We have an update on a story from the Italian newspaper La Stampa, which had reported that some 29 million doses of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine found at a plant near Rome may have been destined for the UK.
A UK government official has since said it was not expecting such a delivery; and the Italian government has said only that “the batches that were inspected were all aimed for Belgium”.
Why would Belgium be getting 29 million doses?
They would be going on from there to somewhere else surely. There's no way 29 million doses were intended for Belgium?
I wonder if they've realised it was Covax being sent out from Belgium and decided its more politically sensitive to say Belgium than to say Covax.
That’s the implication I’ve seen elsewhere. These are jabs going to Belgium for further distribution, some of them to poorer countries under Covax
Setting all humour aside - I know - you have to wonder how many more millions of vaccine doses are actually lost in various member states because they cannot persuade anyone to be vaccinated. Spain has had today to state that refusers of AZN will not be offered an alternative.
Spain did a feeble number of jabs yesterday - about 80,000. 0.19% of the populace.
Why do you think this is happening? Is it anti-vaxxery? Supply?
Before I am accused by a snowflakey German of being mean, I hasten to add this slow roll-out doesn’t ‘please’ me, it dismays me. An unvaccinated Europe is tragic on a human level - more death and suffering - it is also bad, economically, for everyone - in the UK too. Plus it gives more time and space for mutations, which is scary.
The interesting thing is that so many people in the EU seem to think the UK wants to slow down vaccinations in Europe, when the opposite is the case. Brits want everyone to be vaccinated as quickly as possible.
FT article on the EU vax ban. Seems it is strongly (and rightly) opposed by several northern states, but its being done on QMV, so it will probably go through, and it will hinder our vax program - ie more Brits will die
If this happens - and Brits die unnecessarily - I honestly do not see how EU/UK relations will ever recover. It will be like the Cold War.
With friends like this, who needs enemies.
Imagine if you’re the PM and you have to stand up in the Commons and announce that our vaccine drive is going to slow, enormously, because our contracted, purchased supplies have been illegally seized by the EU. Then you have to say ‘as a result, lockdown will be extended’
The reaction of the British public will be explosive. Blind fury
My slender hope is that this is politicking for show. They will pass the ‘law’ but won’t apply it, because saner minds will prevail. But this is the EU in full-blown psychosis, so who knows. Look at Merkel’s madness, today
On the other hand the Govt have said that export bans will only really affect the younger age groups (because immediately required supplies are secured), and the lockdown roadmap is not linked to younger age groups being vaccinated.
Lesson #1 class.....don't openly "like" tweets that bash the Tories having an union jack flag in their government office....have sock puppet social media accounts for that.
Lisa Nandy’s recent endorsement of a report calling for the army to be abolished and replaced with a woke “peace force
This is weak.
Like Starmer?
The weak one is Boris who is so feeble he has to lie whenever he opens his mouth.
Showing a lot of prejudice there Mr Smithson....
Boris was sacked TWICE for lying:
Firstly in 1988 from the Times for fabricating a quote from historian Colin Lucas (his own Godfather!). Secondly in 2004 from the Tory Shadow Front Bench for lying about his fling with Petronella Wyatt.
Genuine question: what right does Prince Harry have to work in the USA? Does he have a right to work by virtue of being married to an American? Does he need a visa?
I've always been curious.
It's a non-job.
Not at all. It’s very important.
He’s not just making oodles of money giving speeches to investment bankers and documentaries for Netflix.
He’s working for a *mental health* company
He’s not such a bad guy giving up his valuable time like that...
What does this company actually do? I have an interest in mental health provision because I have personal experience of what it does to people and their families.
Lots of people talk about it. It has become really quite fashionable to do so. Actual practical help is rather thin on the ground, especially afterwards. Try getting a job from companies after explaining that your patchy CV is because of mental health illness and you will find that their interest in better mental health vanishes as fast as snow in summer.
If he is going to do something practical to help with that, good on him. If it's just another talking shop or another forum for him to talk about himself, not so good.
Amazing double standards around Harry. He has set up the Invictus games which changed many peoples lives from overwhelming struggle to one of hope and achievement. That already puts him in the top 0.1% or better of people influencing and improving others lives.
Yes, there are double standards around Invictus. I remember a few years earlier Jimmy Carr made a joke that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq would mean Britain would soon have a brilliant Paralympic team, and he got absolute pelters for it.
