Not to be pedantic or anything but I think the picture is from an earlier visit. The PCN referred to is indeed in Harrow, north London (I did wonder if there was a Harrow, Scotland, but apparently not).
Not at all. Pedantry is part of the life-blood of PB.
Iifeblood doesn't have a hyphen.
.. hang on. Just checked. It does, at least in Scotland and Scrabble (Chambers Dictionary).
How do you propose to play a hyphen in Scrabble? Or are we into De Facto and De Jure Scrabble letters?
Just asking.
(Blanks can only be a letter)
Life-blood is not legal in Scrabble, because of the hyphen. Such pedantry is essential to the game, after all.
Someone should tell the Sunday Times..
Investigative journalism is the lifeblood of my industry, and we should applaud stings that discover serious wrongdoing. Times, Sunday Times (2016) Freedom of speech is the lifeblood of democracy. Times, Sunday Times (2011) The flow of credit is the lifeblood of our economy. Times, Sunday Times (2009) He said that small companies were the lifeblood of the economy. Times, Sunday Times (2011) Credit is the lifeblood of the economy. Times, Sunday Times (2007) Entrepreneurs are the lifeblood of our economy. Times, Sunday Times (2012) Instead the system is encouraging those who should be entering the lifeblood of the economy to look elsewhere. Times, Sunday Times (2013) The subcontinent provides cricket with so much of its commercial and cultural lifeblood that the game cannot stop for long. Times, Sunday Times (2008) Take clinical trials, the lifeblood of the industry. Times, Sunday Times (2011) They are like ticks on a dog, they suck the lifeblood out of the poor bees. Times, Sunday Times (2009) It's the lifeblood of the sport. Times, Sunday Times (2010) The risk is that increased taxation will sap the economy 's lifeblood. Times, Sunday Times (2009) It is not what the government intended, although small firms are the lifeblood of the economy. Times, Sunday Times (2013) Freedom of speech is the lifeblood of democracy, but good reputation must be protected against irresponsible journalism. Times, Sunday Times (2010) There is positive news for smaller firms, which are the lifeblood of the economy and drivers of growth. Times, Sunday Times (2012) Yet the fans, who are the lifeblood of most sports, are badly looked after. Times, Sunday Times (2012) He wrote that'party politics is the lifeblood of representative democracy and political parties have got to get their funding from somewhere'. Times, Sunday Times (2015)
Though for fun, I quite liked Ted Taylors plan to make all the plutonium required for the cold war. In a millisecond.
You place a series of carefully spaced out sheets of uranium on the ground. Bolted to concrete. Then detonate a nuclear weapon a few hundred feet above them. Instantly - a hundred tons of plutonium......
Can we charge Nicola Sturgeon with treason? She's a risk to Scotland's health.
Nicola Sturgeon has been accused of undermining efforts to prevent the European Union from taking UK-bound vaccines by threatening to publish details of confidential supplies.
The UK government wants to keep secret how many doses are being delivered to avoid aggravating tensions with other nations struggling to secure vaccines.
The row with the European Commission and Astrazeneca over reduced deliveries, thought to total between 60 to 75 million doses, has shown the acute sensitivity of the issue. The commission suspects Astrazeneca of giving Britain preferential treatment and ordered inspections of its Belgium plant to check its claim that there was a production problem.
“ Downing Street has refused to rule out the possibility of the UK sending vaccine supplies to the EU once the most vulnerable people in the UK have been vaccinated, assuming the timetable to vaccinate other adults by September stays on track. “
Do it Boris. Don’t listen to the rabid anti Christian ravers on PB. Their only religion is frothed up hatred of EU, that’s not Brexit is it?
Once vulnerable people in UK have been jabbed, share it Boris.
Keep your religion in your church please.
I think you'll find everyone here said that the EU getting doses once everyone in the UK has had it would be fair enough. You were saying to do it before vaccinations here are completed.
Agreed. Once our over 60s and potentially then key workers are done I would understand if vaccines for the likes of myself were diverted to help priority groups in Europe.
When I said completed I meant completed. Everyone done.
Insisting on everyone in one country being done before the vulnerable elsewhere is exactly the sort of vaccine nationalism that will prolong the pandemic.
Yes, absolutely dumb. I am sure we all want all our loved ones protected asap, but part of that protection is to defeat the virus on a pan-national basis. Stupidity of nationalism laid bare once again!
“ Downing Street has refused to rule out the possibility of the UK sending vaccine supplies to the EU once the most vulnerable people in the UK have been vaccinated, assuming the timetable to vaccinate other adults by September stays on track. “
Do it Boris. Don’t listen to the rabid anti Christian ravers on PB. Their only religion is frothed up hatred of EU, that’s not Brexit is it?
Once vulnerable people in UK have been jabbed, share it Boris.
Keep your religion in your church please.
I think you'll find everyone here said that the EU getting doses once everyone in the UK has had it would be fair enough. You were saying to do it before vaccinations here are completed.
Agreed. Once our over 60s and potentially then key workers are done I would understand if vaccines for the likes of myself were diverted to help priority groups in Europe.
When I said completed I meant completed. Everyone done.
Insisting on everyone in one country being done before the vulnerable elsewhere is exactly the sort of vaccine nationalism that will prolong the pandemic.
No, quite the opposite.
We should be aiming to be 'zero Covid, zero restrictions' - domestically at least. We know that vaccinating yourself not just helps you but helps build herd immunity to protect others.
Once the vaccine program here is complete we can start to rebuild and move on, and be able to afford to help others with our aid and generosity.
Only doing half a job will make us more vulnerable to a third wave and set everything back as well as risking those vulnerable who either can't get the vaccine or for whom it doesn't take.
Boris PR team getting slack, no flags in that photo....
I am sure it has already been discussed on here, but while I have no prob with people flying the flag, it is a bit weird how these government ministers have flags in their studies. I suppose it does to some extent distract one's attention as to how tasteless Michael Gove's curtains are!
More like avoiding the need to look at his ugly mush.
A company owned by a friend of the Unite leader Len McCluskey has been paid £95 million by the union for a construction project that was initially supposed to cost £7 million, it is revealed today.
The Flanagan Group received the money for its work as primary contractor on the building of a national conference centre and hotel in Birmingham for Unite, Britain’s most powerful trade union.
Further evidence of the spiralling cost of Unite’s flagship development emerged on the eve of a crisis meeting at which the union’s ruling council will receive a report on the financing of the complex.
Questions are likely to be asked about how contracts were awarded and the level of diligence and scrutiny that was applied to the prices charged by contractors throughout the four-year build.
It is thought that Flanagan’s overall profit from the project will be more than £15 million. Work began in 2016 and was finally completed last year, significantly late and over budget.
“ Downing Street has refused to rule out the possibility of the UK sending vaccine supplies to the EU once the most vulnerable people in the UK have been vaccinated, assuming the timetable to vaccinate other adults by September stays on track. “
Do it Boris. Don’t listen to the rabid anti Christian ravers on PB. Their only religion is frothed up hatred of EU, that’s not Brexit is it?
Once vulnerable people in UK have been jabbed, share it Boris.
Keep your religion in your church please.
I think you'll find everyone here said that the EU getting doses once everyone in the UK has had it would be fair enough. You were saying to do it before vaccinations here are completed.
Agreed. Once our over 60s and potentially then key workers are done I would understand if vaccines for the likes of myself were diverted to help priority groups in Europe.
When I said completed I meant completed. Everyone done.
Insisting on everyone in one country being done before the vulnerable elsewhere is exactly the sort of vaccine nationalism that will prolong the pandemic.
Yes, absolutely dumb. I am sure we all want all our loved ones protected asap, but part of that protection is to defeat the virus on a pan-national basis. Stupidity of nationalism laid bare once again!
Then why are the EU seeking to divert supplies from Britain to vaccinate people who aren't even in the most vulnerable category? There's only one organisation engaging in vaccine nationalism at the moment.
A question. Which famous Hollywood actor played the character (from a book by a famous novelist)... said character was the protagonist in another book by the same author, in which a (perhaps the) principle character was in the Artists Rifles?
On topic. I genuinely don't believe the EU would be that dumb. For all that I wanted Britain out, I don't in anyway underrate the bureaucrats in Brussels. Just look at the way they ran rings around May and Johnson (and Cameron before that).
I think there is a fair bit of political posturing by those in the Commission who can't forget how to be politicians but I also suspect that calmer heads in the bureaucracy will eventually prevail.
What Johnson needs to do is exactly what he has been doing which is play it down, make conciliatory and neutral noises and keep his cabinet and MPs in line. For once he is on the right side of this argument and he can stay there by making sure it is between AZ and the EU and not between the UK and the EU.
Good post Richard. I know we disagree of the B word, but I think you are absolutely right here. The EU don't have reason to care much about their image in the UK (some may argue they never did), so their posturing is for consumption in the EU27. The reality is that the pharma industry isn't well liked (which I think is undeserved) and the UK isn't exactly popular with many continentals. Their position is therefore unlikely to be politically damaging for their domestic audience. It is a spat and it will pass, and as you say, the right position for our government is to let it blow over
Yes, I agree with this to some degree. The threats of export bans just don't seem realistic, but it's just awful rhetoric and blame shifting. The UK government is definitely taking the right stance, just ignore it and let it burn itself out after a few days. Let AZ and the EU sort it out in the courts if they must. All the while Kwasi should be getting every pharma CEO on the phone. This is going to happen again with Novavax which has already commenced manufacturing in the UK with an integrated UK supply chain and it will be just as unedifying.
Much as some may hope it, pharma CEOs wont be too concerned about this. They deal with political pressure and willy waving from governments, including our own, all the time.
I'm not so sure, they've got two very easy places to do business in Europe both with tariff/quota free trade deals. I don't think this will lead to relocations of existing sites but it will figure into future investment decisions. If, in the unlikely event of an export ban, I think site relocation and even jurisdictional relocation will be on the cards. It's why I don't think there will be one, it's a pressure line to try and get Boris to approve AZ's UK supply being used to supplement the EU supply in the short term.
I just don't see an export ban, it would be the single most irresponsible thing for the EU to do. It's a negative sum game because the UK exports vital raw and semi-complete materials for EU pharmaceutical manufacturing, the government would have no choice but to mirror their ban and the Pfizer site in Belgium which was making 50m doses per month will make none, nobody wins from that and Pfizer will ramp up their US manufacturing in the short term and export from there once approval has been given in the UK and other countries that rely on the Belgian exports right now.
