For those who missed it yesterday - Mr Navabi posted the link to the report:
UK Vaccine Taskforce 2020 Achievements and Future Strategy End of year report
1. VTF has built an attractive portfolio of the most promising vaccines for the UK population The VTF’s strategy to build a diverse portfolio of vaccines across different formats gives the UK the greatest chance of providing a safe and effective vaccine, recognising that many of these vaccines in development may fail. The VTF focused on vaccines that could be in the clinic in 2020, which could be manufactured at scale preferably in the UK, which had the potential to secure rapid regulatory approval and be delivered ready for deployment as rapidly as possible.
2. VTF has shaped new collaborative arrangements to ensure that successful vaccines will be distributed internationally The COVID-19 Vaccines Global Access facility (COVAX), to which the UK has made up to £548 million available, will provide access to vaccines for lower income countries including one billion doses for developing countries worldwide. The UK through the VTF has helped to develop the COVAX facility and has shared its expertise and people with COVAX to support their global efforts.
3. VTF has supported the UK’s industrial strategy by reinforcing long-term vaccine capability to prepare the UK for future pandemics, helping to place the UK at the forefront of vaccine R&D, manufacturing and distribution, but more is needed One of the most interesting and imaginative aspects of the VTF’s work lies in the plans it has laid for future resilience and industrial leadership in this vital area. The VTF has provided targeted funding and focus across three broad areas that support the UK’s long-term pandemic preparedness.
Notably the UK, with about one seventh the population of the EU has contributed substantially more to COVAX than the EU has, so fewer sermons on "we're all in this together" from UVDL might be in order
Point 3 is of particular interest for the future and sounds like a very good idea.
Re Cummings, I was approached anonymously last year by someone claiming that the Barnard Castle trip was all about meetings with Glaxo Smith Kline and not eye trips or whatever. No idea whether that is true but it is certainly the case that GSK has a facility there and it might fit in with your theory that Cummings may have had a part to play.
It would be fascinating to get the full story behind all this one day. Some aspects have been handled badly - process does matter, especially when you are developing a reputation for sleaze - but imaginative and far-seeing thinking about what will be needed combined with the very best of the NHS seems to have resulted so far in a good outcome on the pharmaceutical / vaccine side. So I was too quick to criticise the government over the Bingham appointment. Hands up on that. It seems that she has provided valuable input - especially re investment in future biotech stars (her expertise), whatever other criticisms might be made around government processes. I wonder why the government appeared to hang her out to dry last year.
Quite impressed that the PM has not risen to the bait and been all Brexity about this, despite a stupid question from Peter Bone in the Commons yesterday.
And nor should anyone else be. If European countries don't get vaccines people will die. These are our friends, neighbours and, in my case, my relatives - some of whom are elderly and vulnerable - in Italy, Ireland, France and Spain. I no more want them to suffer just so that some idiot politician or commentator can make a stupid point than I want to be bumped down the priority list because Labour wants to get votes from fit 30-year old teachers.
Talking of which the GP here was all ready to start vaccinating priority groups 5 & 6 here (which I'm in) this week but the North West has had it supply of vaccines reduced. Annoying. Hearing how it is affecting son and hubby has made me (a) more scared of catching it and (b) even more determined to hide away until I'm vaccinated. At this rate, I will have lost the power of speech by the time I'm allowed out of the house.
I have this image of Nadhim Zahawi sitting firmly on Boris' head.
I've looked through the hit pieces, and stuff like she's a disruptor and so forth seem - well that's how stuff had to get done.
Can you work out what the PR contracts might have been about ? That's small beer to the overall success of the project but seemed a reasonable point from the hit pieces back in November. Greasing the wheels with various global drug companies perhaps ?
They've said it was about messaging to overcome people's resistance to accepting vaccines. I'm not sure it was money well spent, but as you say it's minor in the overall scheme of things.
The cross-party efforts by BAME MPs to persuade minority communities to get vaccinated is very welcome and, I hope, effective.
For those who missed it yesterday - Mr Navabi posted the link to the report:
UK Vaccine Taskforce 2020 Achievements and Future Strategy End of year report
1. VTF has built an attractive portfolio of the most promising vaccines for the UK population The VTF’s strategy to build a diverse portfolio of vaccines across different formats gives the UK the greatest chance of providing a safe and effective vaccine, recognising that many of these vaccines in development may fail. The VTF focused on vaccines that could be in the clinic in 2020, which could be manufactured at scale preferably in the UK, which had the potential to secure rapid regulatory approval and be delivered ready for deployment as rapidly as possible.
2. VTF has shaped new collaborative arrangements to ensure that successful vaccines will be distributed internationally The COVID-19 Vaccines Global Access facility (COVAX), to which the UK has made up to £548 million available, will provide access to vaccines for lower income countries including one billion doses for developing countries worldwide. The UK through the VTF has helped to develop the COVAX facility and has shared its expertise and people with COVAX to support their global efforts.
3. VTF has supported the UK’s industrial strategy by reinforcing long-term vaccine capability to prepare the UK for future pandemics, helping to place the UK at the forefront of vaccine R&D, manufacturing and distribution, but more is needed One of the most interesting and imaginative aspects of the VTF’s work lies in the plans it has laid for future resilience and industrial leadership in this vital area. The VTF has provided targeted funding and focus across three broad areas that support the UK’s long-term pandemic preparedness.
Notably the UK, with about one seventh the population of the EU has contributed substantially more to COVAX than the EU has, so fewer sermons on "we're all in this together" from UVDL might be in order
Point 3 is of particular interest for the future and sounds like a very good idea.
Re Cummings, I was approached anonymously last year by someone claiming that the Barnard Castle trip was all about meetings with Glaxo Smith Kline and not eye trips or whatever. No idea whether that is true but it is certainly the case that GSK has a facility there and it might fit in with your theory that Cummings may have had a part to play.
It would be fascinating to get the full story behind all this one day. Some aspects have been handled badly - process does matter, especially when you are developing a reputation for sleaze - but imaginative and far-seeing thinking about what will be needed combined with the very best of the NHS seems to have resulted so far in a good outcome on the pharmaceutical / vaccine side. So I was too quick to criticise the government over the Bingham appointment. Hands up on that. It seems that she has provided valuable input - especially re investment in future biotech stars (her expertise), whatever other criticisms might be made around government processes. I wonder why the government appeared to hang her out to dry last year.
Quite impressed that the PM has not risen to the bait and been all Brexity about this, despite a stupid question from Peter Bone in the Commons yesterday.
And nor should anyone else be. If European countries don't get vaccines people will die. These are our friends, neighbours and, in my case, my relatives - some of whom are elderly and vulnerable - in Italy, Ireland, France and Spain. I no more want them to suffer just so that some idiot politician or commentator can make a stupid point than I want to be bumped down the priority list because Labour wants to get votes from fit 30-year old teachers.
Talking of which the GP here was all ready to start vaccinating priority groups 5 & 6 here (which I'm in) this week but the North West has had it supply of vaccines reduced. Annoying. Hearing how it is affecting son and hubby has made me (a) more scared of catching it and (b) even more determined to hide away until I'm vaccinated. At this rate, I will have lost the power of speech by the time I'm allowed out of the house.
Cummings on a secret vaccine mission would certainly explain why Boris stood four-square behind him, even with all the political damage that undeniably caused.
We've now passed 1 test per person during the pandemic. It'd be interesting to see the distribution of tests amongst the population. Probably more than half of people still haven't had a test ?
From the Journal of N=1: I've had one but Mrs C hasn't.
That is the odd thing about the vaccination programme: they are jabbing couples separately. A friend and his wife are due to be vaccinated the same day but at different vaccination centres. You'd have thought it an obvious optimisation to process couples together.
That was the test. Locally the vaccinations were done on an age basis. I'm 82, and was done with the local over 80's; Mrs C is 79 was among the first of the 75+'s. Equally logical, IMHO.
For those who missed it yesterday - Mr Navabi posted the link to the report:
UK Vaccine Taskforce 2020 Achievements and Future Strategy End of year report
1. VTF has built an attractive portfolio of the most promising vaccines for the UK population The VTF’s strategy to build a diverse portfolio of vaccines across different formats gives the UK the greatest chance of providing a safe and effective vaccine, recognising that many of these vaccines in development may fail. The VTF focused on vaccines that could be in the clinic in 2020, which could be manufactured at scale preferably in the UK, which had the potential to secure rapid regulatory approval and be delivered ready for deployment as rapidly as possible.
2. VTF has shaped new collaborative arrangements to ensure that successful vaccines will be distributed internationally The COVID-19 Vaccines Global Access facility (COVAX), to which the UK has made up to £548 million available, will provide access to vaccines for lower income countries including one billion doses for developing countries worldwide. The UK through the VTF has helped to develop the COVAX facility and has shared its expertise and people with COVAX to support their global efforts.
3. VTF has supported the UK’s industrial strategy by reinforcing long-term vaccine capability to prepare the UK for future pandemics, helping to place the UK at the forefront of vaccine R&D, manufacturing and distribution, but more is needed One of the most interesting and imaginative aspects of the VTF’s work lies in the plans it has laid for future resilience and industrial leadership in this vital area. The VTF has provided targeted funding and focus across three broad areas that support the UK’s long-term pandemic preparedness.
Notably the UK, with about one seventh the population of the EU has contributed substantially more to COVAX than the EU has, so fewer sermons on "we're all in this together" from UVDL might be in order
Point 3 is of particular interest for the future and sounds like a very good idea.
Re Cummings, I was approached anonymously last year by someone claiming that the Barnard Castle trip was all about meetings with Glaxo Smith Kline and not eye trips or whatever. No idea whether that is true but it is certainly the case that GSK has a facility there and it might fit in with your theory that Cummings may have had a part to play.
It would be fascinating to get the full story behind all this one day. Some aspects have been handled badly - process does matter, especially when you are developing a reputation for sleaze - but imaginative and far-seeing thinking about what will be needed combined with the very best of the NHS seems to have resulted so far in a good outcome on the pharmaceutical / vaccine side. So I was too quick to criticise the government over the Bingham appointment. Hands up on that. It seems that she has provided valuable input - especially re investment in future biotech stars (her expertise), whatever other criticisms might be made around government processes. I wonder why the government appeared to hang her out to dry last year.
Quite impressed that the PM has not risen to the bait and been all Brexity about this, despite a stupid question from Peter Bone in the Commons yesterday.
And nor should anyone else be. If European countries don't get vaccines people will die. These are our friends, neighbours and, in my case, my relatives - some of whom are elderly and vulnerable - in Italy, Ireland, France and Spain. I no more want them to suffer just so that some idiot politician or commentator can make a stupid point than I want to be bumped down the priority list because Labour wants to get votes from fit 30-year old teachers.
Talking of which the GP here was all ready to start vaccinating priority groups 5 & 6 here (which I'm in) this week but the North West has had it supply of vaccines reduced. Annoying. Hearing how it is affecting son and hubby has made me (a) more scared of catching it and (b) even more determined to hide away until I'm vaccinated. At this rate, I will have lost the power of speech by the time I'm allowed out of the house.
I have this image of Nadhim Zahawi sitting firmly on Boris' head.
You should sell it to the newspapers. Be up there with the mythical Cameron/Pig photo.
With regards to the absurd petty nationalism that seems to have arisen over the vaccine, I have to ask: are we an island? As in one that has absolutely cut itself off from the world? If we have, then we don't need to worry about the rest of humanity and can keep British Vaccine for British Workers.
If, on the other hand, we let people waltz in across our border without so much as a temperature check, its in our best interests to have europeans also vaccinated.
Some on here will be very pleased to hear that Inghams have just cancelled my skiing trip to Italy in March. Not a surprise! I'm offered cash or refund.
My eldest son was the 'celebrity' International snowboarder at Whistler in Inghams holiday catalogue in the 1990s
So the answer to my questions about the UK vaccine response has been almost entirely "WHAT ABOUT THE EU? WAAAAAAAHHHHHH"
Thanks for playing, lads...
The UK vaccine response has been absolutely awesome. Early contracts signed with multiple vendors, investment in local manufacturing, parallel processing of approvals, military resources assisting with logistics.
The result - third in the world of number of jabs in arms so far, with only the much larger USA and China ahead.
If you prefer per capita numbers, then also third in the world, behind two small and rich countries in Israel and UAE, well ahead of all other G20 and EU27 nations.
If one was being charitable, they might want to call it a world-beating programme. Arise Dame Kate Bingham.
She stopped working for the government in December, I understand. The people who are organising the vaccination programme are in the NHS. They may be anonymous but they deserve a great deal of praise. Buying is one thing but the hard job of getting vaccinations actually organised around the country and delivered is not down to one person and not to her but the people who do this - albeit on a lesser scale - year after year.
For those who missed it yesterday - Mr Navabi posted the link to the report:
UK Vaccine Taskforce 2020 Achievements and Future Strategy End of year report
1. VTF has built an attractive portfolio of the most promising vaccines for the UK population The VTF’s strategy to build a diverse portfolio of vaccines across different formats gives the UK the greatest chance of providing a safe and effective vaccine, recognising that many of these vaccines in development may fail. The VTF focused on vaccines that could be in the clinic in 2020, which could be manufactured at scale preferably in the UK, which had the potential to secure rapid regulatory approval and be delivered ready for deployment as rapidly as possible.
2. VTF has shaped new collaborative arrangements to ensure that successful vaccines will be distributed internationally The COVID-19 Vaccines Global Access facility (COVAX), to which the UK has made up to £548 million available, will provide access to vaccines for lower income countries including one billion doses for developing countries worldwide. The UK through the VTF has helped to develop the COVAX facility and has shared its expertise and people with COVAX to support their global efforts.
