The prime minister also says travellers to the UK from 22 countries will go into hotel quarantine. The new quarantine rules will only apply to the "red list" countries of most concern because of new virus variants.
I voted Remain, however as I said Leavers got what they voted for
No they haven't. If they get given swinging cuts in response to falling tax revenues. No leaver voted for cuts. They voted for increased spending. On them.
Leave the EU tick, end free movement tick, keep Nissan in Sunderland tick, reduce the influence of the City of London tick
A smaller City is on my (very short) list of TBOBs - tangible benefits of Brexit. Trouble is, the bits I wanted to be smaller - the spivvy cowboy bits - are those likely to prosper. So it's come off. All that's left on there now is cheaper tampons and houses.
Yet houses can only be reduced in price by either less demand (people dying / leaving the UK), more supply (see nimbys), higher interest rates or restricted bank lending.
None of those items have anything to do with Brexit - so basically we've left and got slightly cheaper tampons.
Sanofi switching it's capacity to produce Astra? I think is positive - will result in replacement of the GSK/Sanofi envisioned capacity feeding through the pipeline.
No Pfizer - starting late summer - depending on how things go - its tricky technology - much more so than Astra which is pretty standard stuff, if challenging at speed.
The prime minister also says travellers to the UK from 22 countries will go into hotel quarantine. The new quarantine rules will only apply to the "red list" countries of most concern because of new virus variants.
FFS...its airbridges all over again.
I'm hopeful it will be gradually expanded, but we shall see.
The reason there is such a large surplus of financial services exports from the UK to the EU is because EU citizens really want and need our financial services and associated legal and insurance expertise, including the liquidity and innovation it provides which stimulates their economic growth.
The EU absolutely need this for an economic recovery - and would be cutting themselves off from it if they pursued a lose-lost - so I expect a Deal.
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.
Not really. That's a simplistic and jaundiced view. They are "rightfully" seeking to reduce their shortfall. In general, with fixed vaccine supply, every shot someone has means somebody else did not have it. Why are we diverting jabs from Italy? Why is Israel diverting jabs from us? Etc. It all depends on the contracts, the money, the moral view, the WHO, the balance of power, the politics etc etc. Bottom line is as I summarized and people should stop sanctimoniously moaning unless and until something that warrants it occurs. Which it hasn't yet. All that's happening is a frenzy of europhobes mutually wanking each other off and wallowing in europhobia. I'm finding it infantile and tedious.
Relevant to earlier in the chain
Europe in U.K. about 27% of pharma sales globally (less for AZ).
U.K. is about 5% of global market
(US is about 50% for comparison)
US is 70% of profits on 50% of revenues so EU profit contribution less than 20%
1st dose 2nd dose Total 259306 1001 East Of England 29244 47 London 43555 445 Midlands 41813 131 North East And Yorkshire 38513 56 North West 35271 95 South East 39181 177 South West 29908 47
Bit disappointing while its up 10% vs yesterday its down vs 1 week ago:
Weren't we pre-warned about this? The run rate increased substantially last week, but was set to drop this week due to supply constraints.
The government have been fairly good about this, making it clear about supply issues in a calm manner. However, they will still get all the blame from the media if their target is missed in 3 weeks time.
As well as lots of caveats around 'best endeavours, I bet there are two further conditions in the AZ-EU contract:
1. 'Subject to approval by the EMA', which would be an interesting one to bring into the mix.
2. A clause stipulating that AZ won't favour other clients over the EU. The EU might think this gives them the right to dip into our supplies, but I doubt whether a proper reading of the various contracts would support that, assuming the AZ lawyers know what they are doing (which is a very, very good assumption).
I mean it is a bunch of half-rate politicians that couldn't make it in national politics vs. lawyers that probably charge thousands an hour.
Von der Leyen is leagues above corporate lawyer material.
Her work as German defence minister was er.... interesting.
Essentially, she won the Gavin Williamson award for skill in running her department. Beating the real Gavin Williamson.....
We are more f*cked than a stepmom on Pornhub when our 18 month clearing exemption ends and it isn't permanently renewed.
But those of us in the financial services sector we rank lower than fish.
Other than a hostile act of petty vengeance what reason would tbe EU have to give clearing equivalence to US but not UK?
Because the US companies have agreed to stick to the EU rules, whilst we want to ignore them. The EU position is if you want equivalency you have to stick to our rules, the US says fine, the UK less so.
Honestly, 'liquidation periods' and 'anti procyclicality measure' is all the rage.
I very much doubt the US has agreed to follow the EU's regulatory regime.
They already do. In Europe.
That's a crucial caveat. It's different what US banks do in Frankfurt, as to what they do in New York.
Leave the EU tick, end free movement tick, keep Nissan in Sunderland tick, reduce the influence of the City of London tick
A smaller City is on my (very short) list of TBOBs - tangible benefits of Brexit. Trouble is, the bits I wanted to be smaller - the spivvy cowboy bits - are those likely to prosper. So it's come off. All that's left on there now is cheaper tampons and houses.
Yet houses can only be reduced in price by either less demand (people dying / leaving the UK), more supply (see nimbys), higher interest rates or restricted bank lending.
None of those items have anything to do with Brexit - so basically we've left and got slightly cheaper tampons.
I think they said it saves the average woman £40 - in a lifetime!
The constant pecking away is draining to witness. I'm sure it's fine in a courtroom where Sir Keir Starmer cut his teeth but it makes them seem like a bunch of whingebags. The latest two examples of irritating grandstanding are:
1. Seal all the borders. (Runaway!) As the vaccine rollout is going so well this is not the time to seal up the whole country. Last year? Maybe. Now? Probably not really necessary.
2. Jab all teachers now (Instead of the vulnerable who are more likely to die).
It's tiresome. It's also really stupid: see point 2. They don't seem to understand that we're all growing weary of lockdowns and we want to move on. We know, despite most of the media, that we're on course to suppress this virus thanks to a stunning vaccine success. We're talking weeks before we should be able to ease up. This isn't the right time to throw a pall over the country.
I want to see Sir Keir take the initiative with groundbreaking policies to take this country forward for the future instead of peck peck pecking at Boris Johnson's heels.
Nate Silver makes the correct point that it's just Bayesian versus frequentist statistics. Bayesian stats does have a "gambling" feel to it in that it assigns a prior probability to a hypothesis. But it's probably the better approach to the problem in this case - frequentist caution makes you feel better because you've followed the recipe, but probably doesn't have as good an expected pay-off.
I'm not sure it's even that, because either way you have to assign a prior probability, given the limited supply and the massive urgency. @Foxy wants us to believe that it's less of a gamble to use the second dose on someone already vaccinated than as a first dose for someone else. In other words, he thinks that the efficacy of a single dose (over the few weeks we're talking about) is less than 50% of the efficacy of two doses. He hasn't explained where he gets this prior probability from; there is no data supporting it that I'm aware of. Conversely, there's plenty of data that the single dose efficacy is probably close to that of two doses, again over the few weeks we're talking about. Of course this isn't something for which we can cite full, properly-conducted clinical trials, but that proviso works equally on both sides of the argument.
Hmm, is there not a hidden assumption there? That the effect X of the single dose lasts as well time wise as the effect x + y of the single dose followed up by a second one within three weeks?
Yes. But so what? To argue on the other side, you need to be absolutely sure that the opposite is true, because you are choosing to give another vulnerable person guaranteed zero protection, on the off-chance (unsupported by any firm data, and believed by the experts to be unlikely) that the fall-off in protection of one dose is so big as to negate the advantage of protecting both people.
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.
Not really. That's a simplistic and jaundiced view. They are "rightfully" seeking to reduce their shortfall. In general, with fixed vaccine supply, every shot someone has means somebody else did not have it. Why are we diverting jabs from Italy? Why is Israel diverting jabs from us? Etc. It all depends on the contracts, the money, the moral view, the WHO, the balance of power, the politics etc etc. Bottom line is as I summarized and people should stop sanctimoniously moaning unless and until something that warrants it occurs. Which it hasn't yet. All that's happening is a frenzy of europhobes mutually wanking each other off and wallowing in europhobia. I'm finding it infantile and tedious.
"Rightfully"?
The EU signed their contracts three months late. It isn't europhobia to point this out.
Had Johnson's Government signed contracts three months after the EU and the UK was struggling as a result then would it be Anglophobia to point that out?
Good point. Can you please share that link again to the contract (did someone quote an extract upthread?).
You said that the UK signed the AZ vaccine contract three months before EU, so you had more time to tweak and fix the potential disruptions of the supply. Why then did you commit to similar contracts with the EU, if you knew that in a very short time there could be problems like the one the EU supply chain is experiencing right now? "First of all, we have different plants and they have different yields and different productivity. One of the plans with the highest yield is in the UK because it started earlier. It also had its own issues, but we solved all, it has a good productivity, but it's the UK plant because it started earlier. Anyway, we didn't commit with the EU, by the way. It's not a commitment we have to Europe: it’s a best effort, we said we are going to make our best effort. The reason why we said that is because Europe at the time wanted to be supplied more or less at the same time as the UK, even though the contract was signed three months later. So we said, “ok, we're going to do our best, we’re going to try, but we cannot commit contractually because we are three months behind UK”. We knew it was a super stretch goal and we know it's a big issue, this pandemic. But our contract is not a contractual commitment. It's a best effort. Basically we said we're going to try our best, but we can't guarantee we're going to succeed. In fact, getting there, we are a little bit delayed”.
Oops. 🤦🏻♂️
Thanks has the contract been released?
Why should it be? Unless you're saying the CEO is lying in saying that it was a best endeavours contract? Is that what you're claiming? 🤔
It's entirely possible (indeed very common) to have a disagreement over contractual interpretation where nobody is a "liar". Indeed, that's the basis of a lot of legal cases.
I'd also note that a "best endeavours" contract isn't some kind of non-binding woolly comfort letter. It's an agreement to make "best endeavours" - which itself is some way above the more common "reasonable endeavours" formulation. If I promised to deliver X units of whatever product under various contracts, was well short of the capacity to do that, and hadn't explored all realistic avenues to deal with it, I'd most likely fail on a best endeavours clause.
I've no idea whether AstraZeneca have met their contractual commitments or not, by the way. But it's a live debate and it doesn't rely on either side being dishonest (although it's possible one or other has been of course).
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.