On topic. I genuinely don't believe the EU would be that dumb. For all that I wanted Britain out, I don't in anyway underrate the bureaucrats in Brussels. Just look at the way they ran rings around May and Johnson (and Cameron before that).
I think there is a fair bit of political posturing by those in the Commission who can't forget how to be politicians but I also suspect that calmer heads in the bureaucracy will eventually prevail.
What Johnson needs to do is exactly what he has been doing which is play it down, make conciliatory and neutral noises and keep his cabinet and MPs in line. For once he is on the right side of this argument and he can stay there by making sure it is between AZ and the EU and not between the UK and the EU.
Good post Richard. I know we disagree of the B word, but I think you are absolutely right here. The EU don't have reason to care much about their image in the UK (some may argue they never did), so their posturing is for consumption in the EU27. The reality is that the pharma industry isn't well liked (which I think is undeserved) and the UK isn't exactly popular with many continentals. Their position is therefore unlikely to be politically damaging for their domestic audience. It is a spat and it will pass, and as you say, the right position for our government is to let it blow over
Yes, I agree with this to some degree. The threats of export bans just don't seem realistic, but it's just awful rhetoric and blame shifting. The UK government is definitely taking the right stance, just ignore it and let it burn itself out after a few days. Let AZ and the EU sort it out in the courts if they must. All the while Kwasi should be getting every pharma CEO on the phone. This is going to happen again with Novavax which has already commenced manufacturing in the UK with an integrated UK supply chain and it will be just as unedifying.
Much as some may hope it, pharma CEOs wont be too concerned about this. They deal with political pressure and willy waving from governments, including our own, all the time.
Including export bans? I wonder how the Pfizer CEO feels, or the Israeli government for that matter.
Well, I could be proved wrong, but I suspect that is just EU willy waving. In the end the pharma industry spends huge sums and effort on war gaming all sorts of scenarios, many of which are essentially political. Brexit disruption is a far bigger issue for UK Pharma than this, and even that they have made huge provision for to prevent disruption to their business.
Sorry just saw your question on the ethical difference between covered short selling and naked short selling.
From a definition perspective, "naked short selling" is the sale of shares which cannot be proved to exist - i.e. (usually) where the short interest is >100% of the stock.
That's illegal. Of course the law has nothing to do with ethics, but it's worth pointing out.
On the difference between shorting when you have borrowed the stock and shorting when you haven't is one of risk. Usually the big institutions lend stock and earn an income from it. If you have to close your short then they will typically extend the contract if you can't buy in the market because they have an interest in an orderly market. (This doesn't mean they will allow you to make a profit if you mess up, but they won't drive you into bankruptcy).
When you short without having borrowed you are taking much more risk because you are exposed to a short squeeze.
The issues I have with this situation are:
(a) Naked shorting is illegal (b) The hedge funds have been stupid and jumped on a bandwagon (c) Retail investors coordinating on a short squeeze are - in my view - engaging in market abuse
No body comes out of this well.
Someone else suggested it earlier, but I reckon the company should do a capital raise. But I doubt that any credible underwriters will run it for them.
Hey Charles - as per my response earlier (not 100% sure the retail guys were pumping) here is an interesting article (which of course agrees with my point!).
The Americans tried fracking for natural gas with nukes. Operation Gasbuggy. Oddly enough, the ensuing product was too contaminated with radiation to use.
Well. Does that or does that not include the UK, given that we were a de facto Member State but of course not a Member State at time of contract signature.
I'm guessing it refers to the current member states. The jabs procured through that scheme were never intended for the UK.
so this doesn't refer to supplies destined (originally intended) for the UK?
That's the point of contention. The EU are arguing that the UK is being supplied with vaccines belonging to the EU. AZN deny this.
Interesting. I don't see how they or anyone can confuse "Member State" with "no longer Member State".
If the contracts were signed between the UK and AZN then there is no way the EU, according to that extract, would have any claims, by its own admission.
The EU doesn't just draft things willy-nilly. So I'm wondering if this is nothing to do with UK supplies and the media et al have conflated it as being so, or whether the EU somehow thinks that we qualify as a Member State.
We ceased being a member state on the 31st of January at 11pm UK time, difficult to see how they could be pushing that angle.
Use Occam's razor, what is the most likely thing that is causing these ructions?
Well. Does that or does that not include the UK, given that we were a de facto Member State but of course not a Member State at time of contract signature.
I'm guessing it refers to the current member states. The jabs procured through that scheme were never intended for the UK.
so this doesn't refer to supplies destined (originally intended) for the UK?
That's the point of contention. The EU are arguing that the UK is being supplied with vaccines belonging to the EU. AZN deny this.
Interesting. I don't see how they or anyone can confuse "Member State" with "no longer Member State".
If the contracts were signed between the UK and AZN then there is no way the EU, according to that extract, would have any claims, by its own admission.
The EU doesn't just draft things willy-nilly. So I'm wondering if this is nothing to do with UK supplies and the media et al have conflated it as being so, or whether the EU somehow thinks that we qualify as a Member State.
We ceased being a member state on the 31st of January at 11pm UK time, difficult to see how they could be pushing that angle.
Use Occam's razor, what is the most likely thing that is causing these ructions?
Can we charge Nicola Sturgeon with treason? She's a risk to Scotland's health.
Nicola Sturgeon has been accused of undermining efforts to prevent the European Union from taking UK-bound vaccines by threatening to publish details of confidential supplies.
The UK government wants to keep secret how many doses are being delivered to avoid aggravating tensions with other nations struggling to secure vaccines.
The row with the European Commission and Astrazeneca over reduced deliveries, thought to total between 60 to 75 million doses, has shown the acute sensitivity of the issue. The commission suspects Astrazeneca of giving Britain preferential treatment and ordered inspections of its Belgium plant to check its claim that there was a production problem.
It's been a while since the Tower of London has hosted state prisoners but, with a lick of paint and some tartan wall-hangings, she should soon feel right at home.
Well. Does that or does that not include the UK, given that we were a de facto Member State but of course not a Member State at time of contract signature.
I'm guessing it refers to the current member states. The jabs procured through that scheme were never intended for the UK.
so this doesn't refer to supplies destined (originally intended) for the UK?
That's the point of contention. The EU are arguing that the UK is being supplied with vaccines belonging to the EU. AZN deny this.
Interesting. I don't see how they or anyone can confuse "Member State" with "no longer Member State".
If the contracts were signed between the UK and AZN then there is no way the EU, according to that extract, would have any claims, by its own admission.
The EU doesn't just draft things willy-nilly. So I'm wondering if this is nothing to do with UK supplies and the media et al have conflated it as being so, or whether the EU somehow thinks that we qualify as a Member State.
We ceased being a member state on the 31st of January at 11pm UK time, difficult to see how they could be pushing that angle.
Use Occam's razor, what is the most likely thing that is causing these ructions?
“ Downing Street has refused to rule out the possibility of the UK sending vaccine supplies to the EU once the most vulnerable people in the UK have been vaccinated, assuming the timetable to vaccinate other adults by September stays on track. “
Do it Boris. Don’t listen to the rabid anti Christian ravers on PB. Their only religion is frothed up hatred of EU, that’s not Brexit is it?
Once vulnerable people in UK have been jabbed, share it Boris.
Keep your religion in your church please.
I think you'll find everyone here said that the EU getting doses once everyone in the UK has had it would be fair enough. You were saying to do it before vaccinations here are completed.
Agreed. Once our over 60s and potentially then key workers are done I would understand if vaccines for the likes of myself were diverted to help priority groups in Europe.
When I said completed I meant completed. Everyone done.
Well if they put a ban on vaccine export I'd happily change my mind. Ultimately the EU is to blame but its the citizens that will suffer.
According to the interview with the AZN CEO, using output from the British plants in Europe was planned, but "later".
Yes - the definition of "later" would be useful.
It seems fairly clear that later means when the UK Government order has been met. The UK Government deal was that they would get their order before the UK production facilities begun to meet other orders.
A question. Which famous Hollywood actor played the character (from a book by a famous novelist)... said character was the protagonist in another book by the same author, in which a (perhaps the) principle character was in the Artists Rifles?
On topic. I genuinely don't believe the EU would be that dumb. For all that I wanted Britain out, I don't in anyway underrate the bureaucrats in Brussels. Just look at the way they ran rings around May and Johnson (and Cameron before that).
I think there is a fair bit of political posturing by those in the Commission who can't forget how to be politicians but I also suspect that calmer heads in the bureaucracy will eventually prevail.
What Johnson needs to do is exactly what he has been doing which is play it down, make conciliatory and neutral noises and keep his cabinet and MPs in line. For once he is on the right side of this argument and he can stay there by making sure it is between AZ and the EU and not between the UK and the EU.
Good post Richard. I know we disagree of the B word, but I think you are absolutely right here. The EU don't have reason to care much about their image in the UK (some may argue they never did), so their posturing is for consumption in the EU27. The reality is that the pharma industry isn't well liked (which I think is undeserved) and the UK isn't exactly popular with many continentals. Their position is therefore unlikely to be politically damaging for their domestic audience. It is a spat and it will pass, and as you say, the right position for our government is to let it blow over
Yes, I agree with this to some degree. The threats of export bans just don't seem realistic, but it's just awful rhetoric and blame shifting. The UK government is definitely taking the right stance, just ignore it and let it burn itself out after a few days. Let AZ and the EU sort it out in the courts if they must. All the while Kwasi should be getting every pharma CEO on the phone. This is going to happen again with Novavax which has already commenced manufacturing in the UK with an integrated UK supply chain and it will be just as unedifying.
Much as some may hope it, pharma CEOs wont be too concerned about this. They deal with political pressure and willy waving from governments, including our own, all the time.
Including export bans? I wonder how the Pfizer CEO feels, or the Israeli government for that matter.
Well, I could be proved wrong, but I suspect that is just EU willy waving. In the end the pharma industry spends huge sums and effort on war gaming all sorts of scenarios, many of which are essentially political. Brexit disruption is a far bigger issue for UK Pharma than this, and even that they have made huge provision for to prevent disruption to their business.
Hopefully it does just turn out to be EU willy waving, if we are allowed to use that term any more.
Brexit could indeed turn out to be a huge issue for the European pharma industry - as they turn towards the UK as a welcoming place to do business.
Can we charge Nicola Sturgeon with treason? She's a risk to Scotland's health.
Nicola Sturgeon has been accused of undermining efforts to prevent the European Union from taking UK-bound vaccines by threatening to publish details of confidential supplies.
The UK government wants to keep secret how many doses are being delivered to avoid aggravating tensions with other nations struggling to secure vaccines.
