On topic, I think human sexuality is infinitely complex - and probably a question of shades of grey, and a function of genetics and to some extent experiences - but I really struggle to believe that barely half of Gen Z are straight.
It's more likely that it's considered somewhat unenlightened by some to *just* consider the opposite sex attractive, there's a whole big difference between saying you can find someone of the same sex attractive and doing the deed.
Take me for example. I am only interested in women. A naked man doesn't do anything for me. Nevertheless very occasionally I can say to myself he is a really really attractive guy, and even be "attracted" to him as a person, but in heavens name I wouldn't dream of jumping into bed with him. Just not interested. So I would answer this question very differently to an achingly right-on student.
I'd say 10-20% (max) of the population are gay or bi-sexual pretty consistently (many of the bis will lead happily straight lives, by and large) and the rest are basically straight. There was an undercount of that 50 years ago and now there's an overcount.
Surely what matters is what people describe themselves as?
It's okay to describe yourself as straight and it's okay to describe yourself as bi, no?
"Describing" yourself now is a thing: saying you're 'straight' is just a bit boring, even if most people are.
I can say I blame Gen-Z for being creative. It might even hinder you getting a job, if you're otherwise male and white, so being something "different" at least gives you some extra subjective angle in the diversity market.
On topic, I think human sexuality is infinitely complex - and probably a question of shades of grey, and a function of genetics and to some extent experiences - but I really struggle to believe that barely half of Gen Z are straight.
It's more likely that it's considered somewhat unenlightened by some to *just* consider the opposite sex attractive, there's a whole big difference between saying you can find someone of the same sex attractive and doing the deed.
Take me for example. I am only interested in women. A naked man doesn't do anything for me. Nevertheless very occasionally I can say to myself he is a really really attractive guy, and even be "attracted" to him as a person, but in heavens name I wouldn't dream of jumping into bed with him. Just not interested. So I would answer this question very differently to an achingly right-on student.
I'd say 10-20% (max) of the population are gay or bi-sexual pretty consistently (many of the bis will lead happily straight lives, by and large) and the rest are basically straight. There was an undercount of that 50 years ago and now there's an overcount.
Regarding yesterday's discussion on best films, what's the best way to access a given classic film?
From a quick search Apple iTunes seems to have most of those that were mentioned yesterday for rent at £3.49 or purchase at £7.99. Is that the best option or or there others?
My way of finding out is first check
1) Sky Movies 2) Netflix 3) Amazon Prime 4) Disney+/Star 5) Britbox
If it isn't available on those, then I'll buy it on iTunes.
I wish there was a quick and easy way to find which service, if any, a title is on.
There probably is, but not found one yet.
Google has indexed Netflix and Amazon Prime, I think they're adding D+ as well.
Indeed but searching for a title often shows its available on Netflix, only to show it as Netflix USA rather than UK for instance.
This site is quite good in my experience if you want to find out which services are streaming, renting, and selling films and TV series.
If theyd taken our vaccine this might not have happened.
Except we refused! So Macron wasn't allowed to take them.
We refused what? Has the UK been banning exports to the EU or something?
No. Foxy has finally lost the plot.
He's had a very tough year. And has much useful perspective to add given that experience, and reason for caution on some choices made. But unless there's some detail missing here the UK simply wasn't involved in this issue other than having signed a contract sooner.
Of course, but my point is that if France couldn't get the AZN vaccine in time for whatever reason, then it couldn't prevent a new wave.
They have it now, and people are refusing to take it because of the bollocks spouted by Macron and others.
That is so, but having it now doesn't prevent a current wave. To have that effect they would have needed it in numbers a month or more ago.
I have never argued that the EU contract should have over ridden the UK one, though some in the EU did. The upshot though is that they did not have it at the time and in the numbers to prevent a further wave.
What exactly did you mean when you said Except we refused! So Macron wasn't allowed to take them.
Allowed to take what?
The vaccines. We didn't let AZN alter the delivery of their contract, not that AZN particularly wanted to do so. I have no problem with that decision, but clearly Macron did at that time a month ago.
The upshot is that France could not have prevented a further wave by vaccination. It remains to be seen if we can either, even with a 4 week headstart, though probably mortality and admissions will be fewer.
Your wording implies they had a right in the first place and the UK stopped them, which is completely misrepresenting what actually happened.
We refused an unreasonable request, as did AZN.
I have never suggested they had a right to have the vaccines, just observed that a wave could not have been prevented if vaccines were not there to be used.
You are suggesting that France's current situation is the fault of the UK. Incredible.
View: Blur (especially Albarn) were stylistic bandwagon-chasers whereas Oasis were stuck in one specific set of influences on their music big enough to crowded out any eclectic tendencies - Beatles, dance culture and Liam's voice. Bringing in Pulp is a little unfair because they shifted so few units in comparison that you might as well go to Aphex or Massive Attack - you are going beyond the "pop scene" (sorry).
Common People made it to Number 2 and Disco 2000 shifted 400,000 units! They were drowned out by the press but they were definitely one of the defining bands of the era.
If theyd taken our vaccine this might not have happened.
Except we refused! So Macron wasn't allowed to take them.
We refused what? Has the UK been banning exports to the EU or something?
No. Foxy has finally lost the plot.
He's had a very tough year. And has much useful perspective to add given that experience, and reason for caution on some choices made. But unless there's some detail missing here the UK simply wasn't involved in this issue other than having signed a contract sooner.
Of course, but my point is that if France couldn't get the AZN vaccine in time for whatever reason, then it couldn't prevent a new wave.
They have it now, and people are refusing to take it because of the bollocks spouted by Macron and others.
That is so, but having it now doesn't prevent a current wave. To have that effect they would have needed it in numbers a month or more ago.
I have never argued that the EU contract should have over ridden the UK one, though some in the EU did. The upshot though is that they did not have it at the time and in the numbers to prevent a further wave.
What exactly did you mean when you said Except we refused! So Macron wasn't allowed to take them.
Allowed to take what?
The vaccines. We didn't let AZN alter the delivery of their contract, not that AZN particularly wanted to do so. I have no problem with that decision, but clearly Macron did at that time a month ago.
The upshot is that France could not have prevented a further wave by vaccination. It remains to be seen if we can either, even with a 4 week headstart, though probably mortality and admissions will be fewer.
Your wording implies they had a right in the first place and the UK stopped them, which is completely misrepresenting what actually happened.
We refused an unreasonable request, as did AZN.
I have never suggested they had a right to have the vaccines, just observed that a wave could not have been prevented if vaccines were not there to be used.
Despite their procurement issues, there are vaccines are there to be used that haven't been used.
And two vaccines have been given to half as many people despite them knowing from us that its not necessary to do it that way.
So many more people could have been vaccinated by now if they'd managed distribution properly and switched to a 12 week schedule.
On topic, I think human sexuality is infinitely complex - and probably a question of shades of grey, and a function of genetics and to some extent experiences - but I really struggle to believe that barely half of Gen Z are straight.
It's more likely that it's considered somewhat unenlightened by some to *just* consider the opposite sex attractive, there's a whole big difference between saying you can find someone of the same sex attractive and doing the deed.
Take me for example. I am only interested in women. A naked man doesn't do anything for me. Nevertheless very occasionally I can say to myself he is a really really attractive guy, and even be "attracted" to him as a person, but in heavens name I wouldn't dream of jumping into bed with him. Just not interested. So I would answer this question very differently to an achingly right-on student.
I'd say 10-20% (max) of the population are gay or bi-sexual pretty consistently (many of the bis will lead happily straight lives, by and large) and the rest are basically straight. There was an undercount of that 50 years ago and now there's an overcount.
Surely what matters is what people describe themselves as?
It's okay to describe yourself as straight and it's okay to describe yourself as bi, no?
It doesn't really matter (unless there's some advantage via positive discrimination), but in reality, I wonder how many men describing themselves as bi would, errr, do the deed.
Depends what you mean by "the deed". Not all gay men actually do full anal sex, for example.
Like I said earlier, I'm not sure how I'd personally answer this poll. I've only ever been with and dated women but I'd be open to the possibility of being attracted to a particular man in the future. I guess I identify as "straight", but not 100%?
I appreciate that everyone is different, and perhaps I'm unusual, but I am 100% straight. There are a lot of things in life that are confusing, but this isn't one of them.
But like I say, I may be unusual.
I don't think you are unusual. The poll shows you are in the majority in every generation!
If theyd taken our vaccine this might not have happened.
Except we refused! So Macron wasn't allowed to take them.
We refused what? Has the UK been banning exports to the EU or something?
No. Foxy has finally lost the plot.
He's had a very tough year. And has much useful perspective to add given that experience, and reason for caution on some choices made. But unless there's some detail missing here the UK simply wasn't involved in this issue other than having signed a contract sooner.
Of course, but my point is that if France couldn't get the AZN vaccine in time for whatever reason, then it couldn't prevent a new wave.
They have it now, and people are refusing to take it because of the bollocks spouted by Macron and others.
That is so, but having it now doesn't prevent a current wave. To have that effect they would have needed it in numbers a month or more ago.
I have never argued that the EU contract should have over ridden the UK one, though some in the EU did. The upshot though is that they did not have it at the time and in the numbers to prevent a further wave.
What exactly did you mean when you said Except we refused! So Macron wasn't allowed to take them.
Allowed to take what?
The vaccines. We didn't let AZN alter the delivery of their contract, not that AZN particularly wanted to do so. I have no problem with that decision, but clearly Macron did at that time a month ago.
The upshot is that France could not have prevented a further wave by vaccination. It remains to be seen if we can either, even with a 4 week headstart, though probably mortality and admissions will be fewer.
The contracts are the contracts. They booked in more than three after us, that's nothing to do with us refusing, its to do with their procurement.
They could have had more by signing contracts sooner.
And they do have vaccines (and have had for weeks now) that they've not used and those they have used they've used ineffectively by stubbornly sticking to giving boosters for half as many people instead of vaccinating twice as many despite learning from our experience that it works.
So yes a lot fewer people are vaccinated than could have been, even taking into account their procurement failures which had nothing to do with us.
But it wouldn't have prevented the wave if they had used their few availible vaccines differently.
Indeed we won't either. It is accepted at the highest levels that r will go up as a result of ending lockdown in the UK. Not as much as in an unvaccinated population, but there will be a 4th wave here, predominantly in the young.
If theyd taken our vaccine this might not have happened.
Except we refused! So Macron wasn't allowed to take them.
We refused what? Has the UK been banning exports to the EU or something?
No. Foxy has finally lost the plot.
He's had a very tough year. And has much useful perspective to add given that experience, and reason for caution on some choices made. But unless there's some detail missing here the UK simply wasn't involved in this issue other than having signed a contract sooner.
Of course, but my point is that if France couldn't get the AZN vaccine in time for whatever reason, then it couldn't prevent a new wave.
They have it now, and people are refusing to take it because of the bollocks spouted by Macron and others.
That is so, but having it now doesn't prevent a current wave. To have that effect they would have needed it in numbers a month or more ago.
I have never argued that the EU contract should have over ridden the UK one, though some in the EU did. The upshot though is that they did not have it at the time and in the numbers to prevent a further wave.
What exactly did you mean when you said Except we refused! So Macron wasn't allowed to take them.
Allowed to take what?
The vaccines. We didn't let AZN alter the delivery of their contract, not that AZN particularly wanted to do so. I have no problem with that decision, but clearly Macron did at that time a month ago.
The upshot is that France could not have prevented a further wave by vaccination. It remains to be seen if we can either, even with a 4 week headstart, though probably mortality and admissions will be fewer.
Your wording implies they had a right in the first place and the UK stopped them, which is completely misrepresenting what actually happened.
We refused an unreasonable request, as did AZN.
I have never suggested they had a right to have the vaccines, just observed that a wave could not have been prevented if vaccines were not there to be used.
You are suggesting that France's current situation is the fault of the UK. Incredible.
If theyd taken our vaccine this might not have happened.
Except we refused! So Macron wasn't allowed to take them.
We refused what? Has the UK been banning exports to the EU or something?
No. Foxy has finally lost the plot.
He's had a very tough year. And has much useful perspective to add given that experience, and reason for caution on some choices made. But unless there's some detail missing here the UK simply wasn't involved in this issue other than having signed a contract sooner.
Of course, but my point is that if France couldn't get the AZN vaccine in time for whatever reason, then it couldn't prevent a new wave.
They have it now, and people are refusing to take it because of the bollocks spouted by Macron and others.
That is so, but having it now doesn't prevent a current wave. To have that effect they would have needed it in numbers a month or more ago.
I have never argued that the EU contract should have over ridden the UK one, though some in the EU did. The upshot though is that they did not have it at the time and in the numbers to prevent a further wave.
What exactly did you mean when you said Except we refused! So Macron wasn't allowed to take them.
Allowed to take what?
The vaccines. We didn't let AZN alter the delivery of their contract, not that AZN particularly wanted to do so. I have no problem with that decision, but clearly Macron did at that time a month ago.
The upshot is that France could not have prevented a further wave by vaccination. It remains to be seen if we can either, even with a 4 week headstart, though probably mortality and admissions will be fewer.
Your wording implies they had a right in the first place and the UK stopped them, which is completely misrepresenting what actually happened.
We refused an unreasonable request, as did AZN.
I have never suggested they had a right to have the vaccines, just observed that a wave could not have been prevented if vaccines were not there to be used.
You are suggesting that France's current situation is the fault of the UK. Incredible.
No, I haven't.
And I quote you again: Except we refused! So Macron wasn't allowed to take them.
Regarding yesterday's discussion on best films, what's the best way to access a given classic film?
From a quick search Apple iTunes seems to have most of those that were mentioned yesterday for rent at £3.49 or purchase at £7.99. Is that the best option or or there others?
Here in Spain we have a box which gives all UKTV channels and a massive 'On Demand' selection of TV box series plus an enormous movie range of all and every genre. All for about €100 a year. I watch pretty well whichever classic movie you can name that way. Equally it constantly updates new TV series and movies all the time. Spoilt for choice to be honest.
I kind of assumed it was pretty much the same in the UK.
If theyd taken our vaccine this might not have happened.
Except we refused! So Macron wasn't allowed to take them.
We refused what? Has the UK been banning exports to the EU or something?
No. Foxy has finally lost the plot.
He's had a very tough year. And has much useful perspective to add given that experience, and reason for caution on some choices made. But unless there's some detail missing here the UK simply wasn't involved in this issue other than having signed a contract sooner.
Of course, but my point is that if France couldn't get the AZN vaccine in time for whatever reason, then it couldn't prevent a new wave.
They have it now, and people are refusing to take it because of the bollocks spouted by Macron and others.
That is so, but having it now doesn't prevent a current wave. To have that effect they would have needed it in numbers a month or more ago.
I have never argued that the EU contract should have over ridden the UK one, though some in the EU did. The upshot though is that they did not have it at the time and in the numbers to prevent a further wave.
What exactly did you mean when you said Except we refused! So Macron wasn't allowed to take them.
Allowed to take what?
The vaccines. We didn't let AZN alter the delivery of their contract, not that AZN particularly wanted to do so. I have no problem with that decision, but clearly Macron did at that time a month ago.
The upshot is that France could not have prevented a further wave by vaccination. It remains to be seen if we can either, even with a 4 week headstart, though probably mortality and admissions will be fewer.
Your wording implies they had a right in the first place and the UK stopped them, which is completely misrepresenting what actually happened.
We refused an unreasonable request, as did AZN.
I have never suggested they had a right to have the vaccines, just observed that a wave could not have been prevented if vaccines were not there to be used.
You are suggesting that France's current situation is the fault of the UK. Incredible.
No, I haven't.
And I quote you again: Except we refused! So Macron wasn't allowed to take them.
No, it is not our fault if an unreasonable request is refused.
If theyd taken our vaccine this might not have happened.
Except we refused! So Macron wasn't allowed to take them.
We refused what? Has the UK been banning exports to the EU or something?
No. Foxy has finally lost the plot.
He's had a very tough year. And has much useful perspective to add given that experience, and reason for caution on some choices made. But unless there's some detail missing here the UK simply wasn't involved in this issue other than having signed a contract sooner.
Of course, but my point is that if France couldn't get the AZN vaccine in time for whatever reason, then it couldn't prevent a new wave.
They have it now, and people are refusing to take it because of the bollocks spouted by Macron and others.
That is so, but having it now doesn't prevent a current wave. To have that effect they would have needed it in numbers a month or more ago.
I have never argued that the EU contract should have over ridden the UK one, though some in the EU did. The upshot though is that they did not have it at the time and in the numbers to prevent a further wave.
What exactly did you mean when you said Except we refused! So Macron wasn't allowed to take them.
Allowed to take what?
The vaccines. We didn't let AZN alter the delivery of their contract, not that AZN particularly wanted to do so. I have no problem with that decision, but clearly Macron did at that time a month ago.
The upshot is that France could not have prevented a further wave by vaccination. It remains to be seen if we can either, even with a 4 week headstart, though probably mortality and admissions will be fewer.
Your wording implies they had a right in the first place and the UK stopped them, which is completely misrepresenting what actually happened.
We refused an unreasonable request, as did AZN.
I have never suggested they had a right to have the vaccines, just observed that a wave could not have been prevented if vaccines were not there to be used.
You are suggesting that France's current situation is the fault of the UK. Incredible.
No, I haven't.
You actually said THIS, re the UK and France:
"We told them we were first in the queue and they would have to wait."
You said something foolish and embarrassing. It happens. Better to accept it and move on.
Apropros of nothing, I note at No 74 in the charts currently is Mr Brightside, it's been in the top 100 for 255 weeks, which is almost 2 years longer than anything else.
If theyd taken our vaccine this might not have happened.
Except we refused! So Macron wasn't allowed to take them.
We refused what? Has the UK been banning exports to the EU or something?
No. Foxy has finally lost the plot.
He's had a very tough year. And has much useful perspective to add given that experience, and reason for caution on some choices made. But unless there's some detail missing here the UK simply wasn't involved in this issue other than having signed a contract sooner.
Of course, but my point is that if France couldn't get the AZN vaccine in time for whatever reason, then it couldn't prevent a new wave.
They have it now, and people are refusing to take it because of the bollocks spouted by Macron and others.
That is so, but having it now doesn't prevent a current wave. To have that effect they would have needed it in numbers a month or more ago.
I have never argued that the EU contract should have over ridden the UK one, though some in the EU did. The upshot though is that they did not have it at the time and in the numbers to prevent a further wave.
What exactly did you mean when you said Except we refused! So Macron wasn't allowed to take them.
Allowed to take what?
The vaccines. We didn't let AZN alter the delivery of their contract, not that AZN particularly wanted to do so. I have no problem with that decision, but clearly Macron did at that time a month ago.
