Re Gamestop, those who bought early (which I'll define as $20/share or less) have probably done fine. But they've done fine because they've sold GME shares for more than they're worth to other Redditors.
The current owners are sitting on large profits. But to realise those profits, they need to sell their shares. And who is going to buy from them?
What proportion of Gamestop mico-"investors" were making a limited donation to the cause, as opposed to hoping to reap riches? Though would expect that some started out the former and are now the later, or some combination?
Certainly DOES seem like a good way to loose the farm IF that's what your truly betting.
Warwick eggheads say even best case scenario with vaccinations, lockdown until end of May and then back to last September restrictions for the rest of the year.....
Alright, well, on a quick scan through that paper, I think it's pretty pessimistic. The most important factors that appear to affect their results are:
. They assume a full 2 dose vaccination reduces mortality by 80%. At the moment we have no idea of the true figure, and it's likely to be less effective in the very old, but I think this is pretty pessimistic for (say) under 70s. Trial data was scarce, but even so. As a result of this assumption, about half of the deaths they predict occur in vaccinated people.
. They assume no ramping up beyond 2 million doses delivered per week. There is also a slowing down over the summer, for no reason that I saw explained (though I might have missed it). So their model is based on everyone who is going to accept a vaccine getting it by December, not sooner. I sincerely hope that this is far from what will happen.
. I didn't notice (though I might have missed it) that they took into account that a proportion of the population -- and crucially, as @DougSeal noted above, a higher proportion of those who mix the most -- are already immune (for a while) through prior infection.
. The other critical parameter is the transmission reduction of the vaccine. Their most optimistic model has 85%. That does actually sound rather optimistic, but at the moment we just have no idea. Their pessimistic model of 0% I find implausible. Their uptake projections are such that even 85% transmission reduction doesn't reduce R below 1 without NPIs. Naturally, in such a circumstance, the medium-term outcomes are poor unless NPIs are maintained. However even our highly-imperfect version of test, trace, and isolate would have some impact here.
Their projections for hospitalizations are alarming and not entirely consistent. I would want to investigate these model outputs further before believing them. They didn't model ICU capacity.
(I also remain disappointed by the depth of science in epidemiological modelling, but that's just me being a snob.)
So I'm not too concerned by their conclusions as long as vaccine roll-out keeps increasing momentum, as long as vaccine uptake is good, and as long as the vaccines are better than 80% effective at preventing mortality.
--AS
Well, we're already doing more than 2 million a week AFAIK. Thanks for the analysis.
And Truss? Despite the infamous cheese comment, magnificent job.
Any sign the application will be accepted?
I think the photograph indicates informal soundings have been very positive. It's going to look pretty silly otherwise.
The interesting thing will be if America joins - it would be good to have a limited trade deal with them, without it being a comprehensive one where they get us in a headlock. A good way of doing it.
If that is true, it really does seem as though Truss will have smashed it in that department. Figure a full US deal would too difficult and restrictive? Get one though the doggy door by piggybacking on someone elses.
Caution, do not try to go through a doggy door while riding a pig.
If Truss pulls this off, then you can forget the UK rejoining the EU.
She's playing a blinder. I don't dismiss her chances.
Warwick eggheads say even best case scenario with vaccinations, lockdown until end of May and then back to last September restrictions for the rest of the year.....
Alright, well, on a quick scan through that paper, I think it's pretty pessimistic. The most important factors that appear to affect their results are:
. They assume a full 2 dose vaccination reduces mortality by 80%. At the moment we have no idea of the true figure, and it's likely to be less effective in the very old, but I think this is pretty pessimistic for (say) under 70s. Trial data was scarce, but even so. As a result of this assumption, about half of the deaths they predict occur in vaccinated people.
. They assume no ramping up beyond 2 million doses delivered per week. There is also a slowing down over the summer, for no reason that I saw explained (though I might have missed it). So their model is based on everyone who is going to accept a vaccine getting it by December, not sooner. I sincerely hope that this is far from what will happen.
. I didn't notice (though I might have missed it) that they took into account that a proportion of the population -- and crucially, as @DougSeal noted above, a higher proportion of those who mix the most -- are already immune (for a while) through prior infection.
. The other critical parameter is the transmission reduction of the vaccine. Their most optimistic model has 85%. That does actually sound rather optimistic, but at the moment we just have no idea. Their pessimistic model of 0% I find implausible. Their uptake projections are such that even 85% transmission reduction doesn't reduce R below 1 without NPIs. Naturally, in such a circumstance, the medium-term outcomes are poor unless NPIs are maintained. However even our highly-imperfect version of test, trace, and isolate would have some impact here.
Their projections for hospitalizations are alarming and not entirely consistent. I would want to investigate these model outputs further before believing them. They didn't model ICU capacity.
(I also remain disappointed by the depth of science in epidemiological modelling, but that's just me being a snob.)
So I'm not too concerned by their conclusions as long as vaccine roll-out keeps increasing momentum, as long as vaccine uptake is good, and as long as the vaccines are better than 80% effective at preventing mortality.
--AS
As vaccine availability increases, so will the number of jabs in arms per week.
Every week between now and the end of the year vaccine production will rise; it'll rise for existing vaccines like Pfizer and it'll rise as new vaccines are brought on stream.
This is like aircraft production in WW2. It starts of slow and it grows and grows and grows. New factories and bioreactors will keep being built, and more vaccines will be churned out. Nine months from now, they'll be a glut.
Warwick eggheads say even best case scenario with vaccinations, lockdown until end of May and then back to last September restrictions for the rest of the year.....
Alright, well, on a quick scan through that paper, I think it's pretty pessimistic. The most important factors that appear to affect their results are:
. They assume a full 2 dose vaccination reduces mortality by 80%. At the moment we have no idea of the true figure, and it's likely to be less effective in the very old, but I think this is pretty pessimistic for (say) under 70s. Trial data was scarce, but even so. As a result of this assumption, about half of the deaths they predict occur in vaccinated people.
. They assume no ramping up beyond 2 million doses delivered per week. There is also a slowing down over the summer, for no reason that I saw explained (though I might have missed it). So their model is based on everyone who is going to accept a vaccine getting it by December, not sooner. I sincerely hope that this is far from what will happen.
. I didn't notice (though I might have missed it) that they took into account that a proportion of the population -- and crucially, as @DougSeal noted above, a higher proportion of those who mix the most -- are already immune (for a while) through prior infection.
. The other critical parameter is the transmission reduction of the vaccine. Their most optimistic model has 85%. That does actually sound rather optimistic, but at the moment we just have no idea. Their pessimistic model of 0% I find implausible. Their uptake projections are such that even 85% transmission reduction doesn't reduce R below 1 without NPIs. Naturally, in such a circumstance, the medium-term outcomes are poor unless NPIs are maintained. However even our highly-imperfect version of test, trace, and isolate would have some impact here.
Their projections for hospitalizations are alarming and not entirely consistent. I would want to investigate these model outputs further before believing them. They didn't model ICU capacity.
(I also remain disappointed by the depth of science in epidemiological modelling, but that's just me being a snob.)
So I'm not too concerned by their conclusions as long as vaccine roll-out keeps increasing momentum, as long as vaccine uptake is good, and as long as the vaccines are better than 80% effective at preventing mortality.
--AS
"Their uptake projections are such that even 85% transmission reduction doesn't reduce R below 1 without NPIs"
Really?
That sounds utterly ridiculous.
Yep: "we assume 95% uptake in care homes, 85% elsewhere above the age of 50 and 75% below the age of 50 for dose 1, dropping to 75% and 66% for above and below 50 respectively for dose 2." Also 0% uptake in under 18s, naturally. Multiply by 85% transmission reduction and R0=3.2 gets you to about R=1.4.
Warwick eggheads say even best case scenario with vaccinations, lockdown until end of May and then back to last September restrictions for the rest of the year.....
Alright, well, on a quick scan through that paper, I think it's pretty pessimistic. The most important factors that appear to affect their results are:
. They assume a full 2 dose vaccination reduces mortality by 80%. At the moment we have no idea of the true figure, and it's likely to be less effective in the very old, but I think this is pretty pessimistic for (say) under 70s. Trial data was scarce, but even so. As a result of this assumption, about half of the deaths they predict occur in vaccinated people.
. They assume no ramping up beyond 2 million doses delivered per week. There is also a slowing down over the summer, for no reason that I saw explained (though I might have missed it). So their model is based on everyone who is going to accept a vaccine getting it by December, not sooner. I sincerely hope that this is far from what will happen.
. I didn't notice (though I might have missed it) that they took into account that a proportion of the population -- and crucially, as @DougSeal noted above, a higher proportion of those who mix the most -- are already immune (for a while) through prior infection.
. The other critical parameter is the transmission reduction of the vaccine. Their most optimistic model has 85%. That does actually sound rather optimistic, but at the moment we just have no idea. Their pessimistic model of 0% I find implausible. Their uptake projections are such that even 85% transmission reduction doesn't reduce R below 1 without NPIs. Naturally, in such a circumstance, the medium-term outcomes are poor unless NPIs are maintained. However even our highly-imperfect version of test, trace, and isolate would have some impact here.
Their projections for hospitalizations are alarming and not entirely consistent. I would want to investigate these model outputs further before believing them. They didn't model ICU capacity.
(I also remain disappointed by the depth of science in epidemiological modelling, but that's just me being a snob.)
So I'm not too concerned by their conclusions as long as vaccine roll-out keeps increasing momentum, as long as vaccine uptake is good, and as long as the vaccines are better than 80% effective at preventing mortality.
--AS
As vaccine availability increases, so will the number of jabs in arms per week.
Every week between now and the end of the year vaccine production will rise; it'll rise for existing vaccines like Pfizer and it'll rise as new vaccines are brought on stream.