That was the classic case of people being offended on behalf of others.
The war vets, of course, appreciated the dark humour - and went on to get dozens of Paralympic medals!
All that outrage over Lee Hurst joke on twitter over the weekend...I was only thinking yesterday, it was the sort of gag Jimmy Carr would do, as a tame warm up one.
I was pretty much the only one defending that joke on here at the time.
I think the main issue is the audience. A Twitter audience is different from a TV/radio audience, which is different to a comedy club audience - with decreasing expectations of taste and decency.
Most definitely. I also think those who feigned offence had more problems with the teller of the joke than the joke itself. As has been said even in 2021 if that came out the mouth of Jimmy Carr on Channel 4 it would have got a mixture of laughs and a few groans (if there were a studio audience).
Lee Hurst was pretty funny on TTIAO. I thought Nick Hancock made that show, it's a shame much like Mark Lamarr from Buzzcocks they keep a relatively low profile these days given the dross that currently passes for comedy on the Beeb.
I do miss Mark Lamarr, back in the days when he'd goad guests into walking off Buzzcocks, and didn't care who he offended. Phill Jupitus has also disappeared, and Bill Bailey sticks to his musical comedy show on stage.
The only UK 'comedy' show I regularly watch now is the late-night Countdown, and occasionally HIGNFY - apart from that it's all Youtube podcasts and Netflix specials. Network TV has pretty much lost comedy completely.
The Last Leg on Channel 4 can be very self-righteous but actually funny at times too.
I watched Bill Bailey's stand up show on BBC1 last week. Possibly the funniest thing I have ever seen. I laughed so much that it hurt. But it was quite funny to find something actually funny on BBC1. And quite funny to find comedy which wasn't political in any way. I'd almost forgotten that you used to get comedy like that on telly. Basically, it's hard to like comedy that doesn't like me much, or is largely humour-free, or both. Obviously the Mash Report was the distillation of that (annoyingly mostly because the Daily Mash used to be very sharp), but (finger in the air - feels like) 75% of TV comedy falls into that category to some extent. The other 25% is based on painfully awkward situations - watch it between your fingers telly - which can be very good if done well (Alan Partridge, The Office) but is not exactly my cup of tea. Taskmaster is still very good. Series 10 and 11 haven't been as good as the first 9, but I put that down to the format that covid has forced upon them.
Oh, and on Buzzcocks - I used to love that in the Lamarr/Jupitus/Bailey days. Mark Lamarr was cruel sometimes, but cruelty wasn't the basis of his humour like it was for Simon Amstill. And he was delighted when it bounced back on him or came back in a way he didn't expect. And the humour was largely about music; and it was also about music through a very Radio 6 lens; when Lamarr left it became much more Radio 1.
The measures, which were unveiled ahead of a summit of EU leaders starting tomorrow, are strongly backed by France. Italy has also stressed the need to be tough in policing export authorisations. But the proposals have provoked deep concern in some other capitals, which warn that they may jeopardise complex supply chains for vaccines and their ingredients.
“They are ill-thought-through, impetuous and aggressive and they seem to be a solution to a problem we don’t actually have,” said one EU diplomat.
Countries that have raised concerns in EU meetings over the past two days include Belgium, Finland, Sweden and the Netherlands. Angela Merkel, German chancellor, told the media on Tuesday that it was necessary to be “very careful about imposing blanket export bans” given the importance of securing supply chains. But she still stressed that the EU was the world’s biggest vaccine exporter, while other parts of the world were exporting nothing at all.
The new rules would build on an existing EU authorisation scheme, in place since February, which was essentially concerned with making sure vaccine makers failing to meet their obligations to the bloc did not ship much needed supplies abroad. The scheme was a response to supply problems at AstraZeneca.
But the updated version would allow exports to be stopped even if the drugmaker concerned was meeting its contractual commitments to Brussels.
The EU plans also foresee shipments being stopped on the grounds that the destination country is far ahead of the bloc in vaccinating its population, or already has strong availability of vaccines. The draft legal proposal argues that this is relevant to the EU's own “security of supply”. ----end----
If the EU does block Pfizer exports then the Government needs to react swiftly and disproportionately. Immediate cessation of exports of lipids to the EU, and withdrawal of UK troops on the Eastern EU border.