The upshot is that France could not have prevented a further wave by vaccination. It remains to be seen if we can either, even with a 4 week headstart, though probably mortality and admissions will be fewer.
Your wording implies they had a right in the first place and the UK stopped them, which is completely misrepresenting what actually happened.
We refused an unreasonable request, as did AZN.
I have never suggested they had a right to have the vaccines, just observed that a wave could not have been prevented if vaccines were not there to be used.
You are suggesting that France's current situation is the fault of the UK. Incredible.
No, I haven't.
And I quote you again: Except we refused! So Macron wasn't allowed to take them.
No, it is not our fault if an unreasonable request is refused.
A bizarre thing to say then. If it was unreasonable, why even bring it up? The blame lies squarely with the EU commission for their complete balls up of procurement, and for Macron for spreading Trumpian-level fake news regarding the vaccine. The UK had nothing to do with it.
Regarding yesterday's discussion on best films, what's the best way to access a given classic film?
From a quick search Apple iTunes seems to have most of those that were mentioned yesterday for rent at £3.49 or purchase at £7.99. Is that the best option or or there others?
My way of finding out is first check
1) Sky Movies 2) Netflix 3) Amazon Prime 4) Disney+/Star 5) Britbox
If it isn't available on those, then I'll buy it on iTunes.
I wish there was a quick and easy way to find which service, if any, a title is on.
There probably is, but not found one yet.
Google has indexed Netflix and Amazon Prime, I think they're adding D+ as well.
Indeed but searching for a title often shows its available on Netflix, only to show it as Netflix USA rather than UK for instance.
This site is quite good in my experience if you want to find out which services are streaming, renting, and selling films and TV series.
Just tried that with Wentworth and it shows in the UK you can stream series 1-6 on Prime, but 7-8 can't be streamed anywhere and must be paid for. In the USA and Australia you can stream all 8 seasons. Not impressed at all with this, unless there's some other reason its like that in the UK, if Prime are doing 'bait and switch' to get you to watch a series but then they want to sell you the rest of it then that's absolutely awful and putting me off Prime. 😠
If theyd taken our vaccine this might not have happened.
Except we refused! So Macron wasn't allowed to take them.
We refused what? Has the UK been banning exports to the EU or something?
No. Foxy has finally lost the plot.
He's had a very tough year. And has much useful perspective to add given that experience, and reason for caution on some choices made. But unless there's some detail missing here the UK simply wasn't involved in this issue other than having signed a contract sooner.
Of course, but my point is that if France couldn't get the AZN vaccine in time for whatever reason, then it couldn't prevent a new wave.
They have it now, and people are refusing to take it because of the bollocks spouted by Macron and others.
That is so, but having it now doesn't prevent a current wave. To have that effect they would have needed it in numbers a month or more ago.
I have never argued that the EU contract should have over ridden the UK one, though some in the EU did. The upshot though is that they did not have it at the time and in the numbers to prevent a further wave.
What exactly did you mean when you said Except we refused! So Macron wasn't allowed to take them.
Allowed to take what?
The vaccines. We didn't let AZN alter the delivery of their contract, not that AZN particularly wanted to do so. I have no problem with that decision, but clearly Macron did at that time a month ago.
The upshot is that France could not have prevented a further wave by vaccination. It remains to be seen if we can either, even with a 4 week headstart, though probably mortality and admissions will be fewer.
The contracts are the contracts. They booked in more than three after us, that's nothing to do with us refusing, its to do with their procurement.
They could have had more by signing contracts sooner.
And they do have vaccines (and have had for weeks now) that they've not used and those they have used they've used ineffectively by stubbornly sticking to giving boosters for half as many people instead of vaccinating twice as many despite learning from our experience that it works.
So yes a lot fewer people are vaccinated than could have been, even taking into account their procurement failures which had nothing to do with us.
But it wouldn't have prevented the wave if they had used their few availible vaccines differently.
Indeed we won't either. It is accepted at the highest levels that r will go up as a result of ending lockdown in the UK. Not as much as in an unvaccinated population, but there will be a 4th wave here, predominantly in the young.
No it may not have fully prevented the wave but it could have saved thousands or tens of thousands of lives.
Apropros of nothing, I note at No 74 in the charts currently is Mr Brightside, it's been in the top 100 for 255 weeks, which is almost 2 years longer than anything else.
One of the few songs pretty much everyone can belt out whilst smashed.
If theyd taken our vaccine this might not have happened.
Except we refused! So Macron wasn't allowed to take them.
We refused what? Has the UK been banning exports to the EU or something?
No. Foxy has finally lost the plot.
He's had a very tough year. And has much useful perspective to add given that experience, and reason for caution on some choices made. But unless there's some detail missing here the UK simply wasn't involved in this issue other than having signed a contract sooner.
Of course, but my point is that if France couldn't get the AZN vaccine in time for whatever reason, then it couldn't prevent a new wave.
They have it now, and people are refusing to take it because of the bollocks spouted by Macron and others.
That is so, but having it now doesn't prevent a current wave. To have that effect they would have needed it in numbers a month or more ago.
I have never argued that the EU contract should have over ridden the UK one, though some in the EU did. The upshot though is that they did not have it at the time and in the numbers to prevent a further wave.
What exactly did you mean when you said Except we refused! So Macron wasn't allowed to take them.
Allowed to take what?
The vaccines. We didn't let AZN alter the delivery of their contract, not that AZN particularly wanted to do so. I have no problem with that decision, but clearly Macron did at that time a month ago.
The upshot is that France could not have prevented a further wave by vaccination. It remains to be seen if we can either, even with a 4 week headstart, though probably mortality and admissions will be fewer.
Your wording implies they had a right in the first place and the UK stopped them, which is completely misrepresenting what actually happened.
We refused an unreasonable request, as did AZN.
I have never suggested they had a right to have the vaccines, just observed that a wave could not have been prevented if vaccines were not there to be used.
You are suggesting that France's current situation is the fault of the UK. Incredible.
No, I haven't.
And I quote you again: Except we refused! So Macron wasn't allowed to take them.
No, it is not our fault if an unreasonable request is refused.
A bizarre thing to say then. If it was unreasonable, why even bring it up? The blame lies squarely with the EU commission for their complete balls up of procurement, and for Macron for spreading Trumpian-level fake news regarding the vaccine. The UK had nothing to do with it.
Clearly the unreasonable demand was made and refused, by the company in order to fulfil its pre existing contract with the UK, rather than the later EU contract.
If theyd taken our vaccine this might not have happened.
Except we refused! So Macron wasn't allowed to take them.
We refused what? Has the UK been banning exports to the EU or something?
No. Foxy has finally lost the plot.
He's had a very tough year. And has much useful perspective to add given that experience, and reason for caution on some choices made. But unless there's some detail missing here the UK simply wasn't involved in this issue other than having signed a contract sooner.
Of course, but my point is that if France couldn't get the AZN vaccine in time for whatever reason, then it couldn't prevent a new wave.
They have it now, and people are refusing to take it because of the bollocks spouted by Macron and others.
That is so, but having it now doesn't prevent a current wave. To have that effect they would have needed it in numbers a month or more ago.
I have never argued that the EU contract should have over ridden the UK one, though some in the EU did. The upshot though is that they did not have it at the time and in the numbers to prevent a further wave.
What exactly did you mean when you said Except we refused! So Macron wasn't allowed to take them.
Allowed to take what?
The vaccines. We didn't let AZN alter the delivery of their contract, not that AZN particularly wanted to do so. I have no problem with that decision, but clearly Macron did at that time a month ago.
The upshot is that France could not have prevented a further wave by vaccination. It remains to be seen if we can either, even with a 4 week headstart, though probably mortality and admissions will be fewer.
Your wording implies they had a right in the first place and the UK stopped them, which is completely misrepresenting what actually happened.
We refused an unreasonable request, as did AZN.
I have never suggested they had a right to have the vaccines, just observed that a wave could not have been prevented if vaccines were not there to be used.
You are suggesting that France's current situation is the fault of the UK. Incredible.
No, I haven't.
And I quote you again: Except we refused! So Macron wasn't allowed to take them.
No, it is not our fault if an unreasonable request is refused.
Did I miss the uk government being asked to let some of our delivery get diverted, but refusing to do so? Genuinely don’t recall that.
If theyd taken our vaccine this might not have happened.
Except we refused! So Macron wasn't allowed to take them.
We refused what? Has the UK been banning exports to the EU or something?
No. Foxy has finally lost the plot.
He's had a very tough year. And has much useful perspective to add given that experience, and reason for caution on some choices made. But unless there's some detail missing here the UK simply wasn't involved in this issue other than having signed a contract sooner.
Of course, but my point is that if France couldn't get the AZN vaccine in time for whatever reason, then it couldn't prevent a new wave.
They have it now, and people are refusing to take it because of the bollocks spouted by Macron and others.
That is so, but having it now doesn't prevent a current wave. To have that effect they would have needed it in numbers a month or more ago.
I have never argued that the EU contract should have over ridden the UK one, though some in the EU did. The upshot though is that they did not have it at the time and in the numbers to prevent a further wave.
What exactly did you mean when you said Except we refused! So Macron wasn't allowed to take them.
Allowed to take what?
The vaccines. We didn't let AZN alter the delivery of their contract, not that AZN particularly wanted to do so. I have no problem with that decision, but clearly Macron did at that time a month ago.
The upshot is that France could not have prevented a further wave by vaccination. It remains to be seen if we can either, even with a 4 week headstart, though probably mortality and admissions will be fewer.
Your wording implies they had a right in the first place and the UK stopped them, which is completely misrepresenting what actually happened.
We refused an unreasonable request, as did AZN.
I have never suggested they had a right to have the vaccines, just observed that a wave could not have been prevented if vaccines were not there to be used.
You are suggesting that France's current situation is the fault of the UK. Incredible.
No, I haven't.
And I quote you again: Except we refused! So Macron wasn't allowed to take them.
No, it is not our fault if an unreasonable request is refused.
A bizarre thing to say then. If it was unreasonable, why even bring it up? The blame lies squarely with the EU commission for their complete balls up of procurement, and for Macron for spreading Trumpian-level fake news regarding the vaccine. The UK had nothing to do with it.
Clearly the unreasonable demand was made and refused, by the company in order to fulfil its pre existing contract with the UK, rather than the later EU contract.
So what does the UK have to do with it? It's entirely an issue between the EU and the company.
If theyd taken our vaccine this might not have happened.
Except we refused! So Macron wasn't allowed to take them.
We refused what? Has the UK been banning exports to the EU or something?
No. Foxy has finally lost the plot.
He's had a very tough year. And has much useful perspective to add given that experience, and reason for caution on some choices made. But unless there's some detail missing here the UK simply wasn't involved in this issue other than having signed a contract sooner.
Of course, but my point is that if France couldn't get the AZN vaccine in time for whatever reason, then it couldn't prevent a new wave.
They have it now, and people are refusing to take it because of the bollocks spouted by Macron and others.
That is so, but having it now doesn't prevent a current wave. To have that effect they would have needed it in numbers a month or more ago.
I have never argued that the EU contract should have over ridden the UK one, though some in the EU did. The upshot though is that they did not have it at the time and in the numbers to prevent a further wave.
What exactly did you mean when you said Except we refused! So Macron wasn't allowed to take them.
Allowed to take what?
The vaccines. We didn't let AZN alter the delivery of their contract, not that AZN particularly wanted to do so. I have no problem with that decision, but clearly Macron did at that time a month ago.
The upshot is that France could not have prevented a further wave by vaccination. It remains to be seen if we can either, even with a 4 week headstart, though probably mortality and admissions will be fewer.
Your wording implies they had a right in the first place and the UK stopped them, which is completely misrepresenting what actually happened.
We refused an unreasonable request, as did AZN.
I have never suggested they had a right to have the vaccines, just observed that a wave could not have been prevented if vaccines were not there to be used.
Not sure if they ever asked actually but at that time it was all moot as the EMA had not authorised AZN because it chose to go more slowly than the MHRA. Also that was when Macron had his hissy fit and said AZN was crap.
If theyd taken our vaccine this might not have happened.
Except we refused! So Macron wasn't allowed to take them.
We refused what? Has the UK been banning exports to the EU or something?
No. Foxy has finally lost the plot.
He's had a very tough year. And has much useful perspective to add given that experience, and reason for caution on some choices made. But unless there's some detail missing here the UK simply wasn't involved in this issue other than having signed a contract sooner.
Of course, but my point is that if France couldn't get the AZN vaccine in time for whatever reason, then it couldn't prevent a new wave.
Which is a fair point, but they apparently have some, and will be getting more, so comments which undermined whether people will want to take it will have an impact on how the wave progresses, as will whether they had done a better job in the first place. The latter is unfortunate but only partly on Macron (he could, as people have been at pains to point out, gone outside the scheme to get some earlier), but the former is very much on his shoulders.
And for once, none of that is on the UK, not even on the rather torturous view that the UK could or should have altered its own contracts. As I feel Macron was probably keen to point out at the time, the UK was in a far worse position in the short term at the very least regarding our 2nd/3rd wave. Based purely on need the UK would have gotten more at the time.
Apropros of nothing, I note at No 74 in the charts currently is Mr Brightside, it's been in the top 100 for 255 weeks, which is almost 2 years longer than anything else.
One of the few songs pretty much everyone can belt out whilst smashed.
When my son was two, I was listening to Mr Brightside, and he said "Hmmm... nice singing."
Which I thought was pretty advanced music taste for a two year old
Regarding yesterday's discussion on best films, what's the best way to access a given classic film?
From a quick search Apple iTunes seems to have most of those that were mentioned yesterday for rent at £3.49 or purchase at £7.99. Is that the best option or or there others?
My way of finding out is first check
1) Sky Movies 2) Netflix 3) Amazon Prime 4) Disney+/Star 5) Britbox
If it isn't available on those, then I'll buy it on iTunes.
I wish there was a quick and easy way to find which service, if any, a title is on.
There probably is, but not found one yet.
Google has indexed Netflix and Amazon Prime, I think they're adding D+ as well.
Indeed but searching for a title often shows its available on Netflix, only to show it as Netflix USA rather than UK for instance.
This site is quite good in my experience if you want to find out which services are streaming, renting, and selling films and TV series.
Just tried that with Wentworth and it shows in the UK you can stream series 1-6 on Prime, but 7-8 can't be streamed anywhere and must be paid for. In the USA and Australia you can stream all 8 seasons. Not impressed at all with this, unless there's some other reason its like that in the UK, if Prime are doing 'bait and switch' to get you to watch a series but then they want to sell you the rest of it then that's absolutely awful and putting me off Prime. 😠
You could always try to source the original Prisoner Cell Block H. Used to be a nightmare to follow as it was on a different season in a different slot in every TV region.
Perversely could the Salmond/Sturgeon story combined with the Scots weird voting system help ensure a nationalist majority?
If nationalist voters vote SNP in the FPTP ballot but then vote Green in the list vote then might that not help ensure more nationalists get elected? Since the Greens are nationalists too and the voting system would see list votes for Greens get more elected due to them having not taken the FPTP seats?
More generally it's a major flaw of the regional list system that already permits manipulation where two parties have very similar aims and one is strong enough to win most constituency seats and so stand little chance of winning any list seats. If nationalist voters only care about secession, they ought to be quite happy to maximise the parliamentary majority for secession by voting for the strongest secessionist party to secure the constituency seat and then voting for an alternative reliably secessionist party with a few irrelevent bells attached in order to secure extra regional seats for secessionist parties as well.
That way, the regional seat allocation can entirely fail to cancel the overrepresentation of secessionist parties in FPTP constituency seats.
This could all be avoided if there were a single vote cast, not separate constituency and list votes, such that the list vote is treated automatically as being cast for the party of the constituency vote candidate.
Apropros of nothing, I note at No 74 in the charts currently is Mr Brightside, it's been in the top 100 for 255 weeks, which is almost 2 years longer than anything else.
One of the few songs pretty much everyone can belt out whilst smashed.
When my son was two, I was listening to Mr Brightside, and he said "Hmmm... nice singing."
Which I thought was pretty advanced music taste for a two year old
When he tells you how much he likes Radiohead, are you sure he's telling the truth? Or do you think he's realised that being honest is not a good idea...
Just tried that with Wentworth and it shows in the UK you can stream series 1-6 on Prime, but 7-8 can't be streamed anywhere and must be paid for. In the USA and Australia you can stream all 8 seasons. Not impressed at all with this, unless there's some other reason its like that in the UK, if Prime are doing 'bait and switch' to get you to watch a series but then they want to sell you the rest of it then that's absolutely awful and putting me off Prime. 😠
I don't think it's nefarious, it's simply getting ever harder and more expensive to secure long-term, exclusive, and complete rights, so a lot of streaming services have these fragmented offerings. That's why so much new production is taking place, it's getting to the stage that trying to make a new hit show is cheaper than securing the rights of an existing hit.
If theyd taken our vaccine this might not have happened.
Except we refused! So Macron wasn't allowed to take them.
We refused what? Has the UK been banning exports to the EU or something?
No. Foxy has finally lost the plot.
He's had a very tough year. And has much useful perspective to add given that experience, and reason for caution on some choices made. But unless there's some detail missing here the UK simply wasn't involved in this issue other than having signed a contract sooner.
Of course, but my point is that if France couldn't get the AZN vaccine in time for whatever reason, then it couldn't prevent a new wave.
They have it now, and people are refusing to take it because of the bollocks spouted by Macron and others.
That is so, but having it now doesn't prevent a current wave. To have that effect they would have needed it in numbers a month or more ago.
I have never argued that the EU contract should have over ridden the UK one, though some in the EU did. The upshot though is that they did not have it at the time and in the numbers to prevent a further wave.
What exactly did you mean when you said Except we refused! So Macron wasn't allowed to take them.
Allowed to take what?
The vaccines. We didn't let AZN alter the delivery of their contract, not that AZN particularly wanted to do so. I have no problem with that decision, but clearly Macron did at that time a month ago.
The upshot is that France could not have prevented a further wave by vaccination. It remains to be seen if we can either, even with a 4 week headstart, though probably mortality and admissions will be fewer.
Your wording implies they had a right in the first place and the UK stopped them, which is completely misrepresenting what actually happened.
We refused an unreasonable request, as did AZN.
I have never suggested they had a right to have the vaccines, just observed that a wave could not have been prevented if vaccines were not there to be used.
You are suggesting that France's current situation is the fault of the UK. Incredible.
No, I haven't.
And I quote you again: Except we refused! So Macron wasn't allowed to take them.
No, it is not our fault if an unreasonable request is refused.