The row with the European Commission and Astrazeneca over reduced deliveries, thought to total between 60 to 75 million doses, has shown the acute sensitivity of the issue. The commission suspects Astrazeneca of giving Britain preferential treatment and ordered inspections of its Belgium plant to check its claim that there was a production problem.
It's been a while since the Tower of London has hosted state prisoners but, with a lick of paint and some tartan wall-hangings, she should soon feel right at home.
Er, not really funny. We have enough people here frothing at the mouth about invasion and treason and hanging. It doesn't help political discussion.
Usual caveats mid-controversy, but a few striking things:
1 Had the EU got 100 million jabs by end of March, that's 20% of their population. Plus the other sources. Slower than the UK, but not shabbily so.
2 To fall that short that late in the day makes me wonder about the AZ salesmanship.
3 Stiffing the EU to fulfil the UK contract may be what the contracts imply.
I don't know that that does put a different perspective on things, as I don't see how, without evidence, no.3 is in fact implied. The UK also got less than it was expecting, and AZ would have to be pretty bonkers to do that.
More info may yet emerge, but the furious ravings so far appear to be based solely on the fact that AZ have been pretty bad at meeting their targets, which in itself doesn't justify the sinister allegations that have emerged.
Seize vaccines made in the EU but legally contracted to the UK, so they can be given to EU citizens. At the same time demand that the British hand over British made vaccines contracted to Britain, so they can also be given to EU citizens, not to Brits.
Thus ensuring that more British people die, and fewer Europeans die.
If that isn't war-like hostility - you must die so that we can live - what is? You might as well send over a German bomber and flatten Coventry, again (that might not be a bad idea, but let's set that aside)
If we get to the summer and we've left our young unvaccinated and festering inside while we ship vaccine made for us the EU then I'd expect there to be riots.
Well. Does that or does that not include the UK, given that we were a de facto Member State but of course not a Member State at time of contract signature.
I'm guessing it refers to the current member states. The jabs procured through that scheme were never intended for the UK.
so this doesn't refer to supplies destined (originally intended) for the UK?
That's the point of contention. The EU are arguing that the UK is being supplied with vaccines belonging to the EU. AZN deny this.
Interesting. I don't see how they or anyone can confuse "Member State" with "no longer Member State".
If the contracts were signed between the UK and AZN then there is no way the EU, according to that extract, would have any claims, by its own admission.
The EU doesn't just draft things willy-nilly. So I'm wondering if this is nothing to do with UK supplies and the media et al have conflated it as being so, or whether the EU somehow thinks that we qualify as a Member State.
We ceased being a member state on the 31st of January at 11pm UK time, difficult to see how they could be pushing that angle.
Use Occam's razor, what is the most likely thing that is causing these ructions?
But were we a member state during transition?
No, it was made clear time and again we weren't.
Indeed. So that extract does not apply to the UK as written.
"1. Without prejudice to any other procedures provided for in the Treaties, the Council, on a proposal from the Commission, may decide, in a spirit of solidarity between Member States, upon the measures appropriate to the economic situation, in particular if severe difficulties arise in the supply of certain products, notably in the area of energy.
2. Where a Member State is in difficulties or is seriously threatened with severe difficulties caused by natural disasters or exceptional occurrences beyond its control, the Council, on a proposal from the Commission, may grant, under certain conditions, Union financial assistance to the Member State concerned. The President of the Council shall inform the European Parliament of the decision taken."
I'm not sure what it means tbh, I don't speak Eurocrat.
“ Downing Street has refused to rule out the possibility of the UK sending vaccine supplies to the EU once the most vulnerable people in the UK have been vaccinated, assuming the timetable to vaccinate other adults by September stays on track. “
Do it Boris. Don’t listen to the rabid anti Christian ravers on PB. Their only religion is frothed up hatred of EU, that’s not Brexit is it?
Once vulnerable people in UK have been jabbed, share it Boris.
Keep your religion in your church please.
I think you'll find everyone here said that the EU getting doses once everyone in the UK has had it would be fair enough. You were saying to do it before vaccinations here are completed.
Agreed. Once our over 60s and potentially then key workers are done I would understand if vaccines for the likes of myself were diverted to help priority groups in Europe.
When I said completed I meant completed. Everyone done.
Insisting on everyone in one country being done before the vulnerable elsewhere is exactly the sort of vaccine nationalism that will prolong the pandemic.
No, quite the opposite.
We should be aiming to be 'zero Covid, zero restrictions' - domestically at least. We know that vaccinating yourself not just helps you but helps build herd immunity to protect others.
Once the vaccine program here is complete we can start to rebuild and move on, and be able to afford to help others with our aid and generosity.
Only doing half a job will make us more vulnerable to a third wave and set everything back as well as risking those vulnerable who either can't get the vaccine or for whom it doesn't take.
This is not the view of the professionals in the field.
Presenting it as an equally risky choice either way does not seem to be borne out.
He's right, even though it would all be easier if Oxford/AZ hadn't made a dog's dinner of their trial. We are where are, so we need to proceed as he says, though I do think trying to concentrate Pfizer on the elderly makes sense - the more effective vaccination and the better trial data for the more vulnerable group.
Well. Does that or does that not include the UK, given that we were a de facto Member State but of course not a Member State at time of contract signature.
I'm guessing it refers to the current member states. The jabs procured through that scheme were never intended for the UK.
so this doesn't refer to supplies destined (originally intended) for the UK?
That's the point of contention. The EU are arguing that the UK is being supplied with vaccines belonging to the EU. AZN deny this.
Interesting. I don't see how they or anyone can confuse "Member State" with "no longer Member State".
If the contracts were signed between the UK and AZN then there is no way the EU, according to that extract, would have any claims, by its own admission.
The EU doesn't just draft things willy-nilly. So I'm wondering if this is nothing to do with UK supplies and the media et al have conflated it as being so, or whether the EU somehow thinks that we qualify as a Member State.
We ceased being a member state on the 31st of January at 11pm UK time, difficult to see how they could be pushing that angle.
Use Occam's razor, what is the most likely thing that is causing these ructions?
But were we a member state during transition?
No, it was made clear time and again we weren't.
Indeed. So that extract does not apply to the UK as written.
Yes, that text refers to vaccines that AZN are contracted to supply the EU with. The EU are saying that AZN are using EU supplies to fulfill a different contract, a claim which AZN deny.
“ Downing Street has refused to rule out the possibility of the UK sending vaccine supplies to the EU once the most vulnerable people in the UK have been vaccinated, assuming the timetable to vaccinate other adults by September stays on track. “
Do it Boris. Don’t listen to the rabid anti Christian ravers on PB. Their only religion is frothed up hatred of EU, that’s not Brexit is it?
Once vulnerable people in UK have been jabbed, share it Boris.
Keep your religion in your church please.
I think you'll find everyone here said that the EU getting doses once everyone in the UK has had it would be fair enough. You were saying to do it before vaccinations here are completed.
Agreed. Once our over 60s and potentially then key workers are done I would understand if vaccines for the likes of myself were diverted to help priority groups in Europe.
When I said completed I meant completed. Everyone done.
Insisting on everyone in one country being done before the vulnerable elsewhere is exactly the sort of vaccine nationalism that will prolong the pandemic.
No, quite the opposite.
We should be aiming to be 'zero Covid, zero restrictions' - domestically at least. We know that vaccinating yourself not just helps you but helps build herd immunity to protect others.
Once the vaccine program here is complete we can start to rebuild and move on, and be able to afford to help others with our aid and generosity.
Only doing half a job will make us more vulnerable to a third wave and set everything back as well as risking those vulnerable who either can't get the vaccine or for whom it doesn't take.
This is not the view of the professionals in the field.
What "professionals" have said the UK shouldn't complete it's vaccine rollout?
On topic. I genuinely don't believe the EU would be that dumb. For all that I wanted Britain out, I don't in anyway underrate the bureaucrats in Brussels. Just look at the way they ran rings around May and Johnson (and Cameron before that).
I think there is a fair bit of political posturing by those in the Commission who can't forget how to be politicians but I also suspect that calmer heads in the bureaucracy will eventually prevail.
What Johnson needs to do is exactly what he has been doing which is play it down, make conciliatory and neutral noises and keep his cabinet and MPs in line. For once he is on the right side of this argument and he can stay there by making sure it is between AZ and the EU and not between the UK and the EU.
Good post Richard. I know we disagree of the B word, but I think you are absolutely right here. The EU don't have reason to care much about their image in the UK (some may argue they never did), so their posturing is for consumption in the EU27. The reality is that the pharma industry isn't well liked (which I think is undeserved) and the UK isn't exactly popular with many continentals. Their position is therefore unlikely to be politically damaging for their domestic audience. It is a spat and it will pass, and as you say, the right position for our government is to let it blow over
Yes, I agree with this to some degree. The threats of export bans just don't seem realistic, but it's just awful rhetoric and blame shifting. The UK government is definitely taking the right stance, just ignore it and let it burn itself out after a few days. Let AZ and the EU sort it out in the courts if they must. All the while Kwasi should be getting every pharma CEO on the phone. This is going to happen again with Novavax which has already commenced manufacturing in the UK with an integrated UK supply chain and it will be just as unedifying.
Much as some may hope it, pharma CEOs wont be too concerned about this. They deal with political pressure and willy waving from governments, including our own, all the time.
I'm not so sure, they've got two very easy places to do business in Europe both with tariff/quota free trade deals. I don't think this will lead to relocations of existing sites but it will figure into future investment decisions. If, in the unlikely event of an export ban, I think site relocation and even jurisdictional relocation will be on the cards. It's why I don't think there will be one, it's a pressure line to try and get Boris to approve AZ's UK supply being used to supplement the EU supply in the short term.
I just don't see an export ban, it would be the single most irresponsible thing for the EU to do. It's a negative sum game because the UK exports vital raw and semi-complete materials for EU pharmaceutical manufacturing, the government would have no choice but to mirror their ban and the Pfizer site in Belgium which was making 50m doses per month will make none, nobody wins from that and Pfizer will ramp up their US manufacturing in the short term and export from there once approval has been given in the UK and other countries that rely on the Belgian exports right now.