3. VTF has supported the UK’s industrial strategy by reinforcing long-term vaccine capability to prepare the UK for future pandemics, helping to place the UK at the forefront of vaccine R&D, manufacturing and distribution, but more is needed One of the most interesting and imaginative aspects of the VTF’s work lies in the plans it has laid for future resilience and industrial leadership in this vital area. The VTF has provided targeted funding and focus across three broad areas that support the UK’s long-term pandemic preparedness.
Notably the UK, with about one seventh the population of the EU has contributed substantially more to COVAX than the EU has, so fewer sermons on "we're all in this together" from UVDL might be in order
Point 3 is of particular interest for the future and sounds like a very good idea.
Re Cummings, I was approached anonymously last year by someone claiming that the Barnard Castle trip was all about meetings with Glaxo Smith Kline and not eye trips or whatever. No idea whether that is true but it is certainly the case that GSK has a facility there and it might fit in with your theory that Cummings may have had a part to play.
It would be fascinating to get the full story behind all this one day. Some aspects have been handled badly - process does matter, especially when you are developing a reputation for sleaze - but imaginative and far-seeing thinking about what will be needed combined with the very best of the NHS seems to have resulted so far in a good outcome on the pharmaceutical / vaccine side. So I was too quick to criticise the government over the Bingham appointment. Hands up on that. It seems that she has provided valuable input - especially re investment in future biotech stars (her expertise), whatever other criticisms might be made around government processes. I wonder why the government appeared to hang her out to dry last year.
Quite impressed that the PM has not risen to the bait and been all Brexity about this, despite a stupid question from Peter Bone in the Commons yesterday.
And nor should anyone else be. If European countries don't get vaccines people will die. These are our friends, neighbours and, in my case, my relatives - some of whom are elderly and vulnerable - in Italy, Ireland, France and Spain. I no more want them to suffer just so that some idiot politician or commentator can make a stupid point than I want to be bumped down the priority list because Labour wants to get votes from fit 30-year old teachers.
Talking of which the GP here was all ready to start vaccinating priority groups 5 & 6 here (which I'm in) this week but the North West has had it supply of vaccines reduced. Annoying. Hearing how it is affecting son and hubby has made me (a) more scared of catching it and (b) even more determined to hide away until I'm vaccinated. At this rate, I will have lost the power of speech by the time I'm allowed out of the house.
Cummings on a secret vaccine mission would certainly explain why Boris stood four-square behind him, even with all the political damage that undeniably caused.
Why wouldn't the explanation have mentioned something about performing vital work, even if they could not say what it was?
Sure, many would not have believed it without details, but if that excuse existed they could have defended the situation very differently.
There's a parallel universe in which Remain won in 2016 and our government went with the EU scheme.
PM Farage nailed on.
Vaccine Nationalism. The same nationalism as cause of the Irish Potato Famine. In terms of politics, reactionary, short termist and very bad.
In terms of morality, unchristian.
In terms of history, repeating the same mistakes as Empire.
Boris Johnson and supporters of his vaccine nationalism on here, all those things.
So EU Vaccine nationalism good; UK nationalism bad. Got it.
Which of the two entities has given the most money in vaccine research? Which has given the most to Covax? Which has the greatest potential spare capacity to help the developing countries access vaccines?
You can take your morality and place it where the Mediterranean sun I see out of my window doesn't shine.
There's a parallel universe in which Remain won in 2016 and our government went with the EU scheme.
PM Farage nailed on.
(I think you're joking, but...) More complex than that though. Same shit-show, likely (although acknowledging @LostPassword 's suggestion that maybe the EU's response could have been better with UK involvement) but fewer comparators for success. We'd be looking at Israel (special deal, small country), UAE and US with a bit of envy, but we'd likely be similar to Denmark and thinking we were doing ok. AZN might not yet be available, so we'd be be looking wistfully at Pfizer deliveries in the US and hoping we'd get some more soon.
Also, who amongst us would have imagined the Johnson government's vaccine success if we'd been part of the EU scheme? I'm very surprised by it. The evidence on deaths would probably lead us to think we'd have done even worse outside the EU scheme.
The UK success is what is making it obvious the EU messed this one up.
For those who missed it yesterday - Mr Navabi posted the link to the report:
UK Vaccine Taskforce 2020 Achievements and Future Strategy End of year report
1. VTF has built an attractive portfolio of the most promising vaccines for the UK population The VTF’s strategy to build a diverse portfolio of vaccines across different formats gives the UK the greatest chance of providing a safe and effective vaccine, recognising that many of these vaccines in development may fail. The VTF focused on vaccines that could be in the clinic in 2020, which could be manufactured at scale preferably in the UK, which had the potential to secure rapid regulatory approval and be delivered ready for deployment as rapidly as possible.
2. VTF has shaped new collaborative arrangements to ensure that successful vaccines will be distributed internationally The COVID-19 Vaccines Global Access facility (COVAX), to which the UK has made up to £548 million available, will provide access to vaccines for lower income countries including one billion doses for developing countries worldwide. The UK through the VTF has helped to develop the COVAX facility and has shared its expertise and people with COVAX to support their global efforts.
3. VTF has supported the UK’s industrial strategy by reinforcing long-term vaccine capability to prepare the UK for future pandemics, helping to place the UK at the forefront of vaccine R&D, manufacturing and distribution, but more is needed One of the most interesting and imaginative aspects of the VTF’s work lies in the plans it has laid for future resilience and industrial leadership in this vital area. The VTF has provided targeted funding and focus across three broad areas that support the UK’s long-term pandemic preparedness.
Notably the UK, with about one seventh the population of the EU has contributed substantially more to COVAX than the EU has, so fewer sermons on "we're all in this together" from UVDL might be in order
Point 3 is of particular interest for the future and sounds like a very good idea.
Re Cummings, I was approached anonymously last year by someone claiming that the Barnard Castle trip was all about meetings with Glaxo Smith Kline and not eye trips or whatever. No idea whether that is true but it is certainly the case that GSK has a facility there and it might fit in with your theory that Cummings may have had a part to play.
It would be fascinating to get the full story behind all this one day. Some aspects have been handled badly - process does matter, especially when you are developing a reputation for sleaze - but imaginative and far-seeing thinking about what will be needed combined with the very best of the NHS seems to have resulted so far in a good outcome on the pharmaceutical / vaccine side. So I was too quick to criticise the government over the Bingham appointment. Hands up on that. It seems that she has provided valuable input - especially re investment in future biotech stars (her expertise), whatever other criticisms might be made around government processes. I wonder why the government appeared to hang her out to dry last year.
Quite impressed that the PM has not risen to the bait and been all Brexity about this, despite a stupid question from Peter Bone in the Commons yesterday.
And nor should anyone else be. If European countries don't get vaccines people will die. These are our friends, neighbours and, in my case, my relatives - some of whom are elderly and vulnerable - in Italy, Ireland, France and Spain. I no more want them to suffer just so that some idiot politician or commentator can make a stupid point than I want to be bumped down the priority list because Labour wants to get votes from fit 30-year old teachers.
Talking of which the GP here was all ready to start vaccinating priority groups 5 & 6 here (which I'm in) this week but the North West has had it supply of vaccines reduced. Annoying. Hearing how it is affecting son and hubby has made me (a) more scared of catching it and (b) even more determined to hide away until I'm vaccinated. At this rate, I will have lost the power of speech by the time I'm allowed out of the house.
Cummings on a secret vaccine mission would certainly explain why Boris stood four-square behind him, even with all the political damage that undeniably caused.
Why wouldn't the explanation have mentioned something about performing vital work, even if they could not say what it was?
Sure, many would not have believed it without details, but if that excuse existed they could have defended the situation very differently.
"Vital work my arse" would still have been the response.
The press would never have stopped digging, and probably fucked up some sensitive negotiations in the process.
Am I the only lifelong pro-European who is starting to think we're better off outside the EU?
Nope, and I don't think economically we'll be better off outside the EU but I do agree that in situations that require fast action like vaccines we'll be a much nimbler country. If we can use this to our advantage on issues such as sanctions in the future (e.g the EU pissed about over Belarus because of Cyprus) then that's the real benefit of Brexit in my view. However, that all relies on a government willing to grab the controls and not just flail about as has happened with the coronavirus restrictions.
The situation is undoubtedly an EU failure, but (please correct me if wrong) being in the EU would not have prevented the UK from doing what it did. Other EU countries could also have done the same.
AIUI the UK would have been stopped from all the upfront investment in supply facilities under state aid rules. AFAIK NO other EU country has remotely done as much as the UK - and the entire EU has done LESS than the UK on vaccines for the Third World.
Interesting. So state aid rules would have prevented the VTF from doing its thing?
Some say the EU AZ order was held up for 3 months because Macron wanted a big order for Sanofi....if we ever get to the bottom of it.....
I actually doubt that. Canada, the US, and the UK all placed big orders for the Sanofi/GSK jab, which in the early days was thought to be one of the most likely to be successful.
This goes into the detail of what happened in some depth:
Being serious it illustrates exactly the dilemma for Labour and the LDs if they want to fight for the Union. It may be a lost cause already but all 3 parties need to work together if they are to make a fight. Two or three separate campaigns will not win it.
I don't see how the 3 unionists parties combine into a single campaign when all want different things. Keith Brittas can hardly say that Labour should work with the LibDems when a significant number of members don't think Labour should work with Labour MPs. Ed Davey wants to be seen as the sane moral alternative to both Labour and Tories and wants a federal UK solution. The Tories want to continue to speak out both in favour of the status quo and against the Barnet formula monies which Scotland is too stupid to spend properly.
The only clear and consistent campaign will be for independence. And all of the "ah but whatabout" objections thrown at them - the border, currency, trade etc etc - can be reduced to very little weight by pointing to the Brexit referendum. Like Brexit its a vote from the heart. At this stage I am really struggling to see what counter-offer the unionist side has to make.
With regards to the absurd petty nationalism that seems to have arisen over the vaccine, I have to ask: are we an island? As in one that has absolutely cut itself off from the world? If we have, then we don't need to worry about the rest of humanity and can keep British Vaccine for British Workers.
If, on the other hand, we let people waltz in across our border without so much as a temperature check, its in our best interests to have europeans also vaccinated.
The UK has dedicated more to vaccinating the rest of the world than the entire EU combined has done.
Answer your concerns? Or are you saying we should vaccinate the UK, the third world and pay for Europe to be vaccinated too?
There's a parallel universe in which Remain won in 2016 and our government went with the EU scheme.
PM Farage nailed on.
Vaccine Nationalism. The same nationalism as cause of the Irish Potato Famine. In terms of politics, reactionary, short termist and very bad.
In terms of morality, unchristian.
In terms of history, repeating the same mistakes as Empire.
Boris Johnson and supporters of his vaccine nationalism on here, all those things.
So EU Vaccine nationalism good; UK nationalism bad. Got it.
Which of the two entities has given the most money in vaccine research? Which has given the most to Covax? Which has the greatest potential spare capacity to help the developing countries access vaccines?
You can take your morality and place it where the Mediterranean sun I see out of my window doesn't shine.
You are not very bright if you can’t see how badly vaccine nationalism and reactionary politics plays out in long run.
There's a parallel universe in which Remain won in 2016 and our government went with the EU scheme.
PM Farage nailed on.
Vaccine Nationalism. The same nationalism as cause of the Irish Potato Famine. In terms of politics, reactionary, short termist and very bad.
In terms of morality, unchristian.
In terms of history, repeating the same mistakes as Empire.
Boris Johnson and supporters of his vaccine nationalism on here, all those things.
So EU Vaccine nationalism good; UK nationalism bad. Got it.
Which of the two entities has given the most mkney in vaccine research? Which has given the most to Covax? Which has the greatest potential spare capacity to help the developing countries access vaccines?
You can take your morality and place it where the Mediterranean sun I see out of my window doesn't shine.
It is a standard feature of all nationalism that
- my nationalism is rational, to the point of not really being nationalism but good sense. - your nationalism is demented, evil and stupid.
With regards to the absurd petty nationalism that seems to have arisen over the vaccine, I have to ask: are we an island? As in one that has absolutely cut itself off from the world? If we have, then we don't need to worry about the rest of humanity and can keep British Vaccine for British Workers.
If, on the other hand, we let people waltz in across our border without so much as a temperature check, its in our best interests to have europeans also vaccinated.
The UK has dedicated more to vaccinating the rest of the world than the entire EU combined has done.
Answer your concerns? Or are you saying we should vaccinate the UK, the third world and pay for Europe to be vaccinated too?
Also a bit inconsistent with the demands to close the borders. If it's effective, it won't be a concern.
Being serious it illustrates exactly the dilemma for Labour and the LDs if they want to fight for the Union. It may be a lost cause already but all 3 parties need to work together if they are to make a fight. Two or three separate campaigns will not win it.
I don't see how the 3 unionists parties combine into a single campaign when all want different things. Keith Brittas can hardly say that Labour should work with the LibDems when a significant number of members don't think Labour should work with Labour MPs. Ed Davey wants to be seen as the sane moral alternative to both Labour and Tories and wants a federal UK solution. The Tories want to continue to speak out both in favour of the status quo and against the Barnet formula monies which Scotland is too stupid to spend properly.
The only clear and consistent campaign will be for independence. And all of the "ah but whatabout" objections thrown at them - the border, currency, trade etc etc - can be reduced to very little weight by pointing to the Brexit referendum. Like Brexit its a vote from the heart. At this stage I am really struggling to see what counter-offer the unionist side has to make.
Sometimes people have to accept that the real world is imperfect. If they fail to work together then they are willing to sacrifice the Union sadly.
There's a parallel universe in which Remain won in 2016 and our government went with the EU scheme.
PM Farage nailed on.