A bizarre thing to say then. If it was unreasonable, why even bring it up? The blame lies squarely with the EU commission for their complete balls up of procurement, and for Macron for spreading Trumpian-level fake news regarding the vaccine. The UK had nothing to do with it.
Clearly the unreasonable demand was made and refused, by the company in order to fulfil its pre existing contract with the UK, rather than the later EU contract.
So what does the UK have to do with it? It's entirely an issue between the EU and the company.
The UK could have waived our rights to early delivery, but we did not. I have never disagreed with that decision.
My point was that France couldn't have prevented a further wave by vaccines that it did not have.
On topic, I think human sexuality is infinitely complex - and probably a question of shades of grey, and a function of genetics and to some extent experiences - but I really struggle to believe that barely half of Gen Z are straight.
It's more likely that it's considered somewhat unenlightened by some to *just* consider the opposite sex attractive, there's a whole big difference between saying you can find someone of the same sex attractive and doing the deed.
Take me for example. I am only interested in women. A naked man doesn't do anything for me. Nevertheless very occasionally I can say to myself he is a really really attractive guy, and even be "attracted" to him as a person, but in heavens name I wouldn't dream of jumping into bed with him. Just not interested. So I would answer this question very differently to an achingly right-on student.
I'd say 10-20% (max) of the population are gay or bi-sexual pretty consistently (many of the bis will lead happily straight lives, by and large) and the rest are basically straight. There was an undercount of that 50 years ago and now there's an overcount.
Surely what matters is what people describe themselves as?
It's okay to describe yourself as straight and it's okay to describe yourself as bi, no?
It doesn't really matter (unless there's some advantage via positive discrimination), but in reality, I wonder how many men describing themselves as bi would, errr, do the deed.
Depends what you mean by "the deed". Not all gay men actually do full anal sex, for example.
Like I said earlier, I'm not sure how I'd personally answer this poll. I've only ever been with and dated women but I'd be open to the possibility of being attracted to a particular man in the future. I guess I identify as "straight", but not 100%?
Each to their own, but that seems like making things much more complicated than they need to be in terms of classification. I mean, if you should ever find yourself attracted to a particular man in the future would it matter any if you had at this point declared yourself 80% straight, or 95% straight?
I'd assume myself to be 100%, but you never know. The dude from Bridgerton was awfully handsome and suave, I'll give him that.
View: Blur (especially Albarn) were stylistic bandwagon-chasers whereas Oasis were stuck in one specific set of influences on their music big enough to crowded out any eclectic tendencies - Beatles, dance culture and Liam's voice. Bringing in Pulp is a little unfair because they shifted so few units in comparison that you might as well go to Aphex or Massive Attack - you are going beyond the "pop scene" (sorry).
Common People made it to Number 2 and Disco 2000 shifted 400,000 units! They were drowned out by the press but they were definitely one of the defining bands of the era.
Nowhere near Blur or Oasis and we forget that 90s charts, even in 1995, basically looked like this: lots of balladry, American soft rock & country rock, post-"Show me Love" Korg Organ 2 efforts (2 in the top 10 alone!), and very little Britpop. https://www.officialcharts.com/charts/singles-chart/19950226/7501/
No disagreement that Pulp were better than Blur or Oasis and they might have defined the era for the college set who were too normie for Aphex, but not the average punter.
Regarding yesterday's discussion on best films, what's the best way to access a given classic film?
From a quick search Apple iTunes seems to have most of those that were mentioned yesterday for rent at £3.49 or purchase at £7.99. Is that the best option or or there others?
Here in Spain we have a box which gives all UKTV channels and a massive 'On Demand' selection of TV box series plus an enormous movie range of all and every genre. All for about €100 a year. I watch pretty well whichever classic movie you can name that way. Equally it constantly updates new TV series and movies all the time. Spoilt for choice to be honest.
I kind of assumed it was pretty much the same in the UK.
If theyd taken our vaccine this might not have happened.
Except we refused! So Macron wasn't allowed to take them.
We refused what? Has the UK been banning exports to the EU or something?
No. Foxy has finally lost the plot.
He's had a very tough year. And has much useful perspective to add given that experience, and reason for caution on some choices made. But unless there's some detail missing here the UK simply wasn't involved in this issue other than having signed a contract sooner.
Of course, but my point is that if France couldn't get the AZN vaccine in time for whatever reason, then it couldn't prevent a new wave.
They have it now, and people are refusing to take it because of the bollocks spouted by Macron and others.
That is so, but having it now doesn't prevent a current wave. To have that effect they would have needed it in numbers a month or more ago.
I have never argued that the EU contract should have over ridden the UK one, though some in the EU did. The upshot though is that they did not have it at the time and in the numbers to prevent a further wave.
What exactly did you mean when you said Except we refused! So Macron wasn't allowed to take them.
Allowed to take what?
The vaccines. We didn't let AZN alter the delivery of their contract, not that AZN particularly wanted to do so. I have no problem with that decision, but clearly Macron did at that time a month ago.
The upshot is that France could not have prevented a further wave by vaccination. It remains to be seen if we can either, even with a 4 week headstart, though probably mortality and admissions will be fewer.
Your wording implies they had a right in the first place and the UK stopped them, which is completely misrepresenting what actually happened.
We refused an unreasonable request, as did AZN.
I have never suggested they had a right to have the vaccines, just observed that a wave could not have been prevented if vaccines were not there to be used.
You are suggesting that France's current situation is the fault of the UK. Incredible.
No, I haven't.
And I quote you again: Except we refused! So Macron wasn't allowed to take them.
No, it is not our fault if an unreasonable request is refused.
A bizarre thing to say then. If it was unreasonable, why even bring it up? The blame lies squarely with the EU commission for their complete balls up of procurement, and for Macron for spreading Trumpian-level fake news regarding the vaccine. The UK had nothing to do with it.
Clearly the unreasonable demand was made and refused, by the company in order to fulfil its pre existing contract with the UK, rather than the later EU contract.
So what does the UK have to do with it? It's entirely an issue between the EU and the company.
The UK could have waived our rights to early delivery, but we did not. I have never disagreed with that decision.
My point was that France couldn't have prevented a further wave by vaccines that it did not have.
And the EU are entirely responsible for France not having the vaccines and it is nothing to do with the UK
This is a true story. Just discovered that the final in-person lecture at my local science society in November 2019 was on the subject of coronaviruses, and the person giving the lecture was Professor Jonathan Van Tam. (We missed it because we were away for a few days when it was on).
If theyd taken our vaccine this might not have happened.
Except we refused! So Macron wasn't allowed to take them.
We refused what? Has the UK been banning exports to the EU or something?
No. Foxy has finally lost the plot.
He's had a very tough year. And has much useful perspective to add given that experience, and reason for caution on some choices made. But unless there's some detail missing here the UK simply wasn't involved in this issue other than having signed a contract sooner.
Of course, but my point is that if France couldn't get the AZN vaccine in time for whatever reason, then it couldn't prevent a new wave.
They have it now, and people are refusing to take it because of the bollocks spouted by Macron and others.
That is so, but having it now doesn't prevent a current wave. To have that effect they would have needed it in numbers a month or more ago.
I have never argued that the EU contract should have over ridden the UK one, though some in the EU did. The upshot though is that they did not have it at the time and in the numbers to prevent a further wave.
What exactly did you mean when you said Except we refused! So Macron wasn't allowed to take them.
Allowed to take what?
The vaccines. We didn't let AZN alter the delivery of their contract, not that AZN particularly wanted to do so. I have no problem with that decision, but clearly Macron did at that time a month ago.
The upshot is that France could not have prevented a further wave by vaccination. It remains to be seen if we can either, even with a 4 week headstart, though probably mortality and admissions will be fewer.
Your wording implies they had a right in the first place and the UK stopped them, which is completely misrepresenting what actually happened.
We refused an unreasonable request, as did AZN.
I have never suggested they had a right to have the vaccines, just observed that a wave could not have been prevented if vaccines were not there to be used.
You are suggesting that France's current situation is the fault of the UK. Incredible.
No, I haven't.
And I quote you again: Except we refused! So Macron wasn't allowed to take them.
No, it is not our fault if an unreasonable request is refused.
A bizarre thing to say then. If it was unreasonable, why even bring it up? The blame lies squarely with the EU commission for their complete balls up of procurement, and for Macron for spreading Trumpian-level fake news regarding the vaccine. The UK had nothing to do with it.
Clearly the unreasonable demand was made and refused, by the company in order to fulfil its pre existing contract with the UK, rather than the later EU contract.
So what does the UK have to do with it? It's entirely an issue between the EU and the company.
The UK could have waived our rights to early delivery, but we did not. I have never disagreed with that decision.
My point was that France couldn't have prevented a further wave by vaccines that it did not have.
Why confuse the latter point by making the former point at all, which given the competing public health situations would have been completely ridiculous in any case?
That'd be like saying somewhere which was facing a famine could have given up some of its food to another place, which developed a famine later.
If theyd taken our vaccine this might not have happened.
Except we refused! So Macron wasn't allowed to take them.
We refused what? Has the UK been banning exports to the EU or something?
No. Foxy has finally lost the plot.
He's had a very tough year. And has much useful perspective to add given that experience, and reason for caution on some choices made. But unless there's some detail missing here the UK simply wasn't involved in this issue other than having signed a contract sooner.
Of course, but my point is that if France couldn't get the AZN vaccine in time for whatever reason, then it couldn't prevent a new wave.
They have it now, and people are refusing to take it because of the bollocks spouted by Macron and others.
That is so, but having it now doesn't prevent a current wave. To have that effect they would have needed it in numbers a month or more ago.
I have never argued that the EU contract should have over ridden the UK one, though some in the EU did. The upshot though is that they did not have it at the time and in the numbers to prevent a further wave.
What exactly did you mean when you said Except we refused! So Macron wasn't allowed to take them.
Allowed to take what?
The vaccines. We didn't let AZN alter the delivery of their contract, not that AZN particularly wanted to do so. I have no problem with that decision, but clearly Macron did at that time a month ago.
The upshot is that France could not have prevented a further wave by vaccination. It remains to be seen if we can either, even with a 4 week headstart, though probably mortality and admissions will be fewer.
Your wording implies they had a right in the first place and the UK stopped them, which is completely misrepresenting what actually happened.
We refused an unreasonable request, as did AZN.
I have never suggested they had a right to have the vaccines, just observed that a wave could not have been prevented if vaccines were not there to be used.
You are suggesting that France's current situation is the fault of the UK. Incredible.
No, I haven't.
And I quote you again: Except we refused! So Macron wasn't allowed to take them.
No, it is not our fault if an unreasonable request is refused.
A bizarre thing to say then. If it was unreasonable, why even bring it up? The blame lies squarely with the EU commission for their complete balls up of procurement, and for Macron for spreading Trumpian-level fake news regarding the vaccine. The UK had nothing to do with it.
Clearly the unreasonable demand was made and refused, by the company in order to fulfil its pre existing contract with the UK, rather than the later EU contract.
So what does the UK have to do with it? It's entirely an issue between the EU and the company.
The UK could have waived our rights to early delivery, but we did not. I have never disagreed with that decision.
My point was that France couldn't have prevented a further wave by vaccines that it did not have.
Regarding yesterday's discussion on best films, what's the best way to access a given classic film?
From a quick search Apple iTunes seems to have most of those that were mentioned yesterday for rent at £3.49 or purchase at £7.99. Is that the best option or or there others?
Here in Spain we have a box which gives all UKTV channels and a massive 'On Demand' selection of TV box series plus an enormous movie range of all and every genre. All for about €100 a year. I watch pretty well whichever classic movie you can name that way. Equally it constantly updates new TV series and movies all the time. Spoilt for choice to be honest.
I kind of assumed it was pretty much the same in the UK.
Is the box legal?
One thing that was never complete in the Single Market was such nation by nation licensing. Same too for betting companies.
Perversely could the Salmond/Sturgeon story combined with the Scots weird voting system help ensure a nationalist majority?
If nationalist voters vote SNP in the FPTP ballot but then vote Green in the list vote then might that not help ensure more nationalists get elected? Since the Greens are nationalists too and the voting system would see list votes for Greens get more elected due to them having not taken the FPTP seats?
More generally it's a major flaw of the regional list system that already permits manipulation where two parties have very similar aims and one is strong enough to win most constituency seats and so stand little chance of winning any list seats. If nationalist voters only care about secession, they ought to be quite happy to maximise the parliamentary majority for secession by voting for the strongest secessionist party to secure the constituency seat and then voting for an alternative reliably secessionist party with a few irrelevent bells attached in order to secure extra regional seats for secessionist parties as well.
That way, the regional seat allocation entirely fail to cancel the overrepresentation of secessionist parties in FPTP constituency seats.
This could all be avoided if there were a single vote cast, not separate constituency and list votes, such that the list vote is treated automatically as being cast for the party of the constituency vote candidate.
The problem with that argument is that the unionists have a massive overrepresentation of unionists in the list seats. Wotks both ways.
Edit: I mean now, in the current system. Indeed it's the main function of the gerrymandered d'Hondt to do precisaely that - seats gained is a sort of negative function of actual votes after a point.
If theyd taken our vaccine this might not have happened.
Except we refused! So Macron wasn't allowed to take them.
We refused what? Has the UK been banning exports to the EU or something?
No. Foxy has finally lost the plot.
He's had a very tough year. And has much useful perspective to add given that experience, and reason for caution on some choices made. But unless there's some detail missing here the UK simply wasn't involved in this issue other than having signed a contract sooner.
Of course, but my point is that if France couldn't get the AZN vaccine in time for whatever reason, then it couldn't prevent a new wave.
They have it now, and people are refusing to take it because of the bollocks spouted by Macron and others.
That is so, but having it now doesn't prevent a current wave. To have that effect they would have needed it in numbers a month or more ago.
I have never argued that the EU contract should have over ridden the UK one, though some in the EU did. The upshot though is that they did not have it at the time and in the numbers to prevent a further wave.
What exactly did you mean when you said Except we refused! So Macron wasn't allowed to take them.
Allowed to take what?
The vaccines. We didn't let AZN alter the delivery of their contract, not that AZN particularly wanted to do so. I have no problem with that decision, but clearly Macron did at that time a month ago.
The upshot is that France could not have prevented a further wave by vaccination. It remains to be seen if we can either, even with a 4 week headstart, though probably mortality and admissions will be fewer.
Your wording implies they had a right in the first place and the UK stopped them, which is completely misrepresenting what actually happened.
We refused an unreasonable request, as did AZN.
I have never suggested they had a right to have the vaccines, just observed that a wave could not have been prevented if vaccines were not there to be used.
You are suggesting that France's current situation is the fault of the UK. Incredible.
No, I haven't.
And I quote you again: Except we refused! So Macron wasn't allowed to take them.
No, it is not our fault if an unreasonable request is refused.
A bizarre thing to say then. If it was unreasonable, why even bring it up? The blame lies squarely with the EU commission for their complete balls up of procurement, and for Macron for spreading Trumpian-level fake news regarding the vaccine. The UK had nothing to do with it.
Clearly the unreasonable demand was made and refused, by the company in order to fulfil its pre existing contract with the UK, rather than the later EU contract.
So what does the UK have to do with it? It's entirely an issue between the EU and the company.
The UK could have waived our rights to early delivery, but we did not. I have never disagreed with that decision.
My point was that France couldn't have prevented a further wave by vaccines that it did not have.
It doesn't have to be all or nothing though, they had the option with their existing doses to have vaccinated millions more people by now than they have.
The failure to do so could result in tens of thousands more people than necessary dying for want of an available vaccine.
View: Blur (especially Albarn) were stylistic bandwagon-chasers whereas Oasis were stuck in one specific set of influences on their music big enough to crowded out any eclectic tendencies - Beatles, dance culture and Liam's voice. Bringing in Pulp is a little unfair because they shifted so few units in comparison that you might as well go to Aphex or Massive Attack - you are going beyond the "pop scene" (sorry).
Common People made it to Number 2 and Disco 2000 shifted 400,000 units! They were drowned out by the press but they were definitely one of the defining bands of the era.
Nowhere near Blur or Oasis and we forget that 90s charts, even in 1995, basically looked like this: lots of balladry, American soft rock & country rock, post-"Show me Love" Korg Organ 2 efforts (2 in the top 10 alone!), and very little Britpop. https://www.officialcharts.com/charts/singles-chart/19950226/7501/
No disagreement that Pulp were better than Blur or Oasis and they might have defined the era for the college set who were too normie for Aphex, but not the average punter.
I spent an awful lot of ‘95 listening to Portishead IIRC. Dummy was a stone cold classic but the follow up nigh on unlistenable IIRC.
If theyd taken our vaccine this might not have happened.
Except we refused! So Macron wasn't allowed to take them.
We refused what? Has the UK been banning exports to the EU or something?
No. Foxy has finally lost the plot.
He's had a very tough year. And has much useful perspective to add given that experience, and reason for caution on some choices made. But unless there's some detail missing here the UK simply wasn't involved in this issue other than having signed a contract sooner.
Of course, but my point is that if France couldn't get the AZN vaccine in time for whatever reason, then it couldn't prevent a new wave.
They have it now, and people are refusing to take it because of the bollocks spouted by Macron and others.
That is so, but having it now doesn't prevent a current wave. To have that effect they would have needed it in numbers a month or more ago.
I have never argued that the EU contract should have over ridden the UK one, though some in the EU did. The upshot though is that they did not have it at the time and in the numbers to prevent a further wave.
What exactly did you mean when you said Except we refused! So Macron wasn't allowed to take them.
Allowed to take what?
The vaccines. We didn't let AZN alter the delivery of their contract, not that AZN particularly wanted to do so. I have no problem with that decision, but clearly Macron did at that time a month ago.
The upshot is that France could not have prevented a further wave by vaccination. It remains to be seen if we can either, even with a 4 week headstart, though probably mortality and admissions will be fewer.
The contracts are the contracts. They booked in more than three after us, that's nothing to do with us refusing, its to do with their procurement.
They could have had more by signing contracts sooner.
And they do have vaccines (and have had for weeks now) that they've not used and those they have used they've used ineffectively by stubbornly sticking to giving boosters for half as many people instead of vaccinating twice as many despite learning from our experience that it works.
So yes a lot fewer people are vaccinated than could have been, even taking into account their procurement failures which had nothing to do with us.
But it wouldn't have prevented the wave if they had used their few availible vaccines differently.
Indeed we won't either. It is accepted at the highest levels that r will go up as a result of ending lockdown in the UK. Not as much as in an unvaccinated population, but there will be a 4th wave here, predominantly in the young.
An increase in R, even if it does happen, is not the same as an increase in infections let alone a 4th wave.
On topic, I think human sexuality is infinitely complex - and probably a question of shades of grey, and a function of genetics and to some extent experiences - but I really struggle to believe that barely half of Gen Z are straight.