Your second paragraph is exactly why an export ban is unlikely to happen. As I am sure you know, consideration as to where future investment is put for any industry, but partic one like pharma is down to a huge number of variables. Supply chain is hugely important, but so is ability to access markets and access to talent. This could make a decision to expand in Basel rather than Munich sway a little, but their will be much bigger considerations that mean when the dust is settled this will be completely forgotten. Not least because this is about a vaccine, which is not exactly core business for most pharma companies and they will see the EU action, if it were to do it, as exceptional. I suspect there will be a lot of lobbying from the continental pharma sector not to set the precedent anyway. Ms Merkle will probably have a quiet word and say "shut the FU"
A question. Which famous Hollywood actor played the character (from a book by a famous novelist)... said character was the protagonist in another book by the same author, in which a (perhaps the) principle character was in the Artists Rifles?
Gary Cooper?
Bogart - played Philip Marlowe - in The Big Sleep.
In the Long Goodbye, Marlowe's friend Terry Lennox turns out to have been in the Artists Rifles in WWII
Presenting it as an equally risky choice either way does not seem to be borne out.
He's right, even though it would all be easier if Oxford/AZ hadn't made a dog's dinner of their trial. We are where are, so we need to proceed as he says, though I do think trying to concentrate Pfizer on the elderly makes sense - the more effective vaccination and the better trial data for the more vulnerable group.
I was agreeing with him, and if Pfizer can be concentrated on the elderly that's fine, though the sheer numbers being done presumably means many are getting AZ.
I don't wish you or any of your previous incarnations to ejaculate yourselves to death, but the current status of the Artists Rifles is as an SAS reserve regiment.
Just catching up with news. You get the impression that Brexit has driven the EU a little insane. In every announcement they stress how united the 27 are, as if that is THE outcome that matters rather than, say, procurement of a vaccine.
Regardless, I hope this is cleared up soon. In the end it’s the normal people that suffer.
Presenting it as an equally risky choice either way does not seem to be borne out.
He's right, even though it would all be easier if Oxford/AZ hadn't made a dog's dinner of their trial. We are where are, so we need to proceed as he says, though I do think trying to concentrate Pfizer on the elderly makes sense - the more effective vaccination and the better trial data for the more vulnerable group.
This isn't really possible though....both supply constraints, but also delivery constraints. In Israel the one area they are struggling to vaccinate is the housebound, because they only have access to Pfizer vaccine. Their solution is to try and instead vaccinate anybody they come into contact with, but that means effectively one vulerable person dose has become 5-10 less vulnerable being jabbed.
On topic. I genuinely don't believe the EU would be that dumb. For all that I wanted Britain out, I don't in anyway underrate the bureaucrats in Brussels. Just look at the way they ran rings around May and Johnson (and Cameron before that).
I think there is a fair bit of political posturing by those in the Commission who can't forget how to be politicians but I also suspect that calmer heads in the bureaucracy will eventually prevail.
What Johnson needs to do is exactly what he has been doing which is play it down, make conciliatory and neutral noises and keep his cabinet and MPs in line. For once he is on the right side of this argument and he can stay there by making sure it is between AZ and the EU and not between the UK and the EU.
Good post Richard. I know we disagree of the B word, but I think you are absolutely right here. The EU don't have reason to care much about their image in the UK (some may argue they never did), so their posturing is for consumption in the EU27. The reality is that the pharma industry isn't well liked (which I think is undeserved) and the UK isn't exactly popular with many continentals. Their position is therefore unlikely to be politically damaging for their domestic audience. It is a spat and it will pass, and as you say, the right position for our government is to let it blow over
Yes, I agree with this to some degree. The threats of export bans just don't seem realistic, but it's just awful rhetoric and blame shifting. The UK government is definitely taking the right stance, just ignore it and let it burn itself out after a few days. Let AZ and the EU sort it out in the courts if they must. All the while Kwasi should be getting every pharma CEO on the phone. This is going to happen again with Novavax which has already commenced manufacturing in the UK with an integrated UK supply chain and it will be just as unedifying.
Much as some may hope it, pharma CEOs wont be too concerned about this. They deal with political pressure and willy waving from governments, including our own, all the time.
I'm not so sure, they've got two very easy places to do business in Europe both with tariff/quota free trade deals. I don't think this will lead to relocations of existing sites but it will figure into future investment decisions. If, in the unlikely event of an export ban, I think site relocation and even jurisdictional relocation will be on the cards. It's why I don't think there will be one, it's a pressure line to try and get Boris to approve AZ's UK supply being used to supplement the EU supply in the short term.
I just don't see an export ban, it would be the single most irresponsible thing for the EU to do. It's a negative sum game because the UK exports vital raw and semi-complete materials for EU pharmaceutical manufacturing, the government would have no choice but to mirror their ban and the Pfizer site in Belgium which was making 50m doses per month will make none, nobody wins from that and Pfizer will ramp up their US manufacturing in the short term and export from there once approval has been given in the UK and other countries that rely on the Belgian exports right now.
Your second paragraph is exactly why an export ban is unlikely to happen. As I am sure you know, consideration as to where future investment is put for any industry, but partic one like pharma is down to a huge number of variables. Supply chain is hugely important, but so is ability to access markets and access to talent. This could make a decision to expand in Basel rather than Munich sway a little, but their will be much bigger considerations that mean when the dust is settled this will be completely forgotten. Not least because this is about a vaccine, which is not exactly core business for most pharma companies and they will see the EU action, if it were to do it, as exceptional. I suspect there will be a lot of lobbying from the continental pharma sector not to set the precedent anyway. Ms Merkle will probably have a quiet word and say "shut the FU"
If I were running the government, and the export ban took place, I wouldn't ban sale of raw materials etc.
I would publicly announce that I wasn't going to do so, despite the provocation, since lives are more important.
I don't wish you or any of your previous incarnations to ejaculate yourselves to death, but the current status of the Artists Rifles is as an SAS reserve regiment.
I thought one of the incarnations was female? But the PB version of Dr Who can presumably do anything.
Can we charge Nicola Sturgeon with treason? She's a risk to Scotland's health.
Nicola Sturgeon has been accused of undermining efforts to prevent the European Union from taking UK-bound vaccines by threatening to publish details of confidential supplies.
The UK government wants to keep secret how many doses are being delivered to avoid aggravating tensions with other nations struggling to secure vaccines.
The row with the European Commission and Astrazeneca over reduced deliveries, thought to total between 60 to 75 million doses, has shown the acute sensitivity of the issue. The commission suspects Astrazeneca of giving Britain preferential treatment and ordered inspections of its Belgium plant to check its claim that there was a production problem.
On topic. I genuinely don't believe the EU would be that dumb. For all that I wanted Britain out, I don't in anyway underrate the bureaucrats in Brussels. Just look at the way they ran rings around May and Johnson (and Cameron before that).
I think there is a fair bit of political posturing by those in the Commission who can't forget how to be politicians but I also suspect that calmer heads in the bureaucracy will eventually prevail.
What Johnson needs to do is exactly what he has been doing which is play it down, make conciliatory and neutral noises and keep his cabinet and MPs in line. For once he is on the right side of this argument and he can stay there by making sure it is between AZ and the EU and not between the UK and the EU.
Good post Richard. I know we disagree of the B word, but I think you are absolutely right here. The EU don't have reason to care much about their image in the UK (some may argue they never did), so their posturing is for consumption in the EU27. The reality is that the pharma industry isn't well liked (which I think is undeserved) and the UK isn't exactly popular with many continentals. Their position is therefore unlikely to be politically damaging for their domestic audience. It is a spat and it will pass, and as you say, the right position for our government is to let it blow over
Yes, I agree with this to some degree. The threats of export bans just don't seem realistic, but it's just awful rhetoric and blame shifting. The UK government is definitely taking the right stance, just ignore it and let it burn itself out after a few days. Let AZ and the EU sort it out in the courts if they must. All the while Kwasi should be getting every pharma CEO on the phone. This is going to happen again with Novavax which has already commenced manufacturing in the UK with an integrated UK supply chain and it will be just as unedifying.
Much as some may hope it, pharma CEOs wont be too concerned about this. They deal with political pressure and willy waving from governments, including our own, all the time.
I'm not so sure, they've got two very easy places to do business in Europe both with tariff/quota free trade deals. I don't think this will lead to relocations of existing sites but it will figure into future investment decisions. If, in the unlikely event of an export ban, I think site relocation and even jurisdictional relocation will be on the cards. It's why I don't think there will be one, it's a pressure line to try and get Boris to approve AZ's UK supply being used to supplement the EU supply in the short term.
I just don't see an export ban, it would be the single most irresponsible thing for the EU to do. It's a negative sum game because the UK exports vital raw and semi-complete materials for EU pharmaceutical manufacturing, the government would have no choice but to mirror their ban and the Pfizer site in Belgium which was making 50m doses per month will make none, nobody wins from that and Pfizer will ramp up their US manufacturing in the short term and export from there once approval has been given in the UK and other countries that rely on the Belgian exports right now.
Your second paragraph is exactly why an export ban is unlikely to happen. As I am sure you know, consideration as to where future investment is put for any industry, but partic one like pharma is down to a huge number of variables. Supply chain is hugely important, but so is ability to access markets and access to talent. This could make a decision to expand in Basel rather than Munich sway a little, but their will be much bigger considerations that mean when the dust is settled this will be completely forgotten. Not least because this is about a vaccine, which is not exactly core business for most pharma companies and they will see the EU action, if it were to do it, as exceptional. I suspect there will be a lot of lobbying from the continental pharma sector not to set the precedent anyway. Ms Merkle will probably have a quiet word and say "shut the FU"
Yes, we're definitely in agreement. I'm 95% sure it's just rhetoric to cover up their abject failure on vaccine supply. The worry is the 5%, nobody wins from an export ban. It knocks out European vaccine manufacturing (Pfizer and J&J) in the short term at a time when we need it more than ever. Even the most idiotic Eurocrat should be able to see this eventuality.
“ Downing Street has refused to rule out the possibility of the UK sending vaccine supplies to the EU once the most vulnerable people in the UK have been vaccinated, assuming the timetable to vaccinate other adults by September stays on track. “
Do it Boris. Don’t listen to the rabid anti Christian ravers on PB. Their only religion is frothed up hatred of EU, that’s not Brexit is it?
Once vulnerable people in UK have been jabbed, share it Boris.
Keep your religion in your church please.
I think you'll find everyone here said that the EU getting doses once everyone in the UK has had it would be fair enough. You were saying to do it before vaccinations here are completed.
Agreed. Once our over 60s and potentially then key workers are done I would understand if vaccines for the likes of myself were diverted to help priority groups in Europe.
When I said completed I meant completed. Everyone done.
Well if they put a ban on vaccine export I'd happily change my mind. Ultimately the EU is to blame but its the citizens that will suffer.
According to the interview with the AZN CEO, using output from the British plants in Europe was planned, but "later".