Not really. That's a simplistic and jaundiced view. They are "rightfully" seeking to reduce their shortfall. In general, with fixed vaccine supply, every shot someone has means somebody else did not have it. Why are we diverting jabs from Italy? Why is Israel diverting jabs from us? Etc. It all depends on the contracts, the money, the moral view, the WHO, the balance of power, the politics etc etc. Bottom line is as I summarized and people should stop sanctimoniously moaning unless and until something that warrants it occurs. Which it hasn't yet. All that's happening is a frenzy of europhobes mutually wanking each other off and wallowing in europhobia. I'm finding it infantile and tedious.
"Rightfully"?
The EU signed their contracts three months late. It isn't europhobia to point this out.
Had Johnson's Government signed contracts three months after the EU and the UK was struggling as a result then would it be Anglophobia to point that out?
Just mimicking OP's equally 'arguable' use of the word. And yes, I'm afraid this is tickling up the europhobia of europhobes something rotten.
But anyway, thanks for the contribution. I maintain a list of your specialisms - you know how I am with lists - and I will now add 'big ticket pharma contracts' to it.
If you add 'ability to read' then you can make a shorter list.
Its amazing what you can pick up with an ability to read.
I sense a "well sourced and truthful" (iyo) article which just happens to support your view. Not what we are looking for. What we want, remember, is an example of a piece of quality journalism which challenges your view on something. Tick tock ...
I bet the website announcing which 22 countries are on that list is under a barrage of load from the companies that manage all the YouTube influencers and Instagram models...
Nate Silver makes the correct point that it's just Bayesian versus frequentist statistics. Bayesian stats does have a "gambling" feel to it in that it assigns a prior probability to a hypothesis. But it's probably the better approach to the problem in this case - frequentist caution makes you feel better because you've followed the recipe, but probably doesn't have as good an expected pay-off.
I'm not sure it's even that, because either way you have to assign a prior probability, given the limited supply and the massive urgency. @Foxy wants us to believe that it's less of a gamble to use the second dose on someone already vaccinated than as a first dose for someone else. In other words, he thinks that the efficacy of a single dose (over the few weeks we're talking about) is less than 50% of the efficacy of two doses. He hasn't explained where he gets this prior probability from; there is no data supporting it that I'm aware of. Conversely, there's plenty of data that the single dose efficacy is probably close to that of two doses, again over the few weeks we're talking about. Of course this isn't something for which we can cite full, properly-conducted clinical trials, but that proviso works equally on both sides of the argument.
Hmm, is there not a hidden assumption there? That the effect X of the single dose lasts as well time wise as the effect x + y of the single dose followed up by a second one within three weeks?
Yes. But so what? To argue on the other side, you need to be absolutely sure that the opposite is true, because you are choosing to give another vulnerable person guaranteed zero protection, on the off-chance (unsupported by any firm data, and believed by the experts to be unlikely) that the fall-off in protection of one dose is so big as to negate the advantage of protecting both people.
Not to mention that if an additional booster is required months down the line that likely won't be a problem given the amount of vaccines the UK has secured.
One of my current pet peeves is the assumption, especially prevalent on Twitter, that masks are the solution. It is obvious that not having the tournament is the solution.....
The 'absolutely united' is a particularly nice touch. Well that's good to hear. I'm sure that impressive unity will magic up vaccines which would never have been produced if Malta had expressed doubts...
The irony is that the EU were expecting us to ask for something on financial services in return for not shafting the EU fishing industry. They were amazed that we didn't bother with the first bit, and then we went on to shaft the UK fishing industry instead.
Brexiteers have so much to answer for but mainly the decline of the UK (or what's left of it).
New employees at an Italian hospital will have to commit to being vaccinated before they are offered a contract - and will be fired if after 40 days they have not had the injection, writes Erica Di Blasi in Turin.
But sovereignty. And perhaps they can ring up Sleepy Joe and explain to him how his banks and the US are losing it with this deal.
I'm afraid I'm yet another one who voted Remain, as I've mentioned before, though I am indeed happy to accept the outcome of Brexit. What exactly would the EU have demanded in exchange for safeguarding the primacy of the City?
Oh I'm sorry. Genuinely.
In answer to your question the financial services regulatory regime in the EU is governed by several directives which determine behaviour allowed and not allowed when dealing with EU clients.
The are EU-wide rules and if you want to play you have to adhere to them. Are they onerous? Perhaps. At their heart is customer protection and a desire to increase transparency. The EU put in place these rules governing all types of financial services activities. If you want to sell to EU customers you have to follow them.
Once the UK left the EU they were no longer bound by the rules. To maintain the primacy of the City of London the UK would have to say they were happy to follow the rules.
Madrid’s regional government has announced that it is halting all planned first doses of the Covid vaccine for two weeks, blaming a lack of supply of jabs from Spain’s national administration for its decision, James Badcock reports.
But sovereignty. And perhaps they can ring up Sleepy Joe and explain to him how his banks and the US are losing it with this deal.
I'm afraid I'm yet another one who voted Remain, as I've mentioned before, though I am indeed happy to accept the outcome of Brexit. What exactly would the EU have demanded in exchange for safeguarding the primacy of the City?
The EU has long despised the City's success whether inside or outside the club. The notion we would have retained this supremacy had we stayed in the club is at least debatable.
Madrid’s regional government has announced that it is halting all planned first doses of the Covid vaccine for two weeks, blaming a lack of supply of jabs from Spain’s national administration for its decision, James Badcock reports.
It's all those generals and bishops they need to vaccinate first.
Sanofi switching it's capacity to produce Astra? I think is positive - will result in replacement of the GSK/Sanofi envisioned capacity feeding through the pipeline.
To produce the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine wasn't it? Or is it the AZN as well?
Ah, late to point that out - @CarlottaVance too quick for me!
We are more f*cked than a stepmom on Pornhub when our 18 month clearing exemption ends and it isn't permanently renewed.
But those of us in the financial services sector we rank lower than fish.
Other than a hostile act of petty vengeance what reason would tbe EU have to give clearing equivalence to US but not UK?
Because the US companies have agreed to stick to the EU rules, whilst we want to ignore them. The EU position is if you want equivalency you have to stick to our rules, the US says fine, the UK less so.
Honestly, 'liquidation periods' and 'anti procyclicality measure' is all the rage.
I very much doubt the US has agreed to follow the EU's regulatory regime.
They already do. In Europe.
That's a crucial caveat. It's different what US banks do in Frankfurt, as to what they do in New York.
If the US bank in NY is selling to EU customers it has to follow EU rules. It's a case of follow the client.
But by the same token (brace yourself) the US has say over every institution wherever it does business that clears dollar business.
It is quite possible -- if the EU continue to behave like this -- that it magnifies Boris' "success".
Is CCHQ advIsing the EU ?
Because i really cannot think of much that could help Boris more than the EU over-reacting and blocking vaccine exports.
It simultaneously focuses voters' attention on Boris' one big success in the COVID pandemic, as well as one big advantage of Brexit.
And by over-reacting, the EU look like a mobster state.
Why does the EU give a damn how this makes Boris Johnson look? It's a very Anglocentric view of things.
The point is WE give a damn. This is a betting site, and there are elections coming up.
This is politicalbetting.com, not remainerwanking.com.
(And don't ever call me ANGLOcentric, again).
Look, my point was simply that the EU's approach is understandable from their perspective. I agree it tends to help Johnson politically, looked at from a betting angle.
On "Anglo" most dictionaries take the approach that the prefix "Anglo" in normal usage refers to the UK. I think the history is that an Anglo-American would be anyone from English speaking Europe which at the time would be the whole British Isles. Since Ireland separated, it tends to mean the remaining UK. I know that's not the original etymology, but blame centuries of common usage rather than me, please.
Whether it helps Johnson or not remains to be seen. It's great for him if we end up looking like plucky, nimble outsiders wrong-footing the EU Goliath; not so great if we go down in flames after trying to punch above our weight à la Suez.
The 'absolutely united' is a particularly nice touch. Well that's good to hear. I'm sure that impressive unity will magic up vaccines which would never have been produced if Malta had expressed doubts...
Sanofi switching it's capacity to produce Astra? I think is positive - will result in replacement of the GSK/Sanofi envisioned capacity feeding through the pipeline.
To produce the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine wasn't it? Or is it the AZN as well?
Ah, late to point that out - @CarlottaVance too quick for me!
It is quite possible -- if the EU continue to behave like this -- that it magnifies Boris' "success".
Is CCHQ advIsing the EU ?
Because i really cannot think of much that could help Boris more than the EU over-reacting and blocking vaccine exports.
It simultaneously focuses voters' attention on Boris' one big success in the COVID pandemic, as well as one big advantage of Brexit.
And by over-reacting, the EU look like a mobster state.
Why does the EU give a damn how this makes Boris Johnson look? It's a very Anglocentric view of things.
The point is WE give a damn. This is a betting site, and there are elections coming up.
This is politicalbetting.com, not remainerwanking.com.
(And don't ever call me ANGLOcentric, again).
Look, my point was simply that the EU's approach is understandable from their perspective. I agree it tends to help Johnson politically, looked at from a betting angle.
On "Anglo" most dictionaries take the approach that the prefix "Anglo" in normal usage refers to the UK. I think the history is that an Anglo-American would be anyone from English speaking Europe which at the time would be the whole British Isles. Since Ireland separated, it tends to mean the remaining UK. I know that's not the original etymology, but blame centuries of common usage rather than me, please.
"I agree it tends to help Johnson politically, looked at from a betting angle."
I am glad you accept the point I made is correct & directly relevant to the site. Unlike the point you made in return.
"... blame centuries of common usage rather than me, please."
Lots of thing have had centuries of common usage and are now unacceptable. I guess you don't "black up" anymore. I guess you don't use words like y*d or n****** as racial slurs to refer to minorities anymore. We have all moved on.
Referring to Welsh and Scottish people as "Anglo" is unacceptable now. Even in Norfolk.
In a small way -- admittedly -- this kind of behaviour is one of the things that is contributing to our Disunited Kingdom.
Nate Silver makes the correct point that it's just Bayesian versus frequentist statistics. Bayesian stats does have a "gambling" feel to it in that it assigns a prior probability to a hypothesis. But it's probably the better approach to the problem in this case - frequentist caution makes you feel better because you've followed the recipe, but probably doesn't have as good an expected pay-off.
I'm not sure it's even that, because either way you have to assign a prior probability, given the limited supply and the massive urgency. @Foxy wants us to believe that it's less of a gamble to use the second dose on someone already vaccinated than as a first dose for someone else. In other words, he thinks that the efficacy of a single dose (over the few weeks we're talking about) is less than 50% of the efficacy of two doses. He hasn't explained where he gets this prior probability from; there is no data supporting it that I'm aware of. Conversely, there's plenty of data that the single dose efficacy is probably close to that of two doses, again over the few weeks we're talking about. Of course this isn't something for which we can cite full, properly-conducted clinical trials, but that proviso works equally on both sides of the argument.