It's more likely that it's considered somewhat unenlightened by some to *just* consider the opposite sex attractive, there's a whole big difference between saying you can find someone of the same sex attractive and doing the deed.
Take me for example. I am only interested in women. A naked man doesn't do anything for me. Nevertheless very occasionally I can say to myself he is a really really attractive guy, and even be "attracted" to him as a person, but in heavens name I wouldn't dream of jumping into bed with him. Just not interested. So I would answer this question very differently to an achingly right-on student.
I'd say 10-20% (max) of the population are gay or bi-sexual pretty consistently (many of the bis will lead happily straight lives, by and large) and the rest are basically straight. There was an undercount of that 50 years ago and now there's an overcount.
Surely what matters is what people describe themselves as?
It's okay to describe yourself as straight and it's okay to describe yourself as bi, no?
On topic, I think human sexuality is infinitely complex - and probably a question of shades of grey, and a function of genetics and to some extent experiences - but I really struggle to believe that barely half of Gen Z are straight.
It's more likely that it's considered somewhat unenlightened by some to *just* consider the opposite sex attractive, there's a whole big difference between saying you can find someone of the same sex attractive and doing the deed.
Take me for example. I am only interested in women. A naked man doesn't do anything for me. Nevertheless very occasionally I can say to myself he is a really really attractive guy, and even be "attracted" to him as a person, but in heavens name I wouldn't dream of jumping into bed with him. Just not interested. So I would answer this question very differently to an achingly right-on student.
I'd say 10-20% (max) of the population are gay or bi-sexual pretty consistently (many of the bis will lead happily straight lives, by and large) and the rest are basically straight. There was an undercount of that 50 years ago and now there's an overcount.
How many shades of grey though?
An infinite number.
At present it's defined by little more than narcissism.
This is a true story. Just discovered that the final in-person lecture at my local science society in November 2019 was on the subject of coronaviruses, and the person giving the lecture was Professor Jonathan Van Tam. (We missed it because we were away for a few days when it was on).
There's a member of my finance team called Van Tam, with Van being her first name.
On topic, I think human sexuality is infinitely complex - and probably a question of shades of grey, and a function of genetics and to some extent experiences - but I really struggle to believe that barely half of Gen Z are straight.
It's more likely that it's considered somewhat unenlightened by some to *just* consider the opposite sex attractive, there's a whole big difference between saying you can find someone of the same sex attractive and doing the deed.
Take me for example. I am only interested in women. A naked man doesn't do anything for me. Nevertheless very occasionally I can say to myself he is a really really attractive guy, and even be "attracted" to him as a person, but in heavens name I wouldn't dream of jumping into bed with him. Just not interested. So I would answer this question very differently to an achingly right-on student.
I'd say 10-20% (max) of the population are gay or bi-sexual pretty consistently (many of the bis will lead happily straight lives, by and large) and the rest are basically straight. There was an undercount of that 50 years ago and now there's an overcount.
Surely what matters is what people describe themselves as?
It's okay to describe yourself as straight and it's okay to describe yourself as bi, no?
It doesn't really matter (unless there's some advantage via positive discrimination), but in reality, I wonder how many men describing themselves as bi would, errr, do the deed.
Depends what you mean by "the deed". Not all gay men actually do full anal sex, for example.
Like I said earlier, I'm not sure how I'd personally answer this poll. I've only ever been with and dated women but I'd be open to the possibility of being attracted to a particular man in the future. I guess I identify as "straight", but not 100%?
Each to their own, but that seems like making things much more complicated than they need to be in terms of classification. I mean, if you should ever find yourself attracted to a particular man in the future would it matter any if you had at this point declared yourself 80% straight, or 95% straight?
I'd assume myself to be 100%, but you never know. The dude from Bridgerton was awfully handsome and suave, I'll give him that.
I mean, I don't go around thinking about my sexuality on a regular basis. It pretty much has no bearing on my life – it simply is what it is and isn't complicated in the slightest.
So no, the percentage is irrelevant. I was simply musing about how I'd answer the poll if asked, that's all.
If theyd taken our vaccine this might not have happened.
Except we refused! So Macron wasn't allowed to take them.
We refused what? Has the UK been banning exports to the EU or something?
No. Foxy has finally lost the plot.
He's had a very tough year. And has much useful perspective to add given that experience, and reason for caution on some choices made. But unless there's some detail missing here the UK simply wasn't involved in this issue other than having signed a contract sooner.
Of course, but my point is that if France couldn't get the AZN vaccine in time for whatever reason, then it couldn't prevent a new wave.
They have it now, and people are refusing to take it because of the bollocks spouted by Macron and others.
That is so, but having it now doesn't prevent a current wave. To have that effect they would have needed it in numbers a month or more ago.
I have never argued that the EU contract should have over ridden the UK one, though some in the EU did. The upshot though is that they did not have it at the time and in the numbers to prevent a further wave.
What exactly did you mean when you said Except we refused! So Macron wasn't allowed to take them.
Allowed to take what?
The vaccines. We didn't let AZN alter the delivery of their contract, not that AZN particularly wanted to do so. I have no problem with that decision, but clearly Macron did at that time a month ago.
The upshot is that France could not have prevented a further wave by vaccination. It remains to be seen if we can either, even with a 4 week headstart, though probably mortality and admissions will be fewer.
Your wording implies they had a right in the first place and the UK stopped them, which is completely misrepresenting what actually happened.
We refused an unreasonable request, as did AZN.
I have never suggested they had a right to have the vaccines, just observed that a wave could not have been prevented if vaccines were not there to be used.
You are suggesting that France's current situation is the fault of the UK. Incredible.
No, I haven't.
And I quote you again: Except we refused! So Macron wasn't allowed to take them.
No, it is not our fault if an unreasonable request is refused.
A bizarre thing to say then. If it was unreasonable, why even bring it up? The blame lies squarely with the EU commission for their complete balls up of procurement, and for Macron for spreading Trumpian-level fake news regarding the vaccine. The UK had nothing to do with it.
Did they even make a request for us to refuse? All I can remember is the Commission threatening AZ (impotently and unreasonably as it turns out, even though AZ did fail to live up to intended committment) and some lower level figures talk about appropriating supplies bound for the UK (or suggesting AZ had diverted supplies meant for the EU to the UK), then the Commission tried to bully the UK with article 16, despite its dispute being with AZ.
Honest question, did France or anyone else actually make a request to the UK to be refused?
Regarding yesterday's discussion on best films, what's the best way to access a given classic film?
From a quick search Apple iTunes seems to have most of those that were mentioned yesterday for rent at £3.49 or purchase at £7.99. Is that the best option or or there others?
My way of finding out is first check
1) Sky Movies 2) Netflix 3) Amazon Prime 4) Disney+/Star 5) Britbox
If it isn't available on those, then I'll buy it on iTunes.
I wish there was a quick and easy way to find which service, if any, a title is on.
There probably is, but not found one yet.
Google has indexed Netflix and Amazon Prime, I think they're adding D+ as well.
Indeed but searching for a title often shows its available on Netflix, only to show it as Netflix USA rather than UK for instance.
This site is quite good in my experience if you want to find out which services are streaming, renting, and selling films and TV series.
Just tried that with Wentworth and it shows in the UK you can stream series 1-6 on Prime, but 7-8 can't be streamed anywhere and must be paid for. In the USA and Australia you can stream all 8 seasons. Not impressed at all with this, unless there's some other reason its like that in the UK, if Prime are doing 'bait and switch' to get you to watch a series but then they want to sell you the rest of it then that's absolutely awful and putting me off Prime. 😠
You could always try to source the original Prisoner Cell Block H. Used to be a nightmare to follow as it was on a different season in a different slot in every TV region.
Never saw it, as I said before my time, not sure if the original is like the remake from reading about it the original sounds more like a soap?
Though also the original has about 700 episodes, wow that would be a boxed set marathon to last a good chunk of lockdown.
Damn, just looked that up and discovered I'm a millennial! Does that mean I'm a snowflake? I'd always assumed I was generation X, that sounds cool
Yes. Gen X is the coolest generation. The decade that we dominated culture, the 90s, was the last decade where anything worthwhile was produced. We just weren't much good at cricket.
Oh God.
An Oasis-Blur apologist.
Any Gen Xer worth their salt knows that the answer to Oasis or Blur was, of course, Pulp.
Any impartial millennial will tell you that Oasis were clearly the best. I couldn't even name any Blur songs.
Oh, well they mustn't be any good then.
You don't have to take it personally. My point was that as someone who is quite "in to" music and not particularly sheltered, I can name tons of Oasis songs but very few, if any Blur songs. That says a lot in regards to legacy.
All it says 'a lot' about, is you.
Ooh, this is fun - not had good Oasis v Blur album for 30 years!
I saw Oasis just after Supersonic came out. Their music was good, I suppose. But it was the most boring performance I had seen in my life up to that point. It was the first gig where I had ever been bored enough to go to the toilet. Whenever I revisit Definitely Maybe, I'm astonished how good it was. They did the opposite of most bands and released a greatest hits as their first album. There are only a couple of songs off 'What's the story' and nothing thereafter that can hold a candle to Definitely Maybe. After 1996, Oasis just did the same thing over and over again, less interestingly each time. It was a good thing to start with, admittedly. But their career lasted about ten years too long. Blur don't have an album which comes anywhere near Definitely Maybe. But they've reinvented themselves several times, and have been consistently interesting, and have a handful of songs which get better the more you listen to them. Oasis are more fun - a lot of the best bits of Blur are quite bleak - but overall I'd give it to Blur. Even though I'm a Mancunian. And live, Blur are far better.
I may be influenced by the fact that the Gallagher brothers are such utter pains in the arse.
And I agree that Pulp were even better. (Although a lot of Pulp is bleaker still.)
My era of choice though was baggy rather than Britpop - though I was only 15 in 1990 and slightly too young for it. Stone Roses, Happy Mondays, Inspiral Carpets, James, New Fast Automatic Daffodils, Northside, Charlatans...
Yep in the Oasis vs Blur argument the only clear winner is Pulp.
If theyd taken our vaccine this might not have happened.
Except we refused! So Macron wasn't allowed to take them.
We refused what? Has the UK been banning exports to the EU or something?
No. Foxy has finally lost the plot.
He's had a very tough year. And has much useful perspective to add given that experience, and reason for caution on some choices made. But unless there's some detail missing here the UK simply wasn't involved in this issue other than having signed a contract sooner.
Of course, but my point is that if France couldn't get the AZN vaccine in time for whatever reason, then it couldn't prevent a new wave.
They have it now, and people are refusing to take it because of the bollocks spouted by Macron and others.
That is so, but having it now doesn't prevent a current wave. To have that effect they would have needed it in numbers a month or more ago.
I have never argued that the EU contract should have over ridden the UK one, though some in the EU did. The upshot though is that they did not have it at the time and in the numbers to prevent a further wave.
What exactly did you mean when you said Except we refused! So Macron wasn't allowed to take them.
Allowed to take what?
The vaccines. We didn't let AZN alter the delivery of their contract, not that AZN particularly wanted to do so. I have no problem with that decision, but clearly Macron did at that time a month ago.
The upshot is that France could not have prevented a further wave by vaccination. It remains to be seen if we can either, even with a 4 week headstart, though probably mortality and admissions will be fewer.
Your wording implies they had a right in the first place and the UK stopped them, which is completely misrepresenting what actually happened.
We refused an unreasonable request, as did AZN.
I have never suggested they had a right to have the vaccines, just observed that a wave could not have been prevented if vaccines were not there to be used.
You are suggesting that France's current situation is the fault of the UK. Incredible.
No, I haven't.
And I quote you again: Except we refused! So Macron wasn't allowed to take them.
No, it is not our fault if an unreasonable request is refused.
A bizarre thing to say then. If it was unreasonable, why even bring it up? The blame lies squarely with the EU commission for their complete balls up of procurement, and for Macron for spreading Trumpian-level fake news regarding the vaccine. The UK had nothing to do with it.
Clearly the unreasonable demand was made and refused, by the company in order to fulfil its pre existing contract with the UK, rather than the later EU contract.
So what does the UK have to do with it? It's entirely an issue between the EU and the company.
The UK could have waived our rights to early delivery, but we did not. I have never disagreed with that decision.
My point was that France couldn't have prevented a further wave by vaccines that it did not have.
And the EU are entirely responsible for France not having the vaccines and it is nothing to do with the UK
Actually, France bears responsibility too. Firstly, they chose to join the pan-EU procurement scheme. Secondly. outside of an order for Valneva's vaccine, they didn't do anything for themselves.
They could have done things above and beyond the EU's plan. They could have questioned the EU's plan. They could have refused to participate on the basis that it would not be optimal.
While the EU was first useless, and then antagonistic, you can't just remove all responsibility from the nation states that comprise it.
Damn, just looked that up and discovered I'm a millennial! Does that mean I'm a snowflake? I'd always assumed I was generation X, that sounds cool
Yes. Gen X is the coolest generation. The decade that we dominated culture, the 90s, was the last decade where anything worthwhile was produced. We just weren't much good at cricket.
Oh God.
An Oasis-Blur apologist.
Any Gen Xer worth their salt knows that the answer to Oasis or Blur was, of course, Pulp.
Any impartial millennial will tell you that Oasis were clearly the best. I couldn't even name any Blur songs.
Oh, well they mustn't be any good then.
You don't have to take it personally. My point was that as someone who is quite "in to" music and not particularly sheltered, I can name tons of Oasis songs but very few, if any Blur songs. That says a lot in regards to legacy.
All it says 'a lot' about, is you.
Ooh, this is fun - not had good Oasis v Blur album for 30 years!
I saw Oasis just after Supersonic came out. Their music was good, I suppose. But it was the most boring performance I had seen in my life up to that point. It was the first gig where I had ever been bored enough to go to the toilet. Whenever I revisit Definitely Maybe, I'm astonished how good it was. They did the opposite of most bands and released a greatest hits as their first album. There are only a couple of songs off 'What's the story' and nothing thereafter that can hold a candle to Definitely Maybe. After 1996, Oasis just did the same thing over and over again, less interestingly each time. It was a good thing to start with, admittedly. But their career lasted about ten years too long. Blur don't have an album which comes anywhere near Definitely Maybe. But they've reinvented themselves several times, and have been consistently interesting, and have a handful of songs which get better the more you listen to them. Oasis are more fun - a lot of the best bits of Blur are quite bleak - but overall I'd give it to Blur. Even though I'm a Mancunian. And live, Blur are far better.
I may be influenced by the fact that the Gallagher brothers are such utter pains in the arse.
And I agree that Pulp were even better. (Although a lot of Pulp is bleaker still.)
My era of choice though was baggy rather than Britpop - though I was only 15 in 1990 and slightly too young for it. Stone Roses, Happy Mondays, Inspiral Carpets, James, New Fast Automatic Daffodils, Northside, Charlatans...
Yep in the Oasis vs Blur argument the only clear winner is Pulp.
I saw them at the Brixton Academy, and they were *awesome*.
This is Hardcore is one of the great underrated albums. And this has to be one of the greatest songs about the Blair era:
If theyd taken our vaccine this might not have happened.
Except we refused! So Macron wasn't allowed to take them.
We refused what? Has the UK been banning exports to the EU or something?
No. Foxy has finally lost the plot.
He's had a very tough year. And has much useful perspective to add given that experience, and reason for caution on some choices made. But unless there's some detail missing here the UK simply wasn't involved in this issue other than having signed a contract sooner.
Of course, but my point is that if France couldn't get the AZN vaccine in time for whatever reason, then it couldn't prevent a new wave.
They have it now, and people are refusing to take it because of the bollocks spouted by Macron and others.
That is so, but having it now doesn't prevent a current wave. To have that effect they would have needed it in numbers a month or more ago.
I have never argued that the EU contract should have over ridden the UK one, though some in the EU did. The upshot though is that they did not have it at the time and in the numbers to prevent a further wave.
What exactly did you mean when you said Except we refused! So Macron wasn't allowed to take them.
Allowed to take what?
The vaccines. We didn't let AZN alter the delivery of their contract, not that AZN particularly wanted to do so. I have no problem with that decision, but clearly Macron did at that time a month ago.
The upshot is that France could not have prevented a further wave by vaccination. It remains to be seen if we can either, even with a 4 week headstart, though probably mortality and admissions will be fewer.
Your wording implies they had a right in the first place and the UK stopped them, which is completely misrepresenting what actually happened.
We refused an unreasonable request, as did AZN.
I have never suggested they had a right to have the vaccines, just observed that a wave could not have been prevented if vaccines were not there to be used.
You are suggesting that France's current situation is the fault of the UK. Incredible.
No, I haven't.
And I quote you again: Except we refused! So Macron wasn't allowed to take them.
No, it is not our fault if an unreasonable request is refused.
A bizarre thing to say then. If it was unreasonable, why even bring it up? The blame lies squarely with the EU commission for their complete balls up of procurement, and for Macron for spreading Trumpian-level fake news regarding the vaccine. The UK had nothing to do with it.
Clearly the unreasonable demand was made and refused, by the company in order to fulfil its pre existing contract with the UK, rather than the later EU contract.
So what does the UK have to do with it? It's entirely an issue between the EU and the company.
The UK could have waived our rights to early delivery, but we did not. I have never disagreed with that decision.
My point was that France couldn't have prevented a further wave by vaccines that it did not have.
And the EU are entirely responsible for France not having the vaccines and it is nothing to do with the UK
Actually, France bears responsibility too. Firstly, they chose to join the pan-EU procurement scheme. Secondly. outside of an order for Valneva's vaccine, they didn't do anything for themselves.
They could have done things above and beyond the EU's plan. They could have questioned the EU's plan. They could have refused to participate on the basis that it would not be optimal.
While the EU was first useless, and then antagonistic, you can't just remove all responsibility from the nation states that comprise it.
Damn, just looked that up and discovered I'm a millennial! Does that mean I'm a snowflake? I'd always assumed I was generation X, that sounds cool
Yes. Gen X is the coolest generation. The decade that we dominated culture, the 90s, was the last decade where anything worthwhile was produced. We just weren't much good at cricket.
Oh God.
An Oasis-Blur apologist.
Any Gen Xer worth their salt knows that the answer to Oasis or Blur was, of course, Pulp.
Any impartial millennial will tell you that Oasis were clearly the best. I couldn't even name any Blur songs.
Oh, well they mustn't be any good then.
You don't have to take it personally. My point was that as someone who is quite "in to" music and not particularly sheltered, I can name tons of Oasis songs but very few, if any Blur songs. That says a lot in regards to legacy.
All it says 'a lot' about, is you.
Ooh, this is fun - not had good Oasis v Blur album for 30 years!