Yes - the definition of "later" would be useful.
It seems fairly clear that later means when the UK Government order has been met. The UK Government deal was that they would get their order before the UK production facilities begun to meet other orders.
I thought nobody has seen the contracts, but if that is true shouldn't AZN have told the EU when they made the order?
"1. Without prejudice to any other procedures provided for in the Treaties, the Council, on a proposal from the Commission, may decide, in a spirit of solidarity between Member States, upon the measures appropriate to the economic situation, in particular if severe difficulties arise in the supply of certain products, notably in the area of energy.
2. Where a Member State is in difficulties or is seriously threatened with severe difficulties caused by natural disasters or exceptional occurrences beyond its control, the Council, on a proposal from the Commission, may grant, under certain conditions, Union financial assistance to the Member State concerned. The President of the Council shall inform the European Parliament of the decision taken."
I'm not sure what it means tbh, I don't speak Eurocrat.
It seems to mean they can provide financial assistance to member states. Which is great as far as it goes, but the problem isn't financial, it's about modified viruses being brewed up in big vats, and not brewing as fast as had been hoped.
Sorry just saw your question on the ethical difference between covered short selling and naked short selling.
From a definition perspective, "naked short selling" is the sale of shares which cannot be proved to exist - i.e. (usually) where the short interest is >100% of the stock.
That's illegal. Of course the law has nothing to do with ethics, but it's worth pointing out.
On the difference between shorting when you have borrowed the stock and shorting when you haven't is one of risk. Usually the big institutions lend stock and earn an income from it. If you have to close your short then they will typically extend the contract if you can't buy in the market because they have an interest in an orderly market. (This doesn't mean they will allow you to make a profit if you mess up, but they won't drive you into bankruptcy).
When you short without having borrowed you are taking much more risk because you are exposed to a short squeeze.
The issues I have with this situation are:
(a) Naked shorting is illegal (b) The hedge funds have been stupid and jumped on a bandwagon (c) Retail investors coordinating on a short squeeze are - in my view - engaging in market abuse
No body comes out of this well.
Someone else suggested it earlier, but I reckon the company should do a capital raise. But I doubt that any credible underwriters will run it for them.
I've not been following this in detail, but I note that the business is a video games outfit. Are the legion of retail investors piling in mostly speculators hoping for a windfall, or game players rallying round their business? I know we can't really know for sure, but what sort of groups are pushing it?
Just catching up with news. You get the impression that Brexit has driven the EU a little insane. In every announcement they stress how united the 27 are, as if that is THE outcome that matters rather than, say, procurement of a vaccine.
Regardless, I hope this is cleared up soon. In the end it’s the normal people that suffer.
Is it the equivalent of UK politician's and their recent obsession of having a flag in every shot.
Usual caveats mid-controversy, but a few striking things:
1 Had the EU got 100 million jabs by end of March, that's 20% of their population. Plus the other sources. Slower than the UK, but not shabbily so.
2 To fall that short that late in the day makes me wonder about the AZ salesmanship.
3 Stiffing the EU to fulfil the UK contract may be what the contracts imply.
The reduction looks very similar to that experienced by the UK.
The big difference is a very simple one: the UK ordered early, was generous with contract size and prices, and was happy to over-order on the basis that it was safer.
The EU ordered late (although, it should be mentioned, no later than a lot of other countries around the world), nickel and dimed, and had their eggs in too few baskets.
We did great. The EU has done poorly. But it is also far from the only place doing badly. Canada just announced it's getting no Pfizer for a few weeks, and they are only up to about 800,000 doses in peoples' arms. Japan is also looking like no great shakes - I can't even find a number for how many they've vaccinated, but I do know they only put a Pfizer order in this week.
On topic. I genuinely don't believe the EU would be that dumb. For all that I wanted Britain out, I don't in anyway underrate the bureaucrats in Brussels. Just look at the way they ran rings around May and Johnson (and Cameron before that).
I think there is a fair bit of political posturing by those in the Commission who can't forget how to be politicians but I also suspect that calmer heads in the bureaucracy will eventually prevail.
What Johnson needs to do is exactly what he has been doing which is play it down, make conciliatory and neutral noises and keep his cabinet and MPs in line. For once he is on the right side of this argument and he can stay there by making sure it is between AZ and the EU and not between the UK and the EU.
Good post Richard. I know we disagree of the B word, but I think you are absolutely right here. The EU don't have reason to care much about their image in the UK (some may argue they never did), so their posturing is for consumption in the EU27. The reality is that the pharma industry isn't well liked (which I think is undeserved) and the UK isn't exactly popular with many continentals. Their position is therefore unlikely to be politically damaging for their domestic audience. It is a spat and it will pass, and as you say, the right position for our government is to let it blow over
Yes, I agree with this to some degree. The threats of export bans just don't seem realistic, but it's just awful rhetoric and blame shifting. The UK government is definitely taking the right stance, just ignore it and let it burn itself out after a few days. Let AZ and the EU sort it out in the courts if they must. All the while Kwasi should be getting every pharma CEO on the phone. This is going to happen again with Novavax which has already commenced manufacturing in the UK with an integrated UK supply chain and it will be just as unedifying.
Much as some may hope it, pharma CEOs wont be too concerned about this. They deal with political pressure and willy waving from governments, including our own, all the time.
I'm not so sure, they've got two very easy places to do business in Europe both with tariff/quota free trade deals. I don't think this will lead to relocations of existing sites but it will figure into future investment decisions. If, in the unlikely event of an export ban, I think site relocation and even jurisdictional relocation will be on the cards. It's why I don't think there will be one, it's a pressure line to try and get Boris to approve AZ's UK supply being used to supplement the EU supply in the short term.
I just don't see an export ban, it would be the single most irresponsible thing for the EU to do. It's a negative sum game because the UK exports vital raw and semi-complete materials for EU pharmaceutical manufacturing, the government would have no choice but to mirror their ban and the Pfizer site in Belgium which was making 50m doses per month will make none, nobody wins from that and Pfizer will ramp up their US manufacturing in the short term and export from there once approval has been given in the UK and other countries that rely on the Belgian exports right now.
Your second paragraph is exactly why an export ban is unlikely to happen. As I am sure you know, consideration as to where future investment is put for any industry, but partic one like pharma is down to a huge number of variables. Supply chain is hugely important, but so is ability to access markets and access to talent. This could make a decision to expand in Basel rather than Munich sway a little, but their will be much bigger considerations that mean when the dust is settled this will be completely forgotten. Not least because this is about a vaccine, which is not exactly core business for most pharma companies and they will see the EU action, if it were to do it, as exceptional. I suspect there will be a lot of lobbying from the continental pharma sector not to set the precedent anyway. Ms Merkle will probably have a quiet word and say "shut the FU"
If I were running the government, and the export ban took place, I wouldn't ban sale of raw materials etc.
I would publicly announce that I wasn't going to do so, despite the provocation, since lives are more important.
It wouldn't be a ban, I expect we would ask Pfizer where to send it and they'd redirect it to the US and ramp up their US production to meet existing supply contracts to non-EU clients.
Just catching up with news. You get the impression that Brexit has driven the EU a little insane. In every announcement they stress how united the 27 are, as if that is THE outcome that matters rather than, say, procurement of a vaccine.
Regardless, I hope this is cleared up soon. In the end it’s the normal people that suffer.
I know unity is very precious, but its insertion does come across as almost involuntary at this point. I get they really, really don't like the idea of Member states disagreeing with one another, or people playing them off against one another, but I don't think most people will assume they are at each others' throats if they don't say how united they are.
Overuse it and it sounds like the equivalent of 'The Board have full confidence in the Manager'.
Maybe AZ can pull a rabbit out of a hat and get a few more deliveries to the EU, we can all hope everyone starts getting more supply soon (as per rcs1000, with various other vaccines nearing approval, in 4 months we and the EU may be swimming in vaccines), but they need to return to form and lower the temperature.
“ Downing Street has refused to rule out the possibility of the UK sending vaccine supplies to the EU once the most vulnerable people in the UK have been vaccinated, assuming the timetable to vaccinate other adults by September stays on track. “
Do it Boris. Don’t listen to the rabid anti Christian ravers on PB. Their only religion is frothed up hatred of EU, that’s not Brexit is it?
Once vulnerable people in UK have been jabbed, share it Boris.
Keep your religion in your church please.
I think you'll find everyone here said that the EU getting doses once everyone in the UK has had it would be fair enough. You were saying to do it before vaccinations here are completed.
Agreed. Once our over 60s and potentially then key workers are done I would understand if vaccines for the likes of myself were diverted to help priority groups in Europe.
When I said completed I meant completed. Everyone done.
Insisting on everyone in one country being done before the vulnerable elsewhere is exactly the sort of vaccine nationalism that will prolong the pandemic.
Yes, absolutely dumb. I am sure we all want all our loved ones protected asap, but part of that protection is to defeat the virus on a pan-national basis. Stupidity of nationalism laid bare once again!
Unless we get our GLOBAL act together on vaccination this nightmare could run for years. A pragmatic collectivism must triumph here for everyone's sake. After that we can go back to the usual nonsense that we all know and love.
“ Downing Street has refused to rule out the possibility of the UK sending vaccine supplies to the EU once the most vulnerable people in the UK have been vaccinated, assuming the timetable to vaccinate other adults by September stays on track. “
Do it Boris. Don’t listen to the rabid anti Christian ravers on PB. Their only religion is frothed up hatred of EU, that’s not Brexit is it?
Once vulnerable people in UK have been jabbed, share it Boris.
Keep your religion in your church please.
I think you'll find everyone here said that the EU getting doses once everyone in the UK has had it would be fair enough. You were saying to do it before vaccinations here are completed.
Agreed. Once our over 60s and potentially then key workers are done I would understand if vaccines for the likes of myself were diverted to help priority groups in Europe.
When I said completed I meant completed. Everyone done.
Insisting on everyone in one country being done before the vulnerable elsewhere is exactly the sort of vaccine nationalism that will prolong the pandemic.
Er, what? I'm happy to wait until older and more vulnerable Britons have been protected, but no way am I waiting until all those groups in the entire EU have been done! There's altruism, and then there's masochistic martyrdom.
Usual caveats mid-controversy, but a few striking things:
1 Had the EU got 100 million jabs by end of March, that's 20% of their population. Plus the other sources. Slower than the UK, but not shabbily so.
2 To fall that short that late in the day makes me wonder about the AZ salesmanship.
3 Stiffing the EU to fulfil the UK contract may be what the contracts imply.
The reduction looks very similar to that experienced by the UK.