(I think you're joking, but...) More complex than that though. Same shit-show, likely (although acknowledging @LostPassword 's suggestion that maybe the EU's response could have been better with UK involvement) but fewer comparators for success. We'd be looking at Israel (special deal, small country), UAE and US with a bit of envy, but we'd likely be similar to Denmark and thinking we were doing ok. AZN might not yet be available, so we'd be be looking wistfully at Pfizer deliveries in the US and hoping we'd get some more soon.
Also, who amongst us would have imagined the Johnson government's vaccine success if we'd been part of the EU scheme? I'm very surprised by it. The evidence on deaths would probably lead us to think we'd have done even worse outside the EU scheme.
The UK success is what is making it obvious the EU messed this one up.
That's a fair point. It's Brexit that's shown up the EU for being completely fucking useless. No wonder they're lashing out.
It might but for many of working age the fear of redundancy and actual joblessness could override it.
Not to mention the complete f**k up that has been made of Covid up to now - the government has got it right about vaccines but they got everything else wrong. People aren't going to forget all of that.
FWIW I think the Tory vaccine bounce will be rather like the Brexit bounce that was confidently predicted by many on here a few weeks ago - pretty non-existent.
There's a parallel universe in which Remain won in 2016 and our government went with the EU scheme.
PM Farage nailed on.
Vaccine Nationalism. The same nationalism as cause of the Irish Potato Famine. In terms of politics, reactionary, short termist and very bad.
In terms of morality, unchristian.
In terms of history, repeating the same mistakes as Empire.
Boris Johnson and supporters of his vaccine nationalism on here, all those things.
You do realise that our 'vaccine nationalism' has had the effect of hugely increasing the number of doses available early, I hope? To be made available to us first, yes, but not at the expense of anyone else, and once we're jabbed up, it will benefit the whole world.
So, not much like the Irish Potato Famine (??? what the hell?), not reactionary, not short termist, not 'very bad', and hardly unchristian, and absolutely zilch to do with the 'mistakes' (or indeed the good points) of the Empire.
The partisan reaction to this is staggering. I mean, I think Boris is a buffoon who should never have been made PM, but on this particular issue, there is nothing, literally nothing, to criticise him for, and much to praise his government for.
There's a parallel universe in which Remain won in 2016 and our government went with the EU scheme.
PM Farage nailed on.
Vaccine Nationalism. The same nationalism as cause of the Irish Potato Famine. In terms of politics, reactionary, short termist and very bad.
In terms of morality, unchristian.
In terms of history, repeating the same mistakes as Empire.
Boris Johnson and supporters of his vaccine nationalism on here, all those things.
So EU Vaccine nationalism good; UK nationalism bad. Got it.
Which of the two entities has given the most money in vaccine research? Which has given the most to Covax? Which has the greatest potential spare capacity to help the developing countries access vaccines?
You're missing the point, because you're ignoring the three articles of EU faith:
1) The EU is always right 2) Therefore any country that disagrees with it must be wrong 3) Whatever the problem, More Europe is the solution.
Virtually every single action by the EU, from the Common Agricultural Policy to the euro to the current vaccine disaster, can be explained by those three simple articles, in one way or another.
Am I the only lifelong pro-European who is starting to think we're better off outside the EU?
Nope, and I don't think economically we'll be better off outside the EU but I do agree that in situations that require fast action like vaccines we'll be a much nimbler country. If we can use this to our advantage on issues such as sanctions in the future (e.g the EU pissed about over Belarus because of Cyprus) then that's the real benefit of Brexit in my view. However, that all relies on a government willing to grab the controls and not just flail about as has happened with the coronavirus restrictions.
The situation is undoubtedly an EU failure, but (please correct me if wrong) being in the EU would not have prevented the UK from doing what it did. Other EU countries could also have done the same.
AIUI the UK would have been stopped from all the upfront investment in supply facilities under state aid rules. AFAIK NO other EU country has remotely done as much as the UK - and the entire EU has done LESS than the UK on vaccines for the Third World.
Interesting. So state aid rules would have prevented the VTF from doing its thing?
No, it's the interminable arguments over who gets what money and all the horrible bureaucracy that comes with it. They were already months late, now add in arguments about where the subsidy money goes int the equation. They'd probably still be arguing about it.
I suppose the question is could we have done what we did within the EU or did we specifically go against any EU reg or law to do it.
We could have, definitely. It would have been politically very difficult to not be in the EU scheme though so I don't think we would have. Indeed, if we were still EU members with out own scheme outside of the EU one the calls for "unity" from the British to share vaccines would be even greater than they are now.
I know you're being obtuse on this and thing to get to technicalities to weasel out of criticising the EU, but you need to face up to it, the EU has completely shat the bed.
They have been shocking. But as with so much we have seen, we could have done exactly what we did while still being in the EU (cf exporting to the US, Tonga, The Dutch Antilles, etc).
And as with @Philip_Thompson yesterday dismissing "the contract", yes absolutely I want to get to "technicalities" as that determines the whole issue.
Your literal "could have, would have, if we were, would be..." supposition doesn't cut it.
Ok, so let's travel the other road then, and do t BS about "we can't know" to get out of it.
We vote remain in 2016, in 2020 this horrific pandemic hits us.
It's April and the government is screaming at the pharma industry to get into gear and make a vaccine, any vaccine. The same things are happening all over the developed world. The UK and US decide to have a special taskforce to handle these things and they are based on subsidies for industry (Operation Warp speed in the US and the VTF here). So far no difference.
In June the EU, which we are still a full member of, not on the way out of, decides to wade in.
First quantum alternate reality - do we enter the scheme as "good Europeans" or decline and stick with what we have?
Let's say the timeline continues as before and we decline based on the scheme being flawed as a purchase scheme rather than a subsidy scheme.
Next break point, we have our own successful scheme as now and the EU scheme failed as before, now we're in the EU. Are we "good Europeans" and will we now become part of the EU scheme with our superior per capita purchases and domestic manufacturing capacity? How much pressure is on PM Osborne to submit to the EU? Is the guardian writing editorials saying that we're culpable for the deaths of old people in Europe and that good Europeans would share their resources.
All of these things need to be taken into account. So far you're looking at specific technicalities and completely missing the forest for the trees. It's never about the rules with the EU, it's always a political calculation. Hence the lack of subsidies in their purchasing scheme, it gets bogged down in politics. Take the politics into account when judging how well the EU scheme would really have worked for us.
So the answer to my questions about the UK vaccine response has been almost entirely "WHAT ABOUT THE EU? WAAAAAAAHHHHHH"
Thanks for playing, lads...
The UK vaccine response has been absolutely awesome. Early contracts signed with multiple vendors, investment in local manufacturing, parallel processing of approvals, military resources assisting with logistics.
The result - third in the world of number of jabs in arms so far, with only the much larger USA and China ahead.
If you prefer per capita numbers, then also third in the world, behind two small and rich countries in Israel and UAE, well ahead of all other G20 and EU27 nations.
If one was being charitable, they might want to call it a world-beating programme. Arise Dame Kate Bingham.
Dame? Hereditary dukedom more like.
If that’s what she would prefer, I don’t think anyone will stand in the way.
I will. We can't on the one hand criticise the lack of democracy in the EU then have unelected people in our legislature. If Ms Bingham wants to be a legislator she can bloody well stand for Parliament. Someone can be a genius at their job and an absolute moron when it comes to matters outside their competence - **cough ..... Lord Sumption ...... cough **.
pfizer 92% effective starting 7 days after shot 2.
Dont just dont!!
Those who have had Pfizer are very lucky
My son had Pfizer, he was originally being given a different one but on the actual day was told he was not able to have that one (I think they said wasn't eligible) so redirected to another site for the Pfizer
For those who missed it yesterday - Mr Navabi posted the link to the report:
UK Vaccine Taskforce 2020 Achievements and Future Strategy End of year report
1. VTF has built an attractive portfolio of the most promising vaccines for the UK population The VTF’s strategy to build a diverse portfolio of vaccines across different formats gives the UK the greatest chance of providing a safe and effective vaccine, recognising that many of these vaccines in development may fail. The VTF focused on vaccines that could be in the clinic in 2020, which could be manufactured at scale preferably in the UK, which had the potential to secure rapid regulatory approval and be delivered ready for deployment as rapidly as possible.
2. VTF has shaped new collaborative arrangements to ensure that successful vaccines will be distributed internationally The COVID-19 Vaccines Global Access facility (COVAX), to which the UK has made up to £548 million available, will provide access to vaccines for lower income countries including one billion doses for developing countries worldwide. The UK through the VTF has helped to develop the COVAX facility and has shared its expertise and people with COVAX to support their global efforts.
3. VTF has supported the UK’s industrial strategy by reinforcing long-term vaccine capability to prepare the UK for future pandemics, helping to place the UK at the forefront of vaccine R&D, manufacturing and distribution, but more is needed One of the most interesting and imaginative aspects of the VTF’s work lies in the plans it has laid for future resilience and industrial leadership in this vital area. The VTF has provided targeted funding and focus across three broad areas that support the UK’s long-term pandemic preparedness.
Notably the UK, with about one seventh the population of the EU has contributed substantially more to COVAX than the EU has, so fewer sermons on "we're all in this together" from UVDL might be in order
Point 3 is of particular interest for the future and sounds like a very good idea.
Re Cummings, I was approached anonymously last year by someone claiming that the Barnard Castle trip was all about meetings with Glaxo Smith Kline and not eye trips or whatever. No idea whether that is true but it is certainly the case that GSK has a facility there and it might fit in with your theory that Cummings may have had a part to play.
It would be fascinating to get the full story behind all this one day. Some aspects have been handled badly - process does matter, especially when you are developing a reputation for sleaze - but imaginative and far-seeing thinking about what will be needed combined with the very best of the NHS seems to have resulted so far in a good outcome on the pharmaceutical / vaccine side. So I was too quick to criticise the government over the Bingham appointment. Hands up on that. It seems that she has provided valuable input - especially re investment in future biotech stars (her expertise), whatever other criticisms might be made around government processes. I wonder why the government appeared to hang her out to dry last year.
Quite impressed that the PM has not risen to the bait and been all Brexity about this, despite a stupid question from Peter Bone in the Commons yesterday.
And nor should anyone else be. If European countries don't get vaccines people will die. These are our friends, neighbours and, in my case, my relatives - some of whom are elderly and vulnerable - in Italy, Ireland, France and Spain. I no more want them to suffer just so that some idiot politician or commentator can make a stupid point than I want to be bumped down the priority list because Labour wants to get votes from fit 30-year old teachers.
Talking of which the GP here was all ready to start vaccinating priority groups 5 & 6 here (which I'm in) this week but the North West has had it supply of vaccines reduced. Annoying. Hearing how it is affecting son and hubby has made me (a) more scared of catching it and (b) even more determined to hide away until I'm vaccinated. At this rate, I will have lost the power of speech by the time I'm allowed out of the house.
Cummings on a secret vaccine mission would certainly explain why Boris stood four-square behind him, even with all the political damage that undeniably caused.
Why wouldn't the explanation have mentioned something about performing vital work, even if they could not say what it was?
Sure, many would not have believed it without details, but if that excuse existed they could have defended the situation very differently.
"Vital work my arse" would still have been the response.
The press would never have stopped digging, and probably fucked up some sensitive negotiations in the process.
Like they stopped digging because of the eye test story?
There's a parallel universe in which Remain won in 2016 and our government went with the EU scheme.
PM Farage nailed on.
Vaccine Nationalism. The same nationalism as cause of the Irish Potato Famine. In terms of politics, reactionary, short termist and very bad.
In terms of morality, unchristian.
In terms of history, repeating the same mistakes as Empire.
Boris Johnson and supporters of his vaccine nationalism on here, all those things.
So EU Vaccine nationalism good; UK nationalism bad. Got it.
Which of the two entities has given the most money in vaccine research? Which has given the most to Covax? Which has the greatest potential spare capacity to help the developing countries access vaccines?
You're missing the point, because you're ignoring the three articles of EU faith:
1) The EU is always right 2) Therefore any country that disagrees with it must be wrong 3) Whatever the problem, More Europe is the solution.
Virtually every single action by the EU can be explained by those three simple articles, in one way or another.
There's a parallel universe in which Remain won in 2016 and our government went with the EU scheme.
PM Farage nailed on.
Vaccine Nationalism. The same nationalism as cause of the Irish Potato Famine. In terms of politics, reactionary, short termist and very bad.
In terms of morality, unchristian.
In terms of history, repeating the same mistakes as Empire.
Boris Johnson and supporters of his vaccine nationalism on here, all those things.
So EU Vaccine nationalism good; UK nationalism bad. Got it.
Which of the two entities has given the most money in vaccine research? Which has given the most to Covax? Which has the greatest potential spare capacity to help the developing countries access vaccines?
You can take your morality and place it where the Mediterranean sun I see out of my window doesn't shine.
You are not very bright if you can’t see how badly vaccine nationalism and reactionary politics plays out in long run.
So the answer to my questions about the UK vaccine response has been almost entirely "WHAT ABOUT THE EU? WAAAAAAAHHHHHH"
Thanks for playing, lads...
The UK vaccine response has been absolutely awesome. Early contracts signed with multiple vendors, investment in local manufacturing, parallel processing of approvals, military resources assisting with logistics.
The result - third in the world of number of jabs in arms so far, with only the much larger USA and China ahead.
If you prefer per capita numbers, then also third in the world, behind two small and rich countries in Israel and UAE, well ahead of all other G20 and EU27 nations.
If one was being charitable, they might want to call it a world-beating programme. Arise Dame Kate Bingham.
Dame? Hereditary dukedom more like.
If that’s what she would prefer, I don’t think anyone will stand in the way.