FT article on the EU vax ban. Seems it is strongly (and rightly) opposed by several northern states, but its being done on QMV, so it will probably go through, and it will hinder our vax program - ie more Brits will die
If this happens - and Brits die unnecessarily - I honestly do not see how EU/UK relations will ever recover. It will be like the Cold War.
With friends like this, who needs enemies.
Imagine if you’re the PM and you have to stand up in the Commons and announce that our vaccine drive is going to slow, enormously, because our contracted, purchased supplies have been illegally seized by the EU. Then you have to say ‘as a result, lockdown will be extended’
The reaction of the British public will be explosive. Blind fury
My slender hope is that this is politicking for show. They will pass the ‘law’ but won’t apply it, because saner minds will prevail. But this is the EU in full-blown psychosis, so who knows. Look at Merkel’s madness, today
On the other hand the Govt have said that export bans will only really affect the younger age groups (because immediately required supplies are secured), and the lockdown roadmap is not linked to younger age groups being vaccinated.
If I was 45 and I was expecting my jab in late April/May but then I was told, ‘sorry, the EU stole your vaccine, you’ve got to wait until July now’ I would not be very happy with the EU even if we still followed the roadmap
Indeed, I’d be screamingly angry
Younger people can still get very sick from Covid, and some die. The EU move, if it happens, will kill Britons who would not otherwise have died
Its somewhat ironic that the EC are banging on about how unfair everything is and that the UK aren't playing fair, when Germany didn't play fair under the terms of the EU own vaccine programme. I presume they will be sharing their extras with the rest of the EU right?
One easy way to test this "fairness" argument — or absolute BS as is more accurate — is to ponder whether the EU would be sending the UK extra doses if we had fallen behind them in the roll out. I suspect we'd be told "you should have joined the EU Vaccines Strategy".
So far this year the European Commission has proposed a hard border on the island of Ireland, without consultation. They are now proposing to take medication we paid for, and they either won't use it or will slowly dish it out. In both cases lives would likely be lost if the Commission followed through on its proposals.
Its somewhat ironic that the EC are banging on about how unfair everything is and that the UK aren't playing fair, when Germany didn't play fair under the terms of the EU own vaccine programme. I presume they will be sharing their extras with the rest of the EU right?
One easy way to test this "fairness" argument — or absolute BS as is more accurate — is to ponder whether the EU would be sending the UK extra doses if we had fallen behind them in the roll out. I suspect we'd be told "you should have joined the EU Vaccines Strategy".
So far this year the European Commission has proposed a hard border on the island of Ireland, without consultation. They are now proposing to take medication we paid for, and they either won't use it or will slowly dish it out. In both cases lives would likely be lost if the Commission followed through on its proposals.
The Commission has completely lost the plot.
Not just the commission, heads of major nation states, France, Germany, etc. We aren't talking Orban in Hungary here.
Genuine question: what right does Prince Harry have to work in the USA? Does he have a right to work by virtue of being married to an American? Does he need a visa?
I've always been curious.
It's a non-job.
Not at all. It’s very important.
He’s not just making oodles of money giving speeches to investment bankers and documentaries for Netflix.
He’s working for a *mental health* company
He’s not such a bad guy giving up his valuable time like that...
What does this company actually do? I have an interest in mental health provision because I have personal experience of what it does to people and their families.
Lots of people talk about it. It has become really quite fashionable to do so. Actual practical help is rather thin on the ground, especially afterwards. Try getting a job from companies after explaining that your patchy CV is because of mental health illness and you will find that their interest in better mental health vanishes as fast as snow in summer.
If he is going to do something practical to help with that, good on him. If it's just another talking shop or another forum for him to talk about himself, not so good.
Amazing double standards around Harry. He has set up the Invictus games which changed many peoples lives from overwhelming struggle to one of hope and achievement. That already puts him in the top 0.1% or better of people influencing and improving others lives.
Yes, there are double standards around Invictus. I remember a few years earlier Jimmy Carr made a joke that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq would mean Britain would soon have a brilliant Paralympic team, and he got absolute pelters for it.
That was the classic case of people being offended on behalf of others.
The war vets, of course, appreciated the dark humour - and went on to get dozens of Paralympic medals!
