Another victim of cancel culture? Or is it racist patriarchy that did for it?
The Mash Report will not return for another series.
Maybe it is just because it wasn't my cup of tea, but The Mash Report seemed to be not much more than some lefties sarcastically reading out quotes from Conservative MP's whilst rolling their eyes - I cant help thinking none of them were the funny ones at school
That can be fertile comedic soil, though, what Conservative MPs say. They've got some rum characters in their ranks who come out with some quite choice remarks.
I think one of the things lost in some of these "comics" have become just so single track. Its Boris / Brexit booooooooooo, same as a lot of the US, Orange Man Bad has been 99% of their output for 4 years. It becomes predictable and dull after the 100th joke on the same topic. Part of the secret of comedy is saying the unexpected.
I really enjoyed lots of Mark Thomas shows, who is miles to the left of me politically, and certainly likes a good bash the Tories rant, but he is intermingles it will plenty of piss take of the nutters within his own band of people he associates with i.e. the Greenies, the SWP lot.
In truth, I think the vaccine nationalism rows would be even grimmer if we were in the EU rather than outside. Maybe we can chalk that up as a relative "benefit" of Brexit ?
It may be. Certainly we can all chalk up the EU's performance on the procurement as abysmal, and their temper tantrums and attempts at blame-shifting as disgraceful.
Actually, I think the EU will do fine, just as the UK would have done fine if the EU hadn't helpfully provided us with their early vaccines. There are plenty of vaccines coming down the pike everywhere and once you have vaccinated your own people you are relaxed about allowing your supply to go to other countries.
Hold on, Pfizer is an EU state owned compa y now? In what way are Pfizer vaccines "their" vaccines? I'm absolutely certain that if Pfizer were unable to export from Belgium to the UK the UK would have helped Pfizer set up manufacturing in the UK as part of the deal. We did it with AZ, Novavax and Valneva.
Richard, I simply do not agree with your analysis. I think we would have buckled, and joined the consensus on how to approach the whole vaccine issue. It is possible, just possible, that the push to a unified approach was Brexit-induced, but I strongly doubt that too.
The EU is a one-directional ratchet, towards evermore centralized power, decision-making and control. This was coming, regardless of Brexit, IMO.
In any case, it is moot. We are where we are, and what iffery does not change that.
Actually the ratchet has very much jumped backwards on this one. You won't be seeing any future involvement of the Commission in healthcare and procurement after this debacle. Member states make little secret of the fact that they think it was a disaster.
Fair enough. But it has taken international humiliation for that one instance of reversing direction to happen.
Except thats not whats happening they are now saying the eu needs a health union to stop this happening again
Just to note that I had AstraZeneca jab #1 about 24 hours ago, and if how I feel now is "mild" compared to the real illness, then count me extremely grateful I had the cure before the disease.
I am probably younger than most of the people who've had it prior (a statement that, I guess, will be true of almost everyone, but it's bloody unpleasant. My wife (younger still) seems to be having an even worse time of it.
Sorry to hear that. There are a fair few anecdotes of stronger reactions in younger people, though whether that's because they've already had Covid or just have stronger immune systems in general isn't certain. Hope the side-effects clear up soon.
To add to that anecdotal directionalism. Our old cleaner had it - old in both senses, she isn't our cleaner now, and she's 80 - and did not feel a single thing. No side affects at all.
Richard, I simply do not agree with your analysis. I think we would have buckled, and joined the consensus on how to approach the whole vaccine issue. It is possible, just possible, that the push to a unified approach was Brexit-induced, but I strongly doubt that too.
The EU is a one-directional ratchet, towards evermore centralized power, decision-making and control. This was coming, regardless of Brexit, IMO.
In any case, it is moot. We are where we are, and what iffery does not change that.
Actually the ratchet has very much jumped backwards on this one. You won't be seeing any future involvement of the Commission in healthcare and procurement after this debacle. Member states make little secret of the fact that they think it was a disaster.
Fair enough. But it has taken international humiliation for that one instance of reversing direction to happen.
Except thats not whats happening they are now saying the eu needs a health union to stop this happening again
I don't think there was anything actually wrong in principle with EU wide procurement, just a suboptimal execution.
Richard, I simply do not agree with your analysis. I think we would have buckled, and joined the consensus on how to approach the whole vaccine issue. It is possible, just possible, that the push to a unified approach was Brexit-induced, but I strongly doubt that too.
The EU is a one-directional ratchet, towards evermore centralized power, decision-making and control. This was coming, regardless of Brexit, IMO.
In any case, it is moot. We are where we are, and what iffery does not change that.
Actually the ratchet has very much jumped backwards on this one. You won't be seeing any future involvement of the Commission in healthcare and procurement after this debacle. Member states make little secret of the fact that they think it was a disaster.
Fair enough. But it has taken international humiliation for that one instance of reversing direction to happen.
And the EU already calling for more Europe in response.
In truth, I think the vaccine nationalism rows would be even grimmer if we were in the EU rather than outside. Maybe we can chalk that up as a relative "benefit" of Brexit ?
It may be. Certainly we can all chalk up the EU's performance on the procurement as abysmal, and their temper tantrums and attempts at blame-shifting as disgraceful.
Actually, I think the EU will do fine, just as the UK would have done fine if the EU hadn't helpfully provided us with their early vaccines. There are plenty of vaccines coming down the pike everywhere and once you have vaccinated your own people you are relaxed about allowing your supply to go to other countries.
Hold on, Pfizer is an EU state owned compa y now? In what way are Pfizer vaccines "their" vaccines? I'm absolutely certain that if Pfizer were unable to export from Belgium to the UK the UK would have helped Pfizer set up manufacturing in the UK as part of the deal. We did it with AZ, Novavax and Valneva.
EUphiles think anything manufactured in the eu is the property of the eu....then they complain people sometimes call them the eussr
Richard, I simply do not agree with your analysis. I think we would have buckled, and joined the consensus on how to approach the whole vaccine issue. It is possible, just possible, that the push to a unified approach was Brexit-induced, but I strongly doubt that too.
The EU is a one-directional ratchet, towards evermore centralized power, decision-making and control. This was coming, regardless of Brexit, IMO.
In any case, it is moot. We are where we are, and what iffery does not change that.
Actually the ratchet has very much jumped backwards on this one. You won't be seeing any future involvement of the Commission in healthcare and procurement after this debacle. Member states make little secret of the fact that they think it was a disaster.
Except they are already talking about a health union. The EU only has one direction.
and like the band one direction they are equally dire....von der leyden is the harry styles of the eu
That doesn't quite work. Styles was the star of One Direction.
Richard, I simply do not agree with your analysis. I think we would have buckled, and joined the consensus on how to approach the whole vaccine issue. It is possible, just possible, that the push to a unified approach was Brexit-induced, but I strongly doubt that too.
The EU is a one-directional ratchet, towards evermore centralized power, decision-making and control. This was coming, regardless of Brexit, IMO.
In any case, it is moot. We are where we are, and what iffery does not change that.
Actually the ratchet has very much jumped backwards on this one. You won't be seeing any future involvement of the Commission in healthcare and procurement after this debacle. Member states make little secret of the fact that they think it was a disaster.
Fair enough. But it has taken international humiliation for that one instance of reversing direction to happen.
Except thats not whats happening they are now saying the eu needs a health union to stop this happening again
I don't think there was anything actually wrong in principle with EU wide procurement, just a suboptimal execution.
There is nothing wrong with eu wide procurement if you put it in the hands of the competent....eu politicians are mostly those that failed as national politicians points at von der leyden
'The SNP’s links with Iran are of the gravest concern
...It is not simply that it operates a network of fake social media and internet sites pushing the SNP’s cause; it is that leading SNP figures, from Nicola Sturgeon down, appear to have what one might charitably call a lack of concern about consorting with figures who are either, in effect, agents of the regime or who are deeply sympathetic to it.'
Provide not an iota of proof or even an allegation of who these 'figures' might be.
Seems a lot of A was in the same room as B who said C and attended event D.
Is the Quds rally a regular legal event in London?
"You mean the Nigel Farage, who sits in the European Parliament with Rudolf Strauss MEP from Austria, whose party leader's next door neighbour once had a conversation with a lady from Innsbruck whose great grandfather was in the SS? THAT Nigel Farage?"
You really think Cameron or any other Europhile Tory leader - or Corbyn on the Labour side - would have dared to stand aside from the EU vaccination scheme when every other country joined it? There is not a cat in hells chance.
I have far more confidence in my nation freed from the Eurofanatics than you do given you think we are incapable of surviving without being part of the EU. Have some confidence in your own independent nation, man.
We'll never know, but FWIW I think that is almost certainly 100% wrong. By the time the EU started to get its act together we were already well set up with our own investment and procurement programme. That had been kicked off by Patrick Vallance and Jonathan van Tam very early on, first informally and then as formal initiative in April 2020:
It is inconceivable that we'd have abandoned that to join in with the EU programme, which didn't even become a proposal until mid-June, by which time Kate Bingham was already well advanced in the procurement.
And it wouldn't exactly be the first time that the UK, when it was an EU member, didn't join in.
I think it's inconceivable the EU wouldn't have brought all the pressure it could to bear (Ursula VdL should be good at that) on folding our program into theirs, and nicking any benefit of us having been ahead of the game. In particular can you imagine how the EU and UK having competing contracts with AZ would have played out?
I think we'd have told them to get stuffed. Healthcare is not an EU competence (in either sense of the word!). In fact, probably if we had still been members it would have ended up with it being left to member states; it may have been partly the obsession with 'unity' as a reaction to Brexit which led the EU down the foolish path they took.
As if that would work. A lovely QMV ruling to say all vaccines delivered within the EU have to been part of the EU scheme. Vaccines stolen.
Not convinced.
Germany, France, Spain etc were already talking with vaccine suppliers in Apr 2020, yet they were made to back down and grovel in favour of the EU shared process.
Richard, I simply do not agree with your analysis. I think we would have buckled, and joined the consensus on how to approach the whole vaccine issue. It is possible, just possible, that the push to a unified approach was Brexit-induced, but I strongly doubt that too.
The EU is a one-directional ratchet, towards evermore centralized power, decision-making and control. This was coming, regardless of Brexit, IMO.
In any case, it is moot. We are where we are, and what iffery does not change that.
Actually the ratchet has very much jumped backwards on this one. You won't be seeing any future involvement of the Commission in healthcare and procurement after this debacle. Member states make little secret of the fact that they think it was a disaster.
Fair enough. But it has taken international humiliation for that one instance of reversing direction to happen.
Except thats not whats happening they are now saying the eu needs a health union to stop this happening again
I don't think there was anything actually wrong in principle with EU wide procurement, just a suboptimal execution.
I think there is, at least in this instance because the two successful large scale vaccine programmes (US and UK) have subsidised domestic manufacturing as the major part of the deals that have been signed. The problem with doing this in the EU is that it opens up the interminable arguments about where the money gets spent and which companies get subsidised and why a German company, BioNTech, is receiving 10x the subsidy of France's Sanofi and so on.
A national scheme has none of these problems because no one in the UK cares where UK money is spent as long as it's somewhere in the country and we get our vaccines on time. UK taxpayers don't even see to care that two of the four companies that we've got subsidy contracts with aren't even British, one is French and the other one is American.
Another victim of cancel culture? Or is it racist patriarchy that did for it?
The Mash Report will not return for another series.
Maybe it is just because it wasn't my cup of tea, but The Mash Report seemed to be not much more than some lefties sarcastically reading out quotes from Conservative MP's whilst rolling their eyes - I cant help thinking none of them were the funny ones at school
That can be fertile comedic soil, though, what Conservative MPs say. They've got some rum characters in their ranks who come out with some quite choice remarks.
I found it funny in the mid 80s; Friday/Saturday Night Live hosted by Ben Elton? I recorded them and rewatched religiously
Now you're deftly insinuating you've grown up and I haven't. Like I say, on fire today!
Reminder #28495951 that Goodwin used to be quite an interesting academic before he became a populist berk forever tweeting on behalf of the right in the culture war. Wouldn't be surprised to see him joining Lozza Fox's new outfit and standing for something somewhere.
But the tweet is accurate. Cameron was right about twitter.
Yes, I don't dispute that. But Goodwin tweets endlessly, re-tweeting every poll that's published. And occasionally venturing further - for example, a recent tweet likening Nigel Farage to Wat Tyler. He's transformed from an independent academic into a partisan hack, and uses Twitter to provoke the culture war himself.
He is an independent academic, but one who feels the need to amplify how people feel about populism because he doesn't see it being properly discussed - except to wholly deride it - elsewhere in academia.
Sure, he's not always right - who is? - but that doesn't make him a berk like Delingpole, or worse like Hopkins.
You've posted here before that you thought the like button on here encourages people to be more provocative and argumentative in search of the reward of likes.
I detect something of a similar effect on Goodwin on twitter. He obviously has some insight on the political changes of the last decade or so, but twitter has encouraged him to be more certain, more combative and less interesting as a result.