I will. We can't on the one hand criticise the lack of democracy in the EU then have unelected people in our legislature. If Ms Bingham wants to be a legislator she can bloody well stand for Parliament. Someone can be a genius at their job and an absolute moron when it comes to matters outside their competence - **cough ..... Lord Sumption ...... cough **.
Luckily hereditary peerages do not confer the automatic right to sit in Parliament!
There's a parallel universe in which Remain won in 2016 and our government went with the EU scheme.
PM Farage nailed on.
Vaccine Nationalism. The same nationalism as cause of the Irish Potato Famine. In terms of politics, reactionary, short termist and very bad.
In terms of morality, unchristian.
In terms of history, repeating the same mistakes as Empire.
Boris Johnson and supporters of his vaccine nationalism on here, all those things.
So EU Vaccine nationalism good; UK nationalism bad. Got it.
Which of the two entities has given the most money in vaccine research? Which has given the most to Covax? Which has the greatest potential spare capacity to help the developing countries access vaccines?
You can take your morality and place it where the Mediterranean sun I see out of my window doesn't shine.
You are not very bright if you can’t see how badly vaccine nationalism and reactionary politics plays out in long run.
Ok, can you tell your mates in the EU then, they're threatening export bans.
Being serious it illustrates exactly the dilemma for Labour and the LDs if they want to fight for the Union. It may be a lost cause already but all 3 parties need to work together if they are to make a fight. Two or three separate campaigns will not win it.
I don't see how the 3 unionists parties combine into a single campaign when all want different things. Keith Brittas can hardly say that Labour should work with the LibDems when a significant number of members don't think Labour should work with Labour MPs. Ed Davey wants to be seen as the sane moral alternative to both Labour and Tories and wants a federal UK solution. The Tories want to continue to speak out both in favour of the status quo and against the Barnet formula monies which Scotland is too stupid to spend properly.
The only clear and consistent campaign will be for independence. And all of the "ah but whatabout" objections thrown at them - the border, currency, trade etc etc - can be reduced to very little weight by pointing to the Brexit referendum. Like Brexit its a vote from the heart. At this stage I am really struggling to see what counter-offer the unionist side has to make.
Sometimes people have to accept that the real world is imperfect. If they fail to work together then they are willing to sacrifice the Union sadly.
Well said. I know that working together really did hit SLAB in particular very hard, but ultimately either they agree that despite their very different politics they support the union, or they don't. If they do, some cooperation is unavoidable as they will be saying a lot of the same things, even though they will differ on aspects of it. If their voters and supporters cannot bear them working together even on this single issue, well, as you say it sadly shows that the Union is not worth enough to them.
There's a parallel universe in which Remain won in 2016 and our government went with the EU scheme.
PM Farage nailed on.
Vaccine Nationalism. The same nationalism as cause of the Irish Potato Famine. In terms of politics, reactionary, short termist and very bad.
In terms of morality, unchristian.
In terms of history, repeating the same mistakes as Empire.
Boris Johnson and supporters of his vaccine nationalism on here, all those things.
So EU Vaccine nationalism good; UK nationalism bad. Got it.
Which of the two entities has given the most money in vaccine research? Which has given the most to Covax? Which has the greatest potential spare capacity to help the developing countries access vaccines?
You're missing the point, because you're ignoring the three articles of EU faith:
1) The EU is always right 2) Therefore any country that disagrees with it must be wrong 3) Whatever the problem, More Europe is the solution.
Virtually every single action by the EU, from the Common Agricultural Policy to the euro to the current vaccine disaster, can be explained by those three simple articles, in one way or another.
Bring back Scott'nPaste - he at least is the loon we know and love!
Even @williamglenn the biggest Europhile on this forum has criticised the EU over this.
Ummm, in case you hadn't noticed, we left the EU.
Why would we care what they do?
My question was about the UK response. The whole point of Brexit according to some. Hold our own elected leaders accountable, right?
Because they fucked up their vaccine purchasing and are demanding our supply you complete and utter cretin.
And we will hold this lot to account, in 2024 (likely well before then) Boris will get what's coming to him. What mechanism is there to remove the commissioners who failed everyone in Europe and are now demanding UK vaccine supply be diverted?
Fuck you, Scott. You're pathetic.
Maybe it's just me, but I find it a bit depressing when personal abuse of another poster gets so many 'likes' on here. Civilised debate with civil disgreement?
There's a parallel universe in which Remain won in 2016 and our government went with the EU scheme.
PM Farage nailed on.
Vaccine Nationalism. The same nationalism as cause of the Irish Potato Famine. In terms of politics, reactionary, short termist and very bad.
In terms of morality, unchristian.
In terms of history, repeating the same mistakes as Empire.
Boris Johnson and supporters of his vaccine nationalism on here, all those things.
So EU Vaccine nationalism good; UK nationalism bad. Got it.
Which of the two entities has given the most money in vaccine research? Which has given the most to Covax? Which has the greatest potential spare capacity to help the developing countries access vaccines?
You're missing the point, because you're ignoring the three articles of EU faith:
1) The EU is always right 2) Therefore any country that disagrees with it must be wrong 3) Whatever the problem, More Europe is the solution.
Virtually every single action by the EU, from the Common Agricultural Policy to the euro to the current vaccine disaster, can be explained by those three simple articles, in one way or another.
Bring back Scott'nPaste - he at least is the loon we know and love!
It's a bit like 1st November 1940, the first day after the Battle of Britain.
With regards to the absurd petty nationalism that seems to have arisen over the vaccine, I have to ask: are we an island? As in one that has absolutely cut itself off from the world? If we have, then we don't need to worry about the rest of humanity and can keep British Vaccine for British Workers.
If, on the other hand, we let people waltz in across our border without so much as a temperature check, its in our best interests to have europeans also vaccinated.
The UK has dedicated more to vaccinating the rest of the world than the entire EU combined has done.
Answer your concerns? Or are you saying we should vaccinate the UK, the third world and pay for Europe to be vaccinated too?
Erm no, thats one of your typical strawmen. We pay for our jabs, Europe pays for their jabs, the world helps pay for jabs in poor countries. Its not us vs them though, its all of us vs Covid.
There's a parallel universe in which Remain won in 2016 and our government went with the EU scheme.
PM Farage nailed on.
Vaccine Nationalism. The same nationalism as cause of the Irish Potato Famine. In terms of politics, reactionary, short termist and very bad.
In terms of morality, unchristian.
In terms of history, repeating the same mistakes as Empire.
Boris Johnson and supporters of his vaccine nationalism on here, all those things.
So EU Vaccine nationalism good; UK nationalism bad. Got it.
Which of the two entities has given the most mkney in vaccine research? Which has given the most to Covax? Which has the greatest potential spare capacity to help the developing countries access vaccines?
You can take your morality and place it where the Mediterranean sun I see out of my window doesn't shine.
It is a standard feature of all nationalism that
- my nationalism is rational, to the point of not really being nationalism but good sense. - your nationalism is demented, evil and stupid.
Some, not all.
As an English nationalist I believe that our own government will do better if it is fully answerable to the voters over all of our laws.
But also as an English nationalist I support Scottish nationalists and Irish nationalists as I believe that Scotland will fare better once the Scottish government has full responsibility for Scottish laws and that [Northern] Ireland would do better once the Irish government is responsible for Ireland and answerable to the voters over all of its laws.
I don't like or support the SNP and I despise Sinn Fein but I respect the nationalist cause as long as its done peacefully for those countries.
Maybe it's just me, but I find it a bit depressing when personal abuse of another poster gets so many 'likes' on here. Civilised debate with civil disgreement?
So the answer to my questions about the UK vaccine response has been almost entirely "WHAT ABOUT THE EU? WAAAAAAAHHHHHH"
Thanks for playing, lads...
The UK vaccine response has been absolutely awesome. Early contracts signed with multiple vendors, investment in local manufacturing, parallel processing of approvals, military resources assisting with logistics.
The result - third in the world of number of jabs in arms so far, with only the much larger USA and China ahead.
If you prefer per capita numbers, then also third in the world, behind two small and rich countries in Israel and UAE, well ahead of all other G20 and EU27 nations.
If one was being charitable, they might want to call it a world-beating programme. Arise Dame Kate Bingham.
Dame? Hereditary dukedom more like.
If that’s what she would prefer, I don’t think anyone will stand in the way.
I will. We can't on the one hand criticise the lack of democracy in the EU then have unelected people in our legislature. If Ms Bingham wants to be a legislator she can bloody well stand for Parliament. Someone can be a genius at their job and an absolute moron when it comes to matters outside their competence - **cough ..... Lord Sumption ...... cough **.
You're just saying that because people have silenced him from speaking his mind to persuade you. I read that many times.
So the answer to my questions about the UK vaccine response has been almost entirely "WHAT ABOUT THE EU? WAAAAAAAHHHHHH"
Thanks for playing, lads...
The UK vaccine response has been absolutely awesome. Early contracts signed with multiple vendors, investment in local manufacturing, parallel processing of approvals, military resources assisting with logistics.
The result - third in the world of number of jabs in arms so far, with only the much larger USA and China ahead.
If you prefer per capita numbers, then also third in the world, behind two small and rich countries in Israel and UAE, well ahead of all other G20 and EU27 nations.
If one was being charitable, they might want to call it a world-beating programme. Arise Dame Kate Bingham.
Dame? Hereditary dukedom more like.
If that’s what she would prefer, I don’t think anyone will stand in the way.
I will. We can't on the one hand criticise the lack of democracy in the EU then have unelected people in our legislature. If Ms Bingham wants to be a legislator she can bloody well stand for Parliament. Someone can be a genius at their job and an absolute moron when it comes to matters outside their competence - **cough ..... Lord Sumption ...... cough **.
Luckily hereditary peerages do not confer the automatic right to sit in Parliament!
I'm not a fan of the honours system. To many gongs given to people just for doing their job. Too little honouring of those who do something really special.
And the nomination of peers for the Lords is just a cesspit of cronyism.
Am I the only lifelong pro-European who is starting to think we're better off outside the EU?
Nope, and I don't think economically we'll be better off outside the EU but I do agree that in situations that require fast action like vaccines we'll be a much nimbler country. If we can use this to our advantage on issues such as sanctions in the future (e.g the EU pissed about over Belarus because of Cyprus) then that's the real benefit of Brexit in my view. However, that all relies on a government willing to grab the controls and not just flail about as has happened with the coronavirus restrictions.
The situation is undoubtedly an EU failure, but (please correct me if wrong) being in the EU would not have prevented the UK from doing what it did. Other EU countries could also have done the same.
AIUI the UK would have been stopped from all the upfront investment in supply facilities under state aid rules. AFAIK NO other EU country has remotely done as much as the UK - and the entire EU has done LESS than the UK on vaccines for the Third World.
Interesting. So state aid rules would have prevented the VTF from doing its thing?
No, it's the interminable arguments over who gets what money and all the horrible bureaucracy that comes with it. They were already months late, now add in arguments about where the subsidy money goes int the equation. They'd probably still be arguing about it.
I suppose the question is could we have done what we did within the EU or did we specifically go against any EU reg or law to do it.
We could have, definitely. It would have been politically very difficult to not be in the EU scheme though so I don't think we would have. Indeed, if we were still EU members with out own scheme outside of the EU one the calls for "unity" from the British to share vaccines would be even greater than they are now.
I know you're being obtuse on this and thing to get to technicalities to weasel out of criticising the EU, but you need to face up to it, the EU has completely shat the bed.
They have been shocking. But as with so much we have seen, we could have done exactly what we did while still being in the EU (cf exporting to the US, Tonga, The Dutch Antilles, etc).
And as with @Philip_Thompson yesterday dismissing "the contract", yes absolutely I want to get to "technicalities" as that determines the whole issue.
Your literal "could have, would have, if we were, would be..." supposition doesn't cut it.
Ok, so let's travel the other road then, and do t BS about "we can't know" to get out of it.
We vote remain in 2016, in 2020 this horrific pandemic hits us.
It's April and the government is screaming at the pharma industry to get into gear and make a vaccine, any vaccine. The same things are happening all over the developed world. The UK and US decide to have a special taskforce to handle these things and they are based on subsidies for industry (Operation Warp speed in the US and the VTF here). So far no difference.
In June the EU, which we are still a full member of, not on the way out of, decides to wade in.
First quantum alternate reality - do we enter the scheme as "good Europeans" or decline and stick with what we have?
Let's say the timeline continues as before and we decline based on the scheme being flawed as a purchase scheme rather than a subsidy scheme.
Next break point, we have our own successful scheme as now and the EU scheme failed as before, now we're in the EU. Are we "good Europeans" and will we now become part of the EU scheme with our superior per capita purchases and domestic manufacturing capacity? How much pressure is on PM Osborne to submit to the EU? Is the guardian writing editorials saying that we're culpable for the deaths of old people in Europe and that good Europeans would share their resources.
All of these things need to be taken into account. So far you're looking at specific technicalities and completely missing the forest for the trees. It's never about the rules with the EU, it's always a political calculation. Hence the lack of subsidies in their purchasing scheme, it gets bogged down in politics. Take the politics into account when judging how well the EU scheme would really have worked for us.
Well it's a great counterfactual and I'm just amazed that its conclusions support your theory.
How about one where Hagrid the Great emerged to reclaim the land of the Angles and invaded the continent?
We don't know what we don't know. All that you said could have happened but equally, like we have done with many instances over the past years, we could have had the determination to do our own thing.
This is what bugs me about the anti-EUers on here. They are so lacking in confidence in the UK that they think the UK has and would have been so cowed by the EU that we would have refused to take actions in our best interests. That we would have cowered under the mighty jackboot of the EU and be forced to sit in our room on a time out.