The big difference is a very simple one: the UK ordered early, was generous with contract size and prices, and was happy to over-order on the basis that it was safer.
The EU ordered late (although, it should be mentioned, no later than a lot of other countries around the world), nickel and dimed, and had their eggs in too few baskets.
We did great. The EU has done poorly. But it is also far from the only place doing badly. Canada just announced it's getting no Pfizer for a few weeks, and they are only up to about 800,000 doses in peoples' arms. Japan is also looking like no great shakes - I can't even find a number for how many they've vaccinated, but I do know they only put a Pfizer order in this week.
Japan has done none because they require vaccines to be tested for safety in Japan and those trials are still ongoing.
I don't wish you or any of your previous incarnations to ejaculate yourselves to death, but the current status of the Artists Rifles is as an SAS reserve regiment.
I thought one of the incarnations was female? But the PB version of Dr Who can presumably do anything.
I was thinking of the one who got himself in a right old state over the muscular Para Freikorps protecting Churchill's statue, but yes, it could have been any of them.
Darren McCaffrey on Euro news saying compare and contrast Israel and UK who have now passed 7 million doses, while Paris has just announced it is to stop vaccinating first doses from Tuesday as they have not got the vaccines, and repeated in Madrid and Valencia
Usual caveats mid-controversy, but a few striking things:
1 Had the EU got 100 million jabs by end of March, that's 20% of their population. Plus the other sources. Slower than the UK, but not shabbily so.
2 To fall that short that late in the day makes me wonder about the AZ salesmanship.
3 Stiffing the EU to fulfil the UK contract may be what the contracts imply.
The reduction looks very similar to that experienced by the UK.
The big difference is a very simple one: the UK ordered early, was generous with contract size and prices, and was happy to over-order on the basis that it was safer.
The EU ordered late (although, it should be mentioned, no later than a lot of other countries around the world), nickel and dimed, and had their eggs in too few baskets.
We did great. The EU has done poorly. But it is also far from the only place doing badly. Canada just announced it's getting no Pfizer for a few weeks, and they are only up to about 800,000 doses in peoples' arms. Japan is also looking like no great shakes - I can't even find a number for how many they've vaccinated, but I do know they only put a Pfizer order in this week.
Japan has done none because they require vaccines to be tested for safety in Japan and those trials are still ongoing.
Is it really true they are still doing that for medicine? That's errrrrr.... interesting.
OK, this is a German newspaper, but maybe we can all calm down. AZ have found some more Euro vaccine down the back of the sofa or something. (There's an auto-translate a few tweets in.)
Seize vaccines made in the EU but legally contracted to the UK, so they can be given to EU citizens. At the same time demand that the British hand over British made vaccines contracted to Britain, so they can also be given to EU citizens, not to Brits.
Thus ensuring that more British people die, and fewer Europeans die.
If that isn't war-like hostility - you must die so that we can live - what is? You might as well send over a German bomber and flatten Coventry, again (that might not be a bad idea, but let's set that aside)
The EU has gone nuts
Are you sure that it's just the EU that has gone nuts?
I suspect going to war over this might just kill more people than the potential deaths caused by some vaccine hiccups.
Are Germany in receipt of the vaccines they procured on their own? If so, could they come under pressure to share them around the EU?
I am surprised that act of "disunity" has been thrown around more.
The important thing when there is disunity is to speak ever more loudly about unity. Think insistence Blair and Brown were getting along just fine, thank you very much.
OK, this is a German newspaper, but maybe we can all calm down. AZ have found some more Euro vaccine down the back of the sofa or something. (There's an auto-translate a few tweets in.)
Sorry just saw your question on the ethical difference between covered short selling and naked short selling.
From a definition perspective, "naked short selling" is the sale of shares which cannot be proved to exist - i.e. (usually) where the short interest is >100% of the stock.
That's illegal. Of course the law has nothing to do with ethics, but it's worth pointing out.
On the difference between shorting when you have borrowed the stock and shorting when you haven't is one of risk. Usually the big institutions lend stock and earn an income from it. If you have to close your short then they will typically extend the contract if you can't buy in the market because they have an interest in an orderly market. (This doesn't mean they will allow you to make a profit if you mess up, but they won't drive you into bankruptcy).
When you short without having borrowed you are taking much more risk because you are exposed to a short squeeze.
The issues I have with this situation are:
(a) Naked shorting is illegal (b) The hedge funds have been stupid and jumped on a bandwagon (c) Retail investors coordinating on a short squeeze are - in my view - engaging in market abuse
No body comes out of this well.
Someone else suggested it earlier, but I reckon the company should do a capital raise. But I doubt that any credible underwriters will run it for them.
I've not been following this in detail, but I note that the business is a video games outfit. Are the legion of retail investors piling in mostly speculators hoping for a windfall, or game players rallying round their business? I know we can't really know for sure, but what sort of groups are pushing it?
Early this morning, a failing chain of video game retailers, who is being beaten by Amazon and digital distribitution, which is loss making, and which is seeing its sales fall, reached a value that would have made it the sixth largest company in the FTSE100, ahead of Vodafone.
Day traders on Robinhood discovered that if they acted in concert they could create a massive short squeeze. (GME was heavily shorted because... well, it's going to go out of business.) As the price ran, up hedge funds found that they had growing losses and were forced to close their positions by buying back stock. This sent the stock into the stratosphere.
Smart daytraders (both of them) will have left the party at this point. Dumb ones will remain, and will lose all their money as their call options expire worthless on Feb 19, as the number of real buyers of GME stock at (checks price) $250 is... ummm.... zero.
Can we charge Nicola Sturgeon with treason? She's a risk to Scotland's health.
Nicola Sturgeon has been accused of undermining efforts to prevent the European Union from taking UK-bound vaccines by threatening to publish details of confidential supplies.
The UK government wants to keep secret how many doses are being delivered to avoid aggravating tensions with other nations struggling to secure vaccines.
The row with the European Commission and Astrazeneca over reduced deliveries, thought to total between 60 to 75 million doses, has shown the acute sensitivity of the issue. The commission suspects Astrazeneca of giving Britain preferential treatment and ordered inspections of its Belgium plant to check its claim that there was a production problem.
Neil Oliver reckons that men in the constituency Sturgeon represents have a lower average lifespan than those in sub-Saharan Africa.
Much of the Glasgow effect - in Glasgow as a whole, not Govan specifrically - is generally ascribed to long-term factors dating back decades (ie long before the Scottish Pmt was reconvened, let alone the SNP became a government). And it would help of the Conservatives didn't persistently obstruct initiatives such as smoking controls, alcohol price control, and now drug initiatives. Even one of our resident Scots unionist Tories is unhappy about the UK Gmt's policy on drugs, which has caused an unedifying snarl with the SG.
“ Downing Street has refused to rule out the possibility of the UK sending vaccine supplies to the EU once the most vulnerable people in the UK have been vaccinated, assuming the timetable to vaccinate other adults by September stays on track. “
Do it Boris. Don’t listen to the rabid anti Christian ravers on PB. Their only religion is frothed up hatred of EU, that’s not Brexit is it?
Once vulnerable people in UK have been jabbed, share it Boris.
Keep your religion in your church please.
I think you'll find everyone here said that the EU getting doses once everyone in the UK has had it would be fair enough. You were saying to do it before vaccinations here are completed.
Agreed. Once our over 60s and potentially then key workers are done I would understand if vaccines for the likes of myself were diverted to help priority groups in Europe.
When I said completed I meant completed. Everyone done.
Insisting on everyone in one country being done before the vulnerable elsewhere is exactly the sort of vaccine nationalism that will prolong the pandemic.
Yes, absolutely dumb. I am sure we all want all our loved ones protected asap, but part of that protection is to defeat the virus on a pan-national basis. Stupidity of nationalism laid bare once again!
Unless we get our GLOBAL act together on vaccination this nightmare could run for years. A pragmatic collectivism must triumph here for everyone's sake. After that we can go back to the usual nonsense that we all know and love.
Yes, you should tell the EU that. They've donated €500m to COVAX vs £530m from the UK alone. It's absolutely disgraceful for them to talk about "Europe's fair share" while they short change the world's poorest.
They've gone insane, it's the only possible explanation.
I would not blame any pharmaceutical company from leaving the EU after this and relocating to the UK and Switzerland
Indeed on the wider view, if I was an International Company looking to invest in Europe I would have serious reservations after this episode
While Rishi Sunak has his chequebook out if any companies want to relocate during the pandemic to invest in the UK that should be facilitated.
Not normally, but if this is war then we need to do what we need to do.
It's not war. It's vaccinating the people of the world against a very nasty virus.
IF the EU block the vaccine being exported to us when we have bought and paid for it then it is economic warfare.
No. No. This is not the mindset needed at this time.
Tell that to Brussels. They are the ones screaming and shouting, not just at tabloid newspaper level, but at the highest level. They are the ones threatening illegal acts, which may actually cause many extra deaths
They are the ones that need to dial it down, by a dimension of notches. They are the ones panicking and snarling.
Boris needs to call an emergency EU-UK summit. It's in no one's interest to let Covid run rampant throughout mainland Europe. He holds all the cards! This could be the Churchill moment he's dreamed of all his life.
Politico.com - Trump Loyalists Want To Punish Liz Cheney. So? She’s making a big bet that what’s unpopular in her party today will make her more formidable in the future.
"...as long as Liz Cheney keeps her nerve, she will be one of the more interesting people in contemporary politics, as Republicans chart their future in the wake of the Trump presidency. She offers a case study in a subject that interests both her father and Donald Trump: the psychological dimensions of leadership.
Dick Cheney’s leadership style was shaped by a stoical tradition in American culture, one celebrated in frontier mythology, in which words are used sparingly, actions alone convey strength, and personal flash and hunger for approval suggest weakness and sissification. Donald Trump’s leadership style reflects more recent cultural trends, shaped by everything from Las Vegas to pro wrestling. Bombast and self-promotion aren’t simply means but ends as important, or more important, than any policy objective.
But these two different styles have some unifying traits: Both believe in the optics of power, and that the projection of fearlessness creates its own reality. You have power because you assert that you do, and the rest of the world responds. Both Dick Cheney and Trump resisted public acknowledgements of uncertainty or even complexity in their thinking. Both were loath to admit error or issue apologies.
Liz Cheney, who at 54 is so clearly a product of her father’s values, offers the prospect of putting the two leadership styles to a direct test, one versus the other. . . .