Richard, I simply do not agree with your analysis. I think we would have buckled, and joined the consensus on how to approach the whole vaccine issue. It is possible, just possible, that the push to a unified approach was Brexit-induced, but I strongly doubt that too.
The EU is a one-directional ratchet, towards evermore centralized power, decision-making and control. This was coming, regardless of Brexit, IMO.
In any case, it is moot. We are where we are, and what iffery does not change that.
Actually the ratchet has very much jumped backwards on this one. You won't be seeing any future involvement of the Commission in healthcare and procurement after this debacle. Member states make little secret of the fact that they think it was a disaster.
Except they are already talking about a health union. The EU only has one direction.
and like the band one direction they are equally dire....von der leyden is the harry styles of the eu
That doesn't quite work. Styles was the star of One Direction.
Well being the star of a teeny band which lasted maybe two years is hardly a plaudit. He will end up driving a taxi and boring passengers about how he almost was famous for a bit
When Labour wonder why the Red Wall went Tory, example #29757874...they treat this stuff as just short of a hate crime.
Howard Beckett, who represents the Unite union at the NEC, said it was "truly shocking", while local party representative Mish Rahman called it "embarrassing... and deeply inappropriate".
Another local Labour representative who was at the meeting, Gemma Bolton, said the incident was "completely unacceptable, even more so from the NEC chair".
As a lad in Stoke, I have been called far worse from random members of the public when playing junior sport. Something of the level, silly cow, wouldn't even come in the top 100. And if I don't do the washing properly, Mrs U utters far worse.
Richard, I simply do not agree with your analysis. I think we would have buckled, and joined the consensus on how to approach the whole vaccine issue. It is possible, just possible, that the push to a unified approach was Brexit-induced, but I strongly doubt that too.
The EU is a one-directional ratchet, towards evermore centralized power, decision-making and control. This was coming, regardless of Brexit, IMO.
In any case, it is moot. We are where we are, and what iffery does not change that.
Actually the ratchet has very much jumped backwards on this one. You won't be seeing any future involvement of the Commission in healthcare and procurement after this debacle. Member states make little secret of the fact that they think it was a disaster.
Except they are already talking about a health union. The EU only has one direction.
and like the band one direction they are equally dire....von der leyden is the harry styles of the eu
That doesn't quite work. Styles was the star of One Direction.
Richard, I simply do not agree with your analysis. I think we would have buckled, and joined the consensus on how to approach the whole vaccine issue. It is possible, just possible, that the push to a unified approach was Brexit-induced, but I strongly doubt that too.
The EU is a one-directional ratchet, towards evermore centralized power, decision-making and control. This was coming, regardless of Brexit, IMO.
In any case, it is moot. We are where we are, and what iffery does not change that.
Actually the ratchet has very much jumped backwards on this one. You won't be seeing any future involvement of the Commission in healthcare and procurement after this debacle. Member states make little secret of the fact that they think it was a disaster.
Except they are already talking about a health union. The EU only has one direction.
Who are 'they'? The EU is not a homogenous organisation with a single view, it's a treaty-defined collection of member states which themselves have different views and priorities. 'They' may be proposing more integration, but they're not going to get it. Member states and 'they' are not the same thing.
You really think Cameron or any other Europhile Tory leader - or Corbyn on the Labour side - would have dared to stand aside from the EU vaccination scheme when every other country joined it? There is not a cat in hells chance.
I have far more confidence in my nation freed from the Eurofanatics than you do given you think we are incapable of surviving without being part of the EU. Have some confidence in your own independent nation, man.
We'll never know, but FWIW I think that is almost certainly 100% wrong. By the time the EU started to get its act together we were already well set up with our own investment and procurement programme. That had been kicked off by Patrick Vallance and Jonathan van Tam very early on, first informally and then as formal initiative in April 2020:
It is inconceivable that we'd have abandoned that to join in with the EU programme, which didn't even become a proposal until mid-June, by which time Kate Bingham was already well advanced in the procurement.
And it wouldn't exactly be the first time that the UK, when it was an EU member, didn't join in.
I think it's inconceivable the EU wouldn't have brought all the pressure it could to bear (Ursula VdL should be good at that) on folding our program into theirs, and nicking any benefit of us having been ahead of the game. In particular can you imagine how the EU and UK having competing contracts with AZ would have played out?
I think we'd have told them to get stuffed. Healthcare is not an EU competence (in either sense of the word!). In fact, probably if we had still been members it would have ended up with it being left to member states; it may have been partly the obsession with 'unity' as a reaction to Brexit which led the EU down the foolish path they took.
As if that would work. A lovely QMV ruling to say all vaccines delivered within the EU have to been part of the EU scheme. Vaccines stolen.
Not convinced.
Germany, France, Spain etc were already talking with vaccine suppliers in Apr 2020, yet they were made to back down and grovel in favour of the EU shared process.
Richard, I simply do not agree with your analysis. I think we would have buckled, and joined the consensus on how to approach the whole vaccine issue. It is possible, just possible, that the push to a unified approach was Brexit-induced, but I strongly doubt that too.
The EU is a one-directional ratchet, towards evermore centralized power, decision-making and control. This was coming, regardless of Brexit, IMO.
In any case, it is moot. We are where we are, and what iffery does not change that.
Actually the ratchet has very much jumped backwards on this one. You won't be seeing any future involvement of the Commission in healthcare and procurement after this debacle. Member states make little secret of the fact that they think it was a disaster.
Except they are already talking about a health union. The EU only has one direction.
Who are 'they'? The EU is not a homogenous organisation with a single view, it's a treaty-defined collection of member states which themselves have different views and priorities. 'They' may be proposing more integration, but they're not going to get it. Member states and 'they' are not the same thing.
We were assured that the UK would never lose veto power over financial regulations, yet it happened. Again, see the EU for what it really is, not what you want it to be.
Another victim of cancel culture? Or is it racist patriarchy that did for it?
The Mash Report will not return for another series.
Maybe it is just because it wasn't my cup of tea, but The Mash Report seemed to be not much more than some lefties sarcastically reading out quotes from Conservative MP's whilst rolling their eyes - I cant help thinking none of them were the funny ones at school
That can be fertile comedic soil, though, what Conservative MPs say. They've got some rum characters in their ranks who come out with some quite choice remarks.
I found it funny in the mid 80s; Friday/Saturday Night Live hosted by Ben Elton? I recorded them and rewatched religiously
Now you're deftly insinuating you've grown up and I haven't. Like I say, on fire today!
No!!! I prepared myself a protein shake after making that comment, and as I did so thought it could be taken that way.. and maybe I half meant it to, but the reality is I think I was quite a politically attuned 11-12 year old and maybe I was right then and wrong now
I watched less than 60 seconds of his last public announcement and had to turn it off
25ths going to be invoked.
Acting President Kamala Harris, possibly before year end.
Trump will go big on the "who knew what, when " angle.
It is totally mad having someone that age being president, his public appearances will get less and less and he will be gone in 2 years.
I can't agree with that. It is worth remembering that both the UK and US had war time leaders who were known to be unwell and one of whom died in office. What matters is what they do whilst they are in office, not necessarily how long they were there for.
Also you can guarantee most of the people bringing up Biden's age today in four years will be silent about the age of Trump when/if he runs in 2024.
Yes PB Trumptons out in force today with their faux sympathy. Yuk.
They are just yearning for the Big Orange to be back in the saddle!
Richard, I simply do not agree with your analysis. I think we would have buckled, and joined the consensus on how to approach the whole vaccine issue. It is possible, just possible, that the push to a unified approach was Brexit-induced, but I strongly doubt that too.
The EU is a one-directional ratchet, towards evermore centralized power, decision-making and control. This was coming, regardless of Brexit, IMO.
In any case, it is moot. We are where we are, and what iffery does not change that.
Actually the ratchet has very much jumped backwards on this one. You won't be seeing any future involvement of the Commission in healthcare and procurement after this debacle. Member states make little secret of the fact that they think it was a disaster.
Fair enough. But it has taken international humiliation for that one instance of reversing direction to happen.
Except thats not whats happening they are now saying the eu needs a health union to stop this happening again
I don't think there was anything actually wrong in principle with EU wide procurement, just a suboptimal execution.
There is nothing wrong with eu wide procurement if you put it in the hands of the competent....eu politicians are mostly those that failed as national politicians points at von der leyden
The ideal situation would have been EU-wide vaccine procurement run by whoever was in charge of our procurement, with a budget scaled-up.
Think of it as levelling-up rather than levelling-down.
Just to note that I had AstraZeneca jab #1 about 24 hours ago, and if how I feel now is "mild" compared to the real illness, then count me extremely grateful I had the cure before the disease.
I am probably younger than most of the people who've had it prior (a statement that, I guess, will be true of almost everyone, but it's bloody unpleasant. My wife (younger still) seems to be having an even worse time of it.
Sorry to hear that. There are a fair few anecdotes of stronger reactions in younger people, though whether that's because they've already had Covid or just have stronger immune systems in general isn't certain. Hope the side-effects clear up soon.
Thinking out loud, if younger people have a stronger immune response, maybe they don't need as big a dose, so we could reduce the dose and vaccinate more people quicker?
Sod that. Give me the dose they tested and know works.
I'll swallow the increased delay between shots, but I'd want a damned good explanation for lowering the dosage.
I watched less than 60 seconds of his last public announcement and had to turn it off
25ths going to be invoked.
Acting President Kamala Harris, possibly before year end.
Trump will go big on the "who knew what, when " angle.
It is totally mad having someone that age being president, his public appearances will get less and less and he will be gone in 2 years.
I can't agree with that. It is worth remembering that both the UK and US had war time leaders who were known to be unwell and one of whom died in office. What matters is what they do whilst they are in office, not necessarily how long they were there for.
Also you can guarantee most of the people bringing up Biden's age today in four years will be silent about the age of Trump when/if he runs in 2024.
Yes PB Trumptons out in force today with their faux sympathy. Yuk.
They are just yearning for the Big Orange to be back in the saddle!
Our thoughts with them. I know it's hard for them to accept. Time will heal, eventually.
A US professor at Georgetown University has been fired for expressing sadness and frustration that black students don't do as well as they should at the college. She actually said she feels "angst" at the situation.
Yet still got fired. Just for mentioning this inequality. Take that in, and what it implies for the future.
By the same logic, someone in the police or politics saying they feel bad at black people being poorer should also be fired.
What an odd story. I feel there must be more to it?
Normally you would, but the US is having a meltdown at the moment....see Sharon Osborne having to apologize for defending a friend against unsubstantiated claims of racism based solely on tone used when talking.
Since it is Mandarin for um or er, I doubt the PM will be giving any press conferences in Chinese.
I don't know the whole story, but I think some of the things that will trigger from that excerpt of the conversation is:
1. general statement that black students do worse without evidence or context 2. 'some really good ones' could readily be understood that others are there because of positive discrimination in recruitment 3. much research shows that social expectations drive much of student performance in hard subjects because it creates an angst in the students' minds as to whether they can perform to standard, and this taxes both their cognitive resources and their willpower. It has been shown to be a real effect in women in mathematics, minorities in law schools, and many other fields. If you set positive expectations and remove that angst, performance in these groups goes up; if you set expectations that they will struggle, guess what - they do struggle.
It may well be in relation to 3. that the school is most upset with the professor.
I think had I been the other academic on the call I would have questioned that statement - asked for some more context/evidence. I can't be sure, of course,* but I am an academic and I would find this a very odd conversation to be having, talking about students in a class I had taken and generalising by ethnic group (or sex, whatever). My experience has been that variation within ethnic group (or any other group you might think of) is much bigger than variation between groups.
I wouldn't fire the professor for this, but make sure that they realised it was unprofessional and look, based on whether there was evidence for the things said, at whether there were more issues.
There may well be more to this in terms of other incidents/history, but of course we don't know.
*I do recall a conversation in the last year, in a group whatsapp where someone else made a unsubstantiated generalisation, which I challenged. I was the senior person active in the group, so I felt that it fell to me, but I'd like to think I would have done the same with someone on the same level or senior. That didn't go any further, but I don't know what would have happened had it become public. I imagine there would have been some formal disciplinary process.
If you're interested in my third point, it is called "Stereotype threat". I got interested in this when I heard Steele interviewed on the radio about how he personally became interested in the subject. Some papers on it:
Richard, I simply do not agree with your analysis. I think we would have buckled, and joined the consensus on how to approach the whole vaccine issue. It is possible, just possible, that the push to a unified approach was Brexit-induced, but I strongly doubt that too.
The EU is a one-directional ratchet, towards evermore centralized power, decision-making and control. This was coming, regardless of Brexit, IMO.
In any case, it is moot. We are where we are, and what iffery does not change that.
Actually the ratchet has very much jumped backwards on this one. You won't be seeing any future involvement of the Commission in healthcare and procurement after this debacle. Member states make little secret of the fact that they think it was a disaster.
Fair enough. But it has taken international humiliation for that one instance of reversing direction to happen.
Except thats not whats happening they are now saying the eu needs a health union to stop this happening again
I don't think there was anything actually wrong in principle with EU wide procurement, just a suboptimal execution.