I have and had much more confidence in the UK to act in its best interests when it needs to.
And what you have agreed is that being a member of the EU wouldn't have prevented us doing so in this instance.
I appreciate fantasy counterfactuals are much more fun than technicalities but there is one I would rely on over the other.
If the reports that the shorts are naked and over 100% are correct, the market abuse is the short sellers. Not those holding contracts and shares.
The suggestion that shares should be loaned without the consent of the owner, just so that the hedges can play with them, is particularly risible.
Ah. I haven't been following particularly closely, just saw @Charles' post - and thought the issue was the ramping of the stock. If they were naked shorts then yes of course that's illegal.
Naked shorting is a market abuse the SEC has winked at for a decade or more.
I don't get the fuss being made about the PM's trip to Scotland. This isn't the same as his jolly off to Olympic Park on his bike. This is work. *Politically* it will be self-defeating. But as a justifiable work trip that he can't do from home? Sure.
There's always a Nippy response to Boris. If he doesn't go to Scotland during the pandemic it would be "So where is our so-called Prime Minister in all this? Does he not care about the suffering of the Scottish people? Does he even know where Scotland is?"
Boris is coming to claim credit for the fantastically successful investment that the UK was able to make in developing vaccines (approx 7x the EU), the brilliant British success in developing a vaccine in such a short period of time, the incredible investment that was made in developing UK based production which is now proving to be so important, the outstanding way that the UK government secured enough vaccine to treat everyone in the UK by early contracts and to emphasise how much Scotland has benefited from the union in this respect. He will also heap praise on the incredibly fast roll out of the vaccine whilst asking, with a slightly quizzical look, what exactly is the problem in Scotland and can the UK government do more to help deal with their inadequacies.
So the answer to my questions about the UK vaccine response has been almost entirely "WHAT ABOUT THE EU? WAAAAAAAHHHHHH"
Thanks for playing, lads...
The UK vaccine response has been absolutely awesome. Early contracts signed with multiple vendors, investment in local manufacturing, parallel processing of approvals, military resources assisting with logistics.
The result - third in the world of number of jabs in arms so far, with only the much larger USA and China ahead.
If you prefer per capita numbers, then also third in the world, behind two small and rich countries in Israel and UAE, well ahead of all other G20 and EU27 nations.
If one was being charitable, they might want to call it a world-beating programme. Arise Dame Kate Bingham.
Dame? Hereditary dukedom more like.
If that’s what she would prefer, I don’t think anyone will stand in the way.
I will. We can't on the one hand criticise the lack of democracy in the EU then have unelected people in our legislature. If Ms Bingham wants to be a legislator she can bloody well stand for Parliament. Someone can be a genius at their job and an absolute moron when it comes to matters outside their competence - **cough ..... Lord Sumption ...... cough **.
You're just saying that because people have silenced him from speaking his mind to persuade you. I read that many times.
With regards to the absurd petty nationalism that seems to have arisen over the vaccine, I have to ask: are we an island? As in one that has absolutely cut itself off from the world? If we have, then we don't need to worry about the rest of humanity and can keep British Vaccine for British Workers.
If, on the other hand, we let people waltz in across our border without so much as a temperature check, its in our best interests to have europeans also vaccinated.
The UK has dedicated more to vaccinating the rest of the world than the entire EU combined has done.
Answer your concerns? Or are you saying we should vaccinate the UK, the third world and pay for Europe to be vaccinated too?
Erm no, thats one of your typical strawmen. We pay for our jabs, Europe pays for their jabs, the world helps pay for jabs in poor countries. Its not us vs them though, its all of us vs Covid.
You should be directing your question at the EU, not the UK. They are the ones that seem to be interested in petty nationalism and isolationism.
With regards to the absurd petty nationalism that seems to have arisen over the vaccine, I have to ask: are we an island? As in one that has absolutely cut itself off from the world? If we have, then we don't need to worry about the rest of humanity and can keep British Vaccine for British Workers.
If, on the other hand, we let people waltz in across our border without so much as a temperature check, its in our best interests to have europeans also vaccinated.
The UK has dedicated more to vaccinating the rest of the world than the entire EU combined has done.
Answer your concerns? Or are you saying we should vaccinate the UK, the third world and pay for Europe to be vaccinated too?
Erm no, thats one of your typical strawmen. We pay for our jabs, Europe pays for their jabs, the world helps pay for jabs in poor countries. Its not us vs them though, its all of us vs Covid.
No, the world doesn't pay for jabs in poor countries. We are paying more to Covax for poor country vaccinations than the whole of the EU combined.
We are also paying more to build our jabs production than the EU did.
We have spent more on vaccinations - domestic and abroad - than the entire EU combined have done. So we're not equitably "us vs Covid".
Once more I see a prominent figure, this time a Tory MP, on talk radio and SKY News claiming there is an attempt to "silence" him.
These folk never quite get that it is the Universe trying to silence them, because the Universe already has more than enough evidence to know they are a pillock.
So the answer to my questions about the UK vaccine response has been almost entirely "WHAT ABOUT THE EU? WAAAAAAAHHHHHH"
Thanks for playing, lads...
The UK vaccine response has been absolutely awesome. Early contracts signed with multiple vendors, investment in local manufacturing, parallel processing of approvals, military resources assisting with logistics.
The result - third in the world of number of jabs in arms so far, with only the much larger USA and China ahead.
If you prefer per capita numbers, then also third in the world, behind two small and rich countries in Israel and UAE, well ahead of all other G20 and EU27 nations.
If one was being charitable, they might want to call it a world-beating programme. Arise Dame Kate Bingham.
Dame? Hereditary dukedom more like.
If that’s what she would prefer, I don’t think anyone will stand in the way.
I will. We can't on the one hand criticise the lack of democracy in the EU then have unelected people in our legislature. If Ms Bingham wants to be a legislator she can bloody well stand for Parliament. Someone can be a genius at their job and an absolute moron when it comes to matters outside their competence - **cough ..... Lord Sumption ...... cough **.
Luckily hereditary peerages do not confer the automatic right to sit in Parliament!
I'm not a fan of the honours system. To many gongs given to people just for doing their job. Too little honouring of those who do something really special.
And the nomination of peers for the Lords is just a cesspit of cronyism.
Gongs are pretty harmless even if too many are given not for any actual achievement. It's just some letters after your name or a meaningless title. Peerages matter.
For a start no MP should be made a peer until at least a full parliamentary term has passed from when they were in the Commons. It should not be a way to encourage some fossilised old codger to give up his safe seat so your Spad can get it.
But many other improvements could be mave even without junking it. As the Lord Speaker would be happy to say as well.
On topic, wasn’t Lime selling ineffective, tainted penicillin on the black market? Pretty sure that there will be that type of racket over the next year.
He watered it down, as it was worth £70 a tube. Made it highly toxic.
I have a horrible feeling you might be right about vaccines...
Am I the only lifelong pro-European who is starting to think we're better off outside the EU?
Nope, and I don't think economically we'll be better off outside the EU but I do agree that in situations that require fast action like vaccines we'll be a much nimbler country. If we can use this to our advantage on issues such as sanctions in the future (e.g the EU pissed about over Belarus because of Cyprus) then that's the real benefit of Brexit in my view. However, that all relies on a government willing to grab the controls and not just flail about as has happened with the coronavirus restrictions.
The situation is undoubtedly an EU failure, but (please correct me if wrong) being in the EU would not have prevented the UK from doing what it did. Other EU countries could also have done the same.
AIUI the UK would have been stopped from all the upfront investment in supply facilities under state aid rules. AFAIK NO other EU country has remotely done as much as the UK - and the entire EU has done LESS than the UK on vaccines for the Third World.
Interesting. So state aid rules would have prevented the VTF from doing its thing?
No, it's the interminable arguments over who gets what money and all the horrible bureaucracy that comes with it. They were already months late, now add in arguments about where the subsidy money goes int the equation. They'd probably still be arguing about it.
I suppose the question is could we have done what we did within the EU or did we specifically go against any EU reg or law to do it.
We could have, definitely. It would have been politically very difficult to not be in the EU scheme though so I don't think we would have. Indeed, if we were still EU members with out own scheme outside of the EU one the calls for "unity" from the British to share vaccines would be even greater than they are now.
I know you're being obtuse on this and thing to get to technicalities to weasel out of criticising the EU, but you need to face up to it, the EU has completely shat the bed.
They have been shocking. But as with so much we have seen, we could have done exactly what we did while still being in the EU (cf exporting to the US, Tonga, The Dutch Antilles, etc).
And as with @Philip_Thompson yesterday dismissing "the contract", yes absolutely I want to get to "technicalities" as that determines the whole issue.
Your literal "could have, would have, if we were, would be..." supposition doesn't cut it.
Ok, so let's travel the other road then, and do t BS about "we can't know" to get out of it.
We vote remain in 2016, in 2020 this horrific pandemic hits us.
It's April and the government is screaming at the pharma industry to get into gear and make a vaccine, any vaccine. The same things are happening all over the developed world. The UK and US decide to have a special taskforce to handle these things and they are based on subsidies for industry (Operation Warp speed in the US and the VTF here). So far no difference.
In June the EU, which we are still a full member of, not on the way out of, decides to wade in.
First quantum alternate reality - do we enter the scheme as "good Europeans" or decline and stick with what we have?
Let's say the timeline continues as before and we decline based on the scheme being flawed as a purchase scheme rather than a subsidy scheme.
Next break point, we have our own successful scheme as now and the EU scheme failed as before, now we're in the EU. Are we "good Europeans" and will we now become part of the EU scheme with our superior per capita purchases and domestic manufacturing capacity? How much pressure is on PM Osborne to submit to the EU? Is the guardian writing editorials saying that we're culpable for the deaths of old people in Europe and that good Europeans would share their resources.
All of these things need to be taken into account. So far you're looking at specific technicalities and completely missing the forest for the trees. It's never about the rules with the EU, it's always a political calculation. Hence the lack of subsidies in their purchasing scheme, it gets bogged down in politics. Take the politics into account when judging how well the EU scheme would really have worked for us.
Well it's a great counterfactual and I'm just amazed that its conclusions support your theory.
How about one where Hagrid the Great emerged to reclaim the land of the Angles and invaded the continent?
We don't know what we don't know. All that you said could have happened but equally, like we have done with many instances over the past years, we could have had the determination to do our own thing.
This is what bugs me about the anti-EUers on here. They are so lacking in confidence in the UK that they think the UK has and would have been so cowed by the EU that we would have refused to take actions in our best interests. That we would have cowered under the mighty jackboot of the EU and be forced to sit in our room on a time out.
I have and had much more confidence in the UK to act in its best interests when it needs to.
And what you have agreed is that being a member of the EU wouldn't have prevented us doing so in this instance.
I appreciate fantasy counterfactuals are much more fun than technicalities but there is one I would rely on over the other.
And we're back to square one of simply ignoring the fact of EU politics. Fine, but that doesn't make it go away. In fact it's one of the major driving forces of leaving the EU.
If the reports that the shorts are naked and over 100% are correct, the market abuse is the short sellers. Not those holding contracts and shares.
The suggestion that shares should be loaned without the consent of the owner, just so that the hedges can play with them, is particularly risible.
Ah. I haven't been following particularly closely, just saw @Charles' post - and thought the issue was the ramping of the stock. If they were naked shorts then yes of course that's illegal.
Naked shorting is a market abuse the SEC has winked at for a decade or more.
As @Ishmael_Z is on, and one for @Charles also. Great article about it here.
tl;dr? What I said earlier! It may be pump and dump but that is quite a stretch given the circumstances of the "pump".
With regards to the absurd petty nationalism that seems to have arisen over the vaccine, I have to ask: are we an island? As in one that has absolutely cut itself off from the world? If we have, then we don't need to worry about the rest of humanity and can keep British Vaccine for British Workers.
If, on the other hand, we let people waltz in across our border without so much as a temperature check, its in our best interests to have europeans also vaccinated.
The UK has dedicated more to vaccinating the rest of the world than the entire EU combined has done.
Answer your concerns? Or are you saying we should vaccinate the UK, the third world and pay for Europe to be vaccinated too?
Erm no, thats one of your typical strawmen. We pay for our jabs, Europe pays for their jabs, the world helps pay for jabs in poor countries. Its not us vs them though, its all of us vs Covid.
No, the world doesn't pay for jabs in poor countries. We are paying more to Covax for poor country vaccinations than the whole of the EU combined.
We are also paying more to build our jabs production than the EU did.
We have spent more on vaccinations - domestic and abroad - than the entire EU combined have done. So we're not equitably "us vs Covid".
Jesus, I didn't think this one was difficult. It is "Us" - as in people - vs Covid. Lets assume for a minute that we break the back of it in the UK through our vaccination programme. But they don't in France though their woeful EU system or whatever. The virus mutates again there. Into a vaccine resistant form, which then travels here through our open border.
Most of us vaccinated against a bug which mutates to get around it. We're back to square one. Insisting that we spent more than the french on a now useless vaccination programme won't help us.
So we need Europe to catch us up, not fight battles with them over "you can't have it, its ours". And get most of the world immunised. So that when it mutates again we aren't all still at risk.
For those who missed it yesterday - Mr Navabi posted the link to the report:
UK Vaccine Taskforce 2020 Achievements and Future Strategy End of year report
1. VTF has built an attractive portfolio of the most promising vaccines for the UK population The VTF’s strategy to build a diverse portfolio of vaccines across different formats gives the UK the greatest chance of providing a safe and effective vaccine, recognising that many of these vaccines in development may fail. The VTF focused on vaccines that could be in the clinic in 2020, which could be manufactured at scale preferably in the UK, which had the potential to secure rapid regulatory approval and be delivered ready for deployment as rapidly as possible.