All that outrage over Lee Hurst joke on twitter over the weekend...I was only thinking yesterday, it was the sort of gag Jimmy Carr would do, as a tame warm up one.
I was pretty much the only one defending that joke on here at the time.
I think the main issue is the audience. A Twitter audience is different from a TV/radio audience, which is different to a comedy club audience - with decreasing expectations of taste and decency.
Most definitely. I also think those who feigned offence had more problems with the teller of the joke than the joke itself. As has been said even in 2021 if that came out the mouth of Jimmy Carr on Channel 4 it would have got a mixture of laughs and a few groans (if there were a studio audience).
Lee Hurst was pretty funny on TTIAO. I thought Nick Hancock made that show, it's a shame much like Mark Lamarr from Buzzcocks they keep a relatively low profile these days given the dross that currently passes for comedy on the Beeb.
Nick Hancock...met him in real life a number of times, what a miserable git.
Jimmy Carr regular put downs are basically I've done your mum / your girlfriend is ugly....no more or less misogynistic than Lee Hurst joke.
He's from Stoke so I wouldn't expect him to be upbeat.
Oi I'm from Stoke and am famed for being always cheery...but then I don't live there anymore :-)
He was proper miserable, and no it wasn't because I went up and bugged him about having a selfie or something equally annoying that people seem to want to do with anybody vaguely famous.
Prof Michael Thrasher is another famous person originally from Stoke-on-Trent.
The measures, which were unveiled ahead of a summit of EU leaders starting tomorrow, are strongly backed by France. Italy has also stressed the need to be tough in policing export authorisations. But the proposals have provoked deep concern in some other capitals, which warn that they may jeopardise complex supply chains for vaccines and their ingredients.
“They are ill-thought-through, impetuous and aggressive and they seem to be a solution to a problem we don’t actually have,” said one EU diplomat.
Countries that have raised concerns in EU meetings over the past two days include Belgium, Finland, Sweden and the Netherlands. Angela Merkel, German chancellor, told the media on Tuesday that it was necessary to be “very careful about imposing blanket export bans” given the importance of securing supply chains. But she still stressed that the EU was the world’s biggest vaccine exporter, while other parts of the world were exporting nothing at all.
The new rules would build on an existing EU authorisation scheme, in place since February, which was essentially concerned with making sure vaccine makers failing to meet their obligations to the bloc did not ship much needed supplies abroad. The scheme was a response to supply problems at AstraZeneca.
But the updated version would allow exports to be stopped even if the drugmaker concerned was meeting its contractual commitments to Brussels.
The EU plans also foresee shipments being stopped on the grounds that the destination country is far ahead of the bloc in vaccinating its population, or already has strong availability of vaccines. The draft legal proposal argues that this is relevant to the EU's own “security of supply”. ----end----
If the EU does block Pfizer exports then the Government needs to react swiftly and disproportionately. Immediate cessation of exports of lipids to the EU, and withdrawal of UK troops on the Eastern EU border.
“They are ill-thought-through, impetuous and aggressive and they seem to be a solution to a problem we don’t actually have.
In related news, Nigel Farage is going to sue the EU for theft of intellectual property.
He has prior art claims on all ill-thought-through, impetuous and aggressive ideas that are a solution to a problem we don’t actually have, in a European context.
Setting all humour aside - I know - you have to wonder how many more millions of vaccine doses are actually lost in various member states because they cannot persuade anyone to be vaccinated. Spain has had today to state that refusers of AZN will not be offered an alternative.
Spain did a feeble number of jabs yesterday - about 80,000. 0.19% of the populace.
Why do you think this is happening? Is it anti-vaxxery? Supply?
Before I am accused by a snowflakey German of being mean, I hasten to add this slow roll-out doesn’t ‘please’ me, it dismays me. An unvaccinated Europe is tragic on a human level - more death and suffering - it is also bad, economically, for everyone - in the UK too. Plus it gives more time and space for mutations, which is scary.
The interesting thing is that so many people in the EU seem to think the UK wants to slow down vaccinations in Europe, when the opposite is the case. Brits want everyone to be vaccinated as quickly as possible.
It's the old 'put your own oxygen mask/life jacket on first' rule in airplanes.
Sort yourself out first, then you can help everyone else.