There is nothing wrong with eu wide procurement if you put it in the hands of the competent....eu politicians are mostly those that failed as national politicians points at von der leyden
The ideal situation would have been EU-wide vaccine procurement run by whoever was in charge of our procurement, with a budget scaled-up.
Think of it as levelling-up rather than levelling-down.
But it wouldn't have been run by us even if we hadnt voted to leave it would have been run by von der leyden. Remember when we in we objected to juncker where did that get us, von der leyden would still be in charge and just as incompetent
In truth, I think the vaccine nationalism rows would be even grimmer if we were in the EU rather than outside. Maybe we can chalk that up as a relative "benefit" of Brexit ?
It may be. Certainly we can all chalk up the EU's performance on the procurement as abysmal, and their temper tantrums and attempts at blame-shifting as disgraceful.
Actually, I think the EU will do fine, just as the UK would have done fine if the EU hadn't helpfully provided us with their early vaccines. There are plenty of vaccines coming down the pike everywhere and once you have vaccinated your own people you are relaxed about allowing your supply to go to other countries.
The eu didnt provide us with anything Pfizer provided us with the vaccines we had contracted for. Simple as that
The EU acted against its own interest in not securing those vaccine doses. The point I am making is that UK success, defined as being quicker than other countries, particularly the EU, depends on the EU not securing its own supply.
Fine. The UK was lucky and people in the EU are pissed off, hence Charles Michel's pretence that it was act of international sovereignty rather than EU incompetence. Nobody is buying that.
If the EU had been more competent, the UK would have had 3 million doses rather than 11 million in February, but domestic supply would ramp up and a couple of months later the UK would have plenty of supply, just as the EU looks like it will have plenty of supply. So what's the big deal?
The further comment I would make is that the lesson people will take from this is that the vaccine programme success demonstrates "the superiority of the Brexit system" (old Communist terminology). But as it is something of a prisoners' dilemma, I should also mention the unspoken more fundamental truth of that analogy: if you are going to betray your fellow prisoners make sure you get away and never see them again, otherwise they will beat you up. Brexit, at least of the aggressive kind pursued by our government, only works as a strategy if you never have any dependencies on the EU. January's truly grim trade figures show the limitations of that approach.
Just to note that I had AstraZeneca jab #1 about 24 hours ago, and if how I feel now is "mild" compared to the real illness, then count me extremely grateful I had the cure before the disease.
I am probably younger than most of the people who've had it prior (a statement that, I guess, will be true of almost everyone, but it's bloody unpleasant. My wife (younger still) seems to be having an even worse time of it.
Sorry to hear that. There are a fair few anecdotes of stronger reactions in younger people, though whether that's because they've already had Covid or just have stronger immune systems in general isn't certain. Hope the side-effects clear up soon.
Thinking out loud, if younger people have a stronger immune response, maybe they don't need as big a dose, so we could reduce the dose and vaccinate more people quicker?
Sod that. Give me the dose they tested and know works.
I'll swallow the increased delay between shots, but I'd want a damned good explanation for lowering the dosage.
The dosage is going to be a touch on the low side for me (And most other 6 ft+ men) if they've based it on an average person* tbh. * If vaccine doses are ideally ml/kg.
Richard, I simply do not agree with your analysis. I think we would have buckled, and joined the consensus on how to approach the whole vaccine issue. It is possible, just possible, that the push to a unified approach was Brexit-induced, but I strongly doubt that too.
The EU is a one-directional ratchet, towards evermore centralized power, decision-making and control. This was coming, regardless of Brexit, IMO.
In any case, it is moot. We are where we are, and what iffery does not change that.
Actually the ratchet has very much jumped backwards on this one. You won't be seeing any future involvement of the Commission in healthcare and procurement after this debacle. Member states make little secret of the fact that they think it was a disaster.
Except they are already talking about a health union. The EU only has one direction.
Who are 'they'? The EU is not a homogenous organisation with a single view, it's a treaty-defined collection of member states which themselves have different views and priorities. 'They' may be proposing more integration, but they're not going to get it. Member states and 'they' are not the same thing.
We were assured that the UK would never lose veto power over financial regulations, yet it happened. Again, see the EU for what it really is, not what you want it to be.
You think Germany is going to hand over more power to the Commission over healthcare and procurement after this mess? Really?
Richard, I simply do not agree with your analysis. I think we would have buckled, and joined the consensus on how to approach the whole vaccine issue. It is possible, just possible, that the push to a unified approach was Brexit-induced, but I strongly doubt that too.
The EU is a one-directional ratchet, towards evermore centralized power, decision-making and control. This was coming, regardless of Brexit, IMO.
In any case, it is moot. We are where we are, and what iffery does not change that.
Actually the ratchet has very much jumped backwards on this one. You won't be seeing any future involvement of the Commission in healthcare and procurement after this debacle. Member states make little secret of the fact that they think it was a disaster.
Fair enough. But it has taken international humiliation for that one instance of reversing direction to happen.
And the EU already calling for more Europe in response.
Well, they're probably right there. The issue was the clash between national and supranational competencies, which can be resolved in one of two ways (ie by getting rid of the former, or the latter).
I'm happy enough with the assertion that federalism only works if you commit to it, which is why I didn't buy Cameron's ECU "opt-out", and why I voted to leave.
Reminder #28495951 that Goodwin used to be quite an interesting academic before he became a populist berk forever tweeting on behalf of the right in the culture war. Wouldn't be surprised to see him joining Lozza Fox's new outfit and standing for something somewhere.
But the tweet is accurate. Cameron was right about twitter.
Yes, I don't dispute that. But Goodwin tweets endlessly, re-tweeting every poll that's published. And occasionally venturing further - for example, a recent tweet likening Nigel Farage to Wat Tyler. He's transformed from an independent academic into a partisan hack, and uses Twitter to provoke the culture war himself.
Maybe he is more concerned about making a living than staying true to other peoples idea of what he should be
That's a creative defence of grift! You're on fire.
I don't mean to defend him, sorry. But maybe he knows what he is doing, that what he is criticised for on here, but just wants to get publicity to sell books, get on tv, pay the mortgage whatever, and doesn't really care. I think that is quite possible, as is the idea that he is not all that clever, or just latched on to an idea, applies it to everything and is a bit blinkered by it... it has been known!
He irritates me but is far from the worst and sometimes has some interesting angles. I think that's a fair and accurate representation of how I feel about him when I'm in a sunny mood.
Just to note that I had AstraZeneca jab #1 about 24 hours ago, and if how I feel now is "mild" compared to the real illness, then count me extremely grateful I had the cure before the disease.
I am probably younger than most of the people who've had it prior (a statement that, I guess, will be true of almost everyone, but it's bloody unpleasant. My wife (younger still) seems to be having an even worse time of it.
Sorry to hear that. There are a fair few anecdotes of stronger reactions in younger people, though whether that's because they've already had Covid or just have stronger immune systems in general isn't certain. Hope the side-effects clear up soon.
Thinking out loud, if younger people have a stronger immune response, maybe they don't need as big a dose, so we could reduce the dose and vaccinate more people quicker?
Sod that. Give me the dose they tested and know works.
I'll swallow the increased delay between shots, but I'd want a damned good explanation for lowering the dosage.
We won't need to resort to such measures anyway, the supply situation is going to be 2x better for the next couple of months. We should be able to do around 40m doses in the next 7-9 weeks. With 14m second doses to complete in that time we will be able to give everyone over the age of 24 a dose by then and assuming some level of rejection all adults will have been offered it and we'll be into the second dose programme with only under 18s and those who previously rejected it needing first doses.
In truth, I think the vaccine nationalism rows would be even grimmer if we were in the EU rather than outside. Maybe we can chalk that up as a relative "benefit" of Brexit ?
It may be. Certainly we can all chalk up the EU's performance on the procurement as abysmal, and their temper tantrums and attempts at blame-shifting as disgraceful.
Actually, I think the EU will do fine, just as the UK would have done fine if the EU hadn't helpfully provided us with their early vaccines. There are plenty of vaccines coming down the pike everywhere and once you have vaccinated your own people you are relaxed about allowing your supply to go to other countries.
The eu didnt provide us with anything Pfizer provided us with the vaccines we had contracted for. Simple as that
The EU acted against its own interest in not securing those vaccine doses. The point I am making is that UK success, defined as being quicker than other countries, particularly the EU, depends on the EU not securing its own supply.
Fine. The UK was lucky and people in the EU are pissed off, hence Charles Michel's pretence that it was act of international sovereignty rather than EU incompetence. Nobody is buying that.
If the EU had been more competent, the UK would have had 3 million doses rather than 11 million in February, but domestic supply would ramp up and a couple of months later the UK would have plenty of supply, just as the EU looks like it will have plenty of supply. So what's the big deal?
The further comment I would make is that the lesson people will take from this is that the vaccine programme success demonstrates "the superiority of the Brexit system" (old Communist terminology). But as it is something of a prisoners' dilemma, I should also mention the unspoken more fundamental truth of that analogy: if you are going to betray your fellow prisoners make sure you get away and never see them again, otherwise they will beat you up. Brexit, at least of the aggressive kind pursued by our government, only works as a strategy if you never have any dependencies on the EU. January's truly grim trade figures show the limitations of that approach.
We dont need to rely on the eu to be incompetent, time and again with every crisis they have shown themselves incompetent. Betting on the eu being competent would be a surefire lay
I fail to see the outrage, unless you're an actual heifer.
I mean what adjectives do you use for someone who managed to lose a council seat to the Tories and then a parliamentary seat to the Tories that the Tories have never held before in a little over two years?
If only we had @ydoethur around. There's an Eric Heifer pun dying to be made.
I assume his absence is due to the return to school rather than anything else I have missed?
And what about @Sandpit I was pondering the other day? Not noticed him but then I've been on a bit less of late.
He is around. I have noticed him 'liking' a few posts today.
Including a couple of mine - so something might have happened to him.
Sandpit is generous with his likes and across the political spectrum so I doubt he has had a blow to the head nor have you worn him down and converted him into a lefty.
I watched less than 60 seconds of his last public announcement and had to turn it off
25ths going to be invoked.
Acting President Kamala Harris, possibly before year end.
Trump will go big on the "who knew what, when " angle.
It is totally mad having someone that age being president, his public appearances will get less and less and he will be gone in 2 years.
I can't agree with that. It is worth remembering that both the UK and US had war time leaders who were known to be unwell and one of whom died in office. What matters is what they do whilst they are in office, not necessarily how long they were there for.
Also you can guarantee most of the people bringing up Biden's age today in four years will be silent about the age of Trump when/if he runs in 2024.
Yes PB Trumptons out in force today with their faux sympathy. Yuk.
They are just yearning for the Big Orange to be back in the saddle!
Our thoughts with them. I know it's hard for them to accept. Time will heal, eventually.
i'm confused - I posted the original story and I think 2 or 3 commented on it
None of us mentioned Trump I don't think
So - are you just indulging your prejudices or do you actually think I am a Trump fan.
If you think I am please feel free to provide a post backing that up.
Just to note that I had AstraZeneca jab #1 about 24 hours ago, and if how I feel now is "mild" compared to the real illness, then count me extremely grateful I had the cure before the disease.
I am probably younger than most of the people who've had it prior (a statement that, I guess, will be true of almost everyone, but it's bloody unpleasant. My wife (younger still) seems to be having an even worse time of it.
Sorry to hear that. There are a fair few anecdotes of stronger reactions in younger people, though whether that's because they've already had Covid or just have stronger immune systems in general isn't certain. Hope the side-effects clear up soon.
Thinking out loud, if younger people have a stronger immune response, maybe they don't need as big a dose, so we could reduce the dose and vaccinate more people quicker?
Sod that. Give me the dose they tested and know works.
I'll swallow the increased delay between shots, but I'd want a damned good explanation for lowering the dosage.
The dosage is going to be a touch on the low side for me (And most other 6 ft+ men) if they've based it on an average person tbh.
Nice humblebrag there.
Hadn't thought of that. My wife is tiny, which could explain her reaction.
But do vaccines even work that way? The purpose is to expose your immune system to a dead copy of the virus, and the reaction is your immune system trying to work out how to get rid of it. Does your body mass really make a difference to that?
In truth, I think the vaccine nationalism rows would be even grimmer if we were in the EU rather than outside. Maybe we can chalk that up as a relative "benefit" of Brexit ?
It may be. Certainly we can all chalk up the EU's performance on the procurement as abysmal, and their temper tantrums and attempts at blame-shifting as disgraceful.
Actually, I think the EU will do fine, just as the UK would have done fine if the EU hadn't helpfully provided us with their early vaccines. There are plenty of vaccines coming down the pike everywhere and once you have vaccinated your own people you are relaxed about allowing your supply to go to other countries.
The eu didnt provide us with anything Pfizer provided us with the vaccines we had contracted for. Simple as that
The EU acted against its own interest in not securing those vaccine doses. The point I am making is that UK success, defined as being quicker than other countries, particularly the EU, depends on the EU not securing its own supply.
Fine. The UK was lucky and people in the EU are pissed off, hence Charles Michel's pretence that it was act of international sovereignty rather than EU incompetence. Nobody is buying that.