2. VTF has shaped new collaborative arrangements to ensure that successful vaccines will be distributed internationally The COVID-19 Vaccines Global Access facility (COVAX), to which the UK has made up to £548 million available, will provide access to vaccines for lower income countries including one billion doses for developing countries worldwide. The UK through the VTF has helped to develop the COVAX facility and has shared its expertise and people with COVAX to support their global efforts.
3. VTF has supported the UK’s industrial strategy by reinforcing long-term vaccine capability to prepare the UK for future pandemics, helping to place the UK at the forefront of vaccine R&D, manufacturing and distribution, but more is needed One of the most interesting and imaginative aspects of the VTF’s work lies in the plans it has laid for future resilience and industrial leadership in this vital area. The VTF has provided targeted funding and focus across three broad areas that support the UK’s long-term pandemic preparedness.
Notably the UK, with about one seventh the population of the EU has contributed substantially more to COVAX than the EU has, so fewer sermons on "we're all in this together" from UVDL might be in order
Point 3 is of particular interest for the future and sounds like a very good idea.
Re Cummings, I was approached anonymously last year by someone claiming that the Barnard Castle trip was all about meetings with Glaxo Smith Kline and not eye trips or whatever. No idea whether that is true but it is certainly the case that GSK has a facility there and it might fit in with your theory that Cummings may have had a part to play.
It would be fascinating to get the full story behind all this one day. Some aspects have been handled badly - process does matter, especially when you are developing a reputation for sleaze - but imaginative and far-seeing thinking about what will be needed combined with the very best of the NHS seems to have resulted so far in a good outcome on the pharmaceutical / vaccine side. So I was too quick to criticise the government over the Bingham appointment. Hands up on that. It seems that she has provided valuable input - especially re investment in future biotech stars (her expertise), whatever other criticisms might be made around government processes. I wonder why the government appeared to hang her out to dry last year.
Quite impressed that the PM has not risen to the bait and been all Brexity about this, despite a stupid question from Peter Bone in the Commons yesterday.
And nor should anyone else be. If European countries don't get vaccines people will die. These are our friends, neighbours and, in my case, my relatives - some of whom are elderly and vulnerable - in Italy, Ireland, France and Spain. I no more want them to suffer just so that some idiot politician or commentator can make a stupid point than I want to be bumped down the priority list because Labour wants to get votes from fit 30-year old teachers.
Talking of which the GP here was all ready to start vaccinating priority groups 5 & 6 here (which I'm in) this week but the North West has had it supply of vaccines reduced. Annoying. Hearing how it is affecting son and hubby has made me (a) more scared of catching it and (b) even more determined to hide away until I'm vaccinated. At this rate, I will have lost the power of speech by the time I'm allowed out of the house.
Cummings on a secret vaccine mission would certainly explain why Boris stood four-square behind him, even with all the political damage that undeniably caused.
There's revisionism and then there's whatever this is. Secret vaccine mission. FFS.
Anyway, please stop it. I'm trying to concentrate on something and it's putting me off.
With regards to the absurd petty nationalism that seems to have arisen over the vaccine, I have to ask: are we an island? As in one that has absolutely cut itself off from the world? If we have, then we don't need to worry about the rest of humanity and can keep British Vaccine for British Workers.
If, on the other hand, we let people waltz in across our border without so much as a temperature check, its in our best interests to have europeans also vaccinated.
The UK has dedicated more to vaccinating the rest of the world than the entire EU combined has done.
Answer your concerns? Or are you saying we should vaccinate the UK, the third world and pay for Europe to be vaccinated too?
Erm no, thats one of your typical strawmen. We pay for our jabs, Europe pays for their jabs, the world helps pay for jabs in poor countries. Its not us vs them though, its all of us vs Covid.
You should be directing your question at the EU, not the UK. They are the ones that seem to be interested in petty nationalism and isolationism.
So its not being cheered on here. By Philip as one example...
What's interesting here is what the Johnson government do with their temporary vaccine upper hand over the EU.
If its nothing, there could be a price to pay from the right. Their vaccine policy is undoubtedly a triumph, but I am not sure its a laurel to be resting on. Not sure at all.
There's a parallel universe in which Remain won in 2016 and our government went with the EU scheme.
PM Farage nailed on.
Vaccine Nationalism. The same nationalism as cause of the Irish Potato Famine. In terms of politics, reactionary, short termist and very bad.
In terms of morality, unchristian.
In terms of history, repeating the same mistakes as Empire.
Boris Johnson and supporters of his vaccine nationalism on here, all those things.
So EU Vaccine nationalism good; UK nationalism bad. Got it.
Which of the two entities has given the most money in vaccine research? Which has given the most to Covax? Which has the greatest potential spare capacity to help the developing countries access vaccines?
You can take your morality and place it where the Mediterranean sun I see out of my window doesn't shine.
You are not very bright if you can’t see how badly vaccine nationalism and reactionary politics plays out in long run.
To be fair there isn't really a sniff of overt public vaccine nationalism from the UK government, as yet. It's all on the EU side. But there is lots of political tub thumping on here, along the usual political lines. It's disappointing and I hope not reflective of a more widespread feeling amongst the public. If it does become a thing, fuelled by the Mail and other gutter outlets, then as sure as night follows day, it will become part of the background music of the government.
It's in all our best interests that, along with the UK, our European friends and neighbours get vaccinated as quickly as possible.
Am I the only lifelong pro-European who is starting to think we're better off outside the EU?
Nope, and I don't think economically we'll be better off outside the EU but I do agree that in situations that require fast action like vaccines we'll be a much nimbler country. If we can use this to our advantage on issues such as sanctions in the future (e.g the EU pissed about over Belarus because of Cyprus) then that's the real benefit of Brexit in my view. However, that all relies on a government willing to grab the controls and not just flail about as has happened with the coronavirus restrictions.
The situation is undoubtedly an EU failure, but (please correct me if wrong) being in the EU would not have prevented the UK from doing what it did. Other EU countries could also have done the same.
AIUI the UK would have been stopped from all the upfront investment in supply facilities under state aid rules. AFAIK NO other EU country has remotely done as much as the UK - and the entire EU has done LESS than the UK on vaccines for the Third World.
Interesting. So state aid rules would have prevented the VTF from doing its thing?
No, it's the interminable arguments over who gets what money and all the horrible bureaucracy that comes with it. They were already months late, now add in arguments about where the subsidy money goes int the equation. They'd probably still be arguing about it.
I suppose the question is could we have done what we did within the EU or did we specifically go against any EU reg or law to do it.
We could have, definitely. It would have been politically very difficult to not be in the EU scheme though so I don't think we would have. Indeed, if we were still EU members with out own scheme outside of the EU one the calls for "unity" from the British to share vaccines would be even greater than they are now.
I know you're being obtuse on this and thing to get to technicalities to weasel out of criticising the EU, but you need to face up to it, the EU has completely shat the bed.
They have been shocking. But as with so much we have seen, we could have done exactly what we did while still being in the EU (cf exporting to the US, Tonga, The Dutch Antilles, etc).
And as with @Philip_Thompson yesterday dismissing "the contract", yes absolutely I want to get to "technicalities" as that determines the whole issue.
Your literal "could have, would have, if we were, would be..." supposition doesn't cut it.
Ok, so let's travel the other road then, and do t BS about "we can't know" to get out of it.
We vote remain in 2016, in 2020 this horrific pandemic hits us.
It's April and the government is screaming at the pharma industry to get into gear and make a vaccine, any vaccine. The same things are happening all over the developed world. The UK and US decide to have a special taskforce to handle these things and they are based on subsidies for industry (Operation Warp speed in the US and the VTF here). So far no difference.
In June the EU, which we are still a full member of, not on the way out of, decides to wade in.
First quantum alternate reality - do we enter the scheme as "good Europeans" or decline and stick with what we have?
Let's say the timeline continues as before and we decline based on the scheme being flawed as a purchase scheme rather than a subsidy scheme.
Next break point, we have our own successful scheme as now and the EU scheme failed as before, now we're in the EU. Are we "good Europeans" and will we now become part of the EU scheme with our superior per capita purchases and domestic manufacturing capacity? How much pressure is on PM Osborne to submit to the EU? Is the guardian writing editorials saying that we're culpable for the deaths of old people in Europe and that good Europeans would share their resources.
All of these things need to be taken into account. So far you're looking at specific technicalities and completely missing the forest for the trees. It's never about the rules with the EU, it's always a political calculation. Hence the lack of subsidies in their purchasing scheme, it gets bogged down in politics. Take the politics into account when judging how well the EU scheme would really have worked for us.
Well it's a great counterfactual and I'm just amazed that its conclusions support your theory.
How about one where Hagrid the Great emerged to reclaim the land of the Angles and invaded the continent?
We don't know what we don't know. All that you said could have happened but equally, like we have done with many instances over the past years, we could have had the determination to do our own thing.
This is what bugs me about the anti-EUers on here. They are so lacking in confidence in the UK that they think the UK has and would have been so cowed by the EU that we would have refused to take actions in our best interests. That we would have cowered under the mighty jackboot of the EU and be forced to sit in our room on a time out.
I have and had much more confidence in the UK to act in its best interests when it needs to.
And what you have agreed is that being a member of the EU wouldn't have prevented us doing so in this instance.
I appreciate fantasy counterfactuals are much more fun than technicalities but there is one I would rely on over the other.
And we're back to square one of simply ignoring the fact of EU politics. Fine, but that doesn't make it go away. In fact it's one of the major driving forces of leaving the EU.
Of course it was. But the UK could and has acted in its own interests whether in or out of the EU.
That is the technicality.
So vaccine-gate is just proof that the EU acted slowly and nations within the EU (of which we of course were one at the time) could choose to do what they believed was best for their countries.
Off topic more or less, does anyone knows what the new customs rules are for buying from private sellers in the EU on Ebay? I'm looking at a fairly pricey item in Potsdam but still a pretty good deal, having a wheen of VAT and customs charges whacked on it makes it a lot less good
For those who missed it yesterday - Mr Navabi posted the link to the report:
UK Vaccine Taskforce 2020 Achievements and Future Strategy End of year report
1. VTF has built an attractive portfolio of the most promising vaccines for the UK population The VTF’s strategy to build a diverse portfolio of vaccines across different formats gives the UK the greatest chance of providing a safe and effective vaccine, recognising that many of these vaccines in development may fail. The VTF focused on vaccines that could be in the clinic in 2020, which could be manufactured at scale preferably in the UK, which had the potential to secure rapid regulatory approval and be delivered ready for deployment as rapidly as possible.
2. VTF has shaped new collaborative arrangements to ensure that successful vaccines will be distributed internationally The COVID-19 Vaccines Global Access facility (COVAX), to which the UK has made up to £548 million available, will provide access to vaccines for lower income countries including one billion doses for developing countries worldwide. The UK through the VTF has helped to develop the COVAX facility and has shared its expertise and people with COVAX to support their global efforts.
3. VTF has supported the UK’s industrial strategy by reinforcing long-term vaccine capability to prepare the UK for future pandemics, helping to place the UK at the forefront of vaccine R&D, manufacturing and distribution, but more is needed One of the most interesting and imaginative aspects of the VTF’s work lies in the plans it has laid for future resilience and industrial leadership in this vital area. The VTF has provided targeted funding and focus across three broad areas that support the UK’s long-term pandemic preparedness.
Notably the UK, with about one seventh the population of the EU has contributed substantially more to COVAX than the EU has, so fewer sermons on "we're all in this together" from UVDL might be in order
Point 3 is of particular interest for the future and sounds like a very good idea.
Re Cummings, I was approached anonymously last year by someone claiming that the Barnard Castle trip was all about meetings with Glaxo Smith Kline and not eye trips or whatever. No idea whether that is true but it is certainly the case that GSK has a facility there and it might fit in with your theory that Cummings may have had a part to play.
It would be fascinating to get the full story behind all this one day. Some aspects have been handled badly - process does matter, especially when you are developing a reputation for sleaze - but imaginative and far-seeing thinking about what will be needed combined with the very best of the NHS seems to have resulted so far in a good outcome on the pharmaceutical / vaccine side. So I was too quick to criticise the government over the Bingham appointment. Hands up on that. It seems that she has provided valuable input - especially re investment in future biotech stars (her expertise), whatever other criticisms might be made around government processes. I wonder why the government appeared to hang her out to dry last year.
Quite impressed that the PM has not risen to the bait and been all Brexity about this, despite a stupid question from Peter Bone in the Commons yesterday.
And nor should anyone else be. If European countries don't get vaccines people will die. These are our friends, neighbours and, in my case, my relatives - some of whom are elderly and vulnerable - in Italy, Ireland, France and Spain. I no more want them to suffer just so that some idiot politician or commentator can make a stupid point than I want to be bumped down the priority list because Labour wants to get votes from fit 30-year old teachers.
Talking of which the GP here was all ready to start vaccinating priority groups 5 & 6 here (which I'm in) this week but the North West has had it supply of vaccines reduced. Annoying. Hearing how it is affecting son and hubby has made me (a) more scared of catching it and (b) even more determined to hide away until I'm vaccinated. At this rate, I will have lost the power of speech by the time I'm allowed out of the house.
Cummings on a secret vaccine mission would certainly explain why Boris stood four-square behind him, even with all the political damage that undeniably caused.
There's revisionism and then there's whatever this is. Secret vaccine mission. FFS.
Anyway, please stop it. I'm trying to concentrate on something and it's putting me off.
It was a thought that came from Cyclefree. Not exactly a Tory ramper.
Its an interesting thought, we'll probably never know, or maybe not for 50 or however many years it is now. If it turns out it was true then . . . wow.
Am I the only lifelong pro-European who is starting to think we're better off outside the EU?