Hmm, is there not a hidden assumption there? That the effect X of the single dose lasts as well time wise as the effect x + y of the single dose followed up by a second one within three weeks?
Yes. But so what? To argue on the other side, you need to be absolutely sure that the opposite is true, because you are choosing to give another vulnerable person guaranteed zero protection, on the off-chance (unsupported by any firm data, and believed by the experts to be unlikely) that the fall-off in protection of one dose is so big as to negate the advantage of protecting both people.
If that's so then fine. But it has to be considered. It does seem to me that we don't have any data yet over the differential decrease of protection with time over a scale of 1-2 years, which is also important for obvious reasons. Presumably the likelihood of this has been considered.
Madrid’s regional government has announced that it is halting all planned first doses of the Covid vaccine for two weeks, blaming a lack of supply of jabs from Spain’s national administration for its decision, James Badcock reports.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with Astra Zeneca.
The constant pecking away is draining to witness. I'm sure it's fine in a courtroom where Sir Keir Starmer cut his teeth but it makes them seem like a bunch of whingebags. The latest two examples of irritating grandstanding are:
1. Seal all the borders. (Runaway!) As the vaccine rollout is going so well this is not the time to seal up the whole country. Last year? Maybe. Now? Probably not really necessary.
2. Jab all teachers now (Instead of the vulnerable who are more likely to die).
It's tiresome. It's also really stupid: see point 2. They don't seem to understand that we're all growing weary of lockdowns and we want to move on. We know, despite most of the media, that we're on course to suppress this virus thanks to a stunning vaccine success. We're talking weeks before we should be able to ease up. This isn't the right time to throw a pall over the country.
I want to see Sir Keir take the initiative with groundbreaking policies to take this country forward for the future instead of peck peck pecking at Boris Johnson's heels.
The vaccination success to date is an impressive basket, but should we really put all our eggs into it? What's the latest on the vaccines we're using on the variants now in circulation? If we get a variants that beat the vaccines we've been using, and it sweeps through populations that thought they were safe, what do you think the political fallout would be?
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.
Half-jabbed...
Which we are repeatedly told confer the majority of the protection.
Yes, we are repeatedly told that in the UK. A wing and a prayer springs to mind.
C'mon, you're not subscribing to that BMA nonsense are you? There's MASSIVE evidence around the world that the first jab, certainly of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine, provides a very high degree of protection, both in the published clinical trial data and in the real-world experience coming out of Israel. For the AZ vaccine, the boss himself confirmed the same yesterday.
As I said, it may be a gamble that comes off, but it is a gamble.
Israel is sticking to the protocol, so we have to wait until March to see if our different protocol works.
Isn't sticking to three weeks a gamble on the other side of the bet though? You are precluding people from Jab 1 to give others Jab 2.
That's a gamble in and of itself.
You would be following the science, not gambling on anticipating it.
Gambles often come off, but gamblers should know there is no such thing as a sure thing.
If the 90% figure is correct, the delayed strategy is entirely justified. I come at this from the angle of someone who would have not done things the UK way.
All people are saying, all I am saying, is that there was no trial designed specifically to determine the efficacy of a single jab although there are data from the two-jab trials which are very informative.
As such, the manufacturers, and increasingly it seems the medico-scientists won't endorse a single jab regime.
Because no one knows. Yes infection rates drop off as we have seen from that famous graph vs placebo, but no one knows after or between that what happens. Because it wasn't in a designed trial.
AZ CEO was surely endorsing a single jab in his interview, saying "First of all, we believe that the efficacy of one dose is sufficient: 100 percent protection against severe disease and hospitalisation"
Sounds like a decent endorsement from a manufacturer?
There's belief in one's products, and then there's proof for clinical trials, two different things. Let's hope he's right, but we just don't know for sure, and nor does he. The whole area is one of weighing up alternative risks.
Of course we dont know for "sure" and we wouldnt after a clinical trial either, things still go wrong in real life occasionally after trials. It is a problem of incomplete information, there is no safe route that does not have a gamble here.
The data seems overwhelmingly in favour of reducing hospitalisations as quickly as possible using single jabs.
It’s almost as though the E.U., aggravated that Britain has found one benefit from Brexit so soon after leaving, are trying to act as dog in the manger to show that actually, even benefits are not benefits.
I’m sure that’s not what they’re really doing - they’re more likely just in a complete panic at having cocked up - but they could hardly be doing a better job if it was.
Hang on. The MRHA said that Brexit was not the reason for Britain being ahead on vaccines, either approval or procurement.
Is it not a proven fact that the insistence by the EU in signing off the contracts led to a several month delay?
Isn't that the issue that the EU has with AZN, that its promised deliveries have not been delivered?
everywhere has that issue.
The response to AZ underdelivering, including insinuations, is they critical point.
People were furious there weren't stockpiles of vaccine ready as suggested here at the start of the year.
Neither case would make lashing out or demanding the impossible reasonable.
Nate Silver makes the correct point that it's just Bayesian versus frequentist statistics. Bayesian stats does have a "gambling" feel to it in that it assigns a prior probability to a hypothesis. But it's probably the better approach to the problem in this case - frequentist caution makes you feel better because you've followed the recipe, but probably doesn't have as good an expected pay-off.
I'm not sure it's even that, because either way you have to assign a prior probability, given the limited supply and the massive urgency. @Foxy wants us to believe that it's less of a gamble to use the second dose on someone already vaccinated than as a first dose for someone else. In other words, he thinks that the efficacy of a single dose (over the few weeks we're talking about) is less than 50% of the efficacy of two doses. He hasn't explained where he gets this prior probability from; there is no data supporting it that I'm aware of. Conversely, there's plenty of data that the single dose efficacy is probably close to that of two doses, again over the few weeks we're talking about. Of course this isn't something for which we can cite full, properly-conducted clinical trials, but that proviso works equally on both sides of the argument.
Hmm, is there not a hidden assumption there? That the effect X of the single dose lasts as well time wise as the effect x + y of the single dose followed up by a second one within three weeks?
Yes. But so what? To argue on the other side, you need to be absolutely sure that the opposite is true, because you are choosing to give another vulnerable person guaranteed zero protection, on the off-chance (unsupported by any firm data, and believed by the experts to be unlikely) that the fall-off in protection of one dose is so big as to negate the advantage of protecting both people.
If that's so then fine. But it has to be considered. It does seem to me that we don't have any data yet over the differential decrease of protection with time over a scale of 1-2 years, which is also important for obvious reasons. Presumably the likelihood of this has been considered.
The level of protection in 1-2 years is not important at all given the current situation.
No it doesn't absolve the company. If you promise to make "best endeavours" that's not a "get out of jail free" card - its a pretty high bar. As a lawyer for the seller, I'd always try to negotiate that down to "reasonable endeavours" at the very least and advise the client that "best endeavours" is a pretty serious commitment to deliver.
Now, I don't know the full contract or indeed whether AZ did indeed make best endeavours. They might well have done. But there are some on here wrongly suggesting that this was basically a heavily supplier-weighted thing, tantamount to a comfort letter. That is by no means true as a legal point.
We are more f*cked than a stepmom on Pornhub when our 18 month clearing exemption ends and it isn't permanently renewed.
But those of us in the financial services sector we rank lower than fish.
It's quite amazing really. We had better hope for equivalence.
One of the chaps who is really impacted by this was a heavy backer of Brexit.
He is wistfully saying if you wanted to wilfully destroy the City of London/the UK's financial services pre-eminence then it would look a lot like Boris Johnson's Brexit deal.
There's a side betting market going on here, when will 'anti big bang' day happen, I'm going for the 4th of July 2022, plenty of people have gone for much earlier.
You can see it that's for sure.
I never thought Brexit would be drop on your foot bad for the UK/The City just a gradual diminution of influence and a gradual seeping away of importance. Things are moving a tad quicker than I had thought.
As for the EU/US deal what did we think? That the EU wouldn't be looking to do trade deals with the US also? The difference seems to be, however, that they have managed to do one.
I'm a hope for the best/prepare for the worst kind of guy, but even this is a gutting experience.
I'm genuinely mystified that the party of Margaret Thatcher decided that fish (revenue fuck all) was more important than financial services.
I thought that the pressure would emerge for a good deal for the sector because economical and financial reality would become apparent.
But it looks like the EU are looking for decent alternatives to using the UK, the fact the US is prepared to sign up the EU risk management requirements tells me that EU will be able leverage their size to get what they want.
It was a deal breaker for the UK but not for the Yanks, I suspect the the US will sign up to other things as well to pick up from carcasses of the UK financial services sector.
As well as lots of caveats around 'best endeavours, I bet there are two further conditions in the AZ-EU contract:
1. 'Subject to approval by the EMA', which would be an interesting one to bring into the mix.
2. A clause stipulating that AZ won't favour other clients over the EU. The EU might think this gives them the right to dip into our supplies, but I doubt whether a proper reading of the various contracts would support that, assuming the AZ lawyers know what they are doing (which is a very, very good assumption).
I mean it is a bunch of half-rate politicians that couldn't make it in national politics vs. lawyers that probably charge thousands an hour.
Von der Leyen is leagues above corporate lawyer material.
Her work as German defence minister was er.... interesting.
Essentially, she won the Gavin Williamson award for skill in running her department. Beating the real Gavin Williamson.....
Not to mention the plagiarism.
My favourite was the (not) melting rifles saga - where the German Defense Ministry started a fight with Heckler & Koch, arguing that their G36 rifle was crap. And amounted to a contractual breach.
After a great deal of huffing and puffing.. They lost in court.
Hmmmm.... starting a pointless fight with a company based on bollocks, you say.... This sounds familiar. Can someone help me?
The constant pecking away is draining to witness. I'm sure it's fine in a courtroom where Sir Keir Starmer cut his teeth but it makes them seem like a bunch of whingebags. The latest two examples of irritating grandstanding are:
1. Seal all the borders. (Runaway!) As the vaccine rollout is going so well this is not the time to seal up the whole country. Last year? Maybe. Now? Probably not really necessary.
2. Jab all teachers now (Instead of the vulnerable who are more likely to die).
It's tiresome. It's also really stupid: see point 2. They don't seem to understand that we're all growing weary of lockdowns and we want to move on. We know, despite most of the media, that we're on course to suppress this virus thanks to a stunning vaccine success. We're talking weeks before we should be able to ease up. This isn't the right time to throw a pall over the country.