If the EU had been more competent, the UK would have had 3 million doses rather than 11 million in February, but domestic supply would ramp up and a couple of months later the UK would have plenty of supply, just as the EU looks like it will have plenty of supply. So what's the big deal?
The further comment I would make is that the lesson people will take from this is that the vaccine programme success demonstrates "the superiority of the Brexit system" (old Communist terminology). But as it is something of a prisoners' dilemma, I should also mention the unspoken more fundamental truth of that analogy: if you are going to betray your fellow prisoners make sure you get away and never see them again, otherwise they will beat you up. Brexit, at least of the aggressive kind pursued by our government, only works as a strategy if you never have any dependencies on the EU. January's truly grim trade figures show the limitations of that approach.
Please explain how Pfizer is "EU" supply? It's an American company and it has signed contracts with dozens of companies to supply out of the Belgian site. Your constant pushing of the EU line of "EU vaccines" is so transparent. There are no EU vaccines, just as there are no UK vaccines. There are private companies which have signed supply contracts with various third parties. The EU bungled it's contracts and is paying the price for it.
'The SNP’s links with Iran are of the gravest concern
...It is not simply that it operates a network of fake social media and internet sites pushing the SNP’s cause; it is that leading SNP figures, from Nicola Sturgeon down, appear to have what one might charitably call a lack of concern about consorting with figures who are either, in effect, agents of the regime or who are deeply sympathetic to it.'
Provide not an iota of proof or even an allegation of who these 'figures' might be.
Seems a lot of A was in the same room as B who said C and attended event D.
Is the Quds rally a regular legal event in London?
Pass, I've never attended a Quds rally, I try and avoid Muslim centric events.
This bit did strike me as odd, another dude.
Mr Mohamad is strongly linked to a charity called the Ahl al-Bait Society, which has received hundreds of thousands of pounds in grants from the Scottish government. In 2015, he took former First Minister Alex Salmond on an official visit to Tehran.
Although I have to say I would love to visit Tehran once the theocracy has gone. Apparently flying into Tehran over the Alborz mountains is a wonderful experience.
In truth, I think the vaccine nationalism rows would be even grimmer if we were in the EU rather than outside. Maybe we can chalk that up as a relative "benefit" of Brexit ?
It may be. Certainly we can all chalk up the EU's performance on the procurement as abysmal, and their temper tantrums and attempts at blame-shifting as disgraceful.
Actually, I think the EU will do fine, just as the UK would have done fine if the EU hadn't helpfully provided us with their early vaccines. There are plenty of vaccines coming down the pike everywhere and once you have vaccinated your own people you are relaxed about allowing your supply to go to other countries.
The eu didnt provide us with anything Pfizer provided us with the vaccines we had contracted for. Simple as that
The EU acted against its own interest in not securing those vaccine doses. The point I am making is that UK success, defined as being quicker than other countries, particularly the EU, depends on the EU not securing its own supply.
Fine. The UK was lucky and people in the EU are pissed off, hence Charles Michel's pretence that it was act of international sovereignty rather than EU incompetence. Nobody is buying that.
If the EU had been more competent, the UK would have had 3 million doses rather than 11 million in February, but domestic supply would ramp up and a couple of months later the UK would have plenty of supply, just as the EU looks like it will have plenty of supply. So what's the big deal?
The further comment I would make is that the lesson people will take from this is that the vaccine programme success demonstrates "the superiority of the Brexit system" (old Communist terminology). But as it is something of a prisoners' dilemma, I should also mention the unspoken more fundamental truth of that analogy: if you are going to betray your fellow prisoners make sure you get away and never see them again, otherwise they will beat you up. Brexit, at least of the aggressive kind pursued by our government, only works as a strategy if you never have any dependencies on the EU. January's truly grim trade figures show the limitations of that approach.
The UK was lucky? That's doing a huge disservice to those involved.
I fail to see the outrage, unless you're an actual heifer.
I mean what adjectives do you use for someone who managed to lose a council seat to the Tories and then a parliamentary seat to the Tories that the Tories have never held before in a little over two years?
If only we had @ydoethur around. There's an Eric Heifer pun dying to be made.
I assume his absence is due to the return to school rather than anything else I have missed?
And what about @Sandpit I was pondering the other day? Not noticed him but then I've been on a bit less of late.
He is around. I have noticed him 'liking' a few posts today.
Including a couple of mine - so something might have happened to him.
Sandpit is generous with his likes and across the political spectrum so I doubt he has had a blow to the head nor have you worn him down and converted him into a lefty.
Indeed even I have had likes from you Kinablu doesn't mean I think I have made you a non leftie
Sometimes I use a "like" not to indicate agreement or approval or admiration but just to say ... "Watching you. Watching you quite closely."
The latest outbreak of AZ paranoia has been reported from Bulgaria, where they've halted their immunisation program over a single case.
Basically, it would appear than one obese woman with heart disease died (of heart failure, surprise surprise) some hours after having her vaccination. As a result, the Government is wetting its pants and waiting for more reassurance from the European Medicines Agency, even though it has already backed the thing.
In the meantime, the populace of the nation that already has the slowest vaccination rollout in the entire EU continues to go unprotected.
Reminder #28495951 that Goodwin used to be quite an interesting academic before he became a populist berk forever tweeting on behalf of the right in the culture war. Wouldn't be surprised to see him joining Lozza Fox's new outfit and standing for something somewhere.
But the tweet is accurate. Cameron was right about twitter.
Yes, I don't dispute that. But Goodwin tweets endlessly, re-tweeting every poll that's published. And occasionally venturing further - for example, a recent tweet likening Nigel Farage to Wat Tyler. He's transformed from an independent academic into a partisan hack, and uses Twitter to provoke the culture war himself.
He only Tweets polls that agree with him.
For example he Tweeted half of a BLM poll, conveniently not the part which completely disagreed with the point he was making.
Yes, also demonstrates my point that had we still been part of the EU we would most likely not have been part of the EU scheme, we would have done our own thing.
Sorry Brexiteers, but your only claim to good news about Brexit is, like everything else you have claimed, a crock of shit.
I think Brexiteers are making a broader point, that doing your own thing is better than being part of the collective, where the EU represents the collective way of doing things. I think that point is reasonable. If the EU isn't for the collective way of doing things, then what is it for? Whether the issue is the way the EU has gone about it and collectives are in principle OK, or that collectives are never a good idea isn't explored.
My personal view is that UK's vaccine success, which is a genuine one, is essentially a prisoner's dilemma, given the extent to which the UK programme depends on EU supplied vaccines. From its own PoV, the EU slipped up by not maximally securing its own supply. The success of the UK programme depended on the EU making that mistake. The context to Charles Michel's comments this week was his trying to justify the export of vaccines as international solidarity, rather than EU incompetence. No-one believed him.
The UK programme does not depend on EU supplied vaccines.
8 million vaccines supplied from the EU against 11 million innoculations delivered in February (NYTimes and OurWorldinData respectively).
Eventually there would be enough vaccines to do everyone in the UK as will happen in all developed countries as it is. But the claimed success for the UK programme is that it is doing it quicker than other countries, not that it is doing it at all. That success depended on the EU not securing vaccines for itself that it could have done.
I don't really agree there.
Leaving aside the obvious point that Pfizer jabs are from Pfizer not "The EU", so Plan B would be for Pfizer to supply them from somewhere else if it exists, we have 100m AZ jabs in the pipeline anyway - which alone is ~95% of the total we need for adults (2 x 53m).
The Pfizer supplies are ultimately marginal.
Combine that with another vaccine approved, and another about to be approved, which will be produced in the UK. And I am not really sure that any delay would be that significant.
Actually, I agree and have commented on here to that effect. For the same reason, the EU programme will probably be OK too. That's if you define success as getting there in the end, rather than getting there first.
The latest outbreak of AZ paranoia has been reported from Bulgaria, where they've halted their immunisation program over a single case.
Basically, it would appear than one obese woman with heart disease died (of heart failure, surprise surprise) some hours after having her vaccination. As a result, the Government is wetting its pants and waiting for more reassurance from the European Medicines Agency, even though it has already backed the thing.
In the meantime, the populace of the nation that already has the slowest vaccination rollout in the entire EU continues to go unprotected.
Christ sake, these reactions are utterly ridiculous.
Richard, I simply do not agree with your analysis. I think we would have buckled, and joined the consensus on how to approach the whole vaccine issue. It is possible, just possible, that the push to a unified approach was Brexit-induced, but I strongly doubt that too.
The EU is a one-directional ratchet, towards evermore centralized power, decision-making and control. This was coming, regardless of Brexit, IMO.
In any case, it is moot. We are where we are, and what iffery does not change that.
Actually the ratchet has very much jumped backwards on this one. You won't be seeing any future involvement of the Commission in healthcare and procurement after this debacle. Member states make little secret of the fact that they think it was a disaster.
Except they are already talking about a health union. The EU only has one direction.
Who are 'they'? The EU is not a homogenous organisation with a single view, it's a treaty-defined collection of member states which themselves have different views and priorities. 'They' may be proposing more integration, but they're not going to get it. Member states and 'they' are not the same thing.
We were assured that the UK would never lose veto power over financial regulations, yet it happened. Again, see the EU for what it really is, not what you want it to be.
You think Germany is going to hand over more power to the Commission over healthcare and procurement after this mess? Really?
Yes, look at how the punishment beatings were meted out to the Netherlands and the other frugal nations who didn't want to write blank cheques for virus recovery funding. They're cast into the "anti-European" role by the EU and eventually they give in. Germany will be subject to the same singling out and eventually they'll cave, the EU will slowly and incompletely take over healthcare provision in Europe.
I fail to see the outrage, unless you're an actual heifer.
I mean what adjectives do you use for someone who managed to lose a council seat to the Tories and then a parliamentary seat to the Tories that the Tories have never held before in a little over two years?
If only we had @ydoethur around. There's an Eric Heifer pun dying to be made.
I assume his absence is due to the return to school rather than anything else I have missed?
And what about @Sandpit I was pondering the other day? Not noticed him but then I've been on a bit less of late.
He is around. I have noticed him 'liking' a few posts today.
Including a couple of mine - so something might have happened to him.
Sandpit is generous with his likes and across the political spectrum so I doubt he has had a blow to the head nor have you worn him down and converted him into a lefty.
Indeed even I have had likes from you Kinablu doesn't mean I think I have made you a non leftie
Sometimes I use a "like" not to indicate agreement or approval or admiration but just to say ... "Watching you. Watching you quite closely."
Ah well I give out few likes but when I do its because they had a good point my last like for example was for nick palmer pointing out innocent till proven guilty over the police officer arrested
'The SNP’s links with Iran are of the gravest concern
...It is not simply that it operates a network of fake social media and internet sites pushing the SNP’s cause; it is that leading SNP figures, from Nicola Sturgeon down, appear to have what one might charitably call a lack of concern about consorting with figures who are either, in effect, agents of the regime or who are deeply sympathetic to it.'
Provide not an iota of proof or even an allegation of who these 'figures' might be.
Seems a lot of A was in the same room as B who said C and attended event D.
Is the Quds rally a regular legal event in London?
"You mean the Nigel Farage, who sits in the European Parliament with Rudolf Strauss MEP from Austria, whose party leader's next door neighbour once had a conversation with a lady from Innsbruck whose great grandfather was in the SS? THAT Nigel Farage?"
I believe my opinion of Farage is pretty much independent of who he may or may not have consorted with. Of course that opinion might have a bearing on what I think of those who have consorted with him.
Yes, also demonstrates my point that had we still been part of the EU we would most likely not have been part of the EU scheme, we would have done our own thing.
Sorry Brexiteers, but your only claim to good news about Brexit is, like everything else you have claimed, a crock of shit.
I think Brexiteers are making a broader point, that doing your own thing is better than being part of the collective, where the EU represents the collective way of doing things. I think that point is reasonable. If the EU isn't for the collective way of doing things, then what is it for? Whether the issue is the way the EU has gone about it and collectives are in principle OK, or that collectives are never a good idea isn't explored.
My personal view is that UK's vaccine success, which is a genuine one, is essentially a prisoner's dilemma, given the extent to which the UK programme depends on EU supplied vaccines. From its own PoV, the EU slipped up by not maximally securing its own supply. The success of the UK programme depended on the EU making that mistake. The context to Charles Michel's comments this week was his trying to justify the export of vaccines as international solidarity, rather than EU incompetence. No-one believed him.
The UK programme does not depend on EU supplied vaccines.
8 million vaccines supplied from the EU against 11 million innoculations delivered in February (NYTimes and OurWorldinData respectively).
Eventually there would be enough vaccines to do everyone in the UK as will happen in all developed countries as it is. But the claimed success for the UK programme is that it is doing it quicker than other countries, not that it is doing it at all. That success depended on the EU not securing vaccines for itself that it could have done.
I don't really agree there.
Leaving aside the obvious point that Pfizer jabs are from Pfizer not "The EU", so Plan B would be for Pfizer to supply them from somewhere else if it exists, we have 100m AZ jabs in the pipeline anyway - which alone is ~95% of the total we need for adults (2 x 53m).