This is like aircraft production in WW2. It starts of slow and it grows and grows and grows. New factories and bioreactors will keep being built, and more vaccines will be churned out. Nine months from now, they'll be a glut.
That's the plan. The question is, down the road, what is the maximum vaccine delivery rate that is possible...
Great news - my 73 year old mum got whipped into hospital with sky high blood pressure earlier. Just heard that she's been released home on meds which have reduced it from ludicrous to merely high.
Warwick eggheads say even best case scenario with vaccinations, lockdown until end of May and then back to last September restrictions for the rest of the year.....
Alright, well, on a quick scan through that paper, I think it's pretty pessimistic. The most important factors that appear to affect their results are:
. They assume a full 2 dose vaccination reduces mortality by 80%. At the moment we have no idea of the true figure, and it's likely to be less effective in the very old, but I think this is pretty pessimistic for (say) under 70s. Trial data was scarce, but even so. As a result of this assumption, about half of the deaths they predict occur in vaccinated people.
. They assume no ramping up beyond 2 million doses delivered per week. There is also a slowing down over the summer, for no reason that I saw explained (though I might have missed it). So their model is based on everyone who is going to accept a vaccine getting it by December, not sooner. I sincerely hope that this is far from what will happen.
. I didn't notice (though I might have missed it) that they took into account that a proportion of the population -- and crucially, as @DougSeal noted above, a higher proportion of those who mix the most -- are already immune (for a while) through prior infection.
. The other critical parameter is the transmission reduction of the vaccine. Their most optimistic model has 85%. That does actually sound rather optimistic, but at the moment we just have no idea. Their pessimistic model of 0% I find implausible. Their uptake projections are such that even 85% transmission reduction doesn't reduce R below 1 without NPIs. Naturally, in such a circumstance, the medium-term outcomes are poor unless NPIs are maintained. However even our highly-imperfect version of test, trace, and isolate would have some impact here.
Their projections for hospitalizations are alarming and not entirely consistent. I would want to investigate these model outputs further before believing them. They didn't model ICU capacity.
(I also remain disappointed by the depth of science in epidemiological modelling, but that's just me being a snob.)
So I'm not too concerned by their conclusions as long as vaccine roll-out keeps increasing momentum, as long as vaccine uptake is good, and as long as the vaccines are better than 80% effective at preventing mortality.
--AS
As vaccine availability increases, so will the number of jabs in arms per week.
Every week between now and the end of the year vaccine production will rise; it'll rise for existing vaccines like Pfizer and it'll rise as new vaccines are brought on stream.
This is like aircraft production in WW2. It starts of slow and it grows and grows and grows. New factories and bioreactors will keep being built, and more vaccines will be churned out. Nine months from now, they'll be a glut.
Maybe they assumed we give all above 2m a week to the EU.....
Warwick eggheads say even best case scenario with vaccinations, lockdown until end of May and then back to last September restrictions for the rest of the year.....
They're guesstimating like the rest of us, of course, but that's probably not a million miles away from the way things will pan out. Personally I think that, even without a major vaccine resistance setback, we're going to be stuck with some degree of mask use and social distancing until Spring of next year.
That said, if we can get the country back into something approximating to Tier 2, so that society is basically functional again except for certain larger gatherings, then I think most people can learn to live with that for a while.
Doesn't make sense, does it? "Best case scenario with vaccinations lead to ongoing restrictions for rest of the year? Best case is that vaccinations are robust and effective, and there is no particular need for significant restrictions at all.
Doesn't make any sense at all to me.
Talk of everyone vaccinated by the autumn. The virus will die out with herd immunity if that happens. Even if a few cases occur, if everyone's vaccinated the R number will be tiny. R < 1 and we don't have a reason for major restrictions.
Probably just keep facemasks and not much if anything else.
If vaccinations will be so effective then the pandemics should die out in Israel and the UAE soon as they reach herd immunity. Alternatively, perhaps there is a limit on what the vaccines can do for us, although we can push this limit further by using the best vaccines available and increasing the proportion of the population who have been vaccinated. We will probably be finding out how well the vaccines work by the start of this summer.
Hopefully as a result of the vaccines we will be able to make a full return to normality by this time next year before the government has to make any difficult social or economic decisions.
Warwick eggheads say even best case scenario with vaccinations, lockdown until end of May and then back to last September restrictions for the rest of the year.....
Alright, well, on a quick scan through that paper, I think it's pretty pessimistic. The most important factors that appear to affect their results are:
. They assume a full 2 dose vaccination reduces mortality by 80%. At the moment we have no idea of the true figure, and it's likely to be less effective in the very old, but I think this is pretty pessimistic for (say) under 70s. Trial data was scarce, but even so. As a result of this assumption, about half of the deaths they predict occur in vaccinated people.
. They assume no ramping up beyond 2 million doses delivered per week. There is also a slowing down over the summer, for no reason that I saw explained (though I might have missed it). So their model is based on everyone who is going to accept a vaccine getting it by December, not sooner. I sincerely hope that this is far from what will happen.
. I didn't notice (though I might have missed it) that they took into account that a proportion of the population -- and crucially, as @DougSeal noted above, a higher proportion of those who mix the most -- are already immune (for a while) through prior infection.
. The other critical parameter is the transmission reduction of the vaccine. Their most optimistic model has 85%. That does actually sound rather optimistic, but at the moment we just have no idea. Their pessimistic model of 0% I find implausible. Their uptake projections are such that even 85% transmission reduction doesn't reduce R below 1 without NPIs. Naturally, in such a circumstance, the medium-term outcomes are poor unless NPIs are maintained. However even our highly-imperfect version of test, trace, and isolate would have some impact here.
Their projections for hospitalizations are alarming and not entirely consistent. I would want to investigate these model outputs further before believing them. They didn't model ICU capacity.
(I also remain disappointed by the depth of science in epidemiological modelling, but that's just me being a snob.)
So I'm not too concerned by their conclusions as long as vaccine roll-out keeps increasing momentum, as long as vaccine uptake is good, and as long as the vaccines are better than 80% effective at preventing mortality.
--AS
It should be noted (if I am remembering correctly) that Warwick modelling group were the same people who claimed a 2 week firebreak would save anywhere between 600 and 100k lives...which didn't exactly instil confidence in their modelling abilities.
Which university group was behind the 3000-4000 deaths a day model?
I don't recall, but this paper predicts a peak of about 7000 deaths a day if all NPIs were suddenly removed in April and the vaccine doesn't prevent transmission. More than 5000 even if it's 60% effective against transmission. This is one reason why I don't give too much weight to the conclusions.
I mean, they *might* be right, but it really doesn't smell like a sensible prediction.
Warwick eggheads say even best case scenario with vaccinations, lockdown until end of May and then back to last September restrictions for the rest of the year.....
Alright, well, on a quick scan through that paper, I think it's pretty pessimistic. The most important factors that appear to affect their results are:
. They assume a full 2 dose vaccination reduces mortality by 80%. At the moment we have no idea of the true figure, and it's likely to be less effective in the very old, but I think this is pretty pessimistic for (say) under 70s. Trial data was scarce, but even so. As a result of this assumption, about half of the deaths they predict occur in vaccinated people.
. They assume no ramping up beyond 2 million doses delivered per week. There is also a slowing down over the summer, for no reason that I saw explained (though I might have missed it). So their model is based on everyone who is going to accept a vaccine getting it by December, not sooner. I sincerely hope that this is far from what will happen.
. I didn't notice (though I might have missed it) that they took into account that a proportion of the population -- and crucially, as @DougSeal noted above, a higher proportion of those who mix the most -- are already immune (for a while) through prior infection.
. The other critical parameter is the transmission reduction of the vaccine. Their most optimistic model has 85%. That does actually sound rather optimistic, but at the moment we just have no idea. Their pessimistic model of 0% I find implausible. Their uptake projections are such that even 85% transmission reduction doesn't reduce R below 1 without NPIs. Naturally, in such a circumstance, the medium-term outcomes are poor unless NPIs are maintained. However even our highly-imperfect version of test, trace, and isolate would have some impact here.
Their projections for hospitalizations are alarming and not entirely consistent. I would want to investigate these model outputs further before believing them. They didn't model ICU capacity.
(I also remain disappointed by the depth of science in epidemiological modelling, but that's just me being a snob.)
So I'm not too concerned by their conclusions as long as vaccine roll-out keeps increasing momentum, as long as vaccine uptake is good, and as long as the vaccines are better than 80% effective at preventing mortality.
--AS
It should be noted (if I am remembering correctly) that Warwick modelling group were the same people who claimed a 2 week firebreak would save anywhere between 600 and 100k lives...which didn't exactly instil confidence in their modelling abilities.
Which university group was behind the 3000-4000 deaths a day model?
I don't recall, but this paper predicts a peak of about 7000 deaths a day if all NPIs were suddenly removed in April and the vaccine doesn't prevent transmission. More than 5000 even if it's 60% effective against transmission. This is one reason why I don't give too much weight to the conclusions.
I mean, they *might* be right, but it really doesn't smell like a sensible prediction.
--AS
Well the 700 to 100k+ SAVED in proceeding THREE MONTHS from just a 2 week lockdown....I mean none of that passes the smell test either, but Starmer demanded we implement it, Wales invoked it and the media were all over why the UK government didn't implement this suggestion.
We now have further research that shows the initial 7-10 days of a lockdown doesn't even squash the case rate down much, for the obvious reason that those that are unknowingly infected at the start then get locked away with their family and infect them.
It takes that long before you really start seeing some reduction and you need bare minimum of month to get any sort of handle once you are at a high level.
Great news - my 73 year old mum got whipped into hospital with sky high blood pressure earlier. Just heard that she's been released home on meds which have reduced it from ludicrous to merely high.