I saw Oasis just after Supersonic came out. Their music was good, I suppose. But it was the most boring performance I had seen in my life up to that point. It was the first gig where I had ever been bored enough to go to the toilet. Whenever I revisit Definitely Maybe, I'm astonished how good it was. They did the opposite of most bands and released a greatest hits as their first album. There are only a couple of songs off 'What's the story' and nothing thereafter that can hold a candle to Definitely Maybe. After 1996, Oasis just did the same thing over and over again, less interestingly each time. It was a good thing to start with, admittedly. But their career lasted about ten years too long. Blur don't have an album which comes anywhere near Definitely Maybe. But they've reinvented themselves several times, and have been consistently interesting, and have a handful of songs which get better the more you listen to them. Oasis are more fun - a lot of the best bits of Blur are quite bleak - but overall I'd give it to Blur. Even though I'm a Mancunian. And live, Blur are far better.
I may be influenced by the fact that the Gallagher brothers are such utter pains in the arse.
And I agree that Pulp were even better. (Although a lot of Pulp is bleaker still.)
My era of choice though was baggy rather than Britpop - though I was only 15 in 1990 and slightly too young for it. Stone Roses, Happy Mondays, Inspiral Carpets, James, New Fast Automatic Daffodils, Northside, Charlatans...
Yep in the Oasis vs Blur argument the only clear winner is Pulp.
I’m so pleased that I have found yet another reason to like you!
If theyd taken our vaccine this might not have happened.
Except we refused! So Macron wasn't allowed to take them.
We refused what? Has the UK been banning exports to the EU or something?
No. Foxy has finally lost the plot.
He's had a very tough year. And has much useful perspective to add given that experience, and reason for caution on some choices made. But unless there's some detail missing here the UK simply wasn't involved in this issue other than having signed a contract sooner.
Of course, but my point is that if France couldn't get the AZN vaccine in time for whatever reason, then it couldn't prevent a new wave.
They have it now, and people are refusing to take it because of the bollocks spouted by Macron and others.
That is so, but having it now doesn't prevent a current wave. To have that effect they would have needed it in numbers a month or more ago.
I have never argued that the EU contract should have over ridden the UK one, though some in the EU did. The upshot though is that they did not have it at the time and in the numbers to prevent a further wave.
What exactly did you mean when you said Except we refused! So Macron wasn't allowed to take them.
Allowed to take what?
The vaccines. We didn't let AZN alter the delivery of their contract, not that AZN particularly wanted to do so. I have no problem with that decision, but clearly Macron did at that time a month ago.
The upshot is that France could not have prevented a further wave by vaccination. It remains to be seen if we can either, even with a 4 week headstart, though probably mortality and admissions will be fewer.
The contracts are the contracts. They booked in more than three after us, that's nothing to do with us refusing, its to do with their procurement.
They could have had more by signing contracts sooner.
And they do have vaccines (and have had for weeks now) that they've not used and those they have used they've used ineffectively by stubbornly sticking to giving boosters for half as many people instead of vaccinating twice as many despite learning from our experience that it works.
So yes a lot fewer people are vaccinated than could have been, even taking into account their procurement failures which had nothing to do with us.
But it wouldn't have prevented the wave if they had used their few availible vaccines differently.
Indeed we won't either. It is accepted at the highest levels that r will go up as a result of ending lockdown in the UK. Not as much as in an unvaccinated population, but there will be a 4th wave here, predominantly in the young.
An increase in R, even if it does happen, is not the same as an increase in infections let alone a 4th wave.
An increase in r is defined as an increase in transmission, hence increased infections. The point at which it gets called a 4th wave is less well defined.
I suspect the 4th wave will have fewer admissions and fatalities in the UK, though with 2/3 of the adult population unvaccinated and nearly all the other third having had a single dose, we will not escape completely.
Though as I have often said, this needs to be balanced against other social and economic factors.
Damn, just looked that up and discovered I'm a millennial! Does that mean I'm a snowflake? I'd always assumed I was generation X, that sounds cool
Yes. Gen X is the coolest generation. The decade that we dominated culture, the 90s, was the last decade where anything worthwhile was produced. We just weren't much good at cricket.
Oh God.
An Oasis-Blur apologist.
Any Gen Xer worth their salt knows that the answer to Oasis or Blur was, of course, Pulp.
Any impartial millennial will tell you that Oasis were clearly the best. I couldn't even name any Blur songs.
Oh, well they mustn't be any good then.
You don't have to take it personally. My point was that as someone who is quite "in to" music and not particularly sheltered, I can name tons of Oasis songs but very few, if any Blur songs. That says a lot in regards to legacy.
All it says 'a lot' about, is you.
Ooh, this is fun - not had good Oasis v Blur album for 30 years!
I saw Oasis just after Supersonic came out. Their music was good, I suppose. But it was the most boring performance I had seen in my life up to that point. It was the first gig where I had ever been bored enough to go to the toilet. Whenever I revisit Definitely Maybe, I'm astonished how good it was. They did the opposite of most bands and released a greatest hits as their first album. There are only a couple of songs off 'What's the story' and nothing thereafter that can hold a candle to Definitely Maybe. After 1996, Oasis just did the same thing over and over again, less interestingly each time. It was a good thing to start with, admittedly. But their career lasted about ten years too long. Blur don't have an album which comes anywhere near Definitely Maybe. But they've reinvented themselves several times, and have been consistently interesting, and have a handful of songs which get better the more you listen to them. Oasis are more fun - a lot of the best bits of Blur are quite bleak - but overall I'd give it to Blur. Even though I'm a Mancunian. And live, Blur are far better.
I may be influenced by the fact that the Gallagher brothers are such utter pains in the arse.
And I agree that Pulp were even better. (Although a lot of Pulp is bleaker still.)
My era of choice though was baggy rather than Britpop - though I was only 15 in 1990 and slightly too young for it. Stone Roses, Happy Mondays, Inspiral Carpets, James, New Fast Automatic Daffodils, Northside, Charlatans...
I’m a year older than you, in the Sixth Form 90-92, and those were the sounds of the common room. Screamadelica, Bummed...89 was a great year for albums actually - Disintegration, Doolittle, The Stone Roses...
If theyd taken our vaccine this might not have happened.
Except we refused! So Macron wasn't allowed to take them.
We refused what? Has the UK been banning exports to the EU or something?
No. Foxy has finally lost the plot.
He's had a very tough year. And has much useful perspective to add given that experience, and reason for caution on some choices made. But unless there's some detail missing here the UK simply wasn't involved in this issue other than having signed a contract sooner.
Of course, but my point is that if France couldn't get the AZN vaccine in time for whatever reason, then it couldn't prevent a new wave.
They have it now, and people are refusing to take it because of the bollocks spouted by Macron and others.
That is so, but having it now doesn't prevent a current wave. To have that effect they would have needed it in numbers a month or more ago.
I have never argued that the EU contract should have over ridden the UK one, though some in the EU did. The upshot though is that they did not have it at the time and in the numbers to prevent a further wave.
What exactly did you mean when you said Except we refused! So Macron wasn't allowed to take them.
Allowed to take what?
The vaccines. We didn't let AZN alter the delivery of their contract, not that AZN particularly wanted to do so. I have no problem with that decision, but clearly Macron did at that time a month ago.
The upshot is that France could not have prevented a further wave by vaccination. It remains to be seen if we can either, even with a 4 week headstart, though probably mortality and admissions will be fewer.
Your wording implies they had a right in the first place and the UK stopped them, which is completely misrepresenting what actually happened.
We refused an unreasonable request, as did AZN.
I have never suggested they had a right to have the vaccines, just observed that a wave could not have been prevented if vaccines were not there to be used.
You are suggesting that France's current situation is the fault of the UK. Incredible.
No, I haven't.
And I quote you again: Except we refused! So Macron wasn't allowed to take them.
No, it is not our fault if an unreasonable request is refused.
A bizarre thing to say then. If it was unreasonable, why even bring it up? The blame lies squarely with the EU commission for their complete balls up of procurement, and for Macron for spreading Trumpian-level fake news regarding the vaccine. The UK had nothing to do with it.
Clearly the unreasonable demand was made and refused, by the company in order to fulfil its pre existing contract with the UK, rather than the later EU contract.
So what does the UK have to do with it? It's entirely an issue between the EU and the company.
The UK could have waived our rights to early delivery, but we did not. I have never disagreed with that decision.
My point was that France couldn't have prevented a further wave by vaccines that it did not have.
And the EU are entirely responsible for France not having the vaccines and it is nothing to do with the UK
Actually, France bears responsibility too. Firstly, they chose to join the pan-EU procurement scheme. Secondly. outside of an order for Valneva's vaccine, they didn't do anything for themselves.
They could have done things above and beyond the EU's plan. They could have questioned the EU's plan. They could have refused to participate on the basis that it would not be optimal.
While the EU was first useless, and then antagonistic, you can't just remove all responsibility from the nation states that comprise it.
In particular, individual nations are responsible for getting jabs into arms, and in a graphic that I have been posting for months, most of Europe is not good at adult vaccinations:
If theyd taken our vaccine this might not have happened.
Except we refused! So Macron wasn't allowed to take them.
We refused what? Has the UK been banning exports to the EU or something?
No. Foxy has finally lost the plot.
He's had a very tough year. And has much useful perspective to add given that experience, and reason for caution on some choices made. But unless there's some detail missing here the UK simply wasn't involved in this issue other than having signed a contract sooner.
Of course, but my point is that if France couldn't get the AZN vaccine in time for whatever reason, then it couldn't prevent a new wave.
They have it now, and people are refusing to take it because of the bollocks spouted by Macron and others.
That is so, but having it now doesn't prevent a current wave. To have that effect they would have needed it in numbers a month or more ago.
I have never argued that the EU contract should have over ridden the UK one, though some in the EU did. The upshot though is that they did not have it at the time and in the numbers to prevent a further wave.
What exactly did you mean when you said Except we refused! So Macron wasn't allowed to take them.
Allowed to take what?
The vaccines. We didn't let AZN alter the delivery of their contract, not that AZN particularly wanted to do so. I have no problem with that decision, but clearly Macron did at that time a month ago.
The upshot is that France could not have prevented a further wave by vaccination. It remains to be seen if we can either, even with a 4 week headstart, though probably mortality and admissions will be fewer.
The contracts are the contracts. They booked in more than three after us, that's nothing to do with us refusing, its to do with their procurement.
They could have had more by signing contracts sooner.
And they do have vaccines (and have had for weeks now) that they've not used and those they have used they've used ineffectively by stubbornly sticking to giving boosters for half as many people instead of vaccinating twice as many despite learning from our experience that it works.
So yes a lot fewer people are vaccinated than could have been, even taking into account their procurement failures which had nothing to do with us.
But it wouldn't have prevented the wave if they had used their few availible vaccines differently.
Indeed we won't either. It is accepted at the highest levels that r will go up as a result of ending lockdown in the UK. Not as much as in an unvaccinated population, but there will be a 4th wave here, predominantly in the young.
An increase in R, even if it does happen, is not the same as an increase in infections let alone a 4th wave.
An increase in r is defined as an increase in transmission, hence increased infections. The point at which it gets called a 4th wave is less well defined.
I suspect the 4th wave will have fewer admissions and fatalities in the UK, though with 2/3 of the adult population unvaccinated and nearly all the other third having had a single dose, we will not escape completely.
Though as I have often said, this needs to be balanced against other social and economic factors.
The government seems confident that vaccinations are going to surge, and soon.
We could have 2/3 of the country jabbed within another four-six weeks. That will make a massive difference
If theyd taken our vaccine this might not have happened.
Except we refused! So Macron wasn't allowed to take them.
We refused what? Has the UK been banning exports to the EU or something?
No. Foxy has finally lost the plot.
He's had a very tough year. And has much useful perspective to add given that experience, and reason for caution on some choices made. But unless there's some detail missing here the UK simply wasn't involved in this issue other than having signed a contract sooner.
Of course, but my point is that if France couldn't get the AZN vaccine in time for whatever reason, then it couldn't prevent a new wave.
They have it now, and people are refusing to take it because of the bollocks spouted by Macron and others.
That is so, but having it now doesn't prevent a current wave. To have that effect they would have needed it in numbers a month or more ago.
I have never argued that the EU contract should have over ridden the UK one, though some in the EU did. The upshot though is that they did not have it at the time and in the numbers to prevent a further wave.
What exactly did you mean when you said Except we refused! So Macron wasn't allowed to take them.
Allowed to take what?
The vaccines. We didn't let AZN alter the delivery of their contract, not that AZN particularly wanted to do so. I have no problem with that decision, but clearly Macron did at that time a month ago.
The upshot is that France could not have prevented a further wave by vaccination. It remains to be seen if we can either, even with a 4 week headstart, though probably mortality and admissions will be fewer.
Your wording implies they had a right in the first place and the UK stopped them, which is completely misrepresenting what actually happened.
We refused an unreasonable request, as did AZN.
I have never suggested they had a right to have the vaccines, just observed that a wave could not have been prevented if vaccines were not there to be used.
You are suggesting that France's current situation is the fault of the UK. Incredible.
No, I haven't.
And I quote you again: Except we refused! So Macron wasn't allowed to take them.
No, it is not our fault if an unreasonable request is refused.
A bizarre thing to say then. If it was unreasonable, why even bring it up? The blame lies squarely with the EU commission for their complete balls up of procurement, and for Macron for spreading Trumpian-level fake news regarding the vaccine. The UK had nothing to do with it.
Clearly the unreasonable demand was made and refused, by the company in order to fulfil its pre existing contract with the UK, rather than the later EU contract.
So what does the UK have to do with it? It's entirely an issue between the EU and the company.
The UK could have waived our rights to early delivery, but we did not. I have never disagreed with that decision.
My point was that France couldn't have prevented a further wave by vaccines that it did not have.
And the EU are entirely responsible for France not having the vaccines and it is nothing to do with the UK
Actually, France bears responsibility too. Firstly, they chose to join the pan-EU procurement scheme. Secondly. outside of an order for Valneva's vaccine, they didn't do anything for themselves.
They could have done things above and beyond the EU's plan. They could have questioned the EU's plan. They could have refused to participate on the basis that it would not be optimal.
While the EU was first useless, and then antagonistic, you can't just remove all responsibility from the nation states that comprise it.
Point of order: did France really make a deal outside of the EU scheme for the Valneva project?
A French vaccine financed by Britain is at the centre of a row over the Macron government’s failure to ensure supplies for its people.
The French government refused to fully fund research by Valneva, a Franco-Austrian startup that has developed its vaccine at its headquarters near Nantes in the Loire region.
Instead, the British backed the development, securing an agreement to supply 60 million doses from a plant in Livingston, West Lothian, starting in October. France won’t get the vaccine until next year.
Franck Grimaud, the company’s chief executive, said that several governments had been contacted at the launch of the project. “The UK responded the fastest,” he said.
Macron bashing is easy (fun too, in less tragic situations), not least because for once it has nothing really to do with the UK at all, despite attempts to make it so. We cannot blame some of our failures on the EU, the EU and its members cannot blame some of their failures on the UK.
I think before people bash Macron they ought to remember who his opponents were in the last French presidential election. Do we really want our nearest neighbour on the continent led by a Putin fan, white nationalist or borderline commie?
Good chance Barnier will run. Good chance he would win if he did.
If theyd taken our vaccine this might not have happened.
Except we refused! So Macron wasn't allowed to take them.
We refused what? Has the UK been banning exports to the EU or something?
No. Foxy has finally lost the plot.
He's had a very tough year. And has much useful perspective to add given that experience, and reason for caution on some choices made. But unless there's some detail missing here the UK simply wasn't involved in this issue other than having signed a contract sooner.
Of course, but my point is that if France couldn't get the AZN vaccine in time for whatever reason, then it couldn't prevent a new wave.
They have it now, and people are refusing to take it because of the bollocks spouted by Macron and others.
That is so, but having it now doesn't prevent a current wave. To have that effect they would have needed it in numbers a month or more ago.
I have never argued that the EU contract should have over ridden the UK one, though some in the EU did. The upshot though is that they did not have it at the time and in the numbers to prevent a further wave.
What exactly did you mean when you said Except we refused! So Macron wasn't allowed to take them.
Allowed to take what?
The vaccines. We didn't let AZN alter the delivery of their contract, not that AZN particularly wanted to do so. I have no problem with that decision, but clearly Macron did at that time a month ago.
The upshot is that France could not have prevented a further wave by vaccination. It remains to be seen if we can either, even with a 4 week headstart, though probably mortality and admissions will be fewer.
Your wording implies they had a right in the first place and the UK stopped them, which is completely misrepresenting what actually happened.
We refused an unreasonable request, as did AZN.
I have never suggested they had a right to have the vaccines, just observed that a wave could not have been prevented if vaccines were not there to be used.
You are suggesting that France's current situation is the fault of the UK. Incredible.
No, I haven't.
And I quote you again: Except we refused! So Macron wasn't allowed to take them.
No, it is not our fault if an unreasonable request is refused.
A bizarre thing to say then. If it was unreasonable, why even bring it up? The blame lies squarely with the EU commission for their complete balls up of procurement, and for Macron for spreading Trumpian-level fake news regarding the vaccine. The UK had nothing to do with it.
Clearly the unreasonable demand was made and refused, by the company in order to fulfil its pre existing contract with the UK, rather than the later EU contract.
So what does the UK have to do with it? It's entirely an issue between the EU and the company.
The UK could have waived our rights to early delivery, but we did not. I have never disagreed with that decision.
My point was that France couldn't have prevented a further wave by vaccines that it did not have.
And the EU are entirely responsible for France not having the vaccines and it is nothing to do with the UK
Actually, France bears responsibility too. Firstly, they chose to join the pan-EU procurement scheme. Secondly. outside of an order for Valneva's vaccine, they didn't do anything for themselves.
They could have done things above and beyond the EU's plan. They could have questioned the EU's plan. They could have refused to participate on the basis that it would not be optimal.
While the EU was first useless, and then antagonistic, you can't just remove all responsibility from the nation states that comprise it.
Point of order: did France really make a deal outside of the EU scheme for the Valneva project?
A French vaccine financed by Britain is at the centre of a row over the Macron government’s failure to ensure supplies for its people.
The French government refused to fully fund research by Valneva, a Franco-Austrian startup that has developed its vaccine at its headquarters near Nantes in the Loire region.
Instead, the British backed the development, securing an agreement to supply 60 million doses from a plant in Livingston, West Lothian, starting in October. France won’t get the vaccine until next year.
Franck Grimaud, the company’s chief executive, said that several governments had been contacted at the launch of the project. “The UK responded the fastest,” he said.
If theyd taken our vaccine this might not have happened.
Except we refused! So Macron wasn't allowed to take them.