The measures, which were unveiled ahead of a summit of EU leaders starting tomorrow, are strongly backed by France. Italy has also stressed the need to be tough in policing export authorisations. But the proposals have provoked deep concern in some other capitals, which warn that they may jeopardise complex supply chains for vaccines and their ingredients.
“They are ill-thought-through, impetuous and aggressive and they seem to be a solution to a problem we don’t actually have,” said one EU diplomat.
Countries that have raised concerns in EU meetings over the past two days include Belgium, Finland, Sweden and the Netherlands. Angela Merkel, German chancellor, told the media on Tuesday that it was necessary to be “very careful about imposing blanket export bans” given the importance of securing supply chains. But she still stressed that the EU was the world’s biggest vaccine exporter, while other parts of the world were exporting nothing at all.
The new rules would build on an existing EU authorisation scheme, in place since February, which was essentially concerned with making sure vaccine makers failing to meet their obligations to the bloc did not ship much needed supplies abroad. The scheme was a response to supply problems at AstraZeneca.
But the updated version would allow exports to be stopped even if the drugmaker concerned was meeting its contractual commitments to Brussels.
The EU plans also foresee shipments being stopped on the grounds that the destination country is far ahead of the bloc in vaccinating its population, or already has strong availability of vaccines. The draft legal proposal argues that this is relevant to the EU's own “security of supply”. ----end----
If the EU does block Pfizer exports then the Government needs to react swiftly and disproportionately. Immediate cessation of exports of lipids to the EU, and withdrawal of UK troops on the Eastern EU border.
Yes to the second, no to the former. Take the moral high ground on vaccines (though be open to encouraging the U.K. producer to only fill existing orders then switch to elsewhere) but make it clear that if they jeopardise our lives in this way then we see no reason to stand up for them against Russia.
The latest estimate, for doses to 7 March, was that 11.9 million Pfizer had been dispensed, including a million second doses, along with 11.7 million AZ....
Despite this, supply does appear to have fallen short of the two million a week promised by AZ's chief executive Pascal Soriot. According to the yellow-card estimates published so far, in only two weeks, the first week of February and March, were more than two million AZ doses dispensed.
The measures, which were unveiled ahead of a summit of EU leaders starting tomorrow, are strongly backed by France. Italy has also stressed the need to be tough in policing export authorisations. But the proposals have provoked deep concern in some other capitals, which warn that they may jeopardise complex supply chains for vaccines and their ingredients.
“They are ill-thought-through, impetuous and aggressive and they seem to be a solution to a problem we don’t actually have,” said one EU diplomat.
Countries that have raised concerns in EU meetings over the past two days include Belgium, Finland, Sweden and the Netherlands. Angela Merkel, German chancellor, told the media on Tuesday that it was necessary to be “very careful about imposing blanket export bans” given the importance of securing supply chains. But she still stressed that the EU was the world’s biggest vaccine exporter, while other parts of the world were exporting nothing at all.
The new rules would build on an existing EU authorisation scheme, in place since February, which was essentially concerned with making sure vaccine makers failing to meet their obligations to the bloc did not ship much needed supplies abroad. The scheme was a response to supply problems at AstraZeneca.
But the updated version would allow exports to be stopped even if the drugmaker concerned was meeting its contractual commitments to Brussels.
The EU plans also foresee shipments being stopped on the grounds that the destination country is far ahead of the bloc in vaccinating its population, or already has strong availability of vaccines. The draft legal proposal argues that this is relevant to the EU's own “security of supply”. ----end----
If the EU does block Pfizer exports then the Government needs to react swiftly and disproportionately. Immediate cessation of exports of lipids to the EU, and withdrawal of UK troops on the Eastern EU border.
Yes to the second, no to the former. Take the moral high ground on vaccines (though be open to encouraging the U.K. producer to only fill existing orders then switch to elsewhere) but make it clear that if they jeopardise our lives in this way then we see no reason to stand up for them against Russia.
I disagree with both proposals. Defending Europe against Russia is in our own enlightened self interest.
If they decide the rule of law no longer applies and are voiding our contracts, then voiding the NI Protocol would be a better solution.
We should be rapidly unlocking at least back to the point we were at in July last year domestically, while keeping the border sealed to protect our gains domestically. That's the trade-off.
Telling people to stay at home when nobody is dying is unforgiveable.
Given what we know about the current strains, a full unlock now would quickly fill up ICU with 30-50 year olds.