Generally it is best to not drop the blood pressure too quickly, as it does take the vascular system some time to relax, so "merely high" is probably a good target for present.
Warwick eggheads say even best case scenario with vaccinations, lockdown until end of May and then back to last September restrictions for the rest of the year.....
Alright, well, on a quick scan through that paper, I think it's pretty pessimistic. The most important factors that appear to affect their results are:
. They assume a full 2 dose vaccination reduces mortality by 80%. At the moment we have no idea of the true figure, and it's likely to be less effective in the very old, but I think this is pretty pessimistic for (say) under 70s. Trial data was scarce, but even so. As a result of this assumption, about half of the deaths they predict occur in vaccinated people.
. They assume no ramping up beyond 2 million doses delivered per week. There is also a slowing down over the summer, for no reason that I saw explained (though I might have missed it). So their model is based on everyone who is going to accept a vaccine getting it by December, not sooner. I sincerely hope that this is far from what will happen.
. I didn't notice (though I might have missed it) that they took into account that a proportion of the population -- and crucially, as @DougSeal noted above, a higher proportion of those who mix the most -- are already immune (for a while) through prior infection.
. The other critical parameter is the transmission reduction of the vaccine. Their most optimistic model has 85%. That does actually sound rather optimistic, but at the moment we just have no idea. Their pessimistic model of 0% I find implausible. Their uptake projections are such that even 85% transmission reduction doesn't reduce R below 1 without NPIs. Naturally, in such a circumstance, the medium-term outcomes are poor unless NPIs are maintained. However even our highly-imperfect version of test, trace, and isolate would have some impact here.
Their projections for hospitalizations are alarming and not entirely consistent. I would want to investigate these model outputs further before believing them. They didn't model ICU capacity.
(I also remain disappointed by the depth of science in epidemiological modelling, but that's just me being a snob.)
So I'm not too concerned by their conclusions as long as vaccine roll-out keeps increasing momentum, as long as vaccine uptake is good, and as long as the vaccines are better than 80% effective at preventing mortality.
--AS
As vaccine availability increases, so will the number of jabs in arms per week.
Every week between now and the end of the year vaccine production will rise; it'll rise for existing vaccines like Pfizer and it'll rise as new vaccines are brought on stream.
This is like aircraft production in WW2. It starts of slow and it grows and grows and grows. New factories and bioreactors will keep being built, and more vaccines will be churned out. Nine months from now, they'll be a glut.
Maybe they assumed we give all above 2m a week to the EU.....
Soon, on a bus somewhere near you:
We send the EU [x] million vaccines a week.
Let's supply our NHS instead.
Edit: it won't be true, because that's actually the gross vaccine contribution. It doesn't take our vaccine rebate into account.
It could work. We've always been distant from the centre in Europe. In this group, there is no centre. They're all arranged round a whacking great ocean, so everyone's equally peripheral
It's also a bit eccentric that the UK should join a pacific trade area. Fully in character.
Speaking of investments, my own daddy dearest purchased a number of bonds issued on behalf of the Washington Public Power Supply System = WPPS or more commonly "Whoops" for reasons made clear below.
WIKI: "In January 1982, cost overruns and delays, along with a slowing of electricity demand growth, led to cancellation of two WPPSS plants and a construction halt on the two-reactor Satsop Nuclear Power Plant which was 75% complete. Seventeen months later in June 1983, the Washington State Supreme Court ruled the long-term take-or-pay contracts to buy the power produced by the project were illegal. Next month in July 1983, WPPSS defaulted on $2.25 billion of municipal bonds, which is the second largest municipal bond default in U.S. history. The court case that followed took nearly a decade to resolve, and WPPSS acquired the unfortunate nickname "Whoops" in the media."
Warwick eggheads say even best case scenario with vaccinations, lockdown until end of May and then back to last September restrictions for the rest of the year.....
Alright, well, on a quick scan through that paper, I think it's pretty pessimistic. The most important factors that appear to affect their results are:
. They assume a full 2 dose vaccination reduces mortality by 80%. At the moment we have no idea of the true figure, and it's likely to be less effective in the very old, but I think this is pretty pessimistic for (say) under 70s. Trial data was scarce, but even so. As a result of this assumption, about half of the deaths they predict occur in vaccinated people.
. They assume no ramping up beyond 2 million doses delivered per week. There is also a slowing down over the summer, for no reason that I saw explained (though I might have missed it). So their model is based on everyone who is going to accept a vaccine getting it by December, not sooner. I sincerely hope that this is far from what will happen.
. I didn't notice (though I might have missed it) that they took into account that a proportion of the population -- and crucially, as @DougSeal noted above, a higher proportion of those who mix the most -- are already immune (for a while) through prior infection.
. The other critical parameter is the transmission reduction of the vaccine. Their most optimistic model has 85%. That does actually sound rather optimistic, but at the moment we just have no idea. Their pessimistic model of 0% I find implausible. Their uptake projections are such that even 85% transmission reduction doesn't reduce R below 1 without NPIs. Naturally, in such a circumstance, the medium-term outcomes are poor unless NPIs are maintained. However even our highly-imperfect version of test, trace, and isolate would have some impact here.
Their projections for hospitalizations are alarming and not entirely consistent. I would want to investigate these model outputs further before believing them. They didn't model ICU capacity.
(I also remain disappointed by the depth of science in epidemiological modelling, but that's just me being a snob.)
So I'm not too concerned by their conclusions as long as vaccine roll-out keeps increasing momentum, as long as vaccine uptake is good, and as long as the vaccines are better than 80% effective at preventing mortality.
--AS
"Their uptake projections are such that even 85% transmission reduction doesn't reduce R below 1 without NPIs"
Really?
That sounds utterly ridiculous.
Yep: "we assume 95% uptake in care homes, 85% elsewhere above the age of 50 and 75% below the age of 50 for dose 1, dropping to 75% and 66% for above and below 50 respectively for dose 2." Also 0% uptake in under 18s, naturally. Multiply by 85% transmission reduction and R0=3.2 gets you to about R=1.4.
--AS
I think those uptake figures are probably about right, though not clear where the 85% transmission reduction comes from.
Of course, even if the uptake is as the model, many of the un-vaccinated will have natural immunity from having the actual virus, so the r would probably be lower still.
Pfizer have started doing a US trial on secondary school aged pupils I believe.
Macron defends decision not to order third lockdown as third wave spreads
But Macron has stopped short of ordering a new daytime lockdown, saying he wants to see first if other measures will be enough to slow the spread of the coronavirus.
With 10% of cases now attributable to the more contagious variant first found in Britain, senior medics have recommended a new lockdown, and one opinion poll showed more than three-quarters of French people think one is now inevitable. The poll also showed falling public confidence in the government’s handling of the crisis.
“I have trust in us. These hours that we are living through are crucial. Let’s do all we can to slow the epidemic together,” Macron tweeted.
Here we go again...toys coming out the pram again.
Germany’s government on Sunday threatened legal action against laboratories failing to deliver coronavirus vaccines to the European Union on schedule, amid tension over delays to deliveries from AstraZeneca.
AFP reports:
“If it turns out that companies have not respected their obligations, we will have to decide the legal consequences,” economy minister Peter Altmaier told German daily Die Welt.
“No company can favour another country over the EU after the fact,” he added.
Warwick eggheads say even best case scenario with vaccinations, lockdown until end of May and then back to last September restrictions for the rest of the year.....
Alright, well, on a quick scan through that paper, I think it's pretty pessimistic. The most important factors that appear to affect their results are:
. They assume a full 2 dose vaccination reduces mortality by 80%. At the moment we have no idea of the true figure, and it's likely to be less effective in the very old, but I think this is pretty pessimistic for (say) under 70s. Trial data was scarce, but even so. As a result of this assumption, about half of the deaths they predict occur in vaccinated people.
. They assume no ramping up beyond 2 million doses delivered per week. There is also a slowing down over the summer, for no reason that I saw explained (though I might have missed it). So their model is based on everyone who is going to accept a vaccine getting it by December, not sooner. I sincerely hope that this is far from what will happen.
. I didn't notice (though I might have missed it) that they took into account that a proportion of the population -- and crucially, as @DougSeal noted above, a higher proportion of those who mix the most -- are already immune (for a while) through prior infection.
. The other critical parameter is the transmission reduction of the vaccine. Their most optimistic model has 85%. That does actually sound rather optimistic, but at the moment we just have no idea. Their pessimistic model of 0% I find implausible. Their uptake projections are such that even 85% transmission reduction doesn't reduce R below 1 without NPIs. Naturally, in such a circumstance, the medium-term outcomes are poor unless NPIs are maintained. However even our highly-imperfect version of test, trace, and isolate would have some impact here.
Their projections for hospitalizations are alarming and not entirely consistent. I would want to investigate these model outputs further before believing them. They didn't model ICU capacity.
(I also remain disappointed by the depth of science in epidemiological modelling, but that's just me being a snob.)
So I'm not too concerned by their conclusions as long as vaccine roll-out keeps increasing momentum, as long as vaccine uptake is good, and as long as the vaccines are better than 80% effective at preventing mortality.
--AS
As vaccine availability increases, so will the number of jabs in arms per week.
Every week between now and the end of the year vaccine production will rise; it'll rise for existing vaccines like Pfizer and it'll rise as new vaccines are brought on stream.
This is like aircraft production in WW2. It starts of slow and it grows and grows and grows. New factories and bioreactors will keep being built, and more vaccines will be churned out. Nine months from now, they'll be a glut.
Maybe they assumed we give all above 2m a week to the EU.....
Soon, on a bus somewhere near you:
We send the EU [x] million vaccines a week.
Let's supply our NHS instead.
Edit: it won't be true, because that's actually the gross vaccine contribution. It doesn't take our vaccine rebate into account.