Nope, and I don't think economically we'll be better off outside the EU but I do agree that in situations that require fast action like vaccines we'll be a much nimbler country. If we can use this to our advantage on issues such as sanctions in the future (e.g the EU pissed about over Belarus because of Cyprus) then that's the real benefit of Brexit in my view. However, that all relies on a government willing to grab the controls and not just flail about as has happened with the coronavirus restrictions.
The situation is undoubtedly an EU failure, but (please correct me if wrong) being in the EU would not have prevented the UK from doing what it did. Other EU countries could also have done the same.
AIUI the UK would have been stopped from all the upfront investment in supply facilities under state aid rules. AFAIK NO other EU country has remotely done as much as the UK - and the entire EU has done LESS than the UK on vaccines for the Third World.
Interesting. So state aid rules would have prevented the VTF from doing its thing?
No, it's the interminable arguments over who gets what money and all the horrible bureaucracy that comes with it. They were already months late, now add in arguments about where the subsidy money goes int the equation. They'd probably still be arguing about it.
I suppose the question is could we have done what we did within the EU or did we specifically go against any EU reg or law to do it.
We could have, definitely. It would have been politically very difficult to not be in the EU scheme though so I don't think we would have. Indeed, if we were still EU members with out own scheme outside of the EU one the calls for "unity" from the British to share vaccines would be even greater than they are now.
I know you're being obtuse on this and thing to get to technicalities to weasel out of criticising the EU, but you need to face up to it, the EU has completely shat the bed.
They have been shocking. But as with so much we have seen, we could have done exactly what we did while still being in the EU (cf exporting to the US, Tonga, The Dutch Antilles, etc).
And as with @Philip_Thompson yesterday dismissing "the contract", yes absolutely I want to get to "technicalities" as that determines the whole issue.
Your literal "could have, would have, if we were, would be..." supposition doesn't cut it.
Ok, so let's travel the other road then, and do t BS about "we can't know" to get out of it.
We vote remain in 2016, in 2020 this horrific pandemic hits us.
It's April and the government is screaming at the pharma industry to get into gear and make a vaccine, any vaccine. The same things are happening all over the developed world. The UK and US decide to have a special taskforce to handle these things and they are based on subsidies for industry (Operation Warp speed in the US and the VTF here). So far no difference.
In June the EU, which we are still a full member of, not on the way out of, decides to wade in.
First quantum alternate reality - do we enter the scheme as "good Europeans" or decline and stick with what we have?
Let's say the timeline continues as before and we decline based on the scheme being flawed as a purchase scheme rather than a subsidy scheme.
Next break point, we have our own successful scheme as now and the EU scheme failed as before, now we're in the EU. Are we "good Europeans" and will we now become part of the EU scheme with our superior per capita purchases and domestic manufacturing capacity? How much pressure is on PM Osborne to submit to the EU? Is the guardian writing editorials saying that we're culpable for the deaths of old people in Europe and that good Europeans would share their resources.
All of these things need to be taken into account. So far you're looking at specific technicalities and completely missing the forest for the trees. It's never about the rules with the EU, it's always a political calculation. Hence the lack of subsidies in their purchasing scheme, it gets bogged down in politics. Take the politics into account when judging how well the EU scheme would really have worked for us.
Well it's a great counterfactual and I'm just amazed that its conclusions support your theory.
How about one where Hagrid the Great emerged to reclaim the land of the Angles and invaded the continent?
We don't know what we don't know. All that you said could have happened but equally, like we have done with many instances over the past years, we could have had the determination to do our own thing.
This is what bugs me about the anti-EUers on here. They are so lacking in confidence in the UK that they think the UK has and would have been so cowed by the EU that we would have refused to take actions in our best interests. That we would have cowered under the mighty jackboot of the EU and be forced to sit in our room on a time out.
I have and had much more confidence in the UK to act in its best interests when it needs to.
And what you have agreed is that being a member of the EU wouldn't have prevented us doing so in this instance.
I appreciate fantasy counterfactuals are much more fun than technicalities but there is one I would rely on over the other.
And we're back to square one of simply ignoring the fact of EU politics. Fine, but that doesn't make it go away. In fact it's one of the major driving forces of leaving the EU.
Of course it was. But the UK could and has acted in its own interests whether in or out of the EU.
That is the technicality.
So vaccine-gate is just proof that the EU acted slowly and nations within the EU (of which we of course were one at the time) could choose to do what they believed was best for their countries.
And then there's the approval process to actually USE the vaccines..... Hmm.
Even @williamglenn the biggest Europhile on this forum has criticised the EU over this.
Ummm, in case you hadn't noticed, we left the EU.
Why would we care what they do?
My question was about the UK response. The whole point of Brexit according to some. Hold our own elected leaders accountable, right?
Because they fucked up their vaccine purchasing and are demanding our supply you complete and utter cretin.
And we will hold this lot to account, in 2024 (likely well before then) Boris will get what's coming to him. What mechanism is there to remove the commissioners who failed everyone in Europe and are now demanding UK vaccine supply be diverted?
Fuck you, Scott. You're pathetic.
Maybe it's just me, but I find it a bit depressing when personal abuse of another poster gets so many 'likes' on here. Civilised debate with civil disgreement?
Yep, let's be nice. I say that as someone who is just as capable of getting into it with other posters on here.
With regards to the absurd petty nationalism that seems to have arisen over the vaccine, I have to ask: are we an island? As in one that has absolutely cut itself off from the world? If we have, then we don't need to worry about the rest of humanity and can keep British Vaccine for British Workers.
If, on the other hand, we let people waltz in across our border without so much as a temperature check, its in our best interests to have europeans also vaccinated.
The UK has dedicated more to vaccinating the rest of the world than the entire EU combined has done.
Answer your concerns? Or are you saying we should vaccinate the UK, the third world and pay for Europe to be vaccinated too?
Erm no, thats one of your typical strawmen. We pay for our jabs, Europe pays for their jabs, the world helps pay for jabs in poor countries. Its not us vs them though, its all of us vs Covid.
You should be directing your question at the EU, not the UK. They are the ones that seem to be interested in petty nationalism and isolationism.
So its not being cheered on here. By Philip as one example...
Well given your snide comment in your original question about 'we don't need to worry about the rest of humanity and can keep British Vaccine for British Workers' then clearly no. Since if you had even bothered to read what he has been writing about this you would see he is one of those pushing very hard for the UK to pay for and push vaccination in the Third World. However unless you think the EU are Third World then they are big enough and rich enough top look after themselves. Sadly they don't seem to be as interested as the UK is in looking after the rest of the world.
Presumably Graham Greene would have found the idea in a real-world event and John Le Carré revisited the theme 50 years later in The Constant Gardener. 'Pharmaceutical fiction' may become a genre worth following. Are there other books or films dealing with similar ideas?
There's a parallel universe in which Remain won in 2016 and our government went with the EU scheme.
PM Farage nailed on.
Vaccine Nationalism. The same nationalism as cause of the Irish Potato Famine. In terms of politics, reactionary, short termist and very bad.
In terms of morality, unchristian.
In terms of history, repeating the same mistakes as Empire.
Boris Johnson and supporters of his vaccine nationalism on here, all those things.
So EU Vaccine nationalism good; UK nationalism bad. Got it.
Which of the two entities has given the most money in vaccine research? Which has given the most to Covax? Which has the greatest potential spare capacity to help the developing countries access vaccines?
You're missing the point, because you're ignoring the three articles of EU faith:
1) The EU is always right 2) Therefore any country that disagrees with it must be wrong 3) Whatever the problem, More Europe is the solution.
Virtually every single action by the EU, from the Common Agricultural Policy to the euro to the current vaccine disaster, can be explained by those three simple articles, in one way or another.
Bring back Scott'nPaste - he at least is the loon we know and love!
It's a bit like 1st November 1940, the first day after the Battle of Britain.
With regards to the absurd petty nationalism that seems to have arisen over the vaccine, I have to ask: are we an island? As in one that has absolutely cut itself off from the world? If we have, then we don't need to worry about the rest of humanity and can keep British Vaccine for British Workers.
If, on the other hand, we let people waltz in across our border without so much as a temperature check, its in our best interests to have europeans also vaccinated.
The UK has dedicated more to vaccinating the rest of the world than the entire EU combined has done.
Answer your concerns? Or are you saying we should vaccinate the UK, the third world and pay for Europe to be vaccinated too?
Erm no, thats one of your typical strawmen. We pay for our jabs, Europe pays for their jabs, the world helps pay for jabs in poor countries. Its not us vs them though, its all of us vs Covid.
You should be directing your question at the EU, not the UK. They are the ones that seem to be interested in petty nationalism and isolationism.
So its not being cheered on here. By Philip as one example...
What petty nationalism and isolationism have I cheered on?
I've just praised the fact the UK is doing more to eradicate the virus and more to support Covax than the entire EU combined. That's the opposite of isolationism.
The EU isn't a third world penury hellhole, it is a collective of first world developed nations. They need to pull their fingers out, get their chequebook out and match us in expenditure. For their own sake and for the sake of the globe.
With regards to the absurd petty nationalism that seems to have arisen over the vaccine, I have to ask: are we an island? As in one that has absolutely cut itself off from the world? If we have, then we don't need to worry about the rest of humanity and can keep British Vaccine for British Workers.
If, on the other hand, we let people waltz in across our border without so much as a temperature check, its in our best interests to have europeans also vaccinated.
The UK has dedicated more to vaccinating the rest of the world than the entire EU combined has done.
Answer your concerns? Or are you saying we should vaccinate the UK, the third world and pay for Europe to be vaccinated too?
Erm no, thats one of your typical strawmen. We pay for our jabs, Europe pays for their jabs, the world helps pay for jabs in poor countries. Its not us vs them though, its all of us vs Covid.
No, the world doesn't pay for jabs in poor countries. We are paying more to Covax for poor country vaccinations than the whole of the EU combined.
We are also paying more to build our jabs production than the EU did.
We have spent more on vaccinations - domestic and abroad - than the entire EU combined have done. So we're not equitably "us vs Covid".
Jesus, I didn't think this one was difficult. It is "Us" - as in people - vs Covid. Lets assume for a minute that we break the back of it in the UK through our vaccination programme. But they don't in France though their woeful EU system or whatever. The virus mutates again there. Into a vaccine resistant form, which then travels here through our open border.
Most of us vaccinated against a bug which mutates to get around it. We're back to square one. Insisting that we spent more than the french on a now useless vaccination programme won't help us.
So we need Europe to catch us up, not fight battles with them over "you can't have it, its ours". And get most of the world immunised. So that when it mutates again we aren't all still at risk.
I'm sorry, you're wrong. Our interests is to ensure Africa, South America and South Asia gets access to the vaccine. Europe is rich enough to fend for itself. Our spare doses should be helping the world's poor getting immunised. There isn't any moral stance that can justify helping rich Europeans that fucked up a purchase scheme over the world's poor who don't have the money or means to access proper medicine.
With regards to the absurd petty nationalism that seems to have arisen over the vaccine, I have to ask: are we an island? As in one that has absolutely cut itself off from the world? If we have, then we don't need to worry about the rest of humanity and can keep British Vaccine for British Workers.
If, on the other hand, we let people waltz in across our border without so much as a temperature check, its in our best interests to have europeans also vaccinated.
The UK has dedicated more to vaccinating the rest of the world than the entire EU combined has done.
Answer your concerns? Or are you saying we should vaccinate the UK, the third world and pay for Europe to be vaccinated too?
Erm no, thats one of your typical strawmen. We pay for our jabs, Europe pays for their jabs, the world helps pay for jabs in poor countries. Its not us vs them though, its all of us vs Covid.
No, the world doesn't pay for jabs in poor countries. We are paying more to Covax for poor country vaccinations than the whole of the EU combined.
We are also paying more to build our jabs production than the EU did.
We have spent more on vaccinations - domestic and abroad - than the entire EU combined have done. So we're not equitably "us vs Covid".
Jesus, I didn't think this one was difficult. It is "Us" - as in people - vs Covid. Lets assume for a minute that we break the back of it in the UK through our vaccination programme. But they don't in France though their woeful EU system or whatever. The virus mutates again there. Into a vaccine resistant form, which then travels here through our open border.
Most of us vaccinated against a bug which mutates to get around it. We're back to square one. Insisting that we spent more than the french on a now useless vaccination programme won't help us.
So we need Europe to catch us up, not fight battles with them over "you can't have it, its ours". And get most of the world immunised. So that when it mutates again we aren't all still at risk.
In that case get them to step up to the mark and match the UK's contributions to COVAX and investment in developing vaccines. Something they have singularly failed to do so far.
If the reports that the shorts are naked and over 100% are correct, the market abuse is the short sellers. Not those holding contracts and shares.
The suggestion that shares should be loaned without the consent of the owner, just so that the hedges can play with them, is particularly risible.
Ah. I haven't been following particularly closely, just saw @Charles' post - and thought the issue was the ramping of the stock. If they were naked shorts then yes of course that's illegal.
Naked shorting is a market abuse the SEC has winked at for a decade or more.
Bright young grad: "How come you're selling something you don't have?" Ornery old trader: "Ha ha ha. Fancy getting me a bacon butty?"
Presumably Graham Greene would have found the idea in a real-world event and John Le Carré revisited the theme 50 years later in The Constant Gardener. 'Pharmaceutical fiction' may become a genre worth following. Are there other books or films dealing with similar ideas?
Quite a few - many of poor quality, though.
The fake pharmaceutical business is like the fake aircraft part thing - not often written about, but a constant, ongoing problem.
So, to support a German business newspaper, Germany condemns anyone over 65 to the risk of getting Covid. You know, the ones who actually die when they get it. Jeez...