The Pfizer supplies are ultimately marginal.
Combine that with another vaccine approved, and another about to be approved, which will be produced in the UK. And I am not really sure that any delay would be that significant.
Actually, I agree and have commented on here to that effect. For the same reason, the EU programme will probably be OK too. That's if you define success as getting there in the end, rather than getting there first.
you seem to be making the point Robert has made many times - the difference in getting there between the fastest and slowest of the rich countries is going to be measured in weeks and months, not quarters and years.
In truth, I think the vaccine nationalism rows would be even grimmer if we were in the EU rather than outside. Maybe we can chalk that up as a relative "benefit" of Brexit ?
It may be. Certainly we can all chalk up the EU's performance on the procurement as abysmal, and their temper tantrums and attempts at blame-shifting as disgraceful.
Actually, I think the EU will do fine, just as the UK would have done fine if the EU hadn't helpfully provided us with their early vaccines. There are plenty of vaccines coming down the pike everywhere and once you have vaccinated your own people you are relaxed about allowing your supply to go to other countries.
The eu didnt provide us with anything Pfizer provided us with the vaccines we had contracted for. Simple as that
The EU acted against its own interest in not securing those vaccine doses. The point I am making is that UK success, defined as being quicker than other countries, particularly the EU, depends on the EU not securing its own supply.
Fine. The UK was lucky and people in the EU are pissed off, hence Charles Michel's pretence that it was act of international sovereignty rather than EU incompetence. Nobody is buying that.
If the EU had been more competent, the UK would have had 3 million doses rather than 11 million in February, but domestic supply would ramp up and a couple of months later the UK would have plenty of supply, just as the EU looks like it will have plenty of supply. So what's the big deal?
The further comment I would make is that the lesson people will take from this is that the vaccine programme success demonstrates "the superiority of the Brexit system" (old Communist terminology). But as it is something of a prisoners' dilemma, I should also mention the unspoken more fundamental truth of that analogy: if you are going to betray your fellow prisoners make sure you get away and never see them again, otherwise they will beat you up. Brexit, at least of the aggressive kind pursued by our government, only works as a strategy if you never have any dependencies on the EU. January's truly grim trade figures show the limitations of that approach.
The UK was lucky? That's doing a huge disservice to those involved.
Either way, the UK has a well run vaccine programme. If the EU had secured those vaccines, it would still be a well run programme. No disservice at all.
The latest outbreak of AZ paranoia has been reported from Bulgaria, where they've halted their immunisation program over a single case.
Basically, it would appear than one obese woman with heart disease died (of heart failure, surprise surprise) some hours after having her vaccination. As a result, the Government is wetting its pants and waiting for more reassurance from the European Medicines Agency, even though it has already backed the thing.
In the meantime, the populace of the nation that already has the slowest vaccination rollout in the entire EU continues to go unprotected.
Christ sake, these reactions are utterly ridiculous.
The latest outbreak of AZ paranoia has been reported from Bulgaria, where they've halted their immunisation program over a single case.
Basically, it would appear than one obese woman with heart disease died (of heart failure, surprise surprise) some hours after having her vaccination. As a result, the Government is wetting its pants and waiting for more reassurance from the European Medicines Agency, even though it has already backed the thing.
In the meantime, the populace of the nation that already has the slowest vaccination rollout in the entire EU continues to go unprotected.
Christ sake, these reactions are utterly ridiculous.
It is just like that Daily Mail front page which went heavy on a person who died after receiving the vaccine with the inference that the vaccine caused the death.
Just to note that I had AstraZeneca jab #1 about 24 hours ago, and if how I feel now is "mild" compared to the real illness, then count me extremely grateful I had the cure before the disease.
I am probably younger than most of the people who've had it prior (a statement that, I guess, will be true of almost everyone, but it's bloody unpleasant. My wife (younger still) seems to be having an even worse time of it.
Sorry to hear that. There are a fair few anecdotes of stronger reactions in younger people, though whether that's because they've already had Covid or just have stronger immune systems in general isn't certain. Hope the side-effects clear up soon.
Thinking out loud, if younger people have a stronger immune response, maybe they don't need as big a dose, so we could reduce the dose and vaccinate more people quicker?
Sod that. Give me the dose they tested and know works.
I'll swallow the increased delay between shots, but I'd want a damned good explanation for lowering the dosage.
The dosage is going to be a touch on the low side for me (And most other 6 ft+ men) if they've based it on an average person tbh.
Nice humblebrag there.
Hadn't thought of that. My wife is tiny, which could explain her reaction.
But do vaccines even work that way? The purpose is to expose your immune system to a dead copy of the virus, and the reaction is your immune system trying to work out how to get rid of it. Does your body mass really make a difference to that?
The latest outbreak of AZ paranoia has been reported from Bulgaria, where they've halted their immunisation program over a single case.
Basically, it would appear than one obese woman with heart disease died (of heart failure, surprise surprise) some hours after having her vaccination. As a result, the Government is wetting its pants and waiting for more reassurance from the European Medicines Agency, even though it has already backed the thing.
In the meantime, the populace of the nation that already has the slowest vaccination rollout in the entire EU continues to go unprotected.
Christ sake, these reactions are utterly ridiculous.
It is just like that Daily Mail front page which went heavy on a person who died after receiving the vaccine with the inference that the vaccine caused the death.
Yes but the Daily Mail is trying to generate clicks for advertising revenue. A national health agency isn't.
Yes, also demonstrates my point that had we still been part of the EU we would most likely not have been part of the EU scheme, we would have done our own thing.
Sorry Brexiteers, but your only claim to good news about Brexit is, like everything else you have claimed, a crock of shit.
I think Brexiteers are making a broader point, that doing your own thing is better than being part of the collective, where the EU represents the collective way of doing things. I think that point is reasonable. If the EU isn't for the collective way of doing things, then what is it for? Whether the issue is the way the EU has gone about it and collectives are in principle OK, or that collectives are never a good idea isn't explored.
My personal view is that UK's vaccine success, which is a genuine one, is essentially a prisoner's dilemma, given the extent to which the UK programme depends on EU supplied vaccines. From its own PoV, the EU slipped up by not maximally securing its own supply. The success of the UK programme depended on the EU making that mistake. The context to Charles Michel's comments this week was his trying to justify the export of vaccines as international solidarity, rather than EU incompetence. No-one believed him.
The UK programme does not depend on EU supplied vaccines.
8 million vaccines supplied from the EU against 11 million innoculations delivered in February (NYTimes and OurWorldinData respectively).
Eventually there would be enough vaccines to do everyone in the UK as will happen in all developed countries as it is. But the claimed success for the UK programme is that it is doing it quicker than other countries, not that it is doing it at all. That success depended on the EU not securing vaccines for itself that it could have done.
I don't really agree there.
Leaving aside the obvious point that Pfizer jabs are from Pfizer not "The EU", so Plan B would be for Pfizer to supply them from somewhere else if it exists, we have 100m AZ jabs in the pipeline anyway - which alone is ~95% of the total we need for adults (2 x 53m).
The Pfizer supplies are ultimately marginal.
Combine that with another vaccine approved, and another about to be approved, which will be produced in the UK. And I am not really sure that any delay would be that significant.
Actually, I agree and have commented on here to that effect. For the same reason, the EU programme will probably be OK too. That's if you define success as getting there in the end, rather than getting there first.
you seem to be making the point Robert has made many times - the difference in getting there between the fastest and slowest of the rich countries is going to be measured in weeks and months, not quarters and years.
Indeed. Although I should qualify that slightly with my concerns about vaccine scepticism in certain countries. Not all in the EU: the USA and Russia have big issues too.
The latest outbreak of AZ paranoia has been reported from Bulgaria, where they've halted their immunisation program over a single case.
Basically, it would appear than one obese woman with heart disease died (of heart failure, surprise surprise) some hours after having her vaccination. As a result, the Government is wetting its pants and waiting for more reassurance from the European Medicines Agency, even though it has already backed the thing.
In the meantime, the populace of the nation that already has the slowest vaccination rollout in the entire EU continues to go unprotected.
Christ sake, these reactions are utterly ridiculous.
It is just like that Daily Mail front page which went heavy on a person who died after receiving the vaccine with the inference that the vaccine caused the death.
Yes but the Daily Mail is trying to generate clicks for advertising revenue. A national health agency isn't.
The latest outbreak of AZ paranoia has been reported from Bulgaria, where they've halted their immunisation program over a single case.
Basically, it would appear than one obese woman with heart disease died (of heart failure, surprise surprise) some hours after having her vaccination. As a result, the Government is wetting its pants and waiting for more reassurance from the European Medicines Agency, even though it has already backed the thing.
In the meantime, the populace of the nation that already has the slowest vaccination rollout in the entire EU continues to go unprotected.
Christ sake, these reactions are utterly ridiculous.
It is just like that Daily Mail front page which went heavy on a person who died after receiving the vaccine with the inference that the vaccine caused the death.
Good thing the Daily Mail doesn't control the vaccine programme then!
Yes, also demonstrates my point that had we still been part of the EU we would most likely not have been part of the EU scheme, we would have done our own thing.
Sorry Brexiteers, but your only claim to good news about Brexit is, like everything else you have claimed, a crock of shit.
I think Brexiteers are making a broader point, that doing your own thing is better than being part of the collective, where the EU represents the collective way of doing things. I think that point is reasonable. If the EU isn't for the collective way of doing things, then what is it for? Whether the issue is the way the EU has gone about it and collectives are in principle OK, or that collectives are never a good idea isn't explored.
My personal view is that UK's vaccine success, which is a genuine one, is essentially a prisoner's dilemma, given the extent to which the UK programme depends on EU supplied vaccines. From its own PoV, the EU slipped up by not maximally securing its own supply. The success of the UK programme depended on the EU making that mistake. The context to Charles Michel's comments this week was his trying to justify the export of vaccines as international solidarity, rather than EU incompetence. No-one believed him.
The UK programme does not depend on EU supplied vaccines.
8 million vaccines supplied from the EU against 11 million innoculations delivered in February (NYTimes and OurWorldinData respectively).
Eventually there would be enough vaccines to do everyone in the UK as will happen in all developed countries as it is. But the claimed success for the UK programme is that it is doing it quicker than other countries, not that it is doing it at all. That success depended on the EU not securing vaccines for itself that it could have done.
I don't really agree there.
Leaving aside the obvious point that Pfizer jabs are from Pfizer not "The EU", so Plan B would be for Pfizer to supply them from somewhere else if it exists, we have 100m AZ jabs in the pipeline anyway - which alone is ~95% of the total we need for adults (2 x 53m).
The Pfizer supplies are ultimately marginal.
Combine that with another vaccine approved, and another about to be approved, which will be produced in the UK. And I am not really sure that any delay would be that significant.
Actually, I agree and have commented on here to that effect. For the same reason, the EU programme will probably be OK too. That's if you define success as getting there in the end, rather than getting there first.
you seem to be making the point Robert has made many times - the difference in getting there between the fastest and slowest of the rich countries is going to be measured in weeks and months, not quarters and years.
Supply determines the initial speed of the rollout, but hesitancy gives the endpoint - or at least the point at which you slow to a crawl as you start to pick up the reluctant. The UK looks better positioned than almost anyone on both fronts.*
'The SNP’s links with Iran are of the gravest concern
...It is not simply that it operates a network of fake social media and internet sites pushing the SNP’s cause; it is that leading SNP figures, from Nicola Sturgeon down, appear to have what one might charitably call a lack of concern about consorting with figures who are either, in effect, agents of the regime or who are deeply sympathetic to it.'
Provide not an iota of proof or even an allegation of who these 'figures' might be.
Seems a lot of A was in the same room as B who said C and attended event D.
Is the Quds rally a regular legal event in London?
Pass, I've never attended a Quds rally, I try and avoid Muslim centric events.
This bit did strike me as odd, another dude.
Mr Mohamad is strongly linked to a charity called the Ahl al-Bait Society, which has received hundreds of thousands of pounds in grants from the Scottish government. In 2015, he took former First Minister Alex Salmond on an official visit to Tehran.
Although I have to say I would love to visit Tehran once the theocracy has gone. Apparently flying into Tehran over the Alborz mountains is a wonderful experience.
Al Quds is the Arabic name for Jerusalem. So Al Quds day is more a Palestinian rather than Muslim thing, albeit initiated by the Iranians.
Matthew Goodwin is not impartial whatsoever, he does not do objective research, he has a POV that he wants to spread with evidence he uses.
That is fine - but people should not use him as an objective source.
I agree he is partisan, though he does present evidence and polling more often than not. It's a far cry from a lot of other academics and journalists on twitter who merely present an opinion.
In truth, I think the vaccine nationalism rows would be even grimmer if we were in the EU rather than outside. Maybe we can chalk that up as a relative "benefit" of Brexit ?
It may be. Certainly we can all chalk up the EU's performance on the procurement as abysmal, and their temper tantrums and attempts at blame-shifting as disgraceful.