If the bus is near me, it's stuck down some crazy-tight country lanes....!
Here we go again...toys coming out the pram again.
Germany’s government on Sunday threatened legal action against laboratories failing to deliver coronavirus vaccines to the European Union on schedule, amid tension over delays to deliveries from AstraZeneca.
AFP reports:
“If it turns out that companies have not respected their obligations, we will have to decide the legal consequences,” economy minister Peter Altmaier told German daily Die Welt.
“No company can favour another country over the EU after the fact,” he added.
“No company can favour another country over the EU after the fact,” he added.
What an utter, utter cretin. The EU was three months LATER than the UK.
Warwick eggheads say even best case scenario with vaccinations, lockdown until end of May and then back to last September restrictions for the rest of the year.....
Alright, well, on a quick scan through that paper, I think it's pretty pessimistic. The most important factors that appear to affect their results are:
. They assume a full 2 dose vaccination reduces mortality by 80%. At the moment we have no idea of the true figure, and it's likely to be less effective in the very old, but I think this is pretty pessimistic for (say) under 70s. Trial data was scarce, but even so. As a result of this assumption, about half of the deaths they predict occur in vaccinated people.
. They assume no ramping up beyond 2 million doses delivered per week. There is also a slowing down over the summer, for no reason that I saw explained (though I might have missed it). So their model is based on everyone who is going to accept a vaccine getting it by December, not sooner. I sincerely hope that this is far from what will happen.
. I didn't notice (though I might have missed it) that they took into account that a proportion of the population -- and crucially, as @DougSeal noted above, a higher proportion of those who mix the most -- are already immune (for a while) through prior infection.
. The other critical parameter is the transmission reduction of the vaccine. Their most optimistic model has 85%. That does actually sound rather optimistic, but at the moment we just have no idea. Their pessimistic model of 0% I find implausible. Their uptake projections are such that even 85% transmission reduction doesn't reduce R below 1 without NPIs. Naturally, in such a circumstance, the medium-term outcomes are poor unless NPIs are maintained. However even our highly-imperfect version of test, trace, and isolate would have some impact here.
Their projections for hospitalizations are alarming and not entirely consistent. I would want to investigate these model outputs further before believing them. They didn't model ICU capacity.
(I also remain disappointed by the depth of science in epidemiological modelling, but that's just me being a snob.)
So I'm not too concerned by their conclusions as long as vaccine roll-out keeps increasing momentum, as long as vaccine uptake is good, and as long as the vaccines are better than 80% effective at preventing mortality.
--AS
It should be noted (if I am remembering correctly) that Warwick modelling group were the same people who claimed a 2 week firebreak would save anywhere between 600 and 100k lives...which didn't exactly instil confidence in their modelling abilities.
Which university group was behind the 3000-4000 deaths a day model?
I don't recall, but this paper predicts a peak of about 7000 deaths a day if all NPIs were suddenly removed in April and the vaccine doesn't prevent transmission. More than 5000 even if it's 60% effective against transmission. This is one reason why I don't give too much weight to the conclusions.
I mean, they *might* be right, but it really doesn't smell like a sensible prediction.
--AS
I have no idea if the specific quantitative forecasts in the paper are correct, but I think that the qualitative analysis seems about right.
Warwick eggheads say even best case scenario with vaccinations, lockdown until end of May and then back to last September restrictions for the rest of the year.....
Alright, well, on a quick scan through that paper, I think it's pretty pessimistic. The most important factors that appear to affect their results are:
. They assume a full 2 dose vaccination reduces mortality by 80%. At the moment we have no idea of the true figure, and it's likely to be less effective in the very old, but I think this is pretty pessimistic for (say) under 70s. Trial data was scarce, but even so. As a result of this assumption, about half of the deaths they predict occur in vaccinated people.
. They assume no ramping up beyond 2 million doses delivered per week. There is also a slowing down over the summer, for no reason that I saw explained (though I might have missed it). So their model is based on everyone who is going to accept a vaccine getting it by December, not sooner. I sincerely hope that this is far from what will happen.
. I didn't notice (though I might have missed it) that they took into account that a proportion of the population -- and crucially, as @DougSeal noted above, a higher proportion of those who mix the most -- are already immune (for a while) through prior infection.
. The other critical parameter is the transmission reduction of the vaccine. Their most optimistic model has 85%. That does actually sound rather optimistic, but at the moment we just have no idea. Their pessimistic model of 0% I find implausible. Their uptake projections are such that even 85% transmission reduction doesn't reduce R below 1 without NPIs. Naturally, in such a circumstance, the medium-term outcomes are poor unless NPIs are maintained. However even our highly-imperfect version of test, trace, and isolate would have some impact here.
Their projections for hospitalizations are alarming and not entirely consistent. I would want to investigate these model outputs further before believing them. They didn't model ICU capacity.
(I also remain disappointed by the depth of science in epidemiological modelling, but that's just me being a snob.)
So I'm not too concerned by their conclusions as long as vaccine roll-out keeps increasing momentum, as long as vaccine uptake is good, and as long as the vaccines are better than 80% effective at preventing mortality.
--AS
As vaccine availability increases, so will the number of jabs in arms per week.
Every week between now and the end of the year vaccine production will rise; it'll rise for existing vaccines like Pfizer and it'll rise as new vaccines are brought on stream.
This is like aircraft production in WW2. It starts of slow and it grows and grows and grows. New factories and bioreactors will keep being built, and more vaccines will be churned out. Nine months from now, they'll be a glut.
That's the plan. The question is, down the road, what is the maximum vaccine delivery rate that is possible...
That won't be a problem, because teaching people to stick needles in arms is not rocket science.
There's a bored girl at my local CVS who does flu vaccines at weekends. I'm fairly sure her training was limited to "stick it in here and squeeze".
On Gamestop: this really sounds really quite dangerous to me. While I have limited sympathy for shortselling hedge-funds, I suspect that this is now very much a suckers market. It is the sort of thing that we see at the peak of a bubble. I see a fairly strong stock market correction on its way as a result.
Here we go again...toys coming out the pram again.
Germany’s government on Sunday threatened legal action against laboratories failing to deliver coronavirus vaccines to the European Union on schedule, amid tension over delays to deliveries from AstraZeneca.
AFP reports:
“If it turns out that companies have not respected their obligations, we will have to decide the legal consequences,” economy minister Peter Altmaier told German daily Die Welt.
“No company can favour another country over the EU after the fact,” he added.
Macron defends decision not to order third lockdown as third wave spreads
But Macron has stopped short of ordering a new daytime lockdown, saying he wants to see first if other measures will be enough to slow the spread of the coronavirus.
With 10% of cases now attributable to the more contagious variant first found in Britain, senior medics have recommended a new lockdown, and one opinion poll showed more than three-quarters of French people think one is now inevitable. The poll also showed falling public confidence in the government’s handling of the crisis.
“I have trust in us. These hours that we are living through are crucial. Let’s do all we can to slow the epidemic together,” Macron tweeted.
It looks like the same kind of pattern, though it's difficult to know how this is going to pan out in each individual country. As we all appreciate by now the virus is somewhat unpredictable...
Anyway, if they do end up back in a lockdown then, as with us, they're presumably going to be lumbered with it for several months.
Here we go again...toys coming out the pram again.
Germany’s government on Sunday threatened legal action against laboratories failing to deliver coronavirus vaccines to the European Union on schedule, amid tension over delays to deliveries from AstraZeneca.
AFP reports:
“If it turns out that companies have not respected their obligations, we will have to decide the legal consequences,” economy minister Peter Altmaier told German daily Die Welt.
“No company can favour another country over the EU after the fact,” he added.
“No company can favour another country over the EU after the fact,” he added.
What an utter, utter cretin. The EU was three months LATER than the UK.
Here we go again...toys coming out the pram again.
Germany’s government on Sunday threatened legal action against laboratories failing to deliver coronavirus vaccines to the European Union on schedule, amid tension over delays to deliveries from AstraZeneca.
AFP reports:
“If it turns out that companies have not respected their obligations, we will have to decide the legal consequences,” economy minister Peter Altmaier told German daily Die Welt.
“No company can favour another country over the EU after the fact,” he added.
What the hell does he mean, "another"?
He seems to be suggesting that a deal with the EU automatically supersedes a deal with any other country. Which is such a laughable notion I am not sure why any self-respecting newspaper would print his words.
It could work. We've always been distant from the centre in Europe. In this group, there is no centre. They're all arranged round a whacking great ocean, so everyone's equally peripheral
They’re probably not desperate for mackerel, crab and herring, then.
At this rate, some EU countries will only be using it on 18-21 year olds.
The eu and some european governments seem to have come down with a dose of insanity.
I also wont be surprised that after this crisis is in the past we will get the EU arguing that the reason it failed is that the eu doesn't have competence over health matters so should have from now on
...Like some kind of European Health Union?
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_20_2041 Today, the European Commission is taking the first steps towards building the European Health Union announced by President von der Leyen in her State of the Union address. The Commission is putting forward a set of proposals to strengthen the EU's health security framework, and to reinforce the crisis preparedness and response role of key EU agencies
In fairness I don't actually know the extent of what is proposed.
Presumably slightly less than before, until next time.
Here we go again...toys coming out the pram again.
Germany’s government on Sunday threatened legal action against laboratories failing to deliver coronavirus vaccines to the European Union on schedule, amid tension over delays to deliveries from AstraZeneca.
AFP reports:
“If it turns out that companies have not respected their obligations, we will have to decide the legal consequences,” economy minister Peter Altmaier told German daily Die Welt.
“No company can favour another country over the EU after the fact,” he added.
Die Welt has a hit job on AstraZeneca too, saying that they don't know what they're doing with vaccines.
Here we go again...toys coming out the pram again.