We refused what? Has the UK been banning exports to the EU or something?
No. Foxy has finally lost the plot.
He's had a very tough year. And has much useful perspective to add given that experience, and reason for caution on some choices made. But unless there's some detail missing here the UK simply wasn't involved in this issue other than having signed a contract sooner.
Of course, but my point is that if France couldn't get the AZN vaccine in time for whatever reason, then it couldn't prevent a new wave.
They have it now, and people are refusing to take it because of the bollocks spouted by Macron and others.
That is so, but having it now doesn't prevent a current wave. To have that effect they would have needed it in numbers a month or more ago.
I have never argued that the EU contract should have over ridden the UK one, though some in the EU did. The upshot though is that they did not have it at the time and in the numbers to prevent a further wave.
What exactly did you mean when you said Except we refused! So Macron wasn't allowed to take them.
Allowed to take what?
The vaccines. We didn't let AZN alter the delivery of their contract, not that AZN particularly wanted to do so. I have no problem with that decision, but clearly Macron did at that time a month ago.
The upshot is that France could not have prevented a further wave by vaccination. It remains to be seen if we can either, even with a 4 week headstart, though probably mortality and admissions will be fewer.
Your wording implies they had a right in the first place and the UK stopped them, which is completely misrepresenting what actually happened.
We refused an unreasonable request, as did AZN.
I have never suggested they had a right to have the vaccines, just observed that a wave could not have been prevented if vaccines were not there to be used.
You are suggesting that France's current situation is the fault of the UK. Incredible.
No, I haven't.
And I quote you again: Except we refused! So Macron wasn't allowed to take them.
No, it is not our fault if an unreasonable request is refused.
A bizarre thing to say then. If it was unreasonable, why even bring it up? The blame lies squarely with the EU commission for their complete balls up of procurement, and for Macron for spreading Trumpian-level fake news regarding the vaccine. The UK had nothing to do with it.
Clearly the unreasonable demand was made and refused, by the company in order to fulfil its pre existing contract with the UK, rather than the later EU contract.
So what does the UK have to do with it? It's entirely an issue between the EU and the company.
The UK could have waived our rights to early delivery, but we did not. I have never disagreed with that decision.
My point was that France couldn't have prevented a further wave by vaccines that it did not have.
And the EU are entirely responsible for France not having the vaccines and it is nothing to do with the UK
Actually, France bears responsibility too. Firstly, they chose to join the pan-EU procurement scheme. Secondly. outside of an order for Valneva's vaccine, they didn't do anything for themselves.
They could have done things above and beyond the EU's plan. They could have questioned the EU's plan. They could have refused to participate on the basis that it would not be optimal.
While the EU was first useless, and then antagonistic, you can't just remove all responsibility from the nation states that comprise it.
In particular, individual nations are responsible for getting jabs into arms, and in a graphic that I have been posting for months, most of Europe is not good at adult vaccinations:
Our vaccination rate for all 65+ is higher than that right now for Covid I think.
If theyd taken our vaccine this might not have happened.
Except we refused! So Macron wasn't allowed to take them.
We refused what? Has the UK been banning exports to the EU or something?
No. Foxy has finally lost the plot.
He's had a very tough year. And has much useful perspective to add given that experience, and reason for caution on some choices made. But unless there's some detail missing here the UK simply wasn't involved in this issue other than having signed a contract sooner.
Of course, but my point is that if France couldn't get the AZN vaccine in time for whatever reason, then it couldn't prevent a new wave.
They have it now, and people are refusing to take it because of the bollocks spouted by Macron and others.
That is so, but having it now doesn't prevent a current wave. To have that effect they would have needed it in numbers a month or more ago.
I have never argued that the EU contract should have over ridden the UK one, though some in the EU did. The upshot though is that they did not have it at the time and in the numbers to prevent a further wave.
What exactly did you mean when you said Except we refused! So Macron wasn't allowed to take them.
Allowed to take what?
The vaccines. We didn't let AZN alter the delivery of their contract, not that AZN particularly wanted to do so. I have no problem with that decision, but clearly Macron did at that time a month ago.
The upshot is that France could not have prevented a further wave by vaccination. It remains to be seen if we can either, even with a 4 week headstart, though probably mortality and admissions will be fewer.
The contracts are the contracts. They booked in more than three after us, that's nothing to do with us refusing, its to do with their procurement.
They could have had more by signing contracts sooner.
And they do have vaccines (and have had for weeks now) that they've not used and those they have used they've used ineffectively by stubbornly sticking to giving boosters for half as many people instead of vaccinating twice as many despite learning from our experience that it works.
So yes a lot fewer people are vaccinated than could have been, even taking into account their procurement failures which had nothing to do with us.
But it wouldn't have prevented the wave if they had used their few availible vaccines differently.
Indeed we won't either. It is accepted at the highest levels that r will go up as a result of ending lockdown in the UK. Not as much as in an unvaccinated population, but there will be a 4th wave here, predominantly in the young.
An increase in R, even if it does happen, is not the same as an increase in infections let alone a 4th wave.
An increase in r is defined as an increase in transmission, hence increased infections. The point at which it gets called a 4th wave is less well defined.
I suspect the 4th wave will have fewer admissions and fatalities in the UK, though with 2/3 of the adult population unvaccinated and nearly all the other third having had a single dose, we will not escape completely.
Though as I have often said, this needs to be balanced against other social and economic factors.
The government seems confident that vaccinations are going to surge, and soon.
We could have 2/3 of the country jabbed within another four-six weeks. That will make a massive difference
The vaccine would not be effective for another couple of weeks afterwards. Schools go back in 10 days, so we will have the impact of that on r values for at least a month before that vaccine target is met.
If theyd taken our vaccine this might not have happened.
Except we refused! So Macron wasn't allowed to take them.
We refused what? Has the UK been banning exports to the EU or something?
No. Foxy has finally lost the plot.
He's had a very tough year. And has much useful perspective to add given that experience, and reason for caution on some choices made. But unless there's some detail missing here the UK simply wasn't involved in this issue other than having signed a contract sooner.
Of course, but my point is that if France couldn't get the AZN vaccine in time for whatever reason, then it couldn't prevent a new wave.
They have it now, and people are refusing to take it because of the bollocks spouted by Macron and others.
That is so, but having it now doesn't prevent a current wave. To have that effect they would have needed it in numbers a month or more ago.
I have never argued that the EU contract should have over ridden the UK one, though some in the EU did. The upshot though is that they did not have it at the time and in the numbers to prevent a further wave.
What exactly did you mean when you said Except we refused! So Macron wasn't allowed to take them.
Allowed to take what?
The vaccines. We didn't let AZN alter the delivery of their contract, not that AZN particularly wanted to do so. I have no problem with that decision, but clearly Macron did at that time a month ago.
The upshot is that France could not have prevented a further wave by vaccination. It remains to be seen if we can either, even with a 4 week headstart, though probably mortality and admissions will be fewer.
The contracts are the contracts. They booked in more than three after us, that's nothing to do with us refusing, its to do with their procurement.
They could have had more by signing contracts sooner.
And they do have vaccines (and have had for weeks now) that they've not used and those they have used they've used ineffectively by stubbornly sticking to giving boosters for half as many people instead of vaccinating twice as many despite learning from our experience that it works.
So yes a lot fewer people are vaccinated than could have been, even taking into account their procurement failures which had nothing to do with us.
But it wouldn't have prevented the wave if they had used their few availible vaccines differently.
Indeed we won't either. It is accepted at the highest levels that r will go up as a result of ending lockdown in the UK. Not as much as in an unvaccinated population, but there will be a 4th wave here, predominantly in the young.
An increase in R, even if it does happen, is not the same as an increase in infections let alone a 4th wave.
An increase in r is defined as an increase in transmission, hence increased infections. The point at which it gets called a 4th wave is less well defined.
I suspect the 4th wave will have fewer admissions and fatalities in the UK, though with 2/3 of the adult population unvaccinated and nearly all the other third having had a single dose, we will not escape completely.
Though as I have often said, this needs to be balanced against other social and economic factors.
The government seems confident that vaccinations are going to surge, and soon.
We could have 2/3 of the country jabbed within another four-six weeks. That will make a massive difference
The vaccine would not be effective for another couple of weeks afterwards. Schools go back in 10 days, so we will have the impact of that on r values for at least a month before that vaccine target is met.
Yes, it's a 400 metre dash to the finishing line. Vaccine versus Virus. People versus Plague. Tense. Nervy. Stressful. But I am way more hopeful than I was a month back
If theyd taken our vaccine this might not have happened.
Except we refused! So Macron wasn't allowed to take them.
We refused what? Has the UK been banning exports to the EU or something?
No. Foxy has finally lost the plot.
He's had a very tough year. And has much useful perspective to add given that experience, and reason for caution on some choices made. But unless there's some detail missing here the UK simply wasn't involved in this issue other than having signed a contract sooner.
Of course, but my point is that if France couldn't get the AZN vaccine in time for whatever reason, then it couldn't prevent a new wave.
They have it now, and people are refusing to take it because of the bollocks spouted by Macron and others.
That is so, but having it now doesn't prevent a current wave. To have that effect they would have needed it in numbers a month or more ago.
I have never argued that the EU contract should have over ridden the UK one, though some in the EU did. The upshot though is that they did not have it at the time and in the numbers to prevent a further wave.
What exactly did you mean when you said Except we refused! So Macron wasn't allowed to take them.
Allowed to take what?
The vaccines. We didn't let AZN alter the delivery of their contract, not that AZN particularly wanted to do so. I have no problem with that decision, but clearly Macron did at that time a month ago.
The upshot is that France could not have prevented a further wave by vaccination. It remains to be seen if we can either, even with a 4 week headstart, though probably mortality and admissions will be fewer.
Your wording implies they had a right in the first place and the UK stopped them, which is completely misrepresenting what actually happened.
We refused an unreasonable request, as did AZN.
I have never suggested they had a right to have the vaccines, just observed that a wave could not have been prevented if vaccines were not there to be used.
You are suggesting that France's current situation is the fault of the UK. Incredible.
No, I haven't.
And I quote you again: Except we refused! So Macron wasn't allowed to take them.
No, it is not our fault if an unreasonable request is refused.
A bizarre thing to say then. If it was unreasonable, why even bring it up? The blame lies squarely with the EU commission for their complete balls up of procurement, and for Macron for spreading Trumpian-level fake news regarding the vaccine. The UK had nothing to do with it.
Clearly the unreasonable demand was made and refused, by the company in order to fulfil its pre existing contract with the UK, rather than the later EU contract.
So what does the UK have to do with it? It's entirely an issue between the EU and the company.
The UK could have waived our rights to early delivery, but we did not. I have never disagreed with that decision.
My point was that France couldn't have prevented a further wave by vaccines that it did not have.
And the EU are entirely responsible for France not having the vaccines and it is nothing to do with the UK
Actually, France bears responsibility too. Firstly, they chose to join the pan-EU procurement scheme. Secondly. outside of an order for Valneva's vaccine, they didn't do anything for themselves.
They could have done things above and beyond the EU's plan. They could have questioned the EU's plan. They could have refused to participate on the basis that it would not be optimal.
While the EU was first useless, and then antagonistic, you can't just remove all responsibility from the nation states that comprise it.
In particular, individual nations are responsible for getting jabs into arms, and in a graphic that I have been posting for months, most of Europe is not good at adult vaccinations:
AIUI this is all part of the crisis of two halves narrative. Just as the Government got a lot wrong in its overall response to the pandemic yet played a blinder with the vaccines, so the NHS struggled badly (because of relative per capita underfunding and a lack of hospital beds and staff,) but is now doing a grand job with the vaccines because its overarching, centralized structure is much better suited to a mass vaccination programme than that of the social insurance-based healthcare systems more typically found elsewhere in Europe.
If the latter conclusion is indeed correct then it's perhaps no surprise to see the UK leading the way in terms of routine vaccination take-up in previous years.
If theyd taken our vaccine this might not have happened.
Except we refused! So Macron wasn't allowed to take them.
We refused what? Has the UK been banning exports to the EU or something?
No. Foxy has finally lost the plot.
He's had a very tough year. And has much useful perspective to add given that experience, and reason for caution on some choices made. But unless there's some detail missing here the UK simply wasn't involved in this issue other than having signed a contract sooner.
Of course, but my point is that if France couldn't get the AZN vaccine in time for whatever reason, then it couldn't prevent a new wave.
They have it now, and people are refusing to take it because of the bollocks spouted by Macron and others.
That is so, but having it now doesn't prevent a current wave. To have that effect they would have needed it in numbers a month or more ago.
I have never argued that the EU contract should have over ridden the UK one, though some in the EU did. The upshot though is that they did not have it at the time and in the numbers to prevent a further wave.
What exactly did you mean when you said Except we refused! So Macron wasn't allowed to take them.
Allowed to take what?
The vaccines. We didn't let AZN alter the delivery of their contract, not that AZN particularly wanted to do so. I have no problem with that decision, but clearly Macron did at that time a month ago.
The upshot is that France could not have prevented a further wave by vaccination. It remains to be seen if we can either, even with a 4 week headstart, though probably mortality and admissions will be fewer.
Your wording implies they had a right in the first place and the UK stopped them, which is completely misrepresenting what actually happened.
We refused an unreasonable request, as did AZN.
I have never suggested they had a right to have the vaccines, just observed that a wave could not have been prevented if vaccines were not there to be used.
You are suggesting that France's current situation is the fault of the UK. Incredible.
No, I haven't.
And I quote you again: Except we refused! So Macron wasn't allowed to take them.
No, it is not our fault if an unreasonable request is refused.
A bizarre thing to say then. If it was unreasonable, why even bring it up? The blame lies squarely with the EU commission for their complete balls up of procurement, and for Macron for spreading Trumpian-level fake news regarding the vaccine. The UK had nothing to do with it.
Clearly the unreasonable demand was made and refused, by the company in order to fulfil its pre existing contract with the UK, rather than the later EU contract.
So what does the UK have to do with it? It's entirely an issue between the EU and the company.
The UK could have waived our rights to early delivery, but we did not. I have never disagreed with that decision.
My point was that France couldn't have prevented a further wave by vaccines that it did not have.
And the EU are entirely responsible for France not having the vaccines and it is nothing to do with the UK
Actually, France bears responsibility too. Firstly, they chose to join the pan-EU procurement scheme. Secondly. outside of an order for Valneva's vaccine, they didn't do anything for themselves.
They could have done things above and beyond the EU's plan. They could have questioned the EU's plan. They could have refused to participate on the basis that it would not be optimal.
While the EU was first useless, and then antagonistic, you can't just remove all responsibility from the nation states that comprise it.
In particular, individual nations are responsible for getting jabs into arms, and in a graphic that I have been posting for months, most of Europe is not good at adult vaccinations:
Our vaccination rate for all 65+ is higher than that right now for Covid I think.
Quite possibly. The NHS is good at the logistics of vaccination. Most European countries are not. I have said from the beginning that will be the bigger issue, even with their supplies running about 2 months behind ours per capita.
The government seems confident that vaccinations are going to surge, and soon.
We could have 2/3 of the country jabbed within another four-six weeks. That will make a massive difference
The vaccine would not be effective for another couple of weeks afterwards. Schools go back in 10 days, so we will have the impact of that on r values for at least a month before that vaccine target is met.
We're currently in a national lockdown. Macron went against advice to keep France out of a national lockdown a few weeks ago.
If theyd taken our vaccine this might not have happened.
Except we refused! So Macron wasn't allowed to take them.
We refused what? Has the UK been banning exports to the EU or something?
No. Foxy has finally lost the plot.
He's had a very tough year. And has much useful perspective to add given that experience, and reason for caution on some choices made. But unless there's some detail missing here the UK simply wasn't involved in this issue other than having signed a contract sooner.
Of course, but my point is that if France couldn't get the AZN vaccine in time for whatever reason, then it couldn't prevent a new wave.
They have it now, and people are refusing to take it because of the bollocks spouted by Macron and others.
That is so, but having it now doesn't prevent a current wave. To have that effect they would have needed it in numbers a month or more ago.
I have never argued that the EU contract should have over ridden the UK one, though some in the EU did. The upshot though is that they did not have it at the time and in the numbers to prevent a further wave.
What exactly did you mean when you said Except we refused! So Macron wasn't allowed to take them.
Allowed to take what?
The vaccines. We didn't let AZN alter the delivery of their contract, not that AZN particularly wanted to do so. I have no problem with that decision, but clearly Macron did at that time a month ago.
The upshot is that France could not have prevented a further wave by vaccination. It remains to be seen if we can either, even with a 4 week headstart, though probably mortality and admissions will be fewer.
The contracts are the contracts. They booked in more than three after us, that's nothing to do with us refusing, its to do with their procurement.
They could have had more by signing contracts sooner.
And they do have vaccines (and have had for weeks now) that they've not used and those they have used they've used ineffectively by stubbornly sticking to giving boosters for half as many people instead of vaccinating twice as many despite learning from our experience that it works.
So yes a lot fewer people are vaccinated than could have been, even taking into account their procurement failures which had nothing to do with us.
But it wouldn't have prevented the wave if they had used their few availible vaccines differently.
Indeed we won't either. It is accepted at the highest levels that r will go up as a result of ending lockdown in the UK. Not as much as in an unvaccinated population, but there will be a 4th wave here, predominantly in the young.
An increase in R, even if it does happen, is not the same as an increase in infections let alone a 4th wave.
An increase in r is defined as an increase in transmission, hence increased infections. The point at which it gets called a 4th wave is less well defined.
I suspect the 4th wave will have fewer admissions and fatalities in the UK, though with 2/3 of the adult population unvaccinated and nearly all the other third having had a single dose, we will not escape completely.
Though as I have often said, this needs to be balanced against other social and economic factors.
If R=0.6 but then increases to R=0.8 then R has increased but the number of infections will continue to fall albeit at a slower rate.
Your eagerness to declare a 4th wave seems to be a continuation of the hostility you have expressed towards the government's vaccination strategy.
With a bizarreness that now stretches to you discounting the acquired immunity of perhaps over ten million people.
Regarding yesterday's discussion on best films, what's the best way to access a given classic film?
From a quick search Apple iTunes seems to have most of those that were mentioned yesterday for rent at £3.49 or purchase at £7.99. Is that the best option or or there others?
Here in Spain we have a box which gives all UKTV channels and a massive 'On Demand' selection of TV box series plus an enormous movie range of all and every genre. All for about €100 a year. I watch pretty well whichever classic movie you can name that way. Equally it constantly updates new TV series and movies all the time. Spoilt for choice to be honest.
I kind of assumed it was pretty much the same in the UK.
Is the box legal?
