls for vaccine export controls
https://www.politico.eu/article/enraged-at-astrazeneca-over-shortfall-eu-calls-for-vaccine-export-controls/
Free-trading Eurocrats want to avoid protectionism but are facing strong political headwinds
https://www.politico.eu/article/coronavirus-vaccine-europe-faces-identity-crisis-trade-war/
Edit - incidentally, in saying that I am assuming the EU had no connection to the fake story in Handelsblatt, which appeared to be deliberately designed to damage AZ and was completely false.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9192251/And-thought-nose-swabs-bad-China-begins-using-anal-swabs-test-Covid-Beijing.html
"EU good . . . nationalists bad . . . Big . . . muscle . . . Hulk Smash! Hulk Smash! Hulk Smash!"
I've been criticising the UK Government all thread (and for months) for not going far enough on controlling the border and saying if the schools are closed then all international travellers (except those like lorry drivers for whom it is literally essentially) should face mandatory hotel quarantine.
You just can't do the same can you? So small minded and petty.
Sure, you need to be angry to at least some degree to get the nomination in either party. Before Trump, there's long been a tradition of appealing to the base in the primaries and tacking to the centre after that.
But once you have the nomination, where do MAGA people (or indeed radicals in the Democrats) go? Ultimately - helped by Sanders and others being a little more magnanimous than in 2016 - Democrat radicals voted in large numbers for the moderate deal-maker, Biden. In November, very large numbers of Republicans saw no problem voting for both Trump and a moderate like Collins or a critic like Sasse - indeed, Collins won most Trump voters plus some Biden voters.
I don't think these fundamentals change. No doubt if Trump is never on a ballot again, a proportion of his base will never vote again. But the large majority will, even if with much less enthusiasm. And bear in mind that grudging, reluctant votes count exactly the same as enthusiastic, flag-waving ones.
A resolution will be found that puts the EU in a better position than if they had not made a fuss.
This is what I predict. Bet I'm right.
"JCVI? Bugger them".
There are clearly arguments going on in Europe between those who want to damp the whole thing down, and those who want to escalate to something more serious.
Some years ago, a chap I knew investigated putting a factory in an ex-industrial part of Northern England vs putting it in the far East. The sum of his experiences was
- They don't really want factories in that part of Northern England.
- They seem to be really happy to have factories in the far East.
So the company built its factory.... where?
And later on, when they had to create another facility, they didn't even bother with a trip North.
Honestly there is nothing to be gained by this kind of posturing. The EU fucked up their procurement process and now they need to live with it and pay AZ and others loads of money to subsidise manufacturing capacity. That's the way out of it, not threats of export bans.
I would not be laying him for the nomination unless the odds get shorter still.
Who's your early tip (if you have one) for GOP nomination?
How else do you define them pissing away 3 months before signing the contracts leading to the situation they find themselves in today?
European sclerosis being demonstrated in real time. They're making my points for me.
Does anyone now seriously deny that sclerosis is an issue within Europe?
Does anyone now seriously deny that Britain has the potential* to act more nimbly than Europe?
* whether they do or do not depends upon the politicians we elect and can judge democratically.
Single dose, piece of piss to store, thought the UK would start to get doses mid Feb onwards....winning
Look at Liz Cheney. The Wyoming party was swamped with angry messages from voters when she sided with the democrats over impeachment. She is going to be primaried for certain now.
Suspicious package found at AZ site in Wrexham
Police in attendence
Pence might also be a middle ground between the establishment in the GOP and the MAGA crowd
10 years inside if it's a hoax, life if there's an actual bomb there.
Other possibility is flooding.
That would be an act of economic war and the consequences would be immense.
Secondly, a key issue for Trump and those close to him is not simply whether they can call GOP offices and mount a primary challenge. They need to win these things. I don't know how credible this challenger to Cheney is but, if she comes through at a canter (which is perfectly possible) that doesn't just count as a miss for MAGA, it actively damages them. Trump outside the Presidency is very reliant on the fear factor as almost nobody in GOP politics actually LIKES him (he was utterly vile about Cruz's wife in 2016 for instance - these things don't get forgotten). So they need to pick their battles quite carefully.
The under 18s were 14,856,441
Which makes a proportion of 22.24%
The over 18 population is thus 51,940,366
The latest 1st dose number is 6,853,327
So the percentage of over 18s vaccinated is 13.19%
The percentage of the total population is 10.26%
I think......
US college campus they have people wandering around between the dorms waiting to hear the tinkling of a toilet flush, then taking samples of the effluent for analysis their early warning system for dorm outbreaks.
He stared at me for a good 30 seconds. Then asked me why I was asking.....
https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-deaths-above-average-in-almost-every-area-of-great-britain-12198585
Nor does Brussels understand Soriot's argument that the British government had ordered the vaccines earlier. The contract does not speak of the principle of "first come, first served".
“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."
My bold
But re the City, the rational fear is that post-Brexit it will be the cowboy bits that flourish. You know what I'm talking about.
All parties rush to read the contract!
Yep. This has really brought them out.
https://twitter.com/shashj/status/1354418641517871105?s=20
And everything up to that point has lead times so it's possible stockpiling in October was only viable if the order came in June.
We also know that some batches failed quality control so that might be why stockpiling didn't occur then.
As I said earlier the easiest way to resolve this is to ask the EU in public - you seem to wish for the contract to be cancelled. Please confirm or deny that request and watch the reaction.