Germany’s government on Sunday threatened legal action against laboratories failing to deliver coronavirus vaccines to the European Union on schedule, amid tension over delays to deliveries from AstraZeneca.
AFP reports:
“If it turns out that companies have not respected their obligations, we will have to decide the legal consequences,” economy minister Peter Altmaier told German daily Die Welt.
“No company can favour another country over the EU after the fact,” he added.
Die Welt has a hit job on AstraZeneca too, saying that they don't know what they're doing with vaccines.
So far 4 confirmed by US Senate: Avril Haines (National Intelligence), Lloyd Austin (Defense), Janet Yellen (Treasury) and Anthony Blinken (State).
Confirmation vote scheduled for Alejandro Mayorkas (Homeland Security) on Feb 1and Pete Buttigeg (Transportation) on Feb 2.
After that, another 17 cabinet-level nominations, of which most notable/timely are Merrick Garland (Justice), Xavier Becerra (Health) and because of the census Gina Raimondo (Commerce).
Here we go again...toys coming out the pram again.
Germany’s government on Sunday threatened legal action against laboratories failing to deliver coronavirus vaccines to the European Union on schedule, amid tension over delays to deliveries from AstraZeneca.
AFP reports:
“If it turns out that companies have not respected their obligations, we will have to decide the legal consequences,” economy minister Peter Altmaier told German daily Die Welt.
“No company can favour another country over the EU after the fact,” he added.
Die Welt has a hit job on AstraZeneca too, saying that they don't know what they're doing with vaccines.
The German establishment seem to have some sort of collective meltdown. Perhaps all these lockdown is getting to them, but it is most unusual behaviour.
Macron defends decision not to order third lockdown as third wave spreads
But Macron has stopped short of ordering a new daytime lockdown, saying he wants to see first if other measures will be enough to slow the spread of the coronavirus.
With 10% of cases now attributable to the more contagious variant first found in Britain, senior medics have recommended a new lockdown, and one opinion poll showed more than three-quarters of French people think one is now inevitable. The poll also showed falling public confidence in the government’s handling of the crisis.
“I have trust in us. These hours that we are living through are crucial. Let’s do all we can to slow the epidemic together,” Macron tweeted.
Macron defends decision not to order third lockdown as third wave spreads
But Macron has stopped short of ordering a new daytime lockdown, saying he wants to see first if other measures will be enough to slow the spread of the coronavirus.
With 10% of cases now attributable to the more contagious variant first found in Britain, senior medics have recommended a new lockdown, and one opinion poll showed more than three-quarters of French people think one is now inevitable. The poll also showed falling public confidence in the government’s handling of the crisis.
“I have trust in us. These hours that we are living through are crucial. Let’s do all we can to slow the epidemic together,” Macron tweeted.
Warwick eggheads say even best case scenario with vaccinations, lockdown until end of May and then back to last September restrictions for the rest of the year.....
Alright, well, on a quick scan through that paper, I think it's pretty pessimistic. The most important factors that appear to affect their results are:
. They assume a full 2 dose vaccination reduces mortality by 80%. At the moment we have no idea of the true figure, and it's likely to be less effective in the very old, but I think this is pretty pessimistic for (say) under 70s. Trial data was scarce, but even so. As a result of this assumption, about half of the deaths they predict occur in vaccinated people.
. They assume no ramping up beyond 2 million doses delivered per week. There is also a slowing down over the summer, for no reason that I saw explained (though I might have missed it). So their model is based on everyone who is going to accept a vaccine getting it by December, not sooner. I sincerely hope that this is far from what will happen.
. I didn't notice (though I might have missed it) that they took into account that a proportion of the population -- and crucially, as @DougSeal noted above, a higher proportion of those who mix the most -- are already immune (for a while) through prior infection.
. The other critical parameter is the transmission reduction of the vaccine. Their most optimistic model has 85%. That does actually sound rather optimistic, but at the moment we just have no idea. Their pessimistic model of 0% I find implausible. Their uptake projections are such that even 85% transmission reduction doesn't reduce R below 1 without NPIs. Naturally, in such a circumstance, the medium-term outcomes are poor unless NPIs are maintained. However even our highly-imperfect version of test, trace, and isolate would have some impact here.
Their projections for hospitalizations are alarming and not entirely consistent. I would want to investigate these model outputs further before believing them. They didn't model ICU capacity.
(I also remain disappointed by the depth of science in epidemiological modelling, but that's just me being a snob.)
So I'm not too concerned by their conclusions as long as vaccine roll-out keeps increasing momentum, as long as vaccine uptake is good, and as long as the vaccines are better than 80% effective at preventing mortality.
--AS
As vaccine availability increases, so will the number of jabs in arms per week.
Every week between now and the end of the year vaccine production will rise; it'll rise for existing vaccines like Pfizer and it'll rise as new vaccines are brought on stream.
This is like aircraft production in WW2. It starts of slow and it grows and grows and grows. New factories and bioreactors will keep being built, and more vaccines will be churned out. Nine months from now, they'll be a glut.
That's the plan. The question is, down the road, what is the maximum vaccine delivery rate that is possible...
That won't be a problem, because teaching people to stick needles in arms is not rocket science.
There's a bored girl at my local CVS who does flu vaccines at weekends. I'm fairly sure her training was limited to "stick it in here and squeeze".
Here we go again...toys coming out the pram again.
Germany’s government on Sunday threatened legal action against laboratories failing to deliver coronavirus vaccines to the European Union on schedule, amid tension over delays to deliveries from AstraZeneca.
AFP reports:
“If it turns out that companies have not respected their obligations, we will have to decide the legal consequences,” economy minister Peter Altmaier told German daily Die Welt.
“No company can favour another country over the EU after the fact,” he added.
Die Welt has a hit job on AstraZeneca too, saying that they don't know what they're doing with vaccines.
Macron defends decision not to order third lockdown as third wave spreads
But Macron has stopped short of ordering a new daytime lockdown, saying he wants to see first if other measures will be enough to slow the spread of the coronavirus.
With 10% of cases now attributable to the more contagious variant first found in Britain, senior medics have recommended a new lockdown, and one opinion poll showed more than three-quarters of French people think one is now inevitable. The poll also showed falling public confidence in the government’s handling of the crisis.
“I have trust in us. These hours that we are living through are crucial. Let’s do all we can to slow the epidemic together,” Macron tweeted.
Here we go again...toys coming out the pram again.
Germany’s government on Sunday threatened legal action against laboratories failing to deliver coronavirus vaccines to the European Union on schedule, amid tension over delays to deliveries from AstraZeneca.
AFP reports:
“If it turns out that companies have not respected their obligations, we will have to decide the legal consequences,” economy minister Peter Altmaier told German daily Die Welt.
“No company can favour another country over the EU after the fact,” he added.
Here we go again...toys coming out the pram again.
Germany’s government on Sunday threatened legal action against laboratories failing to deliver coronavirus vaccines to the European Union on schedule, amid tension over delays to deliveries from AstraZeneca.
AFP reports:
“If it turns out that companies have not respected their obligations, we will have to decide the legal consequences,” economy minister Peter Altmaier told German daily Die Welt.
“No company can favour another country over the EU after the fact,” he added.
Die Welt has a hit job on AstraZeneca too, saying that they don't know what they're doing with vaccines.
The German establishment seem to have some sort of collective meltdown. Perhaps all these lockdown is getting to them, but it is most unusual behaviour.
They do seem to have been the most panicky, and according to Bloomberg earlier the ones pushing the Commission to take a hard line.
Here we go again...toys coming out the pram again.
Germany’s government on Sunday threatened legal action against laboratories failing to deliver coronavirus vaccines to the European Union on schedule, amid tension over delays to deliveries from AstraZeneca.
AFP reports:
“If it turns out that companies have not respected their obligations, we will have to decide the legal consequences,” economy minister Peter Altmaier told German daily Die Welt.
“No company can favour another country over the EU after the fact,” he added.
It is going to be extremely popular in Germany (etc) to threaten private companies over non-delivery of vaccines.
The people don't want to hear about contracts, they want to hear that their government is clamping down on companies that have failed to give Germans their vaccines.
Here we go again...toys coming out the pram again.
Germany’s government on Sunday threatened legal action against laboratories failing to deliver coronavirus vaccines to the European Union on schedule, amid tension over delays to deliveries from AstraZeneca.
AFP reports:
“If it turns out that companies have not respected their obligations, we will have to decide the legal consequences,” economy minister Peter Altmaier told German daily Die Welt.
“No company can favour another country over the EU after the fact,” he added.
Die Welt has a hit job on AstraZeneca too, saying that they don't know what they're doing with vaccines.
Here we go again...toys coming out the pram again.
Germany’s government on Sunday threatened legal action against laboratories failing to deliver coronavirus vaccines to the European Union on schedule, amid tension over delays to deliveries from AstraZeneca.
AFP reports:
“If it turns out that companies have not respected their obligations, we will have to decide the legal consequences,” economy minister Peter Altmaier told German daily Die Welt.
“No company can favour another country over the EU after the fact,” he added.
“No company can favour another country over the EU after the fact,” he added.
What an utter, utter cretin. The EU was three months LATER than the UK.
I have been unable to escape the impression that some figures, it seems in Germany in particular, really seem to have believed that because the EU is an important power on the world stage, which it is, that if they throw their weight around they will get what they want just because.
I mean, they actually seem to be suggesting that because the EU is big, no one elses agreements matter at all.
Here we go again...toys coming out the pram again.
Germany’s government on Sunday threatened legal action against laboratories failing to deliver coronavirus vaccines to the European Union on schedule, amid tension over delays to deliveries from AstraZeneca.
AFP reports:
“If it turns out that companies have not respected their obligations, we will have to decide the legal consequences,” economy minister Peter Altmaier told German daily Die Welt.