Everyone has them. You can buy them on Amazon, Ebay, etc, etc You haven't got my address right?
On topic, I think human sexuality is infinitely complex - and probably a question of shades of grey, and a function of genetics and to some extent experiences - but I really struggle to believe that barely half of Gen Z are straight.
It's more likely that it's considered somewhat unenlightened by some to *just* consider the opposite sex attractive, there's a whole big difference between saying you can find someone of the same sex attractive and doing the deed.
Take me for example. I am only interested in women. A naked man doesn't do anything for me. Nevertheless very occasionally I can say to myself he is a really really attractive guy, and even be "attracted" to him as a person, but in heavens name I wouldn't dream of jumping into bed with him. Just not interested. So I would answer this question very differently to an achingly right-on student.
I'd say 10-20% (max) of the population are gay or bi-sexual pretty consistently (many of the bis will lead happily straight lives, by and large) and the rest are basically straight. There was an undercount of that 50 years ago and now there's an overcount.
Regarding yesterday's discussion on best films, what's the best way to access a given classic film?
From a quick search Apple iTunes seems to have most of those that were mentioned yesterday for rent at £3.49 or purchase at £7.99. Is that the best option or or there others?
My way of finding out is first check
1) Sky Movies 2) Netflix 3) Amazon Prime 4) Disney+/Star 5) Britbox
If it isn't available on those, then I'll buy it on iTunes.
I wish there was a quick and easy way to find which service, if any, a title is on.
There probably is, but not found one yet.
Google has indexed Netflix and Amazon Prime, I think they're adding D+ as well.
Indeed but searching for a title often shows its available on Netflix, only to show it as Netflix USA rather than UK for instance.
This site is quite good in my experience if you want to find out which services are streaming, renting, and selling films and TV series.
Just tried that with Wentworth and it shows in the UK you can stream series 1-6 on Prime, but 7-8 can't be streamed anywhere and must be paid for. In the USA and Australia you can stream all 8 seasons. Not impressed at all with this, unless there's some other reason its like that in the UK, if Prime are doing 'bait and switch' to get you to watch a series but then they want to sell you the rest of it then that's absolutely awful and putting me off Prime. 😠
You could always try to source the original Prisoner Cell Block H. Used to be a nightmare to follow as it was on a different season in a different slot in every TV region.
Never saw it, as I said before my time, not sure if the original is like the remake from reading about it the original sounds more like a soap?
Though also the original has about 700 episodes, wow that would be a boxed set marathon to last a good chunk of lockdown.
The original was super cheap. The walls of the cells would shake like the chip board they were whenever a door was opened. Yes it was a soap. Like Neighbours in jail. Wentworth had many of the same characters and story lines though. Just with a budget.
Regarding yesterday's discussion on best films, what's the best way to access a given classic film?
From a quick search Apple iTunes seems to have most of those that were mentioned yesterday for rent at £3.49 or purchase at £7.99. Is that the best option or or there others?
Here in Spain we have a box which gives all UKTV channels and a massive 'On Demand' selection of TV box series plus an enormous movie range of all and every genre. All for about €100 a year. I watch pretty well whichever classic movie you can name that way. Equally it constantly updates new TV series and movies all the time. Spoilt for choice to be honest.
I kind of assumed it was pretty much the same in the UK.
If theyd taken our vaccine this might not have happened.
Except we refused! So Macron wasn't allowed to take them.
We refused what? Has the UK been banning exports to the EU or something?
No. Foxy has finally lost the plot.
He's had a very tough year. And has much useful perspective to add given that experience, and reason for caution on some choices made. But unless there's some detail missing here the UK simply wasn't involved in this issue other than having signed a contract sooner.
Of course, but my point is that if France couldn't get the AZN vaccine in time for whatever reason, then it couldn't prevent a new wave.
They have it now, and people are refusing to take it because of the bollocks spouted by Macron and others.
That is so, but having it now doesn't prevent a current wave. To have that effect they would have needed it in numbers a month or more ago.
I have never argued that the EU contract should have over ridden the UK one, though some in the EU did. The upshot though is that they did not have it at the time and in the numbers to prevent a further wave.
What exactly did you mean when you said Except we refused! So Macron wasn't allowed to take them.
Allowed to take what?
The vaccines. We didn't let AZN alter the delivery of their contract, not that AZN particularly wanted to do so. I have no problem with that decision, but clearly Macron did at that time a month ago.
The upshot is that France could not have prevented a further wave by vaccination. It remains to be seen if we can either, even with a 4 week headstart, though probably mortality and admissions will be fewer.
Your wording implies they had a right in the first place and the UK stopped them, which is completely misrepresenting what actually happened.
We refused an unreasonable request, as did AZN.
I have never suggested they had a right to have the vaccines, just observed that a wave could not have been prevented if vaccines were not there to be used.
You are suggesting that France's current situation is the fault of the UK. Incredible.
No, I haven't.
And I quote you again: Except we refused! So Macron wasn't allowed to take them.
No, it is not our fault if an unreasonable request is refused.
A bizarre thing to say then. If it was unreasonable, why even bring it up? The blame lies squarely with the EU commission for their complete balls up of procurement, and for Macron for spreading Trumpian-level fake news regarding the vaccine. The UK had nothing to do with it.
Clearly the unreasonable demand was made and refused, by the company in order to fulfil its pre existing contract with the UK, rather than the later EU contract.
So what does the UK have to do with it? It's entirely an issue between the EU and the company.
The UK could have waived our rights to early delivery, but we did not. I have never disagreed with that decision.
My point was that France couldn't have prevented a further wave by vaccines that it did not have.
And the EU are entirely responsible for France not having the vaccines and it is nothing to do with the UK
Actually, France bears responsibility too. Firstly, they chose to join the pan-EU procurement scheme. Secondly. outside of an order for Valneva's vaccine, they didn't do anything for themselves.
They could have done things above and beyond the EU's plan. They could have questioned the EU's plan. They could have refused to participate on the basis that it would not be optimal.
While the EU was first useless, and then antagonistic, you can't just remove all responsibility from the nation states that comprise it.
In particular, individual nations are responsible for getting jabs into arms, and in a graphic that I have been posting for months, most of Europe is not good at adult vaccinations:
In those circumstances you'd think responsible politicians and governments wouldn't fuel vaccine hesitancy by undermining one of the vaccines available to them. 🤔
If theyd taken our vaccine this might not have happened.
Except we refused! So Macron wasn't allowed to take them.
We refused what? Has the UK been banning exports to the EU or something?
No. Foxy has finally lost the plot.
He's had a very tough year. And has much useful perspective to add given that experience, and reason for caution on some choices made. But unless there's some detail missing here the UK simply wasn't involved in this issue other than having signed a contract sooner.
Of course, but my point is that if France couldn't get the AZN vaccine in time for whatever reason, then it couldn't prevent a new wave.
They have it now, and people are refusing to take it because of the bollocks spouted by Macron and others.
That is so, but having it now doesn't prevent a current wave. To have that effect they would have needed it in numbers a month or more ago.
I have never argued that the EU contract should have over ridden the UK one, though some in the EU did. The upshot though is that they did not have it at the time and in the numbers to prevent a further wave.
What exactly did you mean when you said Except we refused! So Macron wasn't allowed to take them.
Allowed to take what?
The vaccines. We didn't let AZN alter the delivery of their contract, not that AZN particularly wanted to do so. I have no problem with that decision, but clearly Macron did at that time a month ago.
The upshot is that France could not have prevented a further wave by vaccination. It remains to be seen if we can either, even with a 4 week headstart, though probably mortality and admissions will be fewer.
Your wording implies they had a right in the first place and the UK stopped them, which is completely misrepresenting what actually happened.
We refused an unreasonable request, as did AZN.
I have never suggested they had a right to have the vaccines, just observed that a wave could not have been prevented if vaccines were not there to be used.
You are suggesting that France's current situation is the fault of the UK. Incredible.
No, I haven't.
And I quote you again: Except we refused! So Macron wasn't allowed to take them.
No, it is not our fault if an unreasonable request is refused.
A bizarre thing to say then. If it was unreasonable, why even bring it up? The blame lies squarely with the EU commission for their complete balls up of procurement, and for Macron for spreading Trumpian-level fake news regarding the vaccine. The UK had nothing to do with it.
Did they even make a request for us to refuse? All I can remember is the Commission threatening AZ (impotently and unreasonably as it turns out, even though AZ did fail to live up to intended committment) and some lower level figures talk about appropriating supplies bound for the UK (or suggesting AZ had diverted supplies meant for the EU to the UK), then the Commission tried to bully the UK with article 16, despite its dispute being with AZ.
Honest question, did France or anyone else actually make a request to the UK to be refused?
I don't believe they did. I think this whole convoluted exchange is the classic BDS operating in Orwellian UK Bad EU Good mode.
If theyd taken our vaccine this might not have happened.
Except we refused! So Macron wasn't allowed to take them.
We refused what? Has the UK been banning exports to the EU or something?
No. Foxy has finally lost the plot.
He's had a very tough year. And has much useful perspective to add given that experience, and reason for caution on some choices made. But unless there's some detail missing here the UK simply wasn't involved in this issue other than having signed a contract sooner.
Of course, but my point is that if France couldn't get the AZN vaccine in time for whatever reason, then it couldn't prevent a new wave.
They have it now, and people are refusing to take it because of the bollocks spouted by Macron and others.
That is so, but having it now doesn't prevent a current wave. To have that effect they would have needed it in numbers a month or more ago.
I have never argued that the EU contract should have over ridden the UK one, though some in the EU did. The upshot though is that they did not have it at the time and in the numbers to prevent a further wave.
What exactly did you mean when you said Except we refused! So Macron wasn't allowed to take them.
Allowed to take what?
The vaccines. We didn't let AZN alter the delivery of their contract, not that AZN particularly wanted to do so. I have no problem with that decision, but clearly Macron did at that time a month ago.
The upshot is that France could not have prevented a further wave by vaccination. It remains to be seen if we can either, even with a 4 week headstart, though probably mortality and admissions will be fewer.
The contracts are the contracts. They booked in more than three after us, that's nothing to do with us refusing, its to do with their procurement.
They could have had more by signing contracts sooner.
And they do have vaccines (and have had for weeks now) that they've not used and those they have used they've used ineffectively by stubbornly sticking to giving boosters for half as many people instead of vaccinating twice as many despite learning from our experience that it works.
So yes a lot fewer people are vaccinated than could have been, even taking into account their procurement failures which had nothing to do with us.
But it wouldn't have prevented the wave if they had used their few availible vaccines differently.
Indeed we won't either. It is accepted at the highest levels that r will go up as a result of ending lockdown in the UK. Not as much as in an unvaccinated population, but there will be a 4th wave here, predominantly in the young.
An increase in R, even if it does happen, is not the same as an increase in infections let alone a 4th wave.
An increase in r is defined as an increase in transmission, hence increased infections. The point at which it gets called a 4th wave is less well defined.
I suspect the 4th wave will have fewer admissions and fatalities in the UK, though with 2/3 of the adult population unvaccinated and nearly all the other third having had a single dose, we will not escape completely.
Though as I have often said, this needs to be balanced against other social and economic factors.
If R=0.6 but then increases to R=0.8 then R has increased but the number of infections will continue to fall albeit at a slower rate.
Your eagerness to declare a 4th wave seems to be a continuation of the hostility you have expressed towards the government's vaccination strategy.
With a bizarreness that now stretches to you discounting the acquired immunity of perhaps over ten million people.
I have not been hostile to the UK vaccination strategy (apart from advocating a 3 week gap for the Pfizer, a 12 week gap is evidenced for AZN). Indeed I have been fully supportive.
In parts of Leics the r value is above 1 already, even before schools reopen. We are going to get a 4th wave, even if the South Hams does not.
Seems on worldometre that a lot of european nations still have cases moving in the right direction or at least flat, but the death rate for France has been remarkably stable since the end of November.
If theyd taken our vaccine this might not have happened.
Except we refused! So Macron wasn't allowed to take them.
We refused what? Has the UK been banning exports to the EU or something?
No. Foxy has finally lost the plot.
He's had a very tough year. And has much useful perspective to add given that experience, and reason for caution on some choices made. But unless there's some detail missing here the UK simply wasn't involved in this issue other than having signed a contract sooner.
Of course, but my point is that if France couldn't get the AZN vaccine in time for whatever reason, then it couldn't prevent a new wave.
They have it now, and people are refusing to take it because of the bollocks spouted by Macron and others.
That is so, but having it now doesn't prevent a current wave. To have that effect they would have needed it in numbers a month or more ago.
I have never argued that the EU contract should have over ridden the UK one, though some in the EU did. The upshot though is that they did not have it at the time and in the numbers to prevent a further wave.
What exactly did you mean when you said Except we refused! So Macron wasn't allowed to take them.
Allowed to take what?
The vaccines. We didn't let AZN alter the delivery of their contract, not that AZN particularly wanted to do so. I have no problem with that decision, but clearly Macron did at that time a month ago.
The upshot is that France could not have prevented a further wave by vaccination. It remains to be seen if we can either, even with a 4 week headstart, though probably mortality and admissions will be fewer.
The contracts are the contracts. They booked in more than three after us, that's nothing to do with us refusing, its to do with their procurement.
They could have had more by signing contracts sooner.
And they do have vaccines (and have had for weeks now) that they've not used and those they have used they've used ineffectively by stubbornly sticking to giving boosters for half as many people instead of vaccinating twice as many despite learning from our experience that it works.
So yes a lot fewer people are vaccinated than could have been, even taking into account their procurement failures which had nothing to do with us.
But it wouldn't have prevented the wave if they had used their few availible vaccines differently.
Indeed we won't either. It is accepted at the highest levels that r will go up as a result of ending lockdown in the UK. Not as much as in an unvaccinated population, but there will be a 4th wave here, predominantly in the young.
We haven't had a third wave yet.
We had a brief suppression in the second, ongoing, wave in November due to the short tightening of restrictions but that's all.
If theyd taken our vaccine this might not have happened.
Except we refused! So Macron wasn't allowed to take them.
We refused what? Has the UK been banning exports to the EU or something?
No. Foxy has finally lost the plot.
He's had a very tough year. And has much useful perspective to add given that experience, and reason for caution on some choices made. But unless there's some detail missing here the UK simply wasn't involved in this issue other than having signed a contract sooner.
Of course, but my point is that if France couldn't get the AZN vaccine in time for whatever reason, then it couldn't prevent a new wave.
They have it now, and people are refusing to take it because of the bollocks spouted by Macron and others.
That is so, but having it now doesn't prevent a current wave. To have that effect they would have needed it in numbers a month or more ago.
I have never argued that the EU contract should have over ridden the UK one, though some in the EU did. The upshot though is that they did not have it at the time and in the numbers to prevent a further wave.
What exactly did you mean when you said Except we refused! So Macron wasn't allowed to take them.
Allowed to take what?
The vaccines. We didn't let AZN alter the delivery of their contract, not that AZN particularly wanted to do so. I have no problem with that decision, but clearly Macron did at that time a month ago.
The upshot is that France could not have prevented a further wave by vaccination. It remains to be seen if we can either, even with a 4 week headstart, though probably mortality and admissions will be fewer.
Your wording implies they had a right in the first place and the UK stopped them, which is completely misrepresenting what actually happened.
We refused an unreasonable request, as did AZN.
I have never suggested they had a right to have the vaccines, just observed that a wave could not have been prevented if vaccines were not there to be used.
You are suggesting that France's current situation is the fault of the UK. Incredible.
No, I haven't.
And I quote you again: Except we refused! So Macron wasn't allowed to take them.
No, it is not our fault if an unreasonable request is refused.
A bizarre thing to say then. If it was unreasonable, why even bring it up? The blame lies squarely with the EU commission for their complete balls up of procurement, and for Macron for spreading Trumpian-level fake news regarding the vaccine. The UK had nothing to do with it.
Clearly the unreasonable demand was made and refused, by the company in order to fulfil its pre existing contract with the UK, rather than the later EU contract.
So what does the UK have to do with it? It's entirely an issue between the EU and the company.
The UK could have waived our rights to early delivery, but we did not. I have never disagreed with that decision.
My point was that France couldn't have prevented a further wave by vaccines that it did not have.
And the EU are entirely responsible for France not having the vaccines and it is nothing to do with the UK
Actually, France bears responsibility too. Firstly, they chose to join the pan-EU procurement scheme. Secondly. outside of an order for Valneva's vaccine, they didn't do anything for themselves.
They could have done things above and beyond the EU's plan. They could have questioned the EU's plan. They could have refused to participate on the basis that it would not be optimal.
While the EU was first useless, and then antagonistic, you can't just remove all responsibility from the nation states that comprise it.
In particular, individual nations are responsible for getting jabs into arms, and in a graphic that I have been posting for months, most of Europe is not good at adult vaccinations:
Our vaccination rate for all 65+ is higher than that right now for Covid I think.
To be fair to the EU (yeah, I know) it is generally the smallest countries lagging behind and the larger ones not so much. With the exception of Germany. Which is, frankly, an embarrassment to the bloc.
If theyd taken our vaccine this might not have happened.
Except we refused! So Macron wasn't allowed to take them.
We refused what? Has the UK been banning exports to the EU or something?
No. Foxy has finally lost the plot.
He's had a very tough year. And has much useful perspective to add given that experience, and reason for caution on some choices made. But unless there's some detail missing here the UK simply wasn't involved in this issue other than having signed a contract sooner.
Of course, but my point is that if France couldn't get the AZN vaccine in time for whatever reason, then it couldn't prevent a new wave.
They have it now, and people are refusing to take it because of the bollocks spouted by Macron and others.
That is so, but having it now doesn't prevent a current wave. To have that effect they would have needed it in numbers a month or more ago.
I have never argued that the EU contract should have over ridden the UK one, though some in the EU did. The upshot though is that they did not have it at the time and in the numbers to prevent a further wave.
What exactly did you mean when you said Except we refused! So Macron wasn't allowed to take them.
Allowed to take what?
The vaccines. We didn't let AZN alter the delivery of their contract, not that AZN particularly wanted to do so. I have no problem with that decision, but clearly Macron did at that time a month ago.
The upshot is that France could not have prevented a further wave by vaccination. It remains to be seen if we can either, even with a 4 week headstart, though probably mortality and admissions will be fewer.
Your wording implies they had a right in the first place and the UK stopped them, which is completely misrepresenting what actually happened.
We refused an unreasonable request, as did AZN.
I have never suggested they had a right to have the vaccines, just observed that a wave could not have been prevented if vaccines were not there to be used.
You are suggesting that France's current situation is the fault of the UK. Incredible.
No, I haven't.
And I quote you again: Except we refused! So Macron wasn't allowed to take them.