I want to see Sir Keir take the initiative with groundbreaking policies to take this country forward for the future instead of peck peck pecking at Boris Johnson's heels.
The vaccination success to date is an impressive basket, but should we really put all our eggs into it? What's the latest on the vaccines we're using on the variants now in circulation? If we get a variants that beat the vaccines we've been using, and it sweeps through populations that thought they were safe, what do you think the political fallout would be?
I think both were shown to be effective against the existing strains. Maybe a little less so on the Brazilian one, but that isn't yet widespread.
The 'absolutely united' is a particularly nice touch. Well that's good to hear. I'm sure that impressive unity will magic up vaccines which would never have been produced if Malta had expressed doubts...
But sovereignty. And perhaps they can ring up Sleepy Joe and explain to him how his banks and the US are losing it with this deal.
I'm afraid I'm yet another one who voted Remain, as I've mentioned before, though I am indeed happy to accept the outcome of Brexit. What exactly would the EU have demanded in exchange for safeguarding the primacy of the City?
The EU has long despised the City's success whether inside or outside the club. The notion we would have retained this supremacy had we stayed in the club is at least debatable.
Disagree.
And I know you are a practitioner. Some bits are mad (eg double volume caps, which is what @MarqueeMark was talking about, even if he didn't quite realise it!) but as you are aware most of the regulations were driven by the UK and as you also know, there was no piece of EU regulation that the UK didn't gold plate.
I think we would have had marginal decline at worst and, with the innovation that is a hallmark of the City (and not FFT or Paris) would have had great opportunities selling into the EU.
I have a horrible feeling that this 22 countries thing....the obvious dodge is going to be fly to an intermediate country.
10 days in a hotel at your expense, or take an extra flight for less money? What would you expect someone fancying a quick trip to the sun to do?
Especially if your "business" is taking photos of your arse in different locations and putting them on the internet every day...10 days of shots from your room in the Premier Inn in Slough won't get many clicks.
Nate Silver makes the correct point that it's just Bayesian versus frequentist statistics. Bayesian stats does have a "gambling" feel to it in that it assigns a prior probability to a hypothesis. But it's probably the better approach to the problem in this case - frequentist caution makes you feel better because you've followed the recipe, but probably doesn't have as good an expected pay-off.
I'm not sure it's even that, because either way you have to assign a prior probability, given the limited supply and the massive urgency. @Foxy wants us to believe that it's less of a gamble to use the second dose on someone already vaccinated than as a first dose for someone else. In other words, he thinks that the efficacy of a single dose (over the few weeks we're talking about) is less than 50% of the efficacy of two doses. He hasn't explained where he gets this prior probability from; there is no data supporting it that I'm aware of. Conversely, there's plenty of data that the single dose efficacy is probably close to that of two doses, again over the few weeks we're talking about. Of course this isn't something for which we can cite full, properly-conducted clinical trials, but that proviso works equally on both sides of the argument.
Hmm, is there not a hidden assumption there? That the effect X of the single dose lasts as well time wise as the effect x + y of the single dose followed up by a second one within three weeks?
Yes. But so what? To argue on the other side, you need to be absolutely sure that the opposite is true, because you are choosing to give another vulnerable person guaranteed zero protection, on the off-chance (unsupported by any firm data, and believed by the experts to be unlikely) that the fall-off in protection of one dose is so big as to negate the advantage of protecting both people.
If that's so then fine. But it has to be considered. It does seem to me that we don't have any data yet over the differential decrease of protection with time over a scale of 1-2 years, which is also important for obvious reasons. Presumably the likelihood of this has been considered.
The level of protection in 1-2 years is not important at all given the current situation.
But the level in say 6 months, whjich is a significant part of that timescale, is also important. If it means we are protecting nobody at all in September, we have a problem.
Think about the Forth Bridge (before modern paint systems). It had to be painted quickly enjough to get back to the bits you did first before they went rusty.
Edity: but point taken about weighting the immediate effects.
We are more f*cked than a stepmom on Pornhub when our 18 month clearing exemption ends and it isn't permanently renewed.
But those of us in the financial services sector we rank lower than fish.
It's quite amazing really. We had better hope for equivalence.
One of the chaps who is really impacted by this was a heavy backer of Brexit.
He is wistfully saying if you wanted to wilfully destroy the City of London/the UK's financial services pre-eminence then it would look a lot like Boris Johnson's Brexit deal.
There's a side betting market going on here, when will 'anti big bang' day happen, I'm going for the 4th of July 2022, plenty of people have gone for much earlier.
You can see it that's for sure.
I never thought Brexit would be drop on your foot bad for the UK/The City just a gradual diminution of influence and a gradual seeping away of importance. Things are moving a tad quicker than I had thought.
As for the EU/US deal what did we think? That the EU wouldn't be looking to do trade deals with the US also? The difference seems to be, however, that they have managed to do one.
I'm a hope for the best/prepare for the worst kind of guy, but even this is a gutting experience.
I'm genuinely mystified that the party of Margaret Thatcher decided that fish (revenue fuck all) was more important than financial services.
I thought that the pressure would emerge for a good deal for the sector because economical and financial reality would become apparent.
But it looks like the EU are looking for decent alternatives to using the UK, the fact the US is prepared to sign up the EU risk management requirements tells me that EU will be able leverage their size to get what they want.
It was a deal breaker for the UK but not for the Yanks, I suspect the the US will sign up to other things as well to pick up from carcasses of the UK financial services sector.
It's blooming obvious but equally only in retrospect (even if retrospect is 2ms after the announcement).
The US can accept a lot if the rules don't impact their current business and there is extra money to be made from it.
And in one single move London moves than equality with New York to equality with New Jersey (and other back office locations).
If that's so then fine. But it has to be considered. It does seem to me that we don't have any data yet over the differential decrease of protection with time over a scale of 1-2 years, which is also important for obvious reasons. Presumably the likelihood of this has been considered.
There's no plan to delay second doses that long, just 12 weeks or so. That gives enough supply in the pipeline to get the most vulnerable people jabbed up.
I don't think anyone knows for sure how long protection will last. It's quite likely we'll all need boosters occasionally or even annually, but that shouldn't be a problem once we get to steady state and the production capacity has been built up to provide a regular supply.
The 'absolutely united' is a particularly nice touch. Well that's good to hear. I'm sure that impressive unity will magic up vaccines which would never have been produced if Malta had expressed doubts...
The EU argument is extremely weak, all it can be is a PR drive to put pressure on AZ and give the EU public a feeling something is being done. In a few weeks time, as they would have done without this public row, the vaccines will start to flow faster and the world will move on.
* To the inevitable response it is poor PR, it is poor PR from a UK perspective, but EU politicians are more concerned with PR of their citizens.
The ones at Pfizer, the ones at WHO, the ones at the FDA, or our own? Neither virus nor vaccine changes at the border.
It all depends how much you want to follow the science, or to anticipate it. It is a gamble that may come off, but we should recognise that it is a gamble.
A gamble? So (to borrow Sir John Stevens' point of yesterday), vaccinating one of your elderly parents with two doses and leaving the other totally unprotected, rather than both with one dose each with possibly slightly lower protection, isn't a gamble? Sounds like a hell of a gamble to me, much, much bigger than extrapolating from the already quite good data we have on the effectiveness of one dose over the period we're talking about.
I think foxy is wrong because the delayed shot strategy has been acknowledged to be a gamble in a technical sense. People dont deny it's a call that has been made.
However people have laid out the reasoning and the numbers protected even assuming less than perfect efficacy with it, and I've not seen the logic refuted that it gets more people covered and thus will save lives.
So until that is refuted it seems to be a well considered gamble.
We are more f*cked than a stepmom on Pornhub when our 18 month clearing exemption ends and it isn't permanently renewed.
But those of us in the financial services sector we rank lower than fish.
It's quite amazing really. We had better hope for equivalence.
One of the chaps who is really impacted by this was a heavy backer of Brexit.
He is wistfully saying if you wanted to wilfully destroy the City of London/the UK's financial services pre-eminence then it would look a lot like Boris Johnson's Brexit deal.
There's a side betting market going on here, when will 'anti big bang' day happen, I'm going for the 4th of July 2022, plenty of people have gone for much earlier.
You can see it that's for sure.
I never thought Brexit would be drop on your foot bad for the UK/The City just a gradual diminution of influence and a gradual seeping away of importance. Things are moving a tad quicker than I had thought.
As for the EU/US deal what did we think? That the EU wouldn't be looking to do trade deals with the US also? The difference seems to be, however, that they have managed to do one.
I'm a hope for the best/prepare for the worst kind of guy, but even this is a gutting experience.
I'm genuinely mystified that the party of Margaret Thatcher decided that fish (revenue fuck all) was more important than financial services.
I thought that the pressure would emerge for a good deal for the sector because economical and financial reality would become apparent.
But it looks like the EU are looking for decent alternatives to using the UK, the fact the US is prepared to sign up the EU risk management requirements tells me that EU will be able leverage their size to get what they want.
It was a deal breaker for the UK but not for the Yanks, I suspect the the US will sign up to other things as well to pick up from carcasses of the UK financial services sector.
The Boris Tory Party is now the party of the white working and lower middle class and Starmer Labour and the LDs are increasingly winning over upper middle class professionals.
It is no surprise that Boris did not put financial services first in terms of Brexit therefore
Leave the EU tick, end free movement tick, keep Nissan in Sunderland tick, reduce the influence of the City of London tick
A smaller City is on my (very short) list of TBOBs - tangible benefits of Brexit. Trouble is, the bits I wanted to be smaller - the spivvy cowboy bits - are those likely to prosper. So it's come off. All that's left on there now is cheaper tampons and houses.
Yet houses can only be reduced in price by either less demand (people dying / leaving the UK), more supply (see nimbys), higher interest rates or restricted bank lending.
None of those items have anything to do with Brexit - so basically we've left and got slightly cheaper tampons.
Aren't the EU scrapping the minimum VAT on tampons from 2022?
So we've got 5 % off tampons for a year. Rather less than 1 month's worth of free tampons.
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.
Well, at least you have clarified that the EU is a bully,
As I've said over the past few days, the veil has come off and people are seeing what the rest of us realised a long time ago. The EU isn't our friend or our ally, it is a trading partner and an unreliable one at that. Individual nations within the EU may vary their relationship a bit, but ultimately the EU-UK relationship needs to be seen through the lens of trade, not friendship as we would say for our relationship with the US or Australia.