“No company can favour another country over the EU after the fact,” he added.
“No company can favour another country over the EU after the fact,” he added.
What an utter, utter cretin. The EU was three months LATER than the UK.
I have been unable to escape the impression that some figures, it seems in Germany in particular, really seem to have believed that because the EU is an important power on the world stage, which it is, that if they throw their weight around they will get what they want just because.
I mean, they actually seem to be suggesting that because the EU is big, no one elses agreements matter at all.
Maybe they think that is how the great power thing works.
Here we go again...toys coming out the pram again.
Germany’s government on Sunday threatened legal action against laboratories failing to deliver coronavirus vaccines to the European Union on schedule, amid tension over delays to deliveries from AstraZeneca.
AFP reports:
“If it turns out that companies have not respected their obligations, we will have to decide the legal consequences,” economy minister Peter Altmaier told German daily Die Welt.
“No company can favour another country over the EU after the fact,” he added.
“No company can favour another country over the EU after the fact,” he added.
What an utter, utter cretin. The EU was three months LATER than the UK.
I have been unable to escape the impression that some figures, it seems in Germany in particular, really seem to have believed that because the EU is an important power on the world stage, which it is, that if they throw their weight around they will get what they want just because.
I mean, they actually seem to be suggesting that because the EU is big, no one elses agreements matter at all.
Some definitely seem to think they have been shafted by the Big Pharma companies, that they have been smuggling out masses of vaccines like drug mules across the US / Mexico border.
The reality is the way they got shafted was thinking they held all the cards against Big Pharma and in this specific case its the opposite....wasting months trying to drive down prices, unwilling to pay upfront and signing a contract that doesn't give them the rights they think it does.
It is like the UK position on Brexit for too long.
In reality, both categories are "partially vaccinated"
In Israel, there was a study of 128,600 people (mostly older) who had had two Pfizer shots.
In this group, only 20 people caught CV19. And of those none (zero, nada, 0) had serious cases or even had temperatures above 38.5 degrees. That is as close to perfect as you're going to get.
Here we go again...toys coming out the pram again.
Germany’s government on Sunday threatened legal action against laboratories failing to deliver coronavirus vaccines to the European Union on schedule, amid tension over delays to deliveries from AstraZeneca.
AFP reports:
“If it turns out that companies have not respected their obligations, we will have to decide the legal consequences,” economy minister Peter Altmaier told German daily Die Welt.
“No company can favour another country over the EU after the fact,” he added.
Die Welt has a hit job on AstraZeneca too, saying that they don't know what they're doing with vaccines.
The German establishment seem to have some sort of collective meltdown. Perhaps all these lockdown is getting to them, but it is most unusual behaviour.
I think the lockdown is altering all our behaviour in curious ways. The PM has come over almost all diplomatic and sensible for example .
Here we go again...toys coming out the pram again.
Germany’s government on Sunday threatened legal action against laboratories failing to deliver coronavirus vaccines to the European Union on schedule, amid tension over delays to deliveries from AstraZeneca.
AFP reports:
“If it turns out that companies have not respected their obligations, we will have to decide the legal consequences,” economy minister Peter Altmaier told German daily Die Welt.
“No company can favour another country over the EU after the fact,” he added.
“No company can favour another country over the EU after the fact,” he added.
What an utter, utter cretin. The EU was three months LATER than the UK.
I have been unable to escape the impression that some figures, it seems in Germany in particular, really seem to have believed that because the EU is an important power on the world stage, which it is, that if they throw their weight around they will get what they want just because.
I mean, they actually seem to be suggesting that because the EU is big, no one elses agreements matter at all.
It is like the UK position on Brexit for too long.
Which is why you'd think they could recognise their own irrationality here!
They're angry, and want more vaccines. Isn't discussion and cooperation to solve problems the EU way?
Here we go again...toys coming out the pram again.
Germany’s government on Sunday threatened legal action against laboratories failing to deliver coronavirus vaccines to the European Union on schedule, amid tension over delays to deliveries from AstraZeneca.
AFP reports:
“If it turns out that companies have not respected their obligations, we will have to decide the legal consequences,” economy minister Peter Altmaier told German daily Die Welt.
“No company can favour another country over the EU after the fact,” he added.
Die Welt has a hit job on AstraZeneca too, saying that they don't know what they're doing with vaccines.
The German establishment seem to have some sort of collective meltdown. Perhaps all these lockdown is getting to them, but it is most unusual behaviour.
I think the lockdown is altering all our behaviour in curious ways. The PM has come over almost all diplomatic and sensible for example .
It won't last, it can only be a matter of time until he deploys a wartime metaphor and causes another diplomatic incident.
Here we go again...toys coming out the pram again.
Germany’s government on Sunday threatened legal action against laboratories failing to deliver coronavirus vaccines to the European Union on schedule, amid tension over delays to deliveries from AstraZeneca.
AFP reports:
“If it turns out that companies have not respected their obligations, we will have to decide the legal consequences,” economy minister Peter Altmaier told German daily Die Welt.
“No company can favour another country over the EU after the fact,” he added.
Die Welt has a hit job on AstraZeneca too, saying that they don't know what they're doing with vaccines.
The German establishment seem to have some sort of collective meltdown. Perhaps all these lockdown is getting to them, but it is most unusual behaviour.
I think the lockdown is altering all our behaviour in curious ways. The PM has come over almost all diplomatic and sensible for example .
Are we sure there hasn't been a face/off situation re: Johnson and Merkel?
Here we go again...toys coming out the pram again.
Germany’s government on Sunday threatened legal action against laboratories failing to deliver coronavirus vaccines to the European Union on schedule, amid tension over delays to deliveries from AstraZeneca.
AFP reports:
“If it turns out that companies have not respected their obligations, we will have to decide the legal consequences,” economy minister Peter Altmaier told German daily Die Welt.
“No company can favour another country over the EU after the fact,” he added.
It is going to be extremely popular in Germany (etc) to threaten private companies over non-delivery of vaccines.
The people don't want to hear about contracts, they want to hear that their government is clamping down on companies that have failed to give Germans their vaccines.
Remember. There is an election coming up. One which can be heavily swayed on marginal percentages. The CDU/CSU look certain to lead it. But their room for manoeuvre in terms of being able to select their junior partners is threatened. And they don't have Merkel as the trump card. Politics as ever.
Here we go again...toys coming out the pram again.
Germany’s government on Sunday threatened legal action against laboratories failing to deliver coronavirus vaccines to the European Union on schedule, amid tension over delays to deliveries from AstraZeneca.
AFP reports:
“If it turns out that companies have not respected their obligations, we will have to decide the legal consequences,” economy minister Peter Altmaier told German daily Die Welt.
“No company can favour another country over the EU after the fact,” he added.
Die Welt has a hit job on AstraZeneca too, saying that they don't know what they're doing with vaccines.
The German establishment seem to have some sort of collective meltdown. Perhaps all these lockdown is getting to them, but it is most unusual behaviour.
I think the lockdown is altering all our behaviour in curious ways. The PM has come over almost all diplomatic and sensible for example .
It won't last, it can only be a matter of time until he deploys a wartime metaphor and causes another diplomatic incident.
Here we go again...toys coming out the pram again.
Germany’s government on Sunday threatened legal action against laboratories failing to deliver coronavirus vaccines to the European Union on schedule, amid tension over delays to deliveries from AstraZeneca.
AFP reports:
“If it turns out that companies have not respected their obligations, we will have to decide the legal consequences,” economy minister Peter Altmaier told German daily Die Welt.
“No company can favour another country over the EU after the fact,” he added.
Die Welt has a hit job on AstraZeneca too, saying that they don't know what they're doing with vaccines.
The German establishment seem to have some sort of collective meltdown. Perhaps all these lockdown is getting to them, but it is most unusual behaviour.
I think the lockdown is altering all our behaviour in curious ways. The PM has come over almost all diplomatic and sensible for example .
Boris has been in perma crisis since he became PM, what with needing to agree a transition deal, having a GE, dealing with Covid, and getting a trade deal with the EU agreed.
So for him the last week, awful milestone notwithstanding, has been a breeze given the vaccine rollout is going great, and so he's probably found it easy to take a relaxed, calm approach. He's not even got too many rowdy backbenchers to appease with some EU bashing red meat and Brexit chaos is being drowned out.
I don't know the domestic political situations of the other leaders, but they're reacting like it is the first crisis they've ever encountered. Which is certainly not true of Merkel and some others, but it's like some of them are out of practice.
For the Commission the problem is something else entirely perhaps - it's a problem that cannot be solved by kicking it into next week, or by getting everyone to say how united they are. They know people want action now, but there's really not anything productive to do now that would have immediate results.
So even though it is an issue with a company, you try to restart the Brexit battles.
Here we go again...toys coming out the pram again.
Germany’s government on Sunday threatened legal action against laboratories failing to deliver coronavirus vaccines to the European Union on schedule, amid tension over delays to deliveries from AstraZeneca.
AFP reports:
“If it turns out that companies have not respected their obligations, we will have to decide the legal consequences,” economy minister Peter Altmaier told German daily Die Welt.
“No company can favour another country over the EU after the fact,” he added.
“No company can favour another country over the EU after the fact,” he added.
What an utter, utter cretin. The EU was three months LATER than the UK.
I have been unable to escape the impression that some figures, it seems in Germany in particular, really seem to have believed that because the EU is an important power on the world stage, which it is, that if they throw their weight around they will get what they want just because.
I mean, they actually seem to be suggesting that because the EU is big, no one elses agreements matter at all.
Some definitely seem to think they have been shafted by the Big Pharma companies, that they have been smuggling out masses of vaccines like drug mules across the US / Mexico border.
The reality is the way they got shafted was thinking they held all the cards against Big Pharma and in this specific case its the opposite....wasting months trying to drive down prices, unwilling to pay upfront and signing a contract that doesn't give them the rights they think it does.