Actually, I think the EU will do fine, just as the UK would have done fine if the EU hadn't helpfully provided us with their early vaccines. There are plenty of vaccines coming down the pike everywhere and once you have vaccinated your own people you are relaxed about allowing your supply to go to other countries.
The eu didnt provide us with anything Pfizer provided us with the vaccines we had contracted for. Simple as that
The EU acted against its own interest in not securing those vaccine doses. The point I am making is that UK success, defined as being quicker than other countries, particularly the EU, depends on the EU not securing its own supply.
Fine. The UK was lucky and people in the EU are pissed off, hence Charles Michel's pretence that it was act of international sovereignty rather than EU incompetence. Nobody is buying that.
If the EU had been more competent, the UK would have had 3 million doses rather than 11 million in February, but domestic supply would ramp up and a couple of months later the UK would have plenty of supply, just as the EU looks like it will have plenty of supply. So what's the big deal?
The further comment I would make is that the lesson people will take from this is that the vaccine programme success demonstrates "the superiority of the Brexit system" (old Communist terminology). But as it is something of a prisoners' dilemma, I should also mention the unspoken more fundamental truth of that analogy: if you are going to betray your fellow prisoners make sure you get away and never see them again, otherwise they will beat you up. Brexit, at least of the aggressive kind pursued by our government, only works as a strategy if you never have any dependencies on the EU. January's truly grim trade figures show the limitations of that approach.
I think it would have been perfectly possible to do an EU version of the elements of supply chain and distribution infrastructure that was done here across the EU-27, but one crucial mistake was that the EU-programme focus was on *buying* vaccines (that did not exist yet) like packs of bulk sausages from Aldi, whereas on this occasion the focus should have been on *creating* vaccines.
For me that is the biggest failure in this.
And because EC believe in a sort of moral superiority, it has been floudering and hitting out everywhere rather than realising that the "halo" is just a projection.
The latest outbreak of AZ paranoia has been reported from Bulgaria, where they've halted their immunisation program over a single case.
Basically, it would appear than one obese woman with heart disease died (of heart failure, surprise surprise) some hours after having her vaccination. As a result, the Government is wetting its pants and waiting for more reassurance from the European Medicines Agency, even though it has already backed the thing.
In the meantime, the populace of the nation that already has the slowest vaccination rollout in the entire EU continues to go unprotected.
Christ sake, these reactions are utterly ridiculous.
'The SNP’s links with Iran are of the gravest concern
...It is not simply that it operates a network of fake social media and internet sites pushing the SNP’s cause; it is that leading SNP figures, from Nicola Sturgeon down, appear to have what one might charitably call a lack of concern about consorting with figures who are either, in effect, agents of the regime or who are deeply sympathetic to it.'
Provide not an iota of proof or even an allegation of who these 'figures' might be.
Seems a lot of A was in the same room as B who said C and attended event D.
Is the Quds rally a regular legal event in London?
Pass, I've never attended a Quds rally, I try and avoid Muslim centric events.
This bit did strike me as odd, another dude.
Mr Mohamad is strongly linked to a charity called the Ahl al-Bait Society, which has received hundreds of thousands of pounds in grants from the Scottish government. In 2015, he took former First Minister Alex Salmond on an official visit to Tehran.
Although I have to say I would love to visit Tehran once the theocracy has gone. Apparently flying into Tehran over the Alborz mountains is a wonderful experience.
Al Quds is the Arabic name for Jerusalem. So Al Quds day is more a Palestinian rather than Muslim thing, albeit initiated by the Iranians.
Yes, but the entire independence movement is up to its neck in dodgy arrangements. You can look, for example, at the range of false front sector-based orgs created for the independence campaign and how they were packed with partisan activists.
I fail to see the outrage, unless you're an actual heifer.
I mean what adjectives do you use for someone who managed to lose a council seat to the Tories and then a parliamentary seat to the Tories that the Tories have never held before in a little over two years?
If only we had @ydoethur around. There's an Eric Heifer pun dying to be made.
I assume his absence is due to the return to school rather than anything else I have missed?
And what about @Sandpit I was pondering the other day? Not noticed him but then I've been on a bit less of late.
He is around. I have noticed him 'liking' a few posts today.
Including a couple of mine - so something might have happened to him.
Sandpit is generous with his likes and across the political spectrum so I doubt he has had a blow to the head nor have you worn him down and converted him into a lefty.
Indeed even I have had likes from you Kinablu doesn't mean I think I have made you a non leftie
Sometimes I use a "like" not to indicate agreement or approval or admiration but just to say ... "Watching you. Watching you quite closely."
Yes, also demonstrates my point that had we still been part of the EU we would most likely not have been part of the EU scheme, we would have done our own thing.
Sorry Brexiteers, but your only claim to good news about Brexit is, like everything else you have claimed, a crock of shit.
I think Brexiteers are making a broader point, that doing your own thing is better than being part of the collective, where the EU represents the collective way of doing things. I think that point is reasonable. If the EU isn't for the collective way of doing things, then what is it for? Whether the issue is the way the EU has gone about it and collectives are in principle OK, or that collectives are never a good idea isn't explored.
My personal view is that UK's vaccine success, which is a genuine one, is essentially a prisoner's dilemma, given the extent to which the UK programme depends on EU supplied vaccines. From its own PoV, the EU slipped up by not maximally securing its own supply. The success of the UK programme depended on the EU making that mistake. The context to Charles Michel's comments this week was his trying to justify the export of vaccines as international solidarity, rather than EU incompetence. No-one believed him.
The UK programme does not depend on EU supplied vaccines.
8 million vaccines supplied from the EU against 11 million innoculations delivered in February (NYTimes and OurWorldinData respectively).
Eventually there would be enough vaccines to do everyone in the UK as will happen in all developed countries as it is. But the claimed success for the UK programme is that it is doing it quicker than other countries, not that it is doing it at all. That success depended on the EU not securing vaccines for itself that it could have done.
I don't really agree there.
Leaving aside the obvious point that Pfizer jabs are from Pfizer not "The EU", so Plan B would be for Pfizer to supply them from somewhere else if it exists, we have 100m AZ jabs in the pipeline anyway - which alone is ~95% of the total we need for adults (2 x 53m).
The Pfizer supplies are ultimately marginal.
Combine that with another vaccine approved, and another about to be approved, which will be produced in the UK. And I am not really sure that any delay would be that significant.
Actually, I agree and have commented on here to that effect. For the same reason, the EU programme will probably be OK too. That's if you define success as getting there in the end, rather than getting there first.
Success as getting there in the end is good, but I'd suggest that a lot of the value in being ahead of the game lies in the population's mental health. That wouldn't apply to places where they are highly sceptical about vaccines, but it's certainly a factor in the UK.
Matthew Goodwin is not impartial whatsoever, he does not do objective research, he has a POV that he wants to spread with evidence he uses.
That is fine - but people should not use him as an objective source.
I agree he is partisan, though he does present evidence and polling more often than not. It's a far cry from a lot of other academics and journalists on twitter who merely present an opinion.
He only posts polls that agree with him though, this is my main contention with him.
If/when (maybe a big if!) Labour leads in a poll again he will stop posting them.
Richard, I simply do not agree with your analysis. I think we would have buckled, and joined the consensus on how to approach the whole vaccine issue. It is possible, just possible, that the push to a unified approach was Brexit-induced, but I strongly doubt that too.
The EU is a one-directional ratchet, towards evermore centralized power, decision-making and control. This was coming, regardless of Brexit, IMO.
In any case, it is moot. We are where we are, and what iffery does not change that.
Actually the ratchet has very much jumped backwards on this one. You won't be seeing any future involvement of the Commission in healthcare and procurement after this debacle. Member states make little secret of the fact that they think it was a disaster.
Except they are already talking about a health union. The EU only has one direction.
and like the band one direction they are equally dire....von der leyden is the harry styles of the eu
That doesn't quite work. Styles was the star of One Direction.
Well being the star of a teeny band which lasted maybe two years is hardly a plaudit. He will end up driving a taxi and boring passengers about how he almost was famous for a bit
In fact they sold a shedload of records, made millions, and frontman Harry Styles is now reinventing himself as an actor. He was in Dunkirk and was far from a disgrace in it.
Fun to see Lefties getting triggered by the canning of the MASH Report.
The only time "fun"and "MASH report" have appeared in the same sentence.
Do you agree that if this was a right-wing program you would be calling it cancel culture - along with others - but because it's a left-wing program it's just because it's shit?
I watched less than 60 seconds of his last public announcement and had to turn it off
25ths going to be invoked.
Acting President Kamala Harris, possibly before year end.
Trump will go big on the "who knew what, when " angle.
It is totally mad having someone that age being president, his public appearances will get less and less and he will be gone in 2 years.
I can't agree with that. It is worth remembering that both the UK and US had war time leaders who were known to be unwell and one of whom died in office. What matters is what they do whilst they are in office, not necessarily how long they were there for.
Agreed. I was asking earlier if there was a market on the midterms. I think one or two of the pro Republican doomsters might be surprised by how well the Democrats do.
Programs can be cancelled for being shit when they are left wing. If they are right wing and shit it is because of cancel culture.
This whole culture war is a complete fabrication, a total load of bollocks.
Kumar's reaction proves my point (-ish as he isnt quoting a Conservative MP (or maybe he is?)) - and he earns a living off there being a culture war
But is it really comedy to just make political observations whilst pulling a silly face? You may agree/think it is a clever point, but it isn't really funny
@Alastair refuses to consider Titania McGrath (the other side of the coin) as humour for the same reason I think?
Yes, also demonstrates my point that had we still been part of the EU we would most likely not have been part of the EU scheme, we would have done our own thing.
Sorry Brexiteers, but your only claim to good news about Brexit is, like everything else you have claimed, a crock of shit.
I think Brexiteers are making a broader point, that doing your own thing is better than being part of the collective, where the EU represents the collective way of doing things. I think that point is reasonable. If the EU isn't for the collective way of doing things, then what is it for? Whether the issue is the way the EU has gone about it and collectives are in principle OK, or that collectives are never a good idea isn't explored.
My personal view is that UK's vaccine success, which is a genuine one, is essentially a prisoner's dilemma, given the extent to which the UK programme depends on EU supplied vaccines. From its own PoV, the EU slipped up by not maximally securing its own supply. The success of the UK programme depended on the EU making that mistake. The context to Charles Michel's comments this week was his trying to justify the export of vaccines as international solidarity, rather than EU incompetence. No-one believed him.
The UK programme does not depend on EU supplied vaccines.
8 million vaccines supplied from the EU against 11 million innoculations delivered in February (NYTimes and OurWorldinData respectively).
Eventually there would be enough vaccines to do everyone in the UK as will happen in all developed countries as it is. But the claimed success for the UK programme is that it is doing it quicker than other countries, not that it is doing it at all. That success depended on the EU not securing vaccines for itself that it could have done.
I don't really agree there.
Leaving aside the obvious point that Pfizer jabs are from Pfizer not "The EU", so Plan B would be for Pfizer to supply them from somewhere else if it exists, we have 100m AZ jabs in the pipeline anyway - which alone is ~95% of the total we need for adults (2 x 53m).
The Pfizer supplies are ultimately marginal.
Combine that with another vaccine approved, and another about to be approved, which will be produced in the UK. And I am not really sure that any delay would be that significant.
Actually, I agree and have commented on here to that effect. For the same reason, the EU programme will probably be OK too. That's if you define success as getting there in the end, rather than getting there first.
Success as getting there in the end is good, but I'd suggest that a lot of the value in being ahead of the game lies in the population's mental health. That wouldn't apply to places where they are highly sceptical about vaccines, but it's certainly a factor in the UK.
Its not just mental health its how much each day of lockdown costs our economys
'The SNP’s links with Iran are of the gravest concern
...It is not simply that it operates a network of fake social media and internet sites pushing the SNP’s cause; it is that leading SNP figures, from Nicola Sturgeon down, appear to have what one might charitably call a lack of concern about consorting with figures who are either, in effect, agents of the regime or who are deeply sympathetic to it.'
Provide not an iota of proof or even an allegation of who these 'figures' might be.
Seems a lot of A was in the same room as B who said C and attended event D.
Is the Quds rally a regular legal event in London?
Pass, I've never attended a Quds rally, I try and avoid Muslim centric events.
This bit did strike me as odd, another dude.
Mr Mohamad is strongly linked to a charity called the Ahl al-Bait Society, which has received hundreds of thousands of pounds in grants from the Scottish government. In 2015, he took former First Minister Alex Salmond on an official visit to Tehran.
Although I have to say I would love to visit Tehran once the theocracy has gone. Apparently flying into Tehran over the Alborz mountains is a wonderful experience.
I believe Rouhani did his degree at Caledonian University in Glasgow which might provide a more mundane Scottish connection. Glasgow's religious sects would have been an eye opener for him.
I fail to see the outrage, unless you're an actual heifer.
I mean what adjectives do you use for someone who managed to lose a council seat to the Tories and then a parliamentary seat to the Tories that the Tories have never held before in a little over two years?
If only we had @ydoethur around. There's an Eric Heifer pun dying to be made.