That is not the cause of our withdrawal from the EU. It is the consequence of it. If the hard right and the feral media of the UK wants to pour invective and insult on the EU for decades and then spark a crisis that takes the UK out of the EU, then why are they then so surprised that plenty of people in the EU now regards them as fools or worse?
We are now entering an economic crisis that is sending thousands of small businesses to the wall. Fisheries have collapsed, agriculture is not far behind, manufacturing is in deep trouble. The City is bleeding people and assets and under intense pressure to clean up its act anyway. The soft power- the positive view that others have of the country has been hugely weakened by arrogance and stupidity. Even the political unity of the "U"K is no longer a given and is as weak as it has been in 300 years.
So naturally the thuggish populism of those actually responsible for this disgrace will turn on "bloody foreigners". Blame anyone else but those who have destabilized the economic and political foundations of Britain for their own selfish and short sighted reasons... The country is headed to a very dark place and the judgement of history will, I think, be savage to those who have led us to this economic, political and moral disaster.
We are more f*cked than a stepmom on Pornhub when our 18 month clearing exemption ends and it isn't permanently renewed.
But those of us in the financial services sector we rank lower than fish.
It's quite amazing really. We had better hope for equivalence.
One of the chaps who is really impacted by this was a heavy backer of Brexit.
He is wistfully saying if you wanted to wilfully destroy the City of London/the UK's financial services pre-eminence then it would look a lot like Boris Johnson's Brexit deal.
There's a side betting market going on here, when will 'anti big bang' day happen, I'm going for the 4th of July 2022, plenty of people have gone for much earlier.
You can see it that's for sure.
I never thought Brexit would be drop on your foot bad for the UK/The City just a gradual diminution of influence and a gradual seeping away of importance. Things are moving a tad quicker than I had thought.
As for the EU/US deal what did we think? That the EU wouldn't be looking to do trade deals with the US also? The difference seems to be, however, that they have managed to do one.
I'm a hope for the best/prepare for the worst kind of guy, but even this is a gutting experience.
I'm genuinely mystified that the party of Margaret Thatcher decided that fish (revenue fuck all) was more important than financial services.
I thought that the pressure would emerge for a good deal for the sector because economical and financial reality would become apparent.
But it looks like the EU are looking for decent alternatives to using the UK, the fact the US is prepared to sign up the EU risk management requirements tells me that EU will be able leverage their size to get what they want.
It was a deal breaker for the UK but not for the Yanks, I suspect the the US will sign up to other things as well to pick up from carcasses of the UK financial services sector.
The Boris Tory Party is now the party of the white working class and Starmer Labour and the LDs are increasingly winning over upper middle class professionals.
It is no surprise that Boris did not put financial services first in terms of Brexit therefore
He's going to regret that as tax revenues fall off a cliff when the City isn't making money.
If that's so then fine. But it has to be considered. It does seem to me that we don't have any data yet over the differential decrease of protection with time over a scale of 1-2 years, which is also important for obvious reasons. Presumably the likelihood of this has been considered.
There's no plan to delay second doses that long, just 12 weeks or so. That gives enough supply in the pipeline to get the most vulnerable people jabbed up.
I don't think anyone knows for sure how long protection will last. It's quite likely we'll all need boosters occasionally or even annually, but that shouldn't be a problem once we get to steady state and the production capacity has been built up to provide a regular supply.
THanks - that does sound more promising. I do hope there are no chokes to supply though (but then so do we all).
It is quite possible -- if the EU continue to behave like this -- that it magnifies Boris' "success".
Is CCHQ advIsing the EU ?
Because i really cannot think of much that could help Boris more than the EU over-reacting and blocking vaccine exports.
It simultaneously focuses voters' attention on Boris' one big success in the COVID pandemic, as well as one big advantage of Brexit.
And by over-reacting, the EU look like a mobster state.
Why does the EU give a damn how this makes Boris Johnson look? It's a very Anglocentric view of things.
The point is WE give a damn. This is a betting site, and there are elections coming up.
This is politicalbetting.com, not remainerwanking.com.
(And don't ever call me ANGLOcentric, again).
Look, my point was simply that the EU's approach is understandable from their perspective. I agree it tends to help Johnson politically, looked at from a betting angle.
On "Anglo" most dictionaries take the approach that the prefix "Anglo" in normal usage refers to the UK. I think the history is that an Anglo-American would be anyone from English speaking Europe which at the time would be the whole British Isles. Since Ireland separated, it tends to mean the remaining UK. I know that's not the original etymology, but blame centuries of common usage rather than me, please.
"I agree it tends to help Johnson politically, looked at from a betting angle."
I am glad you accept the point I made is correct & directly relevant to the site. Unlike the point you made in return.
"... blame centuries of common usage rather than me, please."
Lots of thing have had centuries of common usage and are now unacceptable. I guess you don't "black up" anymore. I guess you don't use words like y*d or n****** as racial slurs to refer to minorities anymore. We have all moved on.
Referring to Welsh and Scottish people as "Anglo" is unacceptable now. Even in Norfolk.
In a small way -- admittedly -- this kind of behaviour is one of the things that is contributing to our Disunited Kingdom.
I'd call you Cambrocentric, but then some people might think I'm confusing you with TSE
wallstreetbets fucking up Citron (the hedge fund not the car company) is absolutely glorious.
That is a crazy story, although some suggestion it isn't quite all WallStreetBets doing. Not quite WireCard levels of insanity, but still nuts.
A 10 minute old thread on reddit already has 6,000 posts. Lord know how many are following and "investing" in this mania.
In case anyone is wondering what we are wittering on about. Look at the 52-week low and high on that bad boy.
What do they sell, tulips?
Games Consoles.
However the actual story is that short sellers have been caught out and the prices are rising as the short sellers desperately try to purchase the shares they need to buy to get out of a bet that's gone very wrong.
The constant pecking away is draining to witness. I'm sure it's fine in a courtroom where Sir Keir Starmer cut his teeth but it makes them seem like a bunch of whingebags. The latest two examples of irritating grandstanding are:
1. Seal all the borders. (Runaway!) As the vaccine rollout is going so well this is not the time to seal up the whole country. Last year? Maybe. Now? Probably not really necessary.
2. Jab all teachers now (Instead of the vulnerable who are more likely to die).
It's tiresome. It's also really stupid: see point 2. They don't seem to understand that we're all growing weary of lockdowns and we want to move on. We know, despite most of the media, that we're on course to suppress this virus thanks to a stunning vaccine success. We're talking weeks before we should be able to ease up. This isn't the right time to throw a pall over the country.
I want to see Sir Keir take the initiative with groundbreaking policies to take this country forward for the future instead of peck peck pecking at Boris Johnson's heels.
The vaccination success to date is an impressive basket, but should we really put all our eggs into it? What's the latest on the vaccines we're using on the variants now in circulation? If we get a variants that beat the vaccines we've been using, and it sweeps through populations that thought they were safe, what do you think the political fallout would be?
How would we know what the fallout would be? its never been tried. And many are desperately anxious that is isn't tried, in case things aren't as apocalyptic as they are threatening.
There will come a point, surely, when the economy is so smashed and young people's lives are so ruined that some voters will tolerate quite high death levels among the old and chronically sick to return to their lives.
wallstreetbets fucking up Citron (the hedge fund not the car company) is absolutely glorious.
That is a crazy story, although some suggestion it isn't quite all WallStreetBets doing. Not quite WireCard levels of insanity, but still nuts.
A 10 minute old thread on reddit already has 6,000 posts. Lord know how many are following and "investing" in this mania.
In case anyone is wondering what we are wittering on about. Look at the 52-week low and high on that bad boy.
What do they sell, tulips?
Old fashioned bricks and mortar videogame retailer.
On fundamentals they are absolutely fucked - no one buys games in shops anymore, never mind the pandemic.
As a result a lot of large hedge fundy type institution have taken out short positions on them. But the problem with shorting is that if everyone is doing it then there isn't enough stock to go around. wallstreetbets (and others) are creating a short squeeze and all the funds are getting margin calls. And that is chain reacting because there are so many short positions and so few shares to cover them.
Leave the EU tick, end free movement tick, keep Nissan in Sunderland tick, reduce the influence of the City of London tick
A smaller City is on my (very short) list of TBOBs - tangible benefits of Brexit. Trouble is, the bits I wanted to be smaller - the spivvy cowboy bits - are those likely to prosper. So it's come off. All that's left on there now is cheaper tampons and houses.
Yet houses can only be reduced in price by either less demand (people dying / leaving the UK), more supply (see nimbys), higher interest rates or restricted bank lending.
None of those items have anything to do with Brexit - so basically we've left and got slightly cheaper tampons.
Aren't the EU scrapping the minimum VAT on tampons from 2022?
So we've got 5 % off tampons for a year. Rather less than 1 month's worth of free tampons.
We are more f*cked than a stepmom on Pornhub when our 18 month clearing exemption ends and it isn't permanently renewed.
But those of us in the financial services sector we rank lower than fish.
It's quite amazing really. We had better hope for equivalence.
One of the chaps who is really impacted by this was a heavy backer of Brexit.
He is wistfully saying if you wanted to wilfully destroy the City of London/the UK's financial services pre-eminence then it would look a lot like Boris Johnson's Brexit deal.
There's a side betting market going on here, when will 'anti big bang' day happen, I'm going for the 4th of July 2022, plenty of people have gone for much earlier.
You can see it that's for sure.
I never thought Brexit would be drop on your foot bad for the UK/The City just a gradual diminution of influence and a gradual seeping away of importance. Things are moving a tad quicker than I had thought.
As for the EU/US deal what did we think? That the EU wouldn't be looking to do trade deals with the US also? The difference seems to be, however, that they have managed to do one.
I'm a hope for the best/prepare for the worst kind of guy, but even this is a gutting experience.
I'm genuinely mystified that the party of Margaret Thatcher decided that fish (revenue fuck all) was more important than financial services.
I thought that the pressure would emerge for a good deal for the sector because economical and financial reality would become apparent.
But it looks like the EU are looking for decent alternatives to using the UK, the fact the US is prepared to sign up the EU risk management requirements tells me that EU will be able leverage their size to get what they want.
It was a deal breaker for the UK but not for the Yanks, I suspect the the US will sign up to other things as well to pick up from carcasses of the UK financial services sector.
Starmer Labour and the LDs are increasingly winning over upper middle class professionals.
Evidence?
I'm a white middle class professional, if you count author & journalist, and I'm afraid Labour are losing my affection. Boris is doing a very job on vaccines and that's all that really matters right now and for the remainder of this year.