It is like the UK position on Brexit for too long.
There is certainly some voluble commentary coming in from people who have been campaigning against "Big Pharma", and for the abolition of patent protection, for years.
I have heard the rep from "Global Justice Now" all over the media. That is a rebranded "World Development Movement".
I think they may be worried that Big Pharma is just proving it can do a very good, low cost and efficient, job - without their demands being needed.
So let's say Truss pulls this off and gets the UK into the CPTPP.
And then let's say Biden brings the US back into the CPTPP - as a big trade bloc to huddle together against China.
And let's say that one of the big gains from that is Scotch whisky having its 25% tariffs into the US ended.
And then let's say that if Scotland becomes independent and then joins the EU, it can no longer get the benefit of CPTPP membership.
At that point, an independent Scotland might then be significantly less attractive to the Scots.
Could Liz Truss single-handedly save the Union?
Sadly, I don't think there's much (if any) appetite in the US to join the CPTPP. That was very much an Obama era project.
Edit to add: I don't think CPTPP removes tariffs on alcoholic beverages, although I grant you that this is from memory and I could be wrong. CPTPP is amazing for intermediate and finished manufactured goods, but it isn't as all encompassing as NAFTA, Mercosur or the EU's Single Market.
So let's say Truss pulls this off and gets the UK into the CPTPP.
And then let's say Biden brings the US back into the CPTPP - as a big trade bloc to huddle together against China.
And let's say that one of the big gains from that is Scotch whisky having its 25% tariffs into the US ended.
And then let's say that if Scotland becomes independent and then joins the EU, it can no longer get the benefit of CPTPP membership.
At that point, an independent Scotland might then be significantly less attractive to the Scots.
Could Liz Truss single-handedly save the Union?
Sadly, I don't think there's much (if any) appetite in the US to join the CPTPP. That was very much an Obama era project.
Edit to add: I don't think CPTPP removes tariffs on alcoholic beverages, although I grant you that this is from memory and I could be wrong. CPTPP is amazing for intermediate and finished manufactured goods, but it isn't as all encompassing as NAFTA, Mercosur or the EU's Single Market.
In the medium term though, if they join anything it’ll be that. It’ll be amusing to have the US as the supplicant, with us already in the club.
Not that it is entirely unexpected that he would make the claims they say he made, but is he so far gone intellectually that he saw no potential downsides with making up claims like that?
So let's say Truss pulls this off and gets the UK into the CPTPP.
And then let's say Biden brings the US back into the CPTPP - as a big trade bloc to huddle together against China.
And let's say that one of the big gains from that is Scotch whisky having its 25% tariffs into the US ended.
And then let's say that if Scotland becomes independent and then joins the EU, it can no longer get the benefit of CPTPP membership.
At that point, an independent Scotland might then be significantly less attractive to the Scots.
Could Liz Truss single-handedly save the Union?
Sadly, I don't think there's much (if any) appetite in the US to join the CPTPP. That was very much an Obama era project.
Edit to add: I don't think CPTPP removes tariffs on alcoholic beverages, although I grant you that this is from memory and I could be wrong. CPTPP is amazing for intermediate and finished manufactured goods, but it isn't as all encompassing as NAFTA, Mercosur or the EU's Single Market.
Still pretty handy to have your European-based operations getting the benefit of that "amazing" regime by having your manufacturing happening in the UK....
It could work. We've always been distant from the centre in Europe. In this group, there is no centre. They're all arranged round a whacking great ocean, so everyone's equally peripheral
But ... but ... I thought nobody would want to deal with us now we've left the EU and are a global pariah because Boris threatened to renege on the backstop?
Not that it is entirely unexpected that he would make the claims they say he made, but is he so far gone intellectually that he saw no potential downsides with making up claims like that?
American legal communications seem somewhat livelier than the ones I've seen in Britain.
Not that it is entirely unexpected that he would make the claims they say he made, but is he so far gone intellectually that he saw no potential downsides with making up claims like that?
American legal communications seem somewhat livelier than the ones I've seen in Britain.
Yes, they certainly are. They have litigation privilege in America, under which you can't be sued for defamation because of what you say in court. So people say some truly remarkable things.
So let's say Truss pulls this off and gets the UK into the CPTPP.
And then let's say Biden brings the US back into the CPTPP - as a big trade bloc to huddle together against China.
And let's say that one of the big gains from that is Scotch whisky having its 25% tariffs into the US ended.
And then let's say that if Scotland becomes independent and then joins the EU, it can no longer get the benefit of CPTPP membership.
At that point, an independent Scotland might then be significantly less attractive to the Scots.
Could Liz Truss single-handedly save the Union?
It would be a very nice benefit, but I strongly doubt it would swing significant votes. The 25% tariff only applies to malts anyway. These are increasingly popular but blends are still the main cash cow.
Not that it is entirely unexpected that he would make the claims they say he made, but is he so far gone intellectually that he saw no potential downsides with making up claims like that?
American legal communications seem somewhat livelier than the ones I've seen in Britain.
Yes, they certainly are. They have litigation privilege in America, under which you can't be sued for defamation because of what you say in court. So people say some truly remarkable things.
There is litigation privilege here too.
I think they feel that writing such a letter to Giuliani is pretty much risk free, given how he has trashed his reputation in recent months.
So let's say Truss pulls this off and gets the UK into the CPTPP.
And then let's say Biden brings the US back into the CPTPP - as a big trade bloc to huddle together against China.
And let's say that one of the big gains from that is Scotch whisky having its 25% tariffs into the US ended.
And then let's say that if Scotland becomes independent and then joins the EU, it can no longer get the benefit of CPTPP membership.
At that point, an independent Scotland might then be significantly less attractive to the Scots.
Could Liz Truss single-handedly save the Union?
Sadly, I don't think there's much (if any) appetite in the US to join the CPTPP. That was very much an Obama era project.
Edit to add: I don't think CPTPP removes tariffs on alcoholic beverages, although I grant you that this is from memory and I could be wrong. CPTPP is amazing for intermediate and finished manufactured goods, but it isn't as all encompassing as NAFTA, Mercosur or the EU's Single Market.
If we join successfully, I think that America would definitely look at it again - I don't think they'd want us to be part of something that they weren't party to.
So let's say Truss pulls this off and gets the UK into the CPTPP.
And then let's say Biden brings the US back into the CPTPP - as a big trade bloc to huddle together against China.
And let's say that one of the big gains from that is Scotch whisky having its 25% tariffs into the US ended.
And then let's say that if Scotland becomes independent and then joins the EU, it can no longer get the benefit of CPTPP membership.
At that point, an independent Scotland might then be significantly less attractive to the Scots.
Could Liz Truss single-handedly save the Union?
Sadly, I don't think there's much (if any) appetite in the US to join the CPTPP. That was very much an Obama era project.
Edit to add: I don't think CPTPP removes tariffs on alcoholic beverages, although I grant you that this is from memory and I could be wrong. CPTPP is amazing for intermediate and finished manufactured goods, but it isn't as all encompassing as NAFTA, Mercosur or the EU's Single Market.
If we join successfully, I think that America would definitely look at it again - I don't think they'd want us to be part of something that they weren't party to.
Well they never showed any sign of wanting to join the Commonwealth.
Not that it is entirely unexpected that he would make the claims they say he made, but is he so far gone intellectually that he saw no potential downsides with making up claims like that?
Like they say, Dominion are gonna clear him out, so no downside.
So let's say Truss pulls this off and gets the UK into the CPTPP.
And then let's say Biden brings the US back into the CPTPP - as a big trade bloc to huddle together against China.
And let's say that one of the big gains from that is Scotch whisky having its 25% tariffs into the US ended.
And then let's say that if Scotland becomes independent and then joins the EU, it can no longer get the benefit of CPTPP membership.
At that point, an independent Scotland might then be significantly less attractive to the Scots.
Could Liz Truss single-handedly save the Union?
Sadly, I don't think there's much (if any) appetite in the US to join the CPTPP. That was very much an Obama era project.
Edit to add: I don't think CPTPP removes tariffs on alcoholic beverages, although I grant you that this is from memory and I could be wrong. CPTPP is amazing for intermediate and finished manufactured goods, but it isn't as all encompassing as NAFTA, Mercosur or the EU's Single Market.
If we join successfully, I think that America would definitely look at it again - I don't think they'd want us to be part of something that they weren't party to.
Well they never showed any sign of wanting to join the Commonwealth.
So let's say Truss pulls this off and gets the UK into the CPTPP.
And then let's say Biden brings the US back into the CPTPP - as a big trade bloc to huddle together against China.
And let's say that one of the big gains from that is Scotch whisky having its 25% tariffs into the US ended.
And then let's say that if Scotland becomes independent and then joins the EU, it can no longer get the benefit of CPTPP membership.
At that point, an independent Scotland might then be significantly less attractive to the Scots.
Could Liz Truss single-handedly save the Union?
Sadly, I don't think there's much (if any) appetite in the US to join the CPTPP. That was very much an Obama era project.
Edit to add: I don't think CPTPP removes tariffs on alcoholic beverages, although I grant you that this is from memory and I could be wrong. CPTPP is amazing for intermediate and finished manufactured goods, but it isn't as all encompassing as NAFTA, Mercosur or the EU's Single Market.
If we join successfully, I think that America would definitely look at it again - I don't think they'd want us to be part of something that they weren't party to.
Well they never showed any sign of wanting to join the Commonwealth.
Looking forward to the UK being able to help out other countries with vaccine supply. We just need to finish jabbing the most vulnerable people in this country first, which hopefully will only take another 2 weeks or so.
Looking forward to the UK being able to help out other countries with vaccine supply. We just need to finish jabbing the most vulnerable people in this country first, which hopefully will only take another 2 weeks or so.