I assume his absence is due to the return to school rather than anything else I have missed?
And what about @Sandpit I was pondering the other day? Not noticed him but then I've been on a bit less of late.
He is around. I have noticed him 'liking' a few posts today.
Including a couple of mine - so something might have happened to him.
Sandpit is generous with his likes and across the political spectrum so I doubt he has had a blow to the head nor have you worn him down and converted him into a lefty.
Indeed even I have had likes from you Kinablu doesn't mean I think I have made you a non leftie
Sometimes I use a "like" not to indicate agreement or approval or admiration but just to say ... "Watching you. Watching you quite closely."
I watched less than 60 seconds of his last public announcement and had to turn it off
25ths going to be invoked.
Acting President Kamala Harris, possibly before year end.
Trump will go big on the "who knew what, when " angle.
It is totally mad having someone that age being president, his public appearances will get less and less and he will be gone in 2 years.
I can't agree with that. It is worth remembering that both the UK and US had war time leaders who were known to be unwell and one of whom died in office. What matters is what they do whilst they are in office, not necessarily how long they were there for.
Agreed. I was asking earlier if there was a market on the midterms. I think one or two of the pro Republican doomsters might be surprised by how well the Democrats do.
As far I'm aware there are some Senate markets up on Betfair but bugger all matched.
Actually, I think the EU will do fine, just as the UK would have done fine if the EU hadn't helpfully provided us with their early vaccines. There are plenty of vaccines coming down the pike everywhere and once you have vaccinated your own people you are relaxed about allowing your supply to go to other countries.
The eu didnt provide us with anything Pfizer provided us with the vaccines we had contracted for. Simple as that
The EU acted against its own interest in not securing those vaccine doses. The point I am making is that UK success, defined as being quicker than other countries, particularly the EU, depends on the EU not securing its own supply.
Fine. The UK was lucky and people in the EU are pissed off, hence Charles Michel's pretence that it was act of international sovereignty rather than EU incompetence. Nobody is buying that.
If the EU had been more competent, the UK would have had 3 million doses rather than 11 million in February, but domestic supply would ramp up and a couple of months later the UK would have plenty of supply, just as the EU looks like it will have plenty of supply. So what's the big deal?
The further comment I would make is that the lesson people will take from this is that the vaccine programme success demonstrates "the superiority of the Brexit system" (old Communist terminology). But as it is something of a prisoners' dilemma, I should also mention the unspoken more fundamental truth of that analogy: if you are going to betray your fellow prisoners make sure you get away and never see them again, otherwise they will beat you up. Brexit, at least of the aggressive kind pursued by our government, only works as a strategy if you never have any dependencies on the EU. January's truly grim trade figures show the limitations of that approach.
I think it would have been perfectly possible to do an EU version of the elements of supply chain and distribution infrastructure that was done here across the EU-27, but one crucial mistake was that the EU-programme focus was on *buying* vaccines (that did not exist yet) like packs of bulk sausages from Aldi, whereas on this occasion the focus should have been on *creating* vaccines.
For me that is the biggest failure in this.
And because EC believe in a sort of moral superiority, it has been floudering and hitting out everywhere rather than realising that the "halo" is just a projection.
I disagree with you on this, however. The constraint with early vaccine supply everywhere is limited production capacity, not investment. The UK "bought up" early EU supplies ahead of the EU itself. That's why it had those 8 million extra doses in February that weren't available to the EU. The hundreds of millions of doses that will turn up in Q2 do come from investment - they are not produced within existing capacity - but by then hopefully there won't be any quantity constraints,
Yes, also demonstrates my point that had we still been part of the EU we would most likely not have been part of the EU scheme, we would have done our own thing.
Sorry Brexiteers, but your only claim to good news about Brexit is, like everything else you have claimed, a crock of shit.
I think Brexiteers are making a broader point, that doing your own thing is better than being part of the collective, where the EU represents the collective way of doing things. I think that point is reasonable. If the EU isn't for the collective way of doing things, then what is it for? Whether the issue is the way the EU has gone about it and collectives are in principle OK, or that collectives are never a good idea isn't explored.
My personal view is that UK's vaccine success, which is a genuine one, is essentially a prisoner's dilemma, given the extent to which the UK programme depends on EU supplied vaccines. From its own PoV, the EU slipped up by not maximally securing its own supply. The success of the UK programme depended on the EU making that mistake. The context to Charles Michel's comments this week was his trying to justify the export of vaccines as international solidarity, rather than EU incompetence. No-one believed him.
The UK programme does not depend on EU supplied vaccines.
8 million vaccines supplied from the EU against 11 million innoculations delivered in February (NYTimes and OurWorldinData respectively).
Eventually there would be enough vaccines to do everyone in the UK as will happen in all developed countries as it is. But the claimed success for the UK programme is that it is doing it quicker than other countries, not that it is doing it at all. That success depended on the EU not securing vaccines for itself that it could have done.
I don't really agree there.
Leaving aside the obvious point that Pfizer jabs are from Pfizer not "The EU", so Plan B would be for Pfizer to supply them from somewhere else if it exists, we have 100m AZ jabs in the pipeline anyway - which alone is ~95% of the total we need for adults (2 x 53m).
The Pfizer supplies are ultimately marginal.
Combine that with another vaccine approved, and another about to be approved, which will be produced in the UK. And I am not really sure that any delay would be that significant.
Actually, I agree and have commented on here to that effect. For the same reason, the EU programme will probably be OK too. That's if you define success as getting there in the end, rather than getting there first.
I stand by what I said in my header
For the EU the big thing is how they manage the limited vaccine supply period vs what happens in a third wave, and how that is managed.
Fun to see Lefties getting triggered by the canning of the MASH Report.
The only time "fun"and "MASH report" have appeared in the same sentence.
Do you agree that if this was a right-wing program you would be calling it cancel culture - along with others - but because it's a left-wing program it's just because it's shit?
We're pointing out the hypocrisy, as usual.
I agree BTW, it was shit.
You mean hypocrisy like lefties crying because one academic on Twitter happens to be right-wing, or because one extremely unfunny woke comedy show has been cancelled?
Yes, also demonstrates my point that had we still been part of the EU we would most likely not have been part of the EU scheme, we would have done our own thing.
Sorry Brexiteers, but your only claim to good news about Brexit is, like everything else you have claimed, a crock of shit.
I think Brexiteers are making a broader point, that doing your own thing is better than being part of the collective, where the EU represents the collective way of doing things. I think that point is reasonable. If the EU isn't for the collective way of doing things, then what is it for? Whether the issue is the way the EU has gone about it and collectives are in principle OK, or that collectives are never a good idea isn't explored.
My personal view is that UK's vaccine success, which is a genuine one, is essentially a prisoner's dilemma, given the extent to which the UK programme depends on EU supplied vaccines. From its own PoV, the EU slipped up by not maximally securing its own supply. The success of the UK programme depended on the EU making that mistake. The context to Charles Michel's comments this week was his trying to justify the export of vaccines as international solidarity, rather than EU incompetence. No-one believed him.
The UK programme does not depend on EU supplied vaccines.
8 million vaccines supplied from the EU against 11 million innoculations delivered in February (NYTimes and OurWorldinData respectively).
Eventually there would be enough vaccines to do everyone in the UK as will happen in all developed countries as it is. But the claimed success for the UK programme is that it is doing it quicker than other countries, not that it is doing it at all. That success depended on the EU not securing vaccines for itself that it could have done.
I don't really agree there.
Leaving aside the obvious point that Pfizer jabs are from Pfizer not "The EU", so Plan B would be for Pfizer to supply them from somewhere else if it exists, we have 100m AZ jabs in the pipeline anyway - which alone is ~95% of the total we need for adults (2 x 53m).
The Pfizer supplies are ultimately marginal.
Combine that with another vaccine approved, and another about to be approved, which will be produced in the UK. And I am not really sure that any delay would be that significant.
Actually, I agree and have commented on here to that effect. For the same reason, the EU programme will probably be OK too. That's if you define success as getting there in the end, rather than getting there first.
you seem to be making the point Robert has made many times - the difference in getting there between the fastest and slowest of the rich countries is going to be measured in weeks and months, not quarters and years.
Supply determines the initial speed of the rollout, but hesitancy gives the endpoint - or at least the point at which you slow to a crawl as you start to pick up the reluctant. The UK looks better positioned than almost anyone on both fronts.*
* Not sure how hesitancy in Israel is.
Obviously, it matters that the endpoint is above the herd immunity threshhold, and that we want to exceed that threshold by a margin to account for the potential for higher Ro variants, but does it really matter how far we get above, say, 90%?
Fun to see Lefties getting triggered by the canning of the MASH Report.
The only time "fun"and "MASH report" have appeared in the same sentence.
Do you agree that if this was a right-wing program you would be calling it cancel culture - along with others - but because it's a left-wing program it's just because it's shit?
We're pointing out the hypocrisy, as usual.
I agree BTW, it was shit.
I enjoyed it. If you are being satirical it is pretty hard to be a right wing comic (although possible). It is much easier to criticize from the left. I enjoyed Geoff Norcott on it. I think he struggles elsewhere. His skit on the LDs was excellent (I have to be able to take a joke).
Yes, also demonstrates my point that had we still been part of the EU we would most likely not have been part of the EU scheme, we would have done our own thing.
Sorry Brexiteers, but your only claim to good news about Brexit is, like everything else you have claimed, a crock of shit.
I think Brexiteers are making a broader point, that doing your own thing is better than being part of the collective, where the EU represents the collective way of doing things. I think that point is reasonable. If the EU isn't for the collective way of doing things, then what is it for? Whether the issue is the way the EU has gone about it and collectives are in principle OK, or that collectives are never a good idea isn't explored.
My personal view is that UK's vaccine success, which is a genuine one, is essentially a prisoner's dilemma, given the extent to which the UK programme depends on EU supplied vaccines. From its own PoV, the EU slipped up by not maximally securing its own supply. The success of the UK programme depended on the EU making that mistake. The context to Charles Michel's comments this week was his trying to justify the export of vaccines as international solidarity, rather than EU incompetence. No-one believed him.
The UK programme does not depend on EU supplied vaccines.
8 million vaccines supplied from the EU against 11 million innoculations delivered in February (NYTimes and OurWorldinData respectively).
Eventually there would be enough vaccines to do everyone in the UK as will happen in all developed countries as it is. But the claimed success for the UK programme is that it is doing it quicker than other countries, not that it is doing it at all. That success depended on the EU not securing vaccines for itself that it could have done.
I don't really agree there.
Leaving aside the obvious point that Pfizer jabs are from Pfizer not "The EU", so Plan B would be for Pfizer to supply them from somewhere else if it exists, we have 100m AZ jabs in the pipeline anyway - which alone is ~95% of the total we need for adults (2 x 53m).
The Pfizer supplies are ultimately marginal.
Combine that with another vaccine approved, and another about to be approved, which will be produced in the UK. And I am not really sure that any delay would be that significant.
Actually, I agree and have commented on here to that effect. For the same reason, the EU programme will probably be OK too. That's if you define success as getting there in the end, rather than getting there first.
you seem to be making the point Robert has made many times - the difference in getting there between the fastest and slowest of the rich countries is going to be measured in weeks and months, not quarters and years.
Not if enough of the French refuse to take the shot and they never actually get to herd immunity.
I fail to see the outrage, unless you're an actual heifer.
I mean what adjectives do you use for someone who managed to lose a council seat to the Tories and then a parliamentary seat to the Tories that the Tories have never held before in a little over two years?
If only we had @ydoethur around. There's an Eric Heifer pun dying to be made.
I assume his absence is due to the return to school rather than anything else I have missed?
And what about @Sandpit I was pondering the other day? Not noticed him but then I've been on a bit less of late.
He is around. I have noticed him 'liking' a few posts today.
Including a couple of mine - so something might have happened to him.
Sandpit is generous with his likes and across the political spectrum so I doubt he has had a blow to the head nor have you worn him down and converted him into a lefty.
Indeed even I have had likes from you Kinablu doesn't mean I think I have made you a non leftie
Sometimes I use a "like" not to indicate agreement or approval or admiration but just to say ... "Watching you. Watching you quite closely."
Fun to see Lefties getting triggered by the canning of the MASH Report.
The only time "fun"and "MASH report" have appeared in the same sentence.
Do you agree that if this was a right-wing program you would be calling it cancel culture - along with others - but because it's a left-wing program it's just because it's shit?
We're pointing out the hypocrisy, as usual.
I agree BTW, it was shit.
I enjoyed it. If you are being satirical it is pretty hard to be a right wing comic (although possible). It is much easier to criticize from the left. I enjoyed Geoff Norcott on it. I think he struggles elsewhere. His skit on the LDs was excellent (I have to be able to take a joke).
Geoff Norcott always seems to say he's being cancelled/not represented yet he's been on every BBC comedy show I know.
Maybe the actual answer is that comedy that is funny lasts and comedy that isn't, doesn't?
No, it's because there's actually a culture war on.
Fun to see Lefties getting triggered by the canning of the MASH Report.