We are more f*cked than a stepmom on Pornhub when our 18 month clearing exemption ends and it isn't permanently renewed.
But those of us in the financial services sector we rank lower than fish.
It's quite amazing really. We had better hope for equivalence.
One of the chaps who is really impacted by this was a heavy backer of Brexit.
He is wistfully saying if you wanted to wilfully destroy the City of London/the UK's financial services pre-eminence then it would look a lot like Boris Johnson's Brexit deal.
There's a side betting market going on here, when will 'anti big bang' day happen, I'm going for the 4th of July 2022, plenty of people have gone for much earlier.
You can see it that's for sure.
I never thought Brexit would be drop on your foot bad for the UK/The City just a gradual diminution of influence and a gradual seeping away of importance. Things are moving a tad quicker than I had thought.
As for the EU/US deal what did we think? That the EU wouldn't be looking to do trade deals with the US also? The difference seems to be, however, that they have managed to do one.
I'm a hope for the best/prepare for the worst kind of guy, but even this is a gutting experience.
I'm genuinely mystified that the party of Margaret Thatcher decided that fish (revenue fuck all) was more important than financial services.
I thought that the pressure would emerge for a good deal for the sector because economical and financial reality would become apparent.
But it looks like the EU are looking for decent alternatives to using the UK, the fact the US is prepared to sign up the EU risk management requirements tells me that EU will be able leverage their size to get what they want.
It was a deal breaker for the UK but not for the Yanks, I suspect the the US will sign up to other things as well to pick up from carcasses of the UK financial services sector.
The Boris Tory Party is now the party of the white working class and Starmer Labour and the LDs are increasingly winning over upper middle class professionals.
It is no surprise that Boris did not put financial services first in terms of Brexit therefore
He's going to regret that as tax revenues fall off a cliff when the City isn't making money.
He couldnt care less, he will spend on the MMT and leave it to his successors to clean up without shame or accepting of any blame.
Clever from SKS asking for early vaccination of teachers.
Boris may well have planned that anyway but now will find it challenging to do so.
It's a good idea - if he wasn't, he should do so and thank Keir (and me of course, last week) for the idea. It can't harm Boris to be seen to be listening.
It opens a can of worms. There are lots and lots of people who could have a legitimate claim to special treatment.
If the government agrees to one claim, then suddenly there will be thousands if not millions of others...
Teachers to be done for re-opening schools. Can't see other key workers having a huge objection. Most want their kids to go back to school asap I'd imagine.
The 'absolutely united' is a particularly nice touch. Well that's good to hear. I'm sure that impressive unity will magic up vaccines which would never have been produced if Malta had expressed doubts...
The EU argument is extremely weak, all it can be is a PR drive to put pressure on AZ and give the EU public a feeling something is being done. In a few weeks time, as they would have done without this public row, the vaccines will start to flow faster and the world will move on.
* To the inevitable response it is poor PR, it is poor PR from a UK perspective, but EU politicians are more concerned with PR of their citizens.
Yes, that statement is pretty pathetic. Everyone gets AZ have not delivered but pretending saying 'its not good enough' means anything when they cannot deliver what they dont have is transparent political willy waving.
It is quite possible -- if the EU continue to behave like this -- that it magnifies Boris' "success".
Is CCHQ advIsing the EU ?
Because i really cannot think of much that could help Boris more than the EU over-reacting and blocking vaccine exports.
It simultaneously focuses voters' attention on Boris' one big success in the COVID pandemic, as well as one big advantage of Brexit.
And by over-reacting, the EU look like a mobster state.
Why does the EU give a damn how this makes Boris Johnson look? It's a very Anglocentric view of things.
The point is WE give a damn. This is a betting site, and there are elections coming up.
This is politicalbetting.com, not remainerwanking.com.
(And don't ever call me ANGLOcentric, again).
Look, my point was simply that the EU's approach is understandable from their perspective. I agree it tends to help Johnson politically, looked at from a betting angle.
On "Anglo" most dictionaries take the approach that the prefix "Anglo" in normal usage refers to the UK. I think the history is that an Anglo-American would be anyone from English speaking Europe which at the time would be the whole British Isles. Since Ireland separated, it tends to mean the remaining UK. I know that's not the original etymology, but blame centuries of common usage rather than me, please.
"I agree it tends to help Johnson politically, looked at from a betting angle."
I am glad you accept the point I made is correct & directly relevant to the site. Unlike the point you made in return.
"... blame centuries of common usage rather than me, please."
Lots of thing have had centuries of common usage and are now unacceptable. I guess you don't "black up" anymore. I guess you don't use words like y*d or n****** as racial slurs to refer to minorities anymore. We have all moved on.
Referring to Welsh and Scottish people as "Anglo" is unacceptable now. Even in Norfolk.
In a small way -- admittedly -- this kind of behaviour is one of the things that is contributing to our Disunited Kingdom.
wallstreetbets fucking up Citron (the hedge fund not the car company) is absolutely glorious.
That is a crazy story, although some suggestion it isn't quite all WallStreetBets doing. Not quite WireCard levels of insanity, but still nuts.
A 10 minute old thread on reddit already has 6,000 posts. Lord know how many are following and "investing" in this mania.
In case anyone is wondering what we are wittering on about. Look at the 52-week low and high on that bad boy.
What do they sell, tulips?
Old fashioned bricks and mortar videogame retailer.
On fundamentals they are absolutely fucked - no one buys games in shops anymore, never mind the pandemic.
As a result a lot of large hedge fundy type institution have taken out short positions on them. But the problem with shorting is that if everyone is doing it then there isn't enough stock to go around. wallstreetbets (and others) are creating a short squeeze and all the funds are getting margin calls. And that is chain reacting because there are so many short positions and so few shares to cover them.
He who sells what isn't his'n, must buy it back or go to pris'n.
We are more f*cked than a stepmom on Pornhub when our 18 month clearing exemption ends and it isn't permanently renewed.
But those of us in the financial services sector we rank lower than fish.
It's quite amazing really. We had better hope for equivalence.
One of the chaps who is really impacted by this was a heavy backer of Brexit.
He is wistfully saying if you wanted to wilfully destroy the City of London/the UK's financial services pre-eminence then it would look a lot like Boris Johnson's Brexit deal.
There's a side betting market going on here, when will 'anti big bang' day happen, I'm going for the 4th of July 2022, plenty of people have gone for much earlier.
You can see it that's for sure.
I never thought Brexit would be drop on your foot bad for the UK/The City just a gradual diminution of influence and a gradual seeping away of importance. Things are moving a tad quicker than I had thought.
As for the EU/US deal what did we think? That the EU wouldn't be looking to do trade deals with the US also? The difference seems to be, however, that they have managed to do one.
I'm a hope for the best/prepare for the worst kind of guy, but even this is a gutting experience.
I'm genuinely mystified that the party of Margaret Thatcher decided that fish (revenue fuck all) was more important than financial services.
I thought that the pressure would emerge for a good deal for the sector because economical and financial reality would become apparent.
But it looks like the EU are looking for decent alternatives to using the UK, the fact the US is prepared to sign up the EU risk management requirements tells me that EU will be able leverage their size to get what they want.
It was a deal breaker for the UK but not for the Yanks, I suspect the the US will sign up to other things as well to pick up from carcasses of the UK financial services sector.
Starmer Labour and the LDs are increasingly winning over upper middle class professionals.
Evidence?
I'm a white middle class professional, if you count author & journalist, and I'm afraid Labour are losing my affection. Boris is doing a very job on vaccines and that's all that really matters right now and for the remainder of this year.
It is quite possible -- if the EU continue to behave like this -- that it magnifies Boris' "success".
Is CCHQ advIsing the EU ?
Because i really cannot think of much that could help Boris more than the EU over-reacting and blocking vaccine exports.
It simultaneously focuses voters' attention on Boris' one big success in the COVID pandemic, as well as one big advantage of Brexit.
And by over-reacting, the EU look like a mobster state.
Why does the EU give a damn how this makes Boris Johnson look? It's a very Anglocentric view of things.
The point is WE give a damn. This is a betting site, and there are elections coming up.
This is politicalbetting.com, not remainerwanking.com.
(And don't ever call me ANGLOcentric, again).
Look, my point was simply that the EU's approach is understandable from their perspective. I agree it tends to help Johnson politically, looked at from a betting angle.
On "Anglo" most dictionaries take the approach that the prefix "Anglo" in normal usage refers to the UK. I think the history is that an Anglo-American would be anyone from English speaking Europe which at the time would be the whole British Isles. Since Ireland separated, it tends to mean the remaining UK. I know that's not the original etymology, but blame centuries of common usage rather than me, please.
"I agree it tends to help Johnson politically, looked at from a betting angle."
I am glad you accept the point I made is correct & directly relevant to the site. Unlike the point you made in return.
"... blame centuries of common usage rather than me, please."
Lots of thing have had centuries of common usage and are now unacceptable. I guess you don't "black up" anymore. I guess you don't use words like y*d or n****** as racial slurs to refer to minorities anymore. We have all moved on.
Referring to Welsh and Scottish people as "Anglo" is unacceptable now. Even in Norfolk.
In a small way -- admittedly -- this kind of behaviour is one of the things that is contributing to our Disunited Kingdom.
Alright, snowflake.
Oh come on. Don't drag the site down please. That's unnecessary and entirely Ad hominem.
We are more f*cked than a stepmom on Pornhub when our 18 month clearing exemption ends and it isn't permanently renewed.
But those of us in the financial services sector we rank lower than fish.
It's quite amazing really. We had better hope for equivalence.
One of the chaps who is really impacted by this was a heavy backer of Brexit.
He is wistfully saying if you wanted to wilfully destroy the City of London/the UK's financial services pre-eminence then it would look a lot like Boris Johnson's Brexit deal.
There's a side betting market going on here, when will 'anti big bang' day happen, I'm going for the 4th of July 2022, plenty of people have gone for much earlier.
You can see it that's for sure.
I never thought Brexit would be drop on your foot bad for the UK/The City just a gradual diminution of influence and a gradual seeping away of importance. Things are moving a tad quicker than I had thought.
As for the EU/US deal what did we think? That the EU wouldn't be looking to do trade deals with the US also? The difference seems to be, however, that they have managed to do one.
I'm a hope for the best/prepare for the worst kind of guy, but even this is a gutting experience.
I'm genuinely mystified that the party of Margaret Thatcher decided that fish (revenue fuck all) was more important than financial services.
I thought that the pressure would emerge for a good deal for the sector because economical and financial reality would become apparent.