No, it is not our fault if an unreasonable request is refused.
A bizarre thing to say then. If it was unreasonable, why even bring it up? The blame lies squarely with the EU commission for their complete balls up of procurement, and for Macron for spreading Trumpian-level fake news regarding the vaccine. The UK had nothing to do with it.
Clearly the unreasonable demand was made and refused, by the company in order to fulfil its pre existing contract with the UK, rather than the later EU contract.
So what does the UK have to do with it? It's entirely an issue between the EU and the company.
The UK could have waived our rights to early delivery, but we did not. I have never disagreed with that decision.
My point was that France couldn't have prevented a further wave by vaccines that it did not have.
And the EU are entirely responsible for France not having the vaccines and it is nothing to do with the UK
Actually, France bears responsibility too. Firstly, they chose to join the pan-EU procurement scheme. Secondly. outside of an order for Valneva's vaccine, they didn't do anything for themselves.
They could have done things above and beyond the EU's plan. They could have questioned the EU's plan. They could have refused to participate on the basis that it would not be optimal.
While the EU was first useless, and then antagonistic, you can't just remove all responsibility from the nation states that comprise it.
Point of order: did France really make a deal outside of the EU scheme for the Valneva project?
A French vaccine financed by Britain is at the centre of a row over the Macron government’s failure to ensure supplies for its people.
The French government refused to fully fund research by Valneva, a Franco-Austrian startup that has developed its vaccine at its headquarters near Nantes in the Loire region.
Instead, the British backed the development, securing an agreement to supply 60 million doses from a plant in Livingston, West Lothian, starting in October. France won’t get the vaccine until next year.
Franck Grimaud, the company’s chief executive, said that several governments had been contacted at the launch of the project. “The UK responded the fastest,” he said.
's OK, just happened to remember this whole topic being discussed back in January, I think. I did some more digging and found this slightly more recent report - it relates the remarks I seem to remember a French regional leader making at that time:
SAINT-HERBLAIN, France (AP) — French pharmaceutical startup Valneva had big news in September: a government contract for 60 million doses of its coronavirus vaccine candidate.
The buyer? The United Kingdom — not the European Union, as might be expected for a company on the banks of the Loire.
“What a true waste,” bristled Christelle Morancais, president of the Pays de la Loire regional council, as she tried to wrap her head around the missed opportunity. The British, she told The Associated Press, “rolled out the red carpet for this company, helping with financing and the set-up. ... And we were powerless.”
If theyd taken our vaccine this might not have happened.
Except we refused! So Macron wasn't allowed to take them.
We refused what? Has the UK been banning exports to the EU or something?
No. Foxy has finally lost the plot.
He's had a very tough year. And has much useful perspective to add given that experience, and reason for caution on some choices made. But unless there's some detail missing here the UK simply wasn't involved in this issue other than having signed a contract sooner.
Of course, but my point is that if France couldn't get the AZN vaccine in time for whatever reason, then it couldn't prevent a new wave.
They have it now, and people are refusing to take it because of the bollocks spouted by Macron and others.
That is so, but having it now doesn't prevent a current wave. To have that effect they would have needed it in numbers a month or more ago.
I have never argued that the EU contract should have over ridden the UK one, though some in the EU did. The upshot though is that they did not have it at the time and in the numbers to prevent a further wave.
What exactly did you mean when you said Except we refused! So Macron wasn't allowed to take them.
Allowed to take what?
The vaccines. We didn't let AZN alter the delivery of their contract, not that AZN particularly wanted to do so. I have no problem with that decision, but clearly Macron did at that time a month ago.
The upshot is that France could not have prevented a further wave by vaccination. It remains to be seen if we can either, even with a 4 week headstart, though probably mortality and admissions will be fewer.
The contracts are the contracts. They booked in more than three after us, that's nothing to do with us refusing, its to do with their procurement.
They could have had more by signing contracts sooner.
And they do have vaccines (and have had for weeks now) that they've not used and those they have used they've used ineffectively by stubbornly sticking to giving boosters for half as many people instead of vaccinating twice as many despite learning from our experience that it works.
So yes a lot fewer people are vaccinated than could have been, even taking into account their procurement failures which had nothing to do with us.
But it wouldn't have prevented the wave if they had used their few availible vaccines differently.
Indeed we won't either. It is accepted at the highest levels that r will go up as a result of ending lockdown in the UK. Not as much as in an unvaccinated population, but there will be a 4th wave here, predominantly in the young.
We haven't had a third wave yet.
We had a brief suppression in the second, ongoing, wave in November due to the short tightening of restrictions but that's all.
We had a short loosening of restrictions at that time.
If theyd taken our vaccine this might not have happened.
Except we refused! So Macron wasn't allowed to take them.
We refused what? Has the UK been banning exports to the EU or something?
No. Foxy has finally lost the plot.
He's had a very tough year. And has much useful perspective to add given that experience, and reason for caution on some choices made. But unless there's some detail missing here the UK simply wasn't involved in this issue other than having signed a contract sooner.
Of course, but my point is that if France couldn't get the AZN vaccine in time for whatever reason, then it couldn't prevent a new wave.
They have it now, and people are refusing to take it because of the bollocks spouted by Macron and others.
That is so, but having it now doesn't prevent a current wave. To have that effect they would have needed it in numbers a month or more ago.
I have never argued that the EU contract should have over ridden the UK one, though some in the EU did. The upshot though is that they did not have it at the time and in the numbers to prevent a further wave.
What exactly did you mean when you said Except we refused! So Macron wasn't allowed to take them.
Allowed to take what?
The vaccines. We didn't let AZN alter the delivery of their contract, not that AZN particularly wanted to do so. I have no problem with that decision, but clearly Macron did at that time a month ago.
The upshot is that France could not have prevented a further wave by vaccination. It remains to be seen if we can either, even with a 4 week headstart, though probably mortality and admissions will be fewer.
The contracts are the contracts. They booked in more than three after us, that's nothing to do with us refusing, its to do with their procurement.
They could have had more by signing contracts sooner.
And they do have vaccines (and have had for weeks now) that they've not used and those they have used they've used ineffectively by stubbornly sticking to giving boosters for half as many people instead of vaccinating twice as many despite learning from our experience that it works.
So yes a lot fewer people are vaccinated than could have been, even taking into account their procurement failures which had nothing to do with us.
But it wouldn't have prevented the wave if they had used their few availible vaccines differently.
Indeed we won't either. It is accepted at the highest levels that r will go up as a result of ending lockdown in the UK. Not as much as in an unvaccinated population, but there will be a 4th wave here, predominantly in the young.
We haven't had a third wave yet.
We had a brief suppression in the second, ongoing, wave in November due to the short tightening of restrictions but that's all.
It is a question of semantics whether we had a bimodal second wave, or a second and third wave.
If theyd taken our vaccine this might not have happened.
Except we refused! So Macron wasn't allowed to take them.
We refused what? Has the UK been banning exports to the EU or something?
No. Foxy has finally lost the plot.
He's had a very tough year. And has much useful perspective to add given that experience, and reason for caution on some choices made. But unless there's some detail missing here the UK simply wasn't involved in this issue other than having signed a contract sooner.
Of course, but my point is that if France couldn't get the AZN vaccine in time for whatever reason, then it couldn't prevent a new wave.
They have it now, and people are refusing to take it because of the bollocks spouted by Macron and others.
That is so, but having it now doesn't prevent a current wave. To have that effect they would have needed it in numbers a month or more ago.
I have never argued that the EU contract should have over ridden the UK one, though some in the EU did. The upshot though is that they did not have it at the time and in the numbers to prevent a further wave.
What exactly did you mean when you said Except we refused! So Macron wasn't allowed to take them.
Allowed to take what?
The vaccines. We didn't let AZN alter the delivery of their contract, not that AZN particularly wanted to do so. I have no problem with that decision, but clearly Macron did at that time a month ago.
The upshot is that France could not have prevented a further wave by vaccination. It remains to be seen if we can either, even with a 4 week headstart, though probably mortality and admissions will be fewer.
The contracts are the contracts. They booked in more than three after us, that's nothing to do with us refusing, its to do with their procurement.
They could have had more by signing contracts sooner.
And they do have vaccines (and have had for weeks now) that they've not used and those they have used they've used ineffectively by stubbornly sticking to giving boosters for half as many people instead of vaccinating twice as many despite learning from our experience that it works.
So yes a lot fewer people are vaccinated than could have been, even taking into account their procurement failures which had nothing to do with us.
But it wouldn't have prevented the wave if they had used their few availible vaccines differently.
Indeed we won't either. It is accepted at the highest levels that r will go up as a result of ending lockdown in the UK. Not as much as in an unvaccinated population, but there will be a 4th wave here, predominantly in the young.
An increase in R, even if it does happen, is not the same as an increase in infections let alone a 4th wave.
An increase in r is defined as an increase in transmission, hence increased infections. The point at which it gets called a 4th wave is less well defined.
I suspect the 4th wave will have fewer admissions and fatalities in the UK, though with 2/3 of the adult population unvaccinated and nearly all the other third having had a single dose, we will not escape completely.
Though as I have often said, this needs to be balanced against other social and economic factors.
If R=0.6 but then increases to R=0.8 then R has increased but the number of infections will continue to fall albeit at a slower rate.
Your eagerness to declare a 4th wave seems to be a continuation of the hostility you have expressed towards the government's vaccination strategy.
With a bizarreness that now stretches to you discounting the acquired immunity of perhaps over ten million people.
There are two separate tasks with Covid vaccination.
One is getting enough vaccinations into enough vulnerable people to prevent lots of deaths. And, thank goodness, despite their clear balls-ups, it could well be that even the French are achieving that;
Then there's the bigger, slower job of vaccinating enough people to trap this scumbag virus, by giving it nowhere to jump to when the immune systems of the young and healthy destroy it in individuals. That's when we can all relax and move on. Not there yet, but onwards and upwards.
The fears of a massive increase in infections from schools reopening seem exaggerated to me as they would be dependent upon:
1) a massive amount of infection currently among children - is there ? 2) a total lack of herd immunity existing among children - there must be some of that from the autumn
And even if there is an increase in infection among children it would likely take a few infection cycles for it to pass into the adult population - during which time millions more adults become vaccinated.
At what point do you draw a line between a second and third waves?
If this current surge was indeed due to the Kent virus which wasn't an issue in October then surely this is a third wave, just a third wave that very promptly followed the second?
At what point do you draw a line between a second and third waves?
If this current surge was indeed due to the Kent virus which wasn't an issue in October then surely this is a third wave, just a third wave that very promptly followed the second?
There was a definite dip in cases late November/early December.
Regarding yesterday's discussion on best films, what's the best way to access a given classic film?
From a quick search Apple iTunes seems to have most of those that were mentioned yesterday for rent at £3.49 or purchase at £7.99. Is that the best option or or there others?
Here in Spain we have a box which gives all UKTV channels and a massive 'On Demand' selection of TV box series plus an enormous movie range of all and every genre. All for about €100 a year. I watch pretty well whichever classic movie you can name that way. Equally it constantly updates new TV series and movies all the time. Spoilt for choice to be honest.
I kind of assumed it was pretty much the same in the UK.
Is the box legal?
When I had a place in France plenty of Brits had Sky boxes - You could not purchase subscriptions in France but it seems there were ways around that .... allegedly
The fears of a massive increase in infections from schools reopening seem exaggerated to me as they would be dependent upon:
1) a massive amount of infection currently among children - is there ? 2) a total lack of herd immunity existing among children - there must be some of that from the autumn
And even if there is an increase in infection among children it would likely take a few infection cycles for it to pass into the adult population - during which time millions more adults become vaccinated.
Yes, I think that is right.
The Christmas alteration seems to have made people jittery. A colleague whom I had a drink with in December, in an actual pub, thinks we should now wait until summer before doing anything re: opening up, and is very fearful of kids going back to school (though perhaps because she doesn't have any).
Comments
I can say I blame Gen-Z for being creative. It might even hinder you getting a job, if you're otherwise male and white, so being something "different" at least gives you some extra subjective angle in the diversity market.
https://www.justwatch.com/
And two vaccines have been given to half as many people despite them knowing from us that its not necessary to do it that way.
So many more people could have been vaccinated by now if they'd managed distribution properly and switched to a 12 week schedule.
Indeed we won't either. It is accepted at the highest levels that r will go up as a result of ending lockdown in the UK. Not as much as in an unvaccinated population, but there will be a 4th wave here, predominantly in the young.
The "no standards" ones always shocked the most.
I kind of assumed it was pretty much the same in the UK.
"We told them we were first in the queue and they would have to wait."
You said something foolish and embarrassing. It happens. Better to accept it and move on.
Just tried that with Wentworth and it shows in the UK you can stream series 1-6 on Prime, but 7-8 can't be streamed anywhere and must be paid for. In the USA and Australia you can stream all 8 seasons. Not impressed at all with this, unless there's some other reason its like that in the UK, if Prime are doing 'bait and switch' to get you to watch a series but then they want to sell you the rest of it then that's absolutely awful and putting me off Prime. 😠
👍
And for once, none of that is on the UK, not even on the rather torturous view that the UK could or should have altered its own contracts. As I feel Macron was probably keen to point out at the time, the UK was in a far worse position in the short term at the very least regarding our 2nd/3rd wave. Based purely on need the UK would have gotten more at the time.
Which I thought was pretty advanced music taste for a two year old
Used to be a nightmare to follow as it was on a different season in a different slot in every TV region.
That way, the regional seat allocation can entirely fail to cancel the overrepresentation of secessionist parties in FPTP constituency seats.
This could all be avoided if there were a single vote cast, not separate constituency and list votes, such that the list vote is treated automatically as being cast for the party of the constituency vote candidate.
My point was that France couldn't have prevented a further wave by vaccines that it did not have.
I'd assume myself to be 100%, but you never know. The dude from Bridgerton was awfully handsome and suave, I'll give him that.
No disagreement that Pulp were better than Blur or Oasis and they might have defined the era for the college set who were too normie for Aphex, but not the average punter.
That'd be like saying somewhere which was facing a famine could have given up some of its food to another place, which developed a famine later.
Of course we may have a new First Minister by then!
Edit: I mean now, in the current system. Indeed it's the main function of the gerrymandered d'Hondt to do precisaely that - seats gained is a sort of negative function of actual votes after a point.
I am off to bed now - too tired, sorry.
The failure to do so could result in tens of thousands more people than necessary dying for want of an available vaccine.
At present it's defined by little more than narcissism.
So no, the percentage is irrelevant. I was simply musing about how I'd answer the poll if asked, that's all.
Honest question, did France or anyone else actually make a request to the UK to be refused?
Though also the original has about 700 episodes, wow that would be a boxed set marathon to last a good chunk of lockdown.
They could have done things above and beyond the EU's plan. They could have questioned the EU's plan. They could have refused to participate on the basis that it would not be optimal.
While the EU was first useless, and then antagonistic, you can't just remove all responsibility from the nation states that comprise it.
https://twitter.com/JamesKelly/status/1364688715101134850?s=20
This is Hardcore is one of the great underrated albums. And this has to be one of the greatest songs about the Blair era:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7b7DgOeMnW4&ab_channel=palehoney
I suspect the 4th wave will have fewer admissions and fatalities in the UK, though with 2/3 of the adult population unvaccinated and nearly all the other third having had a single dose, we will not escape completely.
Though as I have often said, this needs to be balanced against other social and economic factors.
We could have 2/3 of the country jabbed within another four-six weeks. That will make a massive difference
A French vaccine financed by Britain is at the centre of a row over the Macron government’s failure to ensure supplies for its people.
The French government refused to fully fund research by Valneva, a Franco-Austrian startup that has developed its vaccine at its headquarters near Nantes in the Loire region.
Instead, the British backed the development, securing an agreement to supply 60 million doses from a plant in Livingston, West Lothian, starting in October. France won’t get the vaccine until next year.
Franck Grimaud, the company’s chief executive, said that several governments had been contacted at the launch of the project. “The UK responded the fastest,” he said.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/france-furious-as-britain-snatches-covid-vaccine-valneva-deal-from-under-its-nose-5pp0q0fr0
Thanks @Black_Rook
If the latter conclusion is indeed correct then it's perhaps no surprise to see the UK leading the way in terms of routine vaccination take-up in previous years.
Your eagerness to declare a 4th wave seems to be a continuation of the hostility you have expressed towards the government's vaccination strategy.
With a bizarreness that now stretches to you discounting the acquired immunity of perhaps over ten million people.
Wentworth had many of the same characters and story lines though.
Just with a budget.
In parts of Leics the r value is above 1 already, even before schools reopen. We are going to get a 4th wave, even if the South Hams does not.
We had a brief suppression in the second, ongoing, wave in November due to the short tightening of restrictions but that's all.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9295787/BBCs-diversity-directive-Director-Tim-Davie-launches-bottom-shake-up.html
Somebody is making really good money out of the "be less white" racket.
https://twitter.com/ScotNational/status/1364693333830852609?s=20
lol
SAINT-HERBLAIN, France (AP) — French pharmaceutical startup Valneva had big news in September: a government contract for 60 million doses of its coronavirus vaccine candidate.
The buyer? The United Kingdom — not the European Union, as might be expected for a company on the banks of the Loire.
“What a true waste,” bristled Christelle Morancais, president of the Pays de la Loire regional council, as she tried to wrap her head around the missed opportunity. The British, she told The Associated Press, “rolled out the red carpet for this company, helping with financing and the set-up. ... And we were powerless.”
https://apnews.com/article/business-europe-coronavirus-pandemic-united-kingdom-france-f3c52a16bec8b9a996e1d61bd4e24f7d
https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMeY768gt/
One is getting enough vaccinations into enough vulnerable people to prevent lots of deaths. And, thank goodness, despite their clear balls-ups, it could well be that even the French are achieving that;
https://twitter.com/john_lichfield/status/1364635887162769410?s=20
Then there's the bigger, slower job of vaccinating enough people to trap this scumbag virus, by giving it nowhere to jump to when the immune systems of the young and healthy destroy it in individuals. That's when we can all relax and move on. Not there yet, but onwards and upwards.
1) a massive amount of infection currently among children - is there ?
2) a total lack of herd immunity existing among children - there must be some of that from the autumn
And even if there is an increase in infection among children it would likely take a few infection cycles for it to pass into the adult population - during which time millions more adults become vaccinated.
If this current surge was indeed due to the Kent virus which wasn't an issue in October then surely this is a third wave, just a third wave that very promptly followed the second?
Proper Pravda stuff that front page.
The Christmas alteration seems to have made people jittery. A colleague whom I had a drink with in December, in an actual pub, thinks we should now wait until summer before doing anything re: opening up, and is very fearful of kids going back to school (though perhaps because she doesn't have any).