It is hard to know Liz Cheney’s real calculation. Perhaps, at one end of the spectrum, she is thinking, Standing up to Trump could cost my career, but I’d rather lose than surrender my dignity by kowtowing to him or excusing his outrages. Or maybe she’s more confident: I know my state and I know my House colleagues. Trump can’t lay a glove on me.
Whatever Liz Cheney is thinking, the reality may be closest to this. For all the hundreds of decisions a politician makes in a year, most consequential careers are defined by being right—or wrong—on a small handful of big questions. On these, the shrewd long-term position is often quite different than the short-term “safe” one. Many politicians who played it safe voting against civil rights in the 1960s spent the rest of their careers trying to rehabilitate their reputations. Hillary Clinton’s authorizing the Iraq War had her in the Democratic mainstream in 2002; Barack Obama’s opposition helped power him to the presidency just six years later."
Boris needs to call an emergency EU-UK summit. It's in no one's interest to let Covid run rampant throughout mainland Europe. He holds all the cards! This could be the Churchill moment he's dreamed of all his life.
I agree. We need to help other countries as much as we can, without jeopardising our own vaccine rollout.
Boris needs to call an emergency EU-UK summit. It's in no one's interest to let Covid run rampant throughout mainland Europe. He holds all the cards! This could be the Churchill moment he's dreamed of all his life.
OK, this is a German newspaper, but maybe we can all calm down. AZ have found some more Euro vaccine down the back of the sofa or something. (There's an auto-translate a few tweets in.)
Just to also point out, Biden is set to pledge $4bn to COVAX in the coming days, which makes their donation around the same as ours on a per capita basis. The US and UK are pulling their weight, while the EU is short changing the world's poorest. They should be putting 6-7x the amount in to bring their donation up to our level and ensure that everyone in the world has access to a vaccine.
Boris needs to call an emergency EU-UK summit. It's in no one's interest to let Covid run rampant throughout mainland Europe. He holds all the cards! This could be the Churchill moment he's dreamed of all his life.
Boris needs to call an emergency EU-UK summit. It's in no one's interest to let Covid run rampant throughout mainland Europe. He holds all the cards! This could be the Churchill moment he's dreamed of all his life.
Covid is running rampant through the UK, in case you hadn't noticed. Thousands are dying every day.
We need to vaccinate everyone vulnerable and/or over 40 in the UK before we consider helping the EU. I do not remember the EU rushing to offer us PPE when we had a shortage?
Once we have vaxxed everyone in the UK in these categories, then perhaps we can be magnanimous. But by then, anyway, the rich world will be awash with vaccines and the argument will have gone away, and, as many others have said, we should then direct our charity to those that really need it, in the poorer south: Africa especially.
This whole absurd fiasco is all because the EU elite is embarrassed at having totally fucked up, and is trying to divert blame. That's all it is. All of it. The EU has been exposed as the overpaid, non-democratic, bumbling, bureaucratic shit-show many of us already perceived.
They just need to shut the F up and get on with managing the virus as best they can.
“ Downing Street has refused to rule out the possibility of the UK sending vaccine supplies to the EU once the most vulnerable people in the UK have been vaccinated, assuming the timetable to vaccinate other adults by September stays on track. “
Do it Boris. Don’t listen to the rabid anti Christian ravers on PB. Their only religion is frothed up hatred of EU, that’s not Brexit is it?
Once vulnerable people in UK have been jabbed, share it Boris.
Keep your religion in your church please.
I think you'll find everyone here said that the EU getting doses once everyone in the UK has had it would be fair enough. You were saying to do it before vaccinations here are completed.
Agreed. Once our over 60s and potentially then key workers are done I would understand if vaccines for the likes of myself were diverted to help priority groups in Europe.
When I said completed I meant completed. Everyone done.
Insisting on everyone in one country being done before the vulnerable elsewhere is exactly the sort of vaccine nationalism that will prolong the pandemic.
No, quite the opposite.
We should be aiming to be 'zero Covid, zero restrictions' - domestically at least. We know that vaccinating yourself not just helps you but helps build herd immunity to protect others.
Once the vaccine program here is complete we can start to rebuild and move on, and be able to afford to help others with our aid and generosity.
Only doing half a job will make us more vulnerable to a third wave and set everything back as well as risking those vulnerable who either can't get the vaccine or for whom it doesn't take.
This is not the view of the professionals in the field.
They've gone insane, it's the only possible explanation.
I would not blame any pharmaceutical company from leaving the EU after this and relocating to the UK and Switzerland
Indeed on the wider view, if I was an International Company looking to invest in Europe I would have serious reservations after this episode
While Rishi Sunak has his chequebook out if any companies want to relocate during the pandemic to invest in the UK that should be facilitated.
Not normally, but if this is war then we need to do what we need to do.
It's not war. It's vaccinating the people of the world against a very nasty virus.
IF the EU block the vaccine being exported to us when we have bought and paid for it then it is economic warfare.
No. No. This is not the mindset needed at this time.
If we are attacked it is.
And that is what makes us less likely to be attacked.
You lefties never got your head around MAD, did you? We should not be the aggressor but if we are struck, we should strike back.
You'd make a terrific war leader, Philip, this is clear. Or gangster. But cooler heads are needed right now.
Absolutely.
We need to keep cool, calm and carry on and complete the UKs vaccine rollout.
We need to keep cool, calm and make it politely known that we know the EU won't attempt to steal our vaccines we've paid for because the consequences would be horrendous for everyone
We need not play along with the histrionics and drama emanating from the Continent as a fig leaf to cover up their screw ups here.
We should do our best facilitate any expansion in manufacturing that the EU wishes to pay for to catch up on output.
Sorry just saw your question on the ethical difference between covered short selling and naked short selling.
From a definition perspective, "naked short selling" is the sale of shares which cannot be proved to exist - i.e. (usually) where the short interest is >100% of the stock.
That's illegal. Of course the law has nothing to do with ethics, but it's worth pointing out.
On the difference between shorting when you have borrowed the stock and shorting when you haven't is one of risk. Usually the big institutions lend stock and earn an income from it. If you have to close your short then they will typically extend the contract if you can't buy in the market because they have an interest in an orderly market. (This doesn't mean they will allow you to make a profit if you mess up, but they won't drive you into bankruptcy).
When you short without having borrowed you are taking much more risk because you are exposed to a short squeeze.
The issues I have with this situation are:
(a) Naked shorting is illegal (b) The hedge funds have been stupid and jumped on a bandwagon (c) Retail investors coordinating on a short squeeze are - in my view - engaging in market abuse
No body comes out of this well.
Someone else suggested it earlier, but I reckon the company should do a capital raise. But I doubt that any credible underwriters will run it for them.
I've not been following this in detail, but I note that the business is a video games outfit. Are the legion of retail investors piling in mostly speculators hoping for a windfall, or game players rallying round their business? I know we can't really know for sure, but what sort of groups are pushing it?
Early this morning, a failing chain of video game retailers, who is being beaten by Amazon and digital distribitution, which is loss making, and which is seeing its sales fall, reached a value that would have made it the sixth largest company in the FTSE100, ahead of Vodafone.
Day traders on Robinhood discovered that if they acted in concert they could create a massive short squeeze. (GME was heavily shorted because... well, it's going to go out of business.) As the price ran, up hedge funds found that they had growing losses and were forced to close their positions by buying back stock. This sent the stock into the stratosphere.
Smart daytraders (both of them) will have left the party at this point. Dumb ones will remain, and will lose all their money as their call options expire worthless on Feb 19, as the number of real buyers of GME stock at (checks price) $250 is... ummm.... zero.
I've no sympathy for aggressive shorters. In their time they've taken a few entirely viable companies to the wall.
Decades ago there was a case in the eurobond market where JP Morgan had wildly mispriced a new issue and found themselves (if memory serves) owning 117% of the bonds in issue. They could literally set any price. It was even more embarrassing for the shorters in that they were secondary managers and therefore should have been trying to sell the thing to investors.
I suspect we'll see more of these aggressive short squeezes, but the rules are actually stacked against such things.
Re: GameStop (or whatever you call it) there was some hilarity on PB re: Massachusetts Secretary of State Bill Galvin calling for US SEC to suspend trading, because he said this was "speculating not investing" or words to that effect.
BUT do PBers think that what Galvin is suggesting, is in fact a good idea, in this instance?
I am not sure that the comparison in the header really works, as the EU is at least reasonably similar in its role to the technocrats running things in the UK rollout.
I am sure that when Member Countries get jabbing, national politicians will be all over it.
"Boris took a huge gamble in the summer with the agreement to purchase huge amounts of the two leading vaccine prospects well before it was clear that they would work."
This is a fundamental misreading of the situation.
Relative to the cost of eternal lockdown, splashing out a few billions here and there on a variety of promising vaccine candidates represents a negligible outlay. The gamble was not to rush to back a load of horses. The gamble would've been to dither over which horses to pick, and then try to haggle with the bookmaker over the odds.
As it was, the Government backed a nag that broke a leg at Beechers and had to be shot, but it also bagged a win and a place, so it's won a mint regardless. The poor EU also picked the right horses, but it tried to place its bets when the race was already half-run.
"Now the we have the EU threat to prevent the world’s largest pharmaceutical company from fulfilling an order placed well before the EU got its act together.
This might not end well."
Quite. At a very minimum, any lingering likelihood of re-joining this side of 2050 is about to evaporate.
Comments
https://twitter.com/DaveKeating/status/1354842798848151554
Investigative journalism is the lifeblood of my industry, and we should applaud stings that discover serious wrongdoing.
Times, Sunday Times (2016)
Freedom of speech is the lifeblood of democracy.
Times, Sunday Times (2011)
The flow of credit is the lifeblood of our economy.
Times, Sunday Times (2009)
He said that small companies were the lifeblood of the economy.
Times, Sunday Times (2011)
Credit is the lifeblood of the economy.
Times, Sunday Times (2007)
Entrepreneurs are the lifeblood of our economy.
Times, Sunday Times (2012)
Instead the system is encouraging those who should be entering the lifeblood of the economy to look elsewhere.
Times, Sunday Times (2013)
The subcontinent provides cricket with so much of its commercial and cultural lifeblood that the game cannot stop for long.
Times, Sunday Times (2008)
Take clinical trials, the lifeblood of the industry.
Times, Sunday Times (2011)
They are like ticks on a dog, they suck the lifeblood out of the poor bees.
Times, Sunday Times (2009)
It's the lifeblood of the sport.
Times, Sunday Times (2010)
The risk is that increased taxation will sap the economy 's lifeblood.