But it looks like the EU are looking for decent alternatives to using the UK, the fact the US is prepared to sign up the EU risk management requirements tells me that EU will be able leverage their size to get what they want.
It was a deal breaker for the UK but not for the Yanks, I suspect the the US will sign up to other things as well to pick up from carcasses of the UK financial services sector.
It's blooming obvious but equally only in retrospect (even if retrospect is 2ms after the announcement).
The US can accept a lot if the rules don't impact their current business and there is extra money to be made from it.
And in one single move London moves than equality with New York to equality with New Jersey (and other back office locations).
I think what will happen is plenty of UK financial institutions will set up US based subsidiaries, if they don't already have them, and book the trades in the US, so the profits and transactions taxes move from the UK to the US and to a lesser extent the EU.
As an aside, next Monday and Tuesday we have a webinar scheduled which is talking about disastrous thing for the City of London/financial services sector that has fallen under the radar.
With us withdrawing from lots of data and intelligence sharing agreements, London might be unable to deal with countries outside the EU as their companies will need proper audit trails and the ability to spot/deal with financial crimes.
There's not enough dodgy Russians and Sheikhs to make up for that potential revenue loss.
We are more f*cked than a stepmom on Pornhub when our 18 month clearing exemption ends and it isn't permanently renewed.
But those of us in the financial services sector we rank lower than fish.
Other than a hostile act of petty vengeance what reason would tbe EU have to give clearing equivalence to US but not UK?
It's not petty vengeance, it's hard-headed commercial calculation, combined with an understandable wish to have direct regulatory oversight over the trading. They want the European timezone trading to move to their exchanges. Why shouldn't they? They don't owe the City or the UK any favours, it was entirely our decision to leave the Single Market and also entirely the decision of Boris not to bother even trying to include services in his thin trade deal.
I agree - game on. Nothing wrong with them wanting to take our business - let's take theirs.
We are more f*cked than a stepmom on Pornhub when our 18 month clearing exemption ends and it isn't permanently renewed.
But those of us in the financial services sector we rank lower than fish.
It's quite amazing really. We had better hope for equivalence.
One of the chaps who is really impacted by this was a heavy backer of Brexit.
He is wistfully saying if you wanted to wilfully destroy the City of London/the UK's financial services pre-eminence then it would look a lot like Boris Johnson's Brexit deal.
There's a side betting market going on here, when will 'anti big bang' day happen, I'm going for the 4th of July 2022, plenty of people have gone for much earlier.
You can see it that's for sure.
I never thought Brexit would be drop on your foot bad for the UK/The City just a gradual diminution of influence and a gradual seeping away of importance. Things are moving a tad quicker than I had thought.
As for the EU/US deal what did we think? That the EU wouldn't be looking to do trade deals with the US also? The difference seems to be, however, that they have managed to do one.
I'm a hope for the best/prepare for the worst kind of guy, but even this is a gutting experience.
I'm genuinely mystified that the party of Margaret Thatcher decided that fish (revenue fuck all) was more important than financial services.
I thought that the pressure would emerge for a good deal for the sector because economical and financial reality would become apparent.
But it looks like the EU are looking for decent alternatives to using the UK, the fact the US is prepared to sign up the EU risk management requirements tells me that EU will be able leverage their size to get what they want.
It was a deal breaker for the UK but not for the Yanks, I suspect the the US will sign up to other things as well to pick up from carcasses of the UK financial services sector.
Starmer Labour and the LDs are increasingly winning over upper middle class professionals.
Evidence?
I'm a white middle class professional, if you count author & journalist, and I'm afraid Labour are losing my affection. Boris is doing a very job on vaccines and that's all that really matters right now and for the remainder of this year.
Clever from SKS asking for early vaccination of teachers.
Boris may well have planned that anyway but now will find it challenging to do so.
It's a good idea - if he wasn't, he should do so and thank Keir (and me of course, last week) for the idea. It can't harm Boris to be seen to be listening.
It opens a can of worms. There are lots and lots of people who could have a legitimate claim to special treatment.
If the government agrees to one claim, then suddenly there will be thousands if not millions of others...
Teachers to be done for re-opening schools. Can't see other key workers having a huge objection. Most want their kids to go back to school asap I'd imagine.
It's a bit more complicated though. If you vaccinate the teachers (waiting 21 days after the 2nd jab by the way) you may be protecting the teachers, which is great and important.
What it does nothing to stop is the children mixing and spreading it back to their homes, their parents, their grandparents and all those people in vulnerable groups above the teachers who will die as a result.
Guido has underestimated the impact of Labour's stupid policy grandstanding.
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.
Well, at least you have clarified that the EU is a bully,
As I've said over the past few days, the veil has come off and people are seeing what the rest of us realised a long time ago. The EU isn't our friend or our ally, it is a trading partner and an unreliable one at that. Individual nations within the EU may vary their relationship a bit, but ultimately the EU-UK relationship needs to be seen through the lens of trade, not friendship as we would say for our relationship with the US or Australia.
That is not the cause of our withdrawal from the EU. It is the consequence of it. If the hard right and the feral media of the UK wants to pour invective and insult on the EU for decades and then spark a crisis that takes the UK out of the EU, then why are they then so surprised that plenty of people in the EU now regards them as fools or worse?
We are now entering an economic crisis that is sending thousands of small businesses to the wall. Fisheries have collapsed, agriculture is not far behind, manufacturing is in deep trouble. The City is bleeding people and assets and under intense pressure to clean up its act anyway. The soft power- the positive view that others have of the country has been hugely weakened by arrogance and stupidity. Even the political unity of the "U"K is no longer a given and is as weak as it has been in 300 years.
So naturally the thuggish populism of those actually responsible for this disgrace will turn on "bloody foreigners". Blame anyone else but those who have destabilized the economic and political foundations of Britain for their own selfish and short sighted reasons... The country is headed to a very dark place and the judgement of history will, I think, be savage to those who have led us to this economic, political and moral disaster.
It is quite possible -- if the EU continue to behave like this -- that it magnifies Boris' "success".
Is CCHQ advIsing the EU ?
Because i really cannot think of much that could help Boris more than the EU over-reacting and blocking vaccine exports.
It simultaneously focuses voters' attention on Boris' one big success in the COVID pandemic, as well as one big advantage of Brexit.
And by over-reacting, the EU look like a mobster state.
Why does the EU give a damn how this makes Boris Johnson look? It's a very Anglocentric view of things.
The point is WE give a damn. This is a betting site, and there are elections coming up.
This is politicalbetting.com, not remainerwanking.com.
(And don't ever call me ANGLOcentric, again).
Look, my point was simply that the EU's approach is understandable from their perspective. I agree it tends to help Johnson politically, looked at from a betting angle.
On "Anglo" most dictionaries take the approach that the prefix "Anglo" in normal usage refers to the UK. I think the history is that an Anglo-American would be anyone from English speaking Europe which at the time would be the whole British Isles. Since Ireland separated, it tends to mean the remaining UK. I know that's not the original etymology, but blame centuries of common usage rather than me, please.
"I agree it tends to help Johnson politically, looked at from a betting angle."
I am glad you accept the point I made is correct & directly relevant to the site. Unlike the point you made in return.
"... blame centuries of common usage rather than me, please."
Lots of thing have had centuries of common usage and are now unacceptable. I guess you don't "black up" anymore. I guess you don't use words like y*d or n****** as racial slurs to refer to minorities anymore. We have all moved on.
Referring to Welsh and Scottish people as "Anglo" is unacceptable now. Even in Norfolk.
In a small way -- admittedly -- this kind of behaviour is one of the things that is contributing to our Disunited Kingdom.
As well as lots of caveats around 'best endeavours, I bet there are two further conditions in the AZ-EU contract:
1. 'Subject to approval by the EMA', which would be an interesting one to bring into the mix.
2. A clause stipulating that AZ won't favour other clients over the EU. The EU might think this gives them the right to dip into our supplies, but I doubt whether a proper reading of the various contracts would support that, assuming the AZ lawyers know what they are doing (which is a very, very good assumption).
I mean it is a bunch of half-rate politicians that couldn't make it in national politics vs. lawyers that probably charge thousands an hour.
Von der Leyen is leagues above corporate lawyer material.
Her work as German defence minister was er.... interesting.
Essentially, she won the Gavin Williamson award for skill in running her department. Beating the real Gavin Williamson.....
It is quite possible -- if the EU continue to behave like this -- that it magnifies Boris' "success".
Is CCHQ advIsing the EU ?
Because i really cannot think of much that could help Boris more than the EU over-reacting and blocking vaccine exports.
It simultaneously focuses voters' attention on Boris' one big success in the COVID pandemic, as well as one big advantage of Brexit.
And by over-reacting, the EU look like a mobster state.
Why does the EU give a damn how this makes Boris Johnson look? It's a very Anglocentric view of things.
The point is WE give a damn. This is a betting site, and there are elections coming up.
This is politicalbetting.com, not remainerwanking.com.
(And don't ever call me ANGLOcentric, again).
Look, my point was simply that the EU's approach is understandable from their perspective. I agree it tends to help Johnson politically, looked at from a betting angle.
On "Anglo" most dictionaries take the approach that the prefix "Anglo" in normal usage refers to the UK. I think the history is that an Anglo-American would be anyone from English speaking Europe which at the time would be the whole British Isles. Since Ireland separated, it tends to mean the remaining UK. I know that's not the original etymology, but blame centuries of common usage rather than me, please.
"I agree it tends to help Johnson politically, looked at from a betting angle."
I am glad you accept the point I made is correct & directly relevant to the site. Unlike the point you made in return.
"... blame centuries of common usage rather than me, please."
Lots of thing have had centuries of common usage and are now unacceptable. I guess you don't "black up" anymore. I guess you don't use words like y*d or n****** as racial slurs to refer to minorities anymore. We have all moved on.
Referring to Welsh and Scottish people as "Anglo" is unacceptable now. Even in Norfolk.
In a small way -- admittedly -- this kind of behaviour is one of the things that is contributing to our Disunited Kingdom.
Alright, snowflake.
Not snowflakey - it is actually quite a problem. The existence of "Anglo-Scottish" shows that the anglo- prefix is actually highly ambiguous, and unhelpfully so given that the difference between UK and "England" is actually a highly salient one these days, and most certainly in the context of the original usage which was (a) about Mr Johnson and (b) given that (for instance) Scotland is very pro-EU. So your original comment could be read in two ways, both with very different meanings. We need a new prefix!