That is why the roadmap is linking levels of vaccination to reducing the levels of restrictions.
I think that's a load of bollocks sorry.
More than a fifth over 50s have been vaccinated already, the vulnerable under 50s. The majority of adults have been vaccinated now, which means they're much less likely to pass the virus on.
With our level of vaccinations, even with the new variant, there's little reason why ICUs should escalate any more than they did last July.
Hospital admissions R is around 0.8
Who are all these people being admitted to hospital - *now*?
If you let rip, it's not long before you are back at admissions R of 1.x and then we are in the same position as Europe.
Hence a phased approach.
There's a five week lag between the effect of new vaccinations on hospital admissions.
How low do you think hospital admissions will be in five weeks ?
Hopefully nice and low. Hopefully.
We have a nice 0.8 (or so) R for hospitals at the moment. The issue is that 0.8 turns into 1.05 quite easily.
I don't want to do this all over again. At this point a 5 weeks is not much to ask to get security - at that point we will (the fuckwits willing) have the over 50s done to a high level - including getting areas such as Newham to a better state....
Actually 5 weeks for an entire country is an awful lot to ask. If we say that a life spent locked down is only getting 50% of its normal value (which I don't think is unreasonable), the 5 weeks of lockdown for the country represents about ~40,000 entire birth-death lifetimes lost, or 3 million years of life lost. That's the same loss of years of life as 300,000 covid deaths. If I told you that lifting lockdown now risks another 50k deaths (but its unlikely to be that bad, and there is a better than evens chance it's less than 10k), but retaining it for 5 weeks cost 300k deaths, this should be a no brainer.
You can't say lockdown life is only worth 50%... because then you'd have to admit it's been a complete and utter mistake.
500k lives saved (optimistically) with average 15 years of life left (very optimistic) gives 7.5m years of life saved.
Set against 60m people locked down for over 6 months at 50% life value is >15m years of life spent.
This analysis doesn't work because it assumes an alternative to lockdown in which, as the virus ran riot, people would have gone cheerfully about their daily lives as normal.
It's the fallacy at the heart of most of this sentiment. It denies the harsh reality of covid and hence is known as covid denialism.
(You are re-defining Covid denialism - but I'll let that pass.)
It's the false dichotomy thing again. As you say, assuming "an alternative to lockdown in which, as the virus ran riot, people would have gone cheerfully about their daily lives as normal" would be an absurd position to hold. I agree. Only extreme-wing libertarians would hold such a view. Not even Contrarian would argue for this.
But you are not considering another possibility: an alternative to lockdown in which, as the virus ran riot, people would NOT have gone about their daily lives as normal because they would have "locked down" voluntarily to differing degrees by taking responsibility for themselves.
The measures, which were unveiled ahead of a summit of EU leaders starting tomorrow, are strongly backed by France. Italy has also stressed the need to be tough in policing export authorisations. But the proposals have provoked deep concern in some other capitals, which warn that they may jeopardise complex supply chains for vaccines and their ingredients.
“They are ill-thought-through, impetuous and aggressive and they seem to be a solution to a problem we don’t actually have,” said one EU diplomat.
Countries that have raised concerns in EU meetings over the past two days include Belgium, Finland, Sweden and the Netherlands. Angela Merkel, German chancellor, told the media on Tuesday that it was necessary to be “very careful about imposing blanket export bans” given the importance of securing supply chains. But she still stressed that the EU was the world’s biggest vaccine exporter, while other parts of the world were exporting nothing at all.
The new rules would build on an existing EU authorisation scheme, in place since February, which was essentially concerned with making sure vaccine makers failing to meet their obligations to the bloc did not ship much needed supplies abroad. The scheme was a response to supply problems at AstraZeneca.
But the updated version would allow exports to be stopped even if the drugmaker concerned was meeting its contractual commitments to Brussels.
The EU plans also foresee shipments being stopped on the grounds that the destination country is far ahead of the bloc in vaccinating its population, or already has strong availability of vaccines. The draft legal proposal argues that this is relevant to the EU's own “security of supply”. ----end----
If the EU does block Pfizer exports then the Government needs to react swiftly and disproportionately. Immediate cessation of exports of lipids to the EU, and withdrawal of UK troops on the Eastern EU border.