The only time "fun"and "MASH report" have appeared in the same sentence.
Do you agree that if this was a right-wing program you would be calling it cancel culture - along with others - but because it's a left-wing program it's just because it's shit?
We're pointing out the hypocrisy, as usual.
I agree BTW, it was shit.
First, show me a right-wing programme to cancel.
I doubt it would get four series. Because it would be shit.
Fun to see Lefties getting triggered by the canning of the MASH Report.
The only time "fun"and "MASH report" have appeared in the same sentence.
Do you agree that if this was a right-wing program you would be calling it cancel culture - along with others - but because it's a left-wing program it's just because it's shit?
We're pointing out the hypocrisy, as usual.
I agree BTW, it was shit.
I enjoyed it. If you are being satirical it is pretty hard to be a right wing comic (although possible). It is much easier to criticize from the left. I enjoyed Geoff Norcott on it. I think he struggles elsewhere. His skit on the LDs was excellent (I have to be able to take a joke).
Geoff Norcott always seems to say he's being cancelled/not represented yet he's been on every BBC comedy show I know.
Maybe the actual answer is that comedy that is funny lasts and comedy that isn't, doesn't?
No, it's because there's actually a culture war on.
Not sure that hypothesis explains why Mrs Brown's Boys is still on...
Actually, I think the EU will do fine, just as the UK would have done fine if the EU hadn't helpfully provided us with their early vaccines. There are plenty of vaccines coming down the pike everywhere and once you have vaccinated your own people you are relaxed about allowing your supply to go to other countries.
The eu didnt provide us with anything Pfizer provided us with the vaccines we had contracted for. Simple as that
The EU acted against its own interest in not securing those vaccine doses. The point I am making is that UK success, defined as being quicker than other countries, particularly the EU, depends on the EU not securing its own supply.
Fine. The UK was lucky and people in the EU are pissed off, hence Charles Michel's pretence that it was act of international sovereignty rather than EU incompetence. Nobody is buying that.
If the EU had been more competent, the UK would have had 3 million doses rather than 11 million in February, but domestic supply would ramp up and a couple of months later the UK would have plenty of supply, just as the EU looks like it will have plenty of supply. So what's the big deal?
The further comment I would make is that the lesson people will take from this is that the vaccine programme success demonstrates "the superiority of the Brexit system" (old Communist terminology). But as it is something of a prisoners' dilemma, I should also mention the unspoken more fundamental truth of that analogy: if you are going to betray your fellow prisoners make sure you get away and never see them again, otherwise they will beat you up. Brexit, at least of the aggressive kind pursued by our government, only works as a strategy if you never have any dependencies on the EU. January's truly grim trade figures show the limitations of that approach.
I think it would have been perfectly possible to do an EU version of the elements of supply chain and distribution infrastructure that was done here across the EU-27, but one crucial mistake was that the EU-programme focus was on *buying* vaccines (that did not exist yet) like packs of bulk sausages from Aldi, whereas on this occasion the focus should have been on *creating* vaccines.
For me that is the biggest failure in this.
And because EC believe in a sort of moral superiority, it has been floudering and hitting out everywhere rather than realising that the "halo" is just a projection.
I disagree with you on this, however. The constraint with early vaccine supply everywhere is limited production capacity, not investment. The UK "bought up" early EU supplies ahead of the EU itself. That's why it had those 8 million extra doses in February that weren't available to the EU. The hundreds of millions of doses that will turn up in Q2 do come from investment - they are not produced within existing capacity - but by then hopefully there won't be any quantity constraints,
Gosh don't you talk a total load of bollocks, the UK invested in setting up manufacturers too it didn't just buy up vaccine supplies
Actually, I think the EU will do fine, just as the UK would have done fine if the EU hadn't helpfully provided us with their early vaccines. There are plenty of vaccines coming down the pike everywhere and once you have vaccinated your own people you are relaxed about allowing your supply to go to other countries.
The eu didnt provide us with anything Pfizer provided us with the vaccines we had contracted for. Simple as that
The EU acted against its own interest in not securing those vaccine doses. The point I am making is that UK success, defined as being quicker than other countries, particularly the EU, depends on the EU not securing its own supply.
Fine. The UK was lucky and people in the EU are pissed off, hence Charles Michel's pretence that it was act of international sovereignty rather than EU incompetence. Nobody is buying that.
If the EU had been more competent, the UK would have had 3 million doses rather than 11 million in February, but domestic supply would ramp up and a couple of months later the UK would have plenty of supply, just as the EU looks like it will have plenty of supply. So what's the big deal?
The further comment I would make is that the lesson people will take from this is that the vaccine programme success demonstrates "the superiority of the Brexit system" (old Communist terminology). But as it is something of a prisoners' dilemma, I should also mention the unspoken more fundamental truth of that analogy: if you are going to betray your fellow prisoners make sure you get away and never see them again, otherwise they will beat you up. Brexit, at least of the aggressive kind pursued by our government, only works as a strategy if you never have any dependencies on the EU. January's truly grim trade figures show the limitations of that approach.
I think it would have been perfectly possible to do an EU version of the elements of supply chain and distribution infrastructure that was done here across the EU-27, but one crucial mistake was that the EU-programme focus was on *buying* vaccines (that did not exist yet) like packs of bulk sausages from Aldi, whereas on this occasion the focus should have been on *creating* vaccines.
For me that is the biggest failure in this.
And because EC believe in a sort of moral superiority, it has been floudering and hitting out everywhere rather than realising that the "halo" is just a projection.
I disagree with you on this, however. The constraint with early vaccine supply everywhere is limited production capacity, not investment. The UK "bought up" early EU supplies ahead of the EU itself. That's why it had those 8 million extra doses in February that weren't available to the EU. The hundreds of millions of doses that will turn up in Q2 do come from investment - they are not produced within existing capacity - but by then hopefully there won't be any quantity constraints,
You're doing it again. It's not "EU" supply. Pfizer is an American company. They sell to the global market. The EU has no pre-existing claim on them. Until you get this through your head you will fail to understand the dynamics of why the EU completely fucked up it's programme.
The Covid dashboard update for today continues to indicate that the overall UK case rate has basically levelled off, but deaths and hospitalisations continued to drop like a stone. And yes, I know that it would take 2-3 weeks from March 8th for any effect from opening the schools to show up in the hospital numbers, but it's good at least to see progress being maintained, for now. And in more good news, as reported earlier today, both the R estimate and the infection growth rate have been revised downwards again.
I fail to see the outrage, unless you're an actual heifer.
I mean what adjectives do you use for someone who managed to lose a council seat to the Tories and then a parliamentary seat to the Tories that the Tories have never held before in a little over two years?
If only we had @ydoethur around. There's an Eric Heifer pun dying to be made.
I assume his absence is due to the return to school rather than anything else I have missed?
And what about @Sandpit I was pondering the other day? Not noticed him but then I've been on a bit less of late.
He is around. I have noticed him 'liking' a few posts today.
Including a couple of mine - so something might have happened to him.
Sandpit is generous with his likes and across the political spectrum so I doubt he has had a blow to the head nor have you worn him down and converted him into a lefty.
Indeed even I have had likes from you Kinablu doesn't mean I think I have made you a non leftie
Sometimes I use a "like" not to indicate agreement or approval or admiration but just to say ... "Watching you. Watching you quite closely."
You are weaponising a "like"?
How do people see who liked what posts?
Hover your cursor over a "liked" post "Like" and you can see who has liked it.
Comments
I really enjoyed lots of Mark Thomas shows, who is miles to the left of me politically, and certainly likes a good bash the Tories rant, but he is intermingles it will plenty of piss take of the nutters within his own band of people he associates with i.e. the Greenies, the SWP lot.
Great to see the grownups are back in charge in the States.
Germany, France, Spain etc were already talking with vaccine suppliers in Apr 2020, yet they were made to back down and grovel in favour of the EU shared process.
https://www.investmentweek.co.uk/investment-week/news/3006760/moodys-warns-scotland-exit-leave-country-facing-junk-rating
A national scheme has none of these problems because no one in the UK cares where UK money is spent as long as it's somewhere in the country and we get our vaccines on time. UK taxpayers don't even see to care that two of the four companies that we've got subsidy contracts with aren't even British, one is French and the other one is American.
I detect something of a similar effect on Goodwin on twitter. He obviously has some insight on the political changes of the last decade or so, but twitter has encouraged him to be more certain, more combative and less interesting as a result.
Howard Beckett, who represents the Unite union at the NEC, said it was "truly shocking", while local party representative Mish Rahman called it "embarrassing... and deeply inappropriate".
Another local Labour representative who was at the meeting, Gemma Bolton, said the incident was "completely unacceptable, even more so from the NEC chair".
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-56376710
As a lad in Stoke, I have been called far worse from random members of the public when playing junior sport. Something of the level, silly cow, wouldn't even come in the top 100. And if I don't do the washing properly, Mrs U utters far worse.
Great to see the grownups are back in charge in the States.
Think of it as levelling-up rather than levelling-down.
I'll swallow the increased delay between shots, but I'd want a damned good explanation for lowering the dosage.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/cogs.12558
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2976617/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2976624/
Fine. The UK was lucky and people in the EU are pissed off, hence Charles Michel's pretence that it was act of international sovereignty rather than EU incompetence. Nobody is buying that.
If the EU had been more competent, the UK would have had 3 million doses rather than 11 million in February, but domestic supply would ramp up and a couple of months later the UK would have plenty of supply, just as the EU looks like it will have plenty of supply. So what's the big deal?
The further comment I would make is that the lesson people will take from this is that the vaccine programme success demonstrates "the superiority of the Brexit system" (old Communist terminology). But as it is something of a prisoners' dilemma, I should also mention the unspoken more fundamental truth of that analogy: if you are going to betray your fellow prisoners make sure you get away and never see them again, otherwise they will beat you up. Brexit, at least of the aggressive kind pursued by our government, only works as a strategy if you never have any dependencies on the EU. January's truly grim trade figures show the limitations of that approach.
* If vaccine doses are ideally ml/kg.
I'm happy enough with the assertion that federalism only works if you commit to it, which is why I didn't buy Cameron's ECU "opt-out", and why I voted to leave.
That is fine - but people should not use him as an objective source.
None of us mentioned Trump I don't think
So - are you just indulging your prejudices or do you actually think I am a Trump fan.
If you think I am please feel free to provide a post backing that up.
Hadn't thought of that. My wife is tiny, which could explain her reaction.
But do vaccines even work that way? The purpose is to expose your immune system to a dead copy of the virus, and the reaction is your immune system trying to work out how to get rid of it. Does your body mass really make a difference to that?
This bit did strike me as odd, another dude.
Mr Mohamad is strongly linked to a charity called the Ahl al-Bait Society, which has received hundreds of thousands of pounds in grants from the Scottish government. In 2015, he took former First Minister Alex Salmond on an official visit to Tehran.
Although I have to say I would love to visit Tehran once the theocracy has gone. Apparently flying into Tehran over the Alborz mountains is a wonderful experience.
Basically, it would appear than one obese woman with heart disease died (of heart failure, surprise surprise) some hours after having her vaccination. As a result, the Government is wetting its pants and waiting for more reassurance from the European Medicines Agency, even though it has already backed the thing.
In the meantime, the populace of the nation that already has the slowest vaccination rollout in the entire EU continues to go unprotected.
For example he Tweeted half of a BLM poll, conveniently not the part which completely disagreed with the point he was making.
https://twitter.com/AFP/status/1370365814214422528
https://twitter.com/AFP/status/1370353478929936386
Programs can be cancelled for being shit when they are left wing. If they are right wing and shit it is because of cancel culture.
This whole culture war is a complete fabrication, a total load of bollocks.
The UK looks better positioned than almost anyone on both fronts.*
* Not sure how hesitancy in Israel is.
For me that is the biggest failure in this.
And because EC believe in a sort of moral superiority, it has been floudering and hitting out everywhere rather than realising that the "halo" is just a projection.
They've used every other feeble excuse, so it is only a matter of time.
https://www.gofundme.com/f/harry-and-meghan-5-to-pay-off-mortgage
The only time "fun"and "MASH report" have appeared in the same sentence.
If/when (maybe a big if!) Labour leads in a poll again he will stop posting them.
We're pointing out the hypocrisy, as usual.
I agree BTW, it was shit.
I was asking earlier if there was a market on the midterms. I think one or two of the pro Republican doomsters might be surprised by how well the Democrats do.
But is it really comedy to just make political observations whilst pulling a silly face? You may agree/think it is a clever point, but it isn't really funny
@Alastair refuses to consider Titania McGrath (the other side of the coin) as humour for the same reason I think?
He may escalate to a love bomb.
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.179673535
I'm not aware of any markets on the House yet.
For the EU the big thing is how they manage the limited vaccine supply period vs what happens in a third wave, and how that is managed.
Maybe the actual answer is that comedy that is funny lasts and comedy that isn't, doesn't?
No, it's because there's actually a culture war on.
Too early to draw conclusions but seeing how the Mercedes' gearbox holds up will be of interest.
I doubt it would get four series. Because it would be shit.