We are more f*cked than a stepmom on Pornhub when our 18 month clearing exemption ends and it isn't permanently renewed.
But those of us in the financial services sector we rank lower than fish.
It's quite amazing really. We had better hope for equivalence.
One of the chaps who is really impacted by this was a heavy backer of Brexit.
He is wistfully saying if you wanted to wilfully destroy the City of London/the UK's financial services pre-eminence then it would look a lot like Boris Johnson's Brexit deal.
There's a side betting market going on here, when will 'anti big bang' day happen, I'm going for the 4th of July 2022, plenty of people have gone for much earlier.
You can see it that's for sure.
I never thought Brexit would be drop on your foot bad for the UK/The City just a gradual diminution of influence and a gradual seeping away of importance. Things are moving a tad quicker than I had thought.
As for the EU/US deal what did we think? That the EU wouldn't be looking to do trade deals with the US also? The difference seems to be, however, that they have managed to do one.
I'm a hope for the best/prepare for the worst kind of guy, but even this is a gutting experience.
I'm genuinely mystified that the party of Margaret Thatcher decided that fish (revenue fuck all) was more important than financial services.
I thought that the pressure would emerge for a good deal for the sector because economical and financial reality would become apparent.
But it looks like the EU are looking for decent alternatives to using the UK, the fact the US is prepared to sign up the EU risk management requirements tells me that EU will be able leverage their size to get what they want.
It was a deal breaker for the UK but not for the Yanks, I suspect the the US will sign up to other things as well to pick up from carcasses of the UK financial services sector.
Starmer Labour and the LDs are increasingly winning over upper middle class professionals.
Evidence?
I'm a white middle class professional, if you count author & journalist, and I'm afraid Labour are losing my affection. Boris is doing a very job on vaccines and that's all that really matters right now and for the remainder of this year.
I asked you for evidence of this alleged movement from the Tories to Labour among the middle classes and professionals. You have provided none. You have given one time point opinion poll which shows the Conservatives continuing to lead.
Comments
FFS...its airbridges all over again.
None of those items have anything to do with Brexit - so basically we've left and got slightly cheaper tampons.
The EU absolutely need this for an economic recovery - and would be cutting themselves off from it if they pursued a lose-lost - so I expect a Deal.
The question is how long.
Europe in U.K. about 27% of pharma sales globally (less for AZ).
U.K. is about 5% of global market
(US is about 50% for comparison)
US is 70% of profits on 50% of revenues so EU profit contribution less than 20%
The constant pecking away is draining to witness. I'm sure it's fine in a courtroom where Sir Keir Starmer cut his teeth but it makes them seem like a bunch of whingebags. The latest two examples of irritating grandstanding are:
1. Seal all the borders. (Runaway!) As the vaccine rollout is going so well this is not the time to seal up the whole country. Last year? Maybe. Now? Probably not really necessary.
2. Jab all teachers now (Instead of the vulnerable who are more likely to die).
It's tiresome. It's also really stupid: see point 2. They don't seem to understand that we're all growing weary of lockdowns and we want to move on. We know, despite most of the media, that we're on course to suppress this virus thanks to a stunning vaccine success. We're talking weeks before we should be able to ease up. This isn't the right time to throw a pall over the country.
I want to see Sir Keir take the initiative with groundbreaking policies to take this country forward for the future instead of peck peck pecking at Boris Johnson's heels.
I'd also note that a "best endeavours" contract isn't some kind of non-binding woolly comfort letter. It's an agreement to make "best endeavours" - which itself is some way above the more common "reasonable endeavours" formulation. If I promised to deliver X units of whatever product under various contracts, was well short of the capacity to do that, and hadn't explored all realistic avenues to deal with it, I'd most likely fail on a best endeavours clause.
I've no idea whether AstraZeneca have met their contractual commitments or not, by the way. But it's a live debate and it doesn't rely on either side being dishonest (although it's possible one or other has been of course).
https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1354438931669016578
The 'absolutely united' is a particularly nice touch. Well that's good to hear. I'm sure that impressive unity will magic up vaccines which would never have been produced if Malta had expressed doubts...
In answer to your question the financial services regulatory regime in the EU is governed by several directives which determine behaviour allowed and not allowed when dealing with EU clients.
The are EU-wide rules and if you want to play you have to adhere to them. Are they onerous? Perhaps. At their heart is customer protection and a desire to increase transparency. The EU put in place these rules governing all types of financial services activities. If you want to sell to EU customers you have to follow them.
Once the UK left the EU they were no longer bound by the rules. To maintain the primacy of the City of London the UK would have to say they were happy to follow the rules.
Ah, late to point that out - @CarlottaVance too quick for me!
But by the same token (brace yourself) the US has say over every institution wherever it does business that clears dollar business.
I am glad you accept the point I made is correct & directly relevant to the site. Unlike the point you made in return.
"... blame centuries of common usage rather than me, please."
Lots of thing have had centuries of common usage and are now unacceptable. I guess you don't "black up" anymore. I guess you don't use words like y*d or n****** as racial slurs to refer to minorities anymore. We have all moved on.
Referring to Welsh and Scottish people as "Anglo" is unacceptable now. Even in Norfolk.
In a small way -- admittedly -- this kind of behaviour is one of the things that is contributing to our Disunited Kingdom.
https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1354438931669016578?s=20
https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1354439912695672842?s=20
The EU is a shoddy mess on vaccination.
The data seems overwhelmingly in favour of reducing hospitalisations as quickly as possible using single jabs.
The response to AZ underdelivering, including insinuations, is they critical point.
People were furious there weren't stockpiles of vaccine ready as suggested here at the start of the year.
Neither case would make lashing out or demanding the impossible reasonable.
Now, I don't know the full contract or indeed whether AZ did indeed make best endeavours. They might well have done. But there are some on here wrongly suggesting that this was basically a heavily supplier-weighted thing, tantamount to a comfort letter. That is by no means true as a legal point.
I'm genuinely mystified that the party of Margaret Thatcher decided that fish (revenue fuck all) was more important than financial services.
I thought that the pressure would emerge for a good deal for the sector because economical and financial reality would become apparent.
But it looks like the EU are looking for decent alternatives to using the UK, the fact the US is prepared to sign up the EU risk management requirements tells me that EU will be able leverage their size to get what they want.
It was a deal breaker for the UK but not for the Yanks, I suspect the the US will sign up to other things as well to pick up from carcasses of the UK financial services sector.
After a great deal of huffing and puffing.. They lost in court.
Hmmmm.... starting a pointless fight with a company based on bollocks, you say.... This sounds familiar. Can someone help me?
And I know you are a practitioner. Some bits are mad (eg double volume caps, which is what @MarqueeMark was talking about, even if he didn't quite realise it!) but as you are aware most of the regulations were driven by the UK and as you also know, there was no piece of EU regulation that the UK didn't gold plate.
I think we would have had marginal decline at worst and, with the innovation that is a hallmark of the City (and not FFT or Paris) would have had great opportunities selling into the EU.
Think about the Forth Bridge (before modern paint systems). It had to be painted quickly enjough to get back to the bits you did first before they went rusty.
Edity: but point taken about weighting the immediate effects.
The US can accept a lot if the rules don't impact their current business and there is extra money to be made from it.
And in one single move London moves than equality with New York to equality with New Jersey (and other back office locations).
I don't think anyone knows for sure how long protection will last. It's quite likely we'll all need boosters occasionally or even annually, but that shouldn't be a problem once we get to steady state and the production capacity has been built up to provide a regular supply.
* To the inevitable response it is poor PR, it is poor PR from a UK perspective, but EU politicians are more concerned with PR of their citizens.
Require declaration for travel to be checked by carrier....
However people have laid out the reasoning and the numbers protected even assuming less than perfect efficacy with it, and I've not seen the logic refuted that it gets more people covered and thus will save lives.
So until that is refuted it seems to be a well considered gamble.
It is no surprise that Boris did not put financial services first in terms of Brexit therefore
So we've got 5 % off tampons for a year. Rather less than 1 month's worth of free tampons.
Didn't see that on a bus.
We are now entering an economic crisis that is sending thousands of small businesses to the wall. Fisheries have collapsed, agriculture is not far behind, manufacturing is in deep trouble. The City is bleeding people and assets and under intense pressure to clean up its act anyway. The soft power- the positive view that others have of the country has been hugely weakened by arrogance and stupidity. Even the political unity of the "U"K is no longer a given and is as weak as it has been in 300 years.
So naturally the thuggish populism of those actually responsible for this disgrace will turn on "bloody foreigners". Blame anyone else but those who have destabilized the economic and political foundations of Britain for their own selfish and short sighted reasons... The country is headed to a very dark place and the judgement of history will, I think, be savage to those who have led us to this economic, political and moral disaster.
However the actual story is that short sellers have been caught out and the prices are rising as the short sellers desperately try to purchase the shares they need to buy to get out of a bet that's gone very wrong.
There will come a point, surely, when the economy is so smashed and young people's lives are so ruined that some voters will tolerate quite high death levels among the old and chronically sick to return to their lives.
On fundamentals they are absolutely fucked - no one buys games in shops anymore, never mind the pandemic.
As a result a lot of large hedge fundy type institution have taken out short positions on them. But the problem with shorting is that if everyone is doing it then there isn't enough stock to go around. wallstreetbets (and others) are creating a short squeeze and all the funds are getting margin calls. And that is chain reacting because there are so many short positions and so few shares to cover them.
This is teesside airport though - so there is only 3 international flights a day so they may as well do complete data collection.
I'm a white middle class professional, if you count author & journalist, and I'm afraid Labour are losing my affection. Boris is doing a very job on vaccines and that's all that really matters right now and for the remainder of this year.
Everything else 'by comparison' is white noise.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tgil1DFwwgA
As an aside, next Monday and Tuesday we have a webinar scheduled which is talking about disastrous thing for the City of London/financial services sector that has fallen under the radar.
With us withdrawing from lots of data and intelligence sharing agreements, London might be unable to deal with countries outside the EU as their companies will need proper audit trails and the ability to spot/deal with financial crimes.
There's not enough dodgy Russians and Sheikhs to make up for that potential revenue loss.
Get in line
C2DEs Tories 44% Labour 32%
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2021/01/25/voting-intention-con-39-lab-38-21-22-jan
What it does nothing to stop is the children mixing and spreading it back to their homes, their parents, their grandparents and all those people in vulnerable groups above the teachers who will die as a result.
Guido has underestimated the impact of Labour's stupid policy grandstanding.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-volkswagen-idUSTRE49R3I920081028
Usual inaccuracies HY I'm afraid.