It is not going to take 2 weeks. Groups 5 and 6 are also vulnerable. Why the hell are they being forgotten?
We vaccinate or get doses for all our population. Then - and only then - do we donate spare vaccines to others. The British government's first and overriding obligation is to the citizens of this country.
I've spoken to someone this evening who simultaneously agrees with Labour (that teachers and other public sector workers should jump the queue ahead of five of the vulnerable categories) and the WHO (that the government should stop vaccinating after the vulnerable in order to distribute vaccines to the developing world).
The resolution of this apparent paradox is that they didn't know the detail of the Labour policy, and merely agreed with the sentiment that teachers needed to be vaccinated "earlier than 40 year old IT consultants".
Perhaps Labour knew what they were doing with that policy after all, since we all on here overestimate the extent to which people generally are aware of the detail. Opposing early vaccination of teachers is almost akin to kicking puppies. Why would anyone do that?
Oi! Won’t someone think of the 40-year-old IT consultants here?
All these tools we are using to work and live through the pandemic didn’t just set themselves up you know. IT consultants are the most key of the key workers, and need to be high on the priority list for vaccination.
Not that it is entirely unexpected that he would make the claims they say he made, but is he so far gone intellectually that he saw no potential downsides with making up claims like that?
I wish all cease and desist letters were that entertaining;.
Comments
Certainly DOES seem like a good way to loose the farm IF that's what your truly betting.
She's playing a blinder. I don't dismiss her chances.
Every week between now and the end of the year vaccine production will rise; it'll rise for existing vaccines like Pfizer and it'll rise as new vaccines are brought on stream.
This is like aircraft production in WW2. It starts of slow and it grows and grows and grows. New factories and bioreactors will keep being built, and more vaccines will be churned out. Nine months from now, they'll be a glut.
--AS
Hopefully as a result of the vaccines we will be able to make a full return to normality by this time next year before the government has to make any difficult social or economic decisions.
I mean, they *might* be right, but it really doesn't smell like a sensible prediction.
--AS
We now have further research that shows the initial 7-10 days of a lockdown doesn't even squash the case rate down much, for the obvious reason that those that are unknowingly infected at the start then get locked away with their family and infect them.
It takes that long before you really start seeing some reduction and you need bare minimum of month to get any sort of handle once you are at a high level.
Israel 53.8
UAE 31.5
Seychelles 31.4
UK 13.1
Bahrain 10.0
US 8.4
Serbia 6.3
Malta 5.8
Iceland 4.5
Denmark 4.3
We send the EU [x] million vaccines a week.
Let's supply our NHS instead.
Edit: it won't be true, because that's actually the gross vaccine contribution. It doesn't take our vaccine rebate into account.
WIKI: "In January 1982, cost overruns and delays, along with a slowing of electricity demand growth, led to cancellation of two WPPSS plants and a construction halt on the two-reactor Satsop Nuclear Power Plant which was 75% complete. Seventeen months later in June 1983, the Washington State Supreme Court ruled the long-term take-or-pay contracts to buy the power produced by the project were illegal. Next month in July 1983, WPPSS defaulted on $2.25 billion of municipal bonds, which is the second largest municipal bond default in U.S. history. The court case that followed took nearly a decade to resolve, and WPPSS acquired the unfortunate nickname "Whoops" in the media."
Of course, even if the uptake is as the model, many of the un-vaccinated will have natural immunity from having the actual virus, so the r would probably be lower still.
Pfizer have started doing a US trial on secondary school aged pupils I believe.
But Macron has stopped short of ordering a new daytime lockdown, saying he wants to see first if other measures will be enough to slow the spread of the coronavirus.
With 10% of cases now attributable to the more contagious variant first found in Britain, senior medics have recommended a new lockdown, and one opinion poll showed more than three-quarters of French people think one is now inevitable. The poll also showed falling public confidence in the government’s handling of the crisis.
“I have trust in us. These hours that we are living through are crucial. Let’s do all we can to slow the epidemic together,” Macron tweeted.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-france-idUSKBN29Z0U4
Isn't this the mistake Boris made?
Germany’s government on Sunday threatened legal action against laboratories failing to deliver coronavirus vaccines to the European Union on schedule, amid tension over delays to deliveries from AstraZeneca.
AFP reports:
“If it turns out that companies have not respected their obligations, we will have to decide the legal consequences,” economy minister Peter Altmaier told German daily Die Welt.
“No company can favour another country over the EU after the fact,” he added.
What an utter, utter cretin. The EU was three months LATER than the UK.
There's a bored girl at my local CVS who does flu vaccines at weekends. I'm fairly sure her training was limited to "stick it in here and squeeze".
Anyway, if they do end up back in a lockdown then, as with us, they're presumably going to be lumbered with it for several months.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeXQBHLIPcw
https://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/plus225311059/Corona-Impfstoff-Die-vielen-kleine-Pannen-von-AstraZeneca.html
So far 4 confirmed by US Senate: Avril Haines (National Intelligence), Lloyd Austin (Defense), Janet Yellen (Treasury) and Anthony Blinken (State).
Confirmation vote scheduled for Alejandro Mayorkas (Homeland Security) on Feb 1and Pete Buttigeg (Transportation) on Feb 2.
After that, another 17 cabinet-level nominations, of which most notable/timely are Merrick Garland (Justice), Xavier Becerra (Health) and because of the census Gina Raimondo (Commerce).
a) France has no real idea how many of its cases are Cockney Covid. It just won't be doing the required number of tests.
b) it's way more than 10%.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/01/28/first-real-world-data-vaccination-effectiveness-shows-really/
Any evidence of that shown up yet? They do seem to have been the most panicky, and according to Bloomberg earlier the ones pushing the Commission to take a hard line.
The people don't want to hear about contracts, they want to hear that their government is clamping down on companies that have failed to give Germans their vaccines.
I mean, they actually seem to be suggesting that because the EU is big, no one elses agreements matter at all.
The reality is the way they got shafted was thinking they held all the cards against Big Pharma and in this specific case its the opposite....wasting months trying to drive down prices, unwilling to pay upfront and signing a contract that doesn't give them the rights they think it does.
It is like the UK position on Brexit for too long.
In this group, only 20 people caught CV19. And of those none (zero, nada, 0) had serious cases or even had temperatures above 38.5 degrees. That is as close to perfect as you're going to get.
They're angry, and want more vaccines. Isn't discussion and cooperation to solve problems the EU way?
I think if we join the CPTPP, that makes it larger by GDP than the Single Market.
https://twitter.com/ProjectLincoln/status/1355618315570393090
And they don't have Merkel as the trump card.
Politics as ever.
And then let's say Biden brings the US back into the CPTPP - as a big trade bloc to huddle together against China.
And let's say that one of the big gains from that is Scotch whisky having its 25% tariffs into the US ended.
And then let's say that if Scotland becomes independent and then joins the EU, it can no longer get the benefit of CPTPP membership.
At that point, an independent Scotland might then be significantly less attractive to the Scots.
Could Liz Truss single-handedly save the Union?
We need to buy freezers - fast! That's what Jonathan Van-Tam told No 10 in Spring when everyone was worried about PPE
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9205465/We-need-buy-freezers-fast-Thats-Jonathan-Van-Tam-told-No-10-Spring.html
I seemed to remember a poster on here saying that the UK had just purchased an incredible amount of them.
So for him the last week, awful milestone notwithstanding, has been a breeze given the vaccine rollout is going great, and so he's probably found it easy to take a relaxed, calm approach. He's not even got too many rowdy backbenchers to appease with some EU bashing red meat and Brexit chaos is being drowned out.
I don't know the domestic political situations of the other leaders, but they're reacting like it is the first crisis they've ever encountered. Which is certainly not true of Merkel and some others, but it's like some of them are out of practice.
For the Commission the problem is something else entirely perhaps - it's a problem that cannot be solved by kicking it into next week, or by getting everyone to say how united they are. They know people want action now, but there's really not anything productive to do now that would have immediate results.
So even though it is an issue with a company, you try to restart the Brexit battles.
I have heard the rep from "Global Justice Now" all over the media. That is a rebranded "World Development Movement".
I think they may be worried that Big Pharma is just proving it can do a very good, low cost and efficient, job - without their demands being needed.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1385040/emmanuel-macron-news-eu-france-germany-angela-merkel-political-union-spt
But that's a heck of a lot of steps you're taking there.
Lockdown exercise is however, beneficial.
Edit to add: I don't think CPTPP removes tariffs on alcoholic beverages, although I grant you that this is from memory and I could be wrong. CPTPP is amazing for intermediate and finished manufactured goods, but it isn't as all encompassing as NAFTA, Mercosur or the EU's Single Market.
It's going to come down to what will it take to rein in China.
https://twitter.com/EuRollout/status/1354696769364488194
https://twitter.com/EuRollout/status/1354698078067060736
https://twitter.com/EuRollout/status/1354698548433055746
https://twitter.com/EuRollout/status/1354699017008111617
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgBvEYC-xkE
I think they feel that writing such a letter to Giuliani is pretty much risk free, given how he has trashed his reputation in recent months.
My goodness, but someone enjoyed writing that...
We vaccinate or get doses for all our population. Then - and only then - do we donate spare vaccines to others. The British government's first and overriding obligation is to the citizens of this country.
All these tools we are using to work and live through the pandemic didn’t just set themselves up you know. IT consultants are the most key of the key workers, and need to be high on the priority list for vaccination.
https://twitter.com/sandyddouglas/status/1355565609434677255?s=20
https://twitter.com/adamjohnritchie/status/1355136430402580482?s=20
EU Vaccine Rollout@EuRollout·
12h
We’ve improved the customer journey for key stakeholders today by not injecting them in the face.