Am I the only lifelong pro-European who is starting to think we're better off outside the EU?
Nope, and I don't think economically we'll be better off outside the EU but I do agree that in situations that require fast action like vaccines we'll be a much nimbler country. If we can use this to our advantage on issues such as sanctions in the future (e.g the EU pissed about over Belarus because of Cyprus) then that's the real benefit of Brexit in my view. However, that all relies on a government willing to grab the controls and not just flail about as has happened with the coronavirus restrictions.
The situation is undoubtedly an EU failure, but (please correct me if wrong) being in the EU would not have prevented the UK from doing what it did. Other EU countries could also have done the same.
AIUI the UK would have been stopped from all the upfront investment in supply facilities under state aid rules. AFAIK NO other EU country has remotely done as much as the UK - and the entire EU has done LESS than the UK on vaccines for the Third World.
Interesting. So state aid rules would have prevented the VTF from doing its thing?
No, it's the interminable arguments over who gets what money and all the horrible bureaucracy that comes with it. They were already months late, now add in arguments about where the subsidy money goes int the equation. They'd probably still be arguing about it.
I suppose the question is could we have done what we did within the EU or did we specifically go against any EU reg or law to do it.
We could have, definitely. It would have been politically very difficult to not be in the EU scheme though so I don't think we would have. Indeed, if we were still EU members with out own scheme outside of the EU one the calls for "unity" from the British to share vaccines would be even greater than they are now.
I know you're being obtuse on this and thing to get to technicalities to weasel out of criticising the EU, but you need to face up to it, the EU has completely shat the bed.
They have been shocking. But as with so much we have seen, we could have done exactly what we did while still being in the EU (cf exporting to the US, Tonga, The Dutch Antilles, etc).
And as with @Philip_Thompson yesterday dismissing "the contract", yes absolutely I want to get to "technicalities" as that determines the whole issue.
Your literal "could have, would have, if we were, would be..." supposition doesn't cut it.
Ok, so let's travel the other road then, and do t BS about "we can't know" to get out of it.
We vote remain in 2016, in 2020 this horrific pandemic hits us.
It's April and the government is screaming at the pharma industry to get into gear and make a vaccine, any vaccine. The same things are happening all over the developed world. The UK and US decide to have a special taskforce to handle these things and they are based on subsidies for industry (Operation Warp speed in the US and the VTF here). So far no difference.
In June the EU, which we are still a full member of, not on the way out of, decides to wade in.
First quantum alternate reality - do we enter the scheme as "good Europeans" or decline and stick with what we have?
Let's say the timeline continues as before and we decline based on the scheme being flawed as a purchase scheme rather than a subsidy scheme.
Next break point, we have our own successful scheme as now and the EU scheme failed as before, now we're in the EU. Are we "good Europeans" and will we now become part of the EU scheme with our superior per capita purchases and domestic manufacturing capacity? How much pressure is on PM Osborne to submit to the EU? Is the guardian writing editorials saying that we're culpable for the deaths of old people in Europe and that good Europeans would share their resources.
All of these things need to be taken into account. So far you're looking at specific technicalities and completely missing the forest for the trees. It's never about the rules with the EU, it's always a political calculation. Hence the lack of subsidies in their purchasing scheme, it gets bogged down in politics. Take the politics into account when judging how well the EU scheme would really have worked for us.
Well it's a great counterfactual and I'm just amazed that its conclusions support your theory.
How about one where Hagrid the Great emerged to reclaim the land of the Angles and invaded the continent?
We don't know what we don't know. All that you said could have happened but equally, like we have done with many instances over the past years, we could have had the determination to do our own thing.
This is what bugs me about the anti-EUers on here. They are so lacking in confidence in the UK that they think the UK has and would have been so cowed by the EU that we would have refused to take actions in our best interests. That we would have cowered under the mighty jackboot of the EU and be forced to sit in our room on a time out.
I have and had much more confidence in the UK to act in its best interests when it needs to.
And what you have agreed is that being a member of the EU wouldn't have prevented us doing so in this instance.
I appreciate fantasy counterfactuals are much more fun than technicalities but there is one I would rely on over the other.
And we're back to square one of simply ignoring the fact of EU politics. Fine, but that doesn't make it go away. In fact it's one of the major driving forces of leaving the EU.
Of course it was. But the UK could and has acted in its own interests whether in or out of the EU.
That is the technicality.
So vaccine-gate is just proof that the EU acted slowly and nations within the EU (of which we of course were one at the time) could choose to do what they believed was best for their countries.
And then there's the approval process to actually USE the vaccines..... Hmm.
We went through this at the time, as explained by the ex-head of the MHRA.
The MHRA was the EU's de facto vaccine regulator. So after it moved that affected the EU's ability to use its expertise. Hence the MHRA rolling review which meant the approval was very quick applied to the UK only. Other regulatory authorities could have taken advantage of this but didn't given the role the MHRA had performed EU-wide.
So we could, if we wanted to, say that Brexit prevented the EU from acting as fast as we did.
And if that is a big win in your book knock yourself out.
There's a parallel universe in which Remain won in 2016 and our government went with the EU scheme.
PM Farage nailed on.
Vaccine Nationalism. The same nationalism as cause of the Irish Potato Famine. In terms of politics, reactionary, short termist and very bad.
In terms of morality, unchristian.
In terms of history, repeating the same mistakes as Empire.
Boris Johnson and supporters of his vaccine nationalism on here, all those things.
So EU Vaccine nationalism good; UK nationalism bad. Got it.
Which of the two entities has given the most money in vaccine research? Which has given the most to Covax? Which has the greatest potential spare capacity to help the developing countries access vaccines?
You're missing the point, because you're ignoring the three articles of EU faith:
1) The EU is always right 2) Therefore any country that disagrees with it must be wrong 3) Whatever the problem, More Europe is the solution.
Virtually every single action by the EU, from the Common Agricultural Policy to the euro to the current vaccine disaster, can be explained by those three simple articles, in one way or another.
Bring back Scott'nPaste - he at least is the loon we know and love!
It's a bit like 1st November 1940, the first day after the Battle of Britain.
Comments
Those who have had Pfizer are very lucky
Equally logical, IMHO.
If, on the other hand, we let people waltz in across our border without so much as a temperature check, its in our best interests to have europeans also vaccinated.
Sure, many would not have believed it without details, but if that excuse existed they could have defended the situation very differently.
The SNP would have mired us in the EU vaccine fiasco.
Which of the two entities has given the most money in vaccine research? Which has given the most to Covax? Which has the greatest potential spare capacity to help the developing countries access vaccines?
You can take your morality and place it where the Mediterranean sun I see out of my window doesn't shine.
Also, who amongst us would have imagined the Johnson government's vaccine success if we'd been part of the EU scheme? I'm very surprised by it. The evidence on deaths would probably lead us to think we'd have done even worse outside the EU scheme.
The UK success is what is making it obvious the EU messed this one up.
The press would never have stopped digging, and probably fucked up some sensitive negotiations in the process.
https://www.politico.eu/article/europe-coronavirus-vaccine-struggle-pfizer-biontech-astrazeneca/
The only clear and consistent campaign will be for independence. And all of the "ah but whatabout" objections thrown at them - the border, currency, trade etc etc - can be reduced to very little weight by pointing to the Brexit referendum. Like Brexit its a vote from the heart. At this stage I am really struggling to see what counter-offer the unionist side has to make.
Answer your concerns? Or are you saying we should vaccinate the UK, the third world and pay for Europe to be vaccinated too?
- my nationalism is rational, to the point of not really being nationalism but good sense.
- your nationalism is demented, evil and stupid.
FWIW I think the Tory vaccine bounce will be rather like the Brexit bounce that was confidently predicted by many on here a few weeks ago - pretty non-existent.
So, not much like the Irish Potato Famine (??? what the hell?), not reactionary, not short termist, not 'very bad', and hardly unchristian, and absolutely zilch to do with the 'mistakes' (or indeed the good points) of the Empire.
The partisan reaction to this is staggering. I mean, I think Boris is a buffoon who should never have been made PM, but on this particular issue, there is nothing, literally nothing, to criticise him for, and much to praise his government for.
1) The EU is always right
2) Therefore any country that disagrees with it must be wrong
3) Whatever the problem, More Europe is the solution.
Virtually every single action by the EU, from the Common Agricultural Policy to the euro to the current vaccine disaster, can be explained by those three simple articles, in one way or another.
We vote remain in 2016, in 2020 this horrific pandemic hits us.
It's April and the government is screaming at the pharma industry to get into gear and make a vaccine, any vaccine. The same things are happening all over the developed world. The UK and US decide to have a special taskforce to handle these things and they are based on subsidies for industry (Operation Warp speed in the US and the VTF here). So far no difference.
In June the EU, which we are still a full member of, not on the way out of, decides to wade in.
First quantum alternate reality - do we enter the scheme as "good Europeans" or decline and stick with what we have?
Let's say the timeline continues as before and we decline based on the scheme being flawed as a purchase scheme rather than a subsidy scheme.
Next break point, we have our own successful scheme as now and the EU scheme failed as before, now we're in the EU. Are we "good Europeans" and will we now become part of the EU scheme with our superior per capita purchases and domestic manufacturing capacity? How much pressure is on PM Osborne to submit to the EU? Is the guardian writing editorials saying that we're culpable for the deaths of old people in Europe and that good Europeans would share their resources.
All of these things need to be taken into account. So far you're looking at specific technicalities and completely missing the forest for the trees. It's never about the rules with the EU, it's always a political calculation. Hence the lack of subsidies in their purchasing scheme, it gets bogged down in politics. Take the politics into account when judging how well the EU scheme would really have worked for us.
Christ, people still bring it up now.
What a horlicks.
"It's all gone very quiet today...."
As an English nationalist I believe that our own government will do better if it is fully answerable to the voters over all of our laws.
But also as an English nationalist I support Scottish nationalists and Irish nationalists as I believe that Scotland will fare better once the Scottish government has full responsibility for Scottish laws and that [Northern] Ireland would do better once the Irish government is responsible for Ireland and answerable to the voters over all of its laws.
I don't like or support the SNP and I despise Sinn Fein but I respect the nationalist cause as long as its done peacefully for those countries.
No harm done.
And the nomination of peers for the Lords is just a cesspit of cronyism.
How about one where Hagrid the Great emerged to reclaim the land of the Angles and invaded the continent?
We don't know what we don't know. All that you said could have happened but equally, like we have done with many instances over the past years, we could have had the determination to do our own thing.
This is what bugs me about the anti-EUers on here. They are so lacking in confidence in the UK that they think the UK has and would have been so cowed by the EU that we would have refused to take actions in our best interests. That we would have cowered under the mighty jackboot of the EU and be forced to sit in our room on a time out.
I have and had much more confidence in the UK to act in its best interests when it needs to.
And what you have agreed is that being a member of the EU wouldn't have prevented us doing so in this instance.
I appreciate fantasy counterfactuals are much more fun than technicalities but there is one I would rely on over the other.
No wonder Nicola doesn't want him to come.
We are also paying more to build our jabs production than the EU did.
We have spent more on vaccinations - domestic and abroad - than the entire EU combined have done. So we're not equitably "us vs Covid".
For a start no MP should be made a peer until at least a full parliamentary term has passed from when they were in the Commons. It should not be a way to encourage some fossilised old codger to give up his safe seat so your Spad can get it.
But many other improvements could be mave even without junking it. As the Lord Speaker would be happy to say as well.
An absolute must see.
tl;dr? What I said earlier! It may be pump and dump but that is quite a stretch given the circumstances of the "pump".
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2021-01-26/will-wallstreetbets-face-sec-scrutiny-after-gamestop-rally-kke9fpzq
Most of us vaccinated against a bug which mutates to get around it. We're back to square one. Insisting that we spent more than the french on a now useless vaccination programme won't help us.
So we need Europe to catch us up, not fight battles with them over "you can't have it, its ours". And get most of the world immunised. So that when it mutates again we aren't all still at risk.
Anyway, please stop it. I'm trying to concentrate on something and it's putting me off.
https://twitter.com/stephendziedzic/status/1354648782722371585?s=20
If its nothing, there could be a price to pay from the right. Their vaccine policy is undoubtedly a triumph, but I am not sure its a laurel to be resting on. Not sure at all.
It's in all our best interests that, along with the UK, our European friends and neighbours get vaccinated as quickly as possible.
That is the technicality.
So vaccine-gate is just proof that the EU acted slowly and nations within the EU (of which we of course were one at the time) could choose to do what they believed was best for their countries.
Just - don't tell Brussels.
Its an interesting thought, we'll probably never know, or maybe not for 50 or however many years it is now. If it turns out it was true then . . . wow.
A 4% lead with you guv is a big uplift .
I've just praised the fact the UK is doing more to eradicate the virus and more to support Covax than the entire EU combined. That's the opposite of isolationism.
The EU isn't a third world penury hellhole, it is a collective of first world developed nations. They need to pull their fingers out, get their chequebook out and match us in expenditure. For their own sake and for the sake of the globe.
https://twitter.com/zerohedge/status/1354772900692316161?s=20
Yawn.
Ornery old trader: "Ha ha ha. Fancy getting me a bacon butty?"
The fake pharmaceutical business is like the fake aircraft part thing - not often written about, but a constant, ongoing problem.
The MHRA was the EU's de facto vaccine regulator. So after it moved that affected the EU's ability to use its expertise. Hence the MHRA rolling review which meant the approval was very quick applied to the UK only. Other regulatory authorities could have taken advantage of this but didn't given the role the MHRA had performed EU-wide.
So we could, if we wanted to, say that Brexit prevented the EU from acting as fast as we did.
And if that is a big win in your book knock yourself out.
Even Modi is more China sceptic than Ardern