Times, Sunday Times (2009)
It is not what the government intended, although small firms are the lifeblood of the economy.
Times, Sunday Times (2013)
Freedom of speech is the lifeblood of democracy, but good reputation must be protected against irresponsible journalism.
Times, Sunday Times (2010)
There is positive news for smaller firms, which are the lifeblood of the economy and drivers of growth.
Times, Sunday Times (2012)
Yet the fans, who are the lifeblood of most sports, are badly looked after.
Times, Sunday Times (2012)
He wrote that'party politics is the lifeblood of representative democracy and political parties have got to get their funding from somewhere'.
Times, Sunday Times (2015)
Though for fun, I quite liked Ted Taylors plan to make all the plutonium required for the cold war. In a millisecond.
You place a series of carefully spaced out sheets of uranium on the ground. Bolted to concrete. Then detonate a nuclear weapon a few hundred feet above them. Instantly - a hundred tons of plutonium......
We should be aiming to be 'zero Covid, zero restrictions' - domestically at least. We know that vaccinating yourself not just helps you but helps build herd immunity to protect others.
Once the vaccine program here is complete we can start to rebuild and move on, and be able to afford to help others with our aid and generosity.
Only doing half a job will make us more vulnerable to a third wave and set everything back as well as risking those vulnerable who either can't get the vaccine or for whom it doesn't take.
Nice to see it branching out from its usual setting.
https://twitter.com/NaomiOhReally/status/1354728336329744385?s=19
Usual caveats mid-controversy, but a few striking things:
1 Had the EU got 100 million jabs by end of March, that's 20% of their population. Plus the other sources. Slower than the UK, but not shabbily so.
2 To fall that short that late in the day makes me wonder about the AZ salesmanship.
3 Stiffing the EU to fulfil the UK contract may be what the contracts imply.
I just don't see an export ban, it would be the single most irresponsible thing for the EU to do. It's a negative sum game because the UK exports vital raw and semi-complete materials for EU pharmaceutical manufacturing, the government would have no choice but to mirror their ban and the Pfizer site in Belgium which was making 50m doses per month will make none, nobody wins from that and Pfizer will ramp up their US manufacturing in the short term and export from there once approval has been given in the UK and other countries that rely on the Belgian exports right now.
https://www.cpr.org/2019/09/06/remember-the-first-time-colorado-tried-fracking-with-a-nuclear-bomb/
AZN have manufacturing issues and nothing is going to fix that.
Brexit could indeed turn out to be a huge issue for the European pharma industry - as they turn towards the UK as a welcoming place to do business.
https://www.rte.ie/news/munster/2021/0121/1191246-football-waterford-wales/
More info may yet emerge, but the furious ravings so far appear to be based solely on the fact that AZ have been pretty bad at meeting their targets, which in itself doesn't justify the sinister allegations that have emerged.
Seize vaccines made in the EU but legally contracted to the UK, so they can be given to EU citizens. At the same time demand that the British hand over British made vaccines contracted to Britain, so they can also be given to EU citizens, not to Brits.
Thus ensuring that more British people die, and fewer Europeans die.
If that isn't war-like hostility - you must die so that we can live - what is? You might as well send over a German bomber and flatten Coventry, again (that might not be a bad idea, but let's set that aside)
The EU has gone nuts
Or maybe this -
"1. Without prejudice to any other procedures provided for in the Treaties, the Council, on a proposal from the Commission, may decide, in a spirit of solidarity between Member States, upon the measures appropriate to the economic situation, in particular if severe difficulties arise in the supply of certain products, notably in the area of energy.
2. Where a Member State is in difficulties or is seriously threatened with severe difficulties caused by natural disasters or exceptional occurrences beyond its control, the Council, on a proposal from the Commission, may grant, under certain conditions, Union financial assistance to the Member State concerned. The President of the Council shall inform the European Parliament of the decision taken."
I'm not sure what it means tbh, I don't speak Eurocrat.
In the Long Goodbye, Marlowe's friend Terry Lennox turns out to have been in the Artists Rifles in WWII
Irish MEP, Clare Daly, has attacked democracy in the European Union
Regardless, I hope this is cleared up soon. In the end it’s the normal people that suffer.
I would publicly announce that I wasn't going to do so, despite the provocation, since lives are more important.
The EU ordered late (although, it should be mentioned, no later than a lot of other countries around the world), nickel and dimed, and had their eggs in too few baskets.
We did great. The EU has done poorly. But it is also far from the only place doing badly. Canada just announced it's getting no Pfizer for a few weeks, and they are only up to about 800,000 doses in peoples' arms. Japan is also looking like no great shakes - I can't even find a number for how many they've vaccinated, but I do know they only put a Pfizer order in this week.
Overuse it and it sounds like the equivalent of 'The Board have full confidence in the Manager'.
Maybe AZ can pull a rabbit out of a hat and get a few more deliveries to the EU, we can all hope everyone starts getting more supply soon (as per rcs1000, with various other vaccines nearing approval, in 4 months we and the EU may be swimming in vaccines), but they need to return to form and lower the temperature.
Valencia
(There's an auto-translate a few tweets in.)
https://twitter.com/APHClarkson/status/1354837974987526145?s=19
I suspect going to war over this might just kill more people than the potential deaths caused by some vaccine hiccups.
This is not the mindset needed at this time.
Day traders on Robinhood discovered that if they acted in concert they could create a massive short squeeze. (GME was heavily shorted because... well, it's going to go out of business.) As the price ran, up hedge funds found that they had growing losses and were forced to close their positions by buying back stock. This sent the stock into the stratosphere.
Smart daytraders (both of them) will have left the party at this point. Dumb ones will remain, and will lose all their money as their call options expire worthless on Feb 19, as the number of real buyers of GME stock at (checks price) $250 is... ummm.... zero.
And that is what makes us less likely to be attacked.
You lefties never got your head around MAD, did you? We should not be the aggressor but if we are struck, we should strike back.
They are the ones that need to dial it down, by a dimension of notches. They are the ones panicking and snarling.
She’s making a big bet that what’s unpopular in her party today will make her more formidable in the future.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/01/28/liz-cheney-trump-impeachment-463372
"...as long as Liz Cheney keeps her nerve, she will be one of the more interesting people in contemporary politics, as Republicans chart their future in the wake of the Trump presidency. She offers a case study in a subject that interests both her father and Donald Trump: the psychological dimensions of leadership.
Dick Cheney’s leadership style was shaped by a stoical tradition in American culture, one celebrated in frontier mythology, in which words are used sparingly, actions alone convey strength, and personal flash and hunger for approval suggest weakness and sissification. Donald Trump’s leadership style reflects more recent cultural trends, shaped by everything from Las Vegas to pro wrestling. Bombast and self-promotion aren’t simply means but ends as important, or more important, than any policy objective.
But these two different styles have some unifying traits: Both believe in the optics of power, and that the projection of fearlessness creates its own reality. You have power because you assert that you do, and the rest of the world responds. Both Dick Cheney and Trump resisted public acknowledgements of uncertainty or even complexity in their thinking. Both were loath to admit error or issue apologies.
Liz Cheney, who at 54 is so clearly a product of her father’s values, offers the prospect of putting the two leadership styles to a direct test, one versus the other. . . .
It is hard to know Liz Cheney’s real calculation. Perhaps, at one end of the spectrum, she is thinking, Standing up to Trump could cost my career, but I’d rather lose than surrender my dignity by kowtowing to him or excusing his outrages. Or maybe she’s more confident: I know my state and I know my House colleagues. Trump can’t lay a glove on me.
Whatever Liz Cheney is thinking, the reality may be closest to this. For all the hundreds of decisions a politician makes in a year, most consequential careers are defined by being right—or wrong—on a small handful of big questions. On these, the shrewd long-term position is often quite different than the short-term “safe” one. Many politicians who played it safe voting against civil rights in the 1960s spent the rest of their careers trying to rehabilitate their reputations. Hillary Clinton’s authorizing the Iraq War had her in the Democratic mainstream in 2002; Barack Obama’s opposition helped power him to the presidency just six years later."
If it allows a press conference with rictus smiles all round, great.
Then get on with the making and jabbing.
We need to vaccinate everyone vulnerable and/or over 40 in the UK before we consider helping the EU. I do not remember the EU rushing to offer us PPE when we had a shortage?
Once we have vaxxed everyone in the UK in these categories, then perhaps we can be magnanimous. But by then, anyway, the rich world will be awash with vaccines and the argument will have gone away, and, as many others have said, we should then direct our charity to those that really need it, in the poorer south: Africa especially.
This whole absurd fiasco is all because the EU elite is embarrassed at having totally fucked up, and is trying to divert blame. That's all it is. All of it. The EU has been exposed as the overpaid, non-democratic, bumbling, bureaucratic shit-show many of us already perceived.
They just need to shut the F up and get on with managing the virus as best they can.
(and Bodie and Doyle will not do....)
We need to keep cool, calm and carry on and complete the UKs vaccine rollout.
We need to keep cool, calm and make it politely known that we know the EU won't attempt to steal our vaccines we've paid for because the consequences would be horrendous for everyone
We need not play along with the histrionics and drama emanating from the Continent as a fig leaf to cover up their screw ups here.
We should do our best facilitate any expansion in manufacturing that the EU wishes to pay for to catch up on output.
Decades ago there was a case in the eurobond market where JP Morgan had wildly mispriced a new issue and found themselves (if memory serves) owning 117% of the bonds in issue. They could literally set any price. It was even more embarrassing for the shorters in that they were secondary managers and therefore should have been trying to sell the thing to investors.
I suspect we'll see more of these aggressive short squeezes, but the rules are actually stacked against such things.
BUT do PBers think that what Galvin is suggesting, is in fact a good idea, in this instance?
I am sure that when Member Countries get jabbing, national politicians will be all over it.
This is a fundamental misreading of the situation.
Relative to the cost of eternal lockdown, splashing out a few billions here and there on a variety of promising vaccine candidates represents a negligible outlay. The gamble was not to rush to back a load of horses. The gamble would've been to dither over which horses to pick, and then try to haggle with the bookmaker over the odds.
As it was, the Government backed a nag that broke a leg at Beechers and had to be shot, but it also bagged a win and a place, so it's won a mint regardless. The poor EU also picked the right horses, but it tried to place its bets when the race was already half-run.
"Now the we have the EU threat to prevent the world’s largest pharmaceutical company from fulfilling an order placed well before the EU got its act together.
This might not end well."
Quite. At a very minimum, any lingering likelihood of re-joining this side of 2050 is about to evaporate.