AIUI there's a US Pfizer factory where the supply of lipids is the bottleneck. I imagine there's some very high-level diplomacy going on at the moment between the UK, USA and Pfizer themselves, as to how they might react if the EU seeks to limit exports.
(declaration of interest. I live in the UAE, have had one Pfizer vaccine and would quite like another!)
The measures, which were unveiled ahead of a summit of EU leaders starting tomorrow, are strongly backed by France. Italy has also stressed the need to be tough in policing export authorisations. But the proposals have provoked deep concern in some other capitals, which warn that they may jeopardise complex supply chains for vaccines and their ingredients.
“They are ill-thought-through, impetuous and aggressive and they seem to be a solution to a problem we don’t actually have,” said one EU diplomat.
Countries that have raised concerns in EU meetings over the past two days include Belgium, Finland, Sweden and the Netherlands. Angela Merkel, German chancellor, told the media on Tuesday that it was necessary to be “very careful about imposing blanket export bans” given the importance of securing supply chains. But she still stressed that the EU was the world’s biggest vaccine exporter, while other parts of the world were exporting nothing at all.
The new rules would build on an existing EU authorisation scheme, in place since February, which was essentially concerned with making sure vaccine makers failing to meet their obligations to the bloc did not ship much needed supplies abroad. The scheme was a response to supply problems at AstraZeneca.
But the updated version would allow exports to be stopped even if the drugmaker concerned was meeting its contractual commitments to Brussels.
The EU plans also foresee shipments being stopped on the grounds that the destination country is far ahead of the bloc in vaccinating its population, or already has strong availability of vaccines. The draft legal proposal argues that this is relevant to the EU's own “security of supply”. ----end----
If the EU does block Pfizer exports then the Government needs to react swiftly and disproportionately. Immediate cessation of exports of lipids to the EU, and withdrawal of UK troops on the Eastern EU border.
Yes to the second, no to the former. Take the moral high ground on vaccines (though be open to encouraging the U.K. producer to only fill existing orders then switch to elsewhere) but make it clear that if they jeopardise our lives in this way then we see no reason to stand up for them against Russia.
I disagree with both proposals. Defending Europe against Russia is in our own enlightened self interest.
If they decide the rule of law no longer applies and are voiding our contracts, then voiding the NI Protocol would be a better solution.
Why is it in our interest if they are no longer acting like allies? Putin doesn't want to invade Surrey. If they don’t want to be allies, we really can treat the eastern block as far away countries about which we know nothing.
One easy way to test this "fairness" argument — or absolute BS as is more accurate — is to ponder whether the EU would be sending the UK extra doses if we had fallen behind them in the roll out. I suspect we'd be told "you should have joined the EU Vaccines Strategy".
Yes. We have the newspaper articles from last year. It's clear there would have been a lot of smug gloating from EU politicians if the situation was reversed. They did think they were clever for securing doses at a lower price.
The measures, which were unveiled ahead of a summit of EU leaders starting tomorrow, are strongly backed by France. Italy has also stressed the need to be tough in policing export authorisations. But the proposals have provoked deep concern in some other capitals, which warn that they may jeopardise complex supply chains for vaccines and their ingredients.
“They are ill-thought-through, impetuous and aggressive and they seem to be a solution to a problem we don’t actually have,” said one EU diplomat.
Countries that have raised concerns in EU meetings over the past two days include Belgium, Finland, Sweden and the Netherlands. Angela Merkel, German chancellor, told the media on Tuesday that it was necessary to be “very careful about imposing blanket export bans” given the importance of securing supply chains. But she still stressed that the EU was the world’s biggest vaccine exporter, while other parts of the world were exporting nothing at all.
The new rules would build on an existing EU authorisation scheme, in place since February, which was essentially concerned with making sure vaccine makers failing to meet their obligations to the bloc did not ship much needed supplies abroad. The scheme was a response to supply problems at AstraZeneca.
But the updated version would allow exports to be stopped even if the drugmaker concerned was meeting its contractual commitments to Brussels.
The EU plans also foresee shipments being stopped on the grounds that the destination country is far ahead of the bloc in vaccinating its population, or already has strong availability of vaccines. The draft legal proposal argues that this is relevant to the EU's own “security of supply”. ----end----
If the EU does block Pfizer exports then the Government needs to react swiftly and disproportionately. Immediate cessation of exports of lipids to the EU, and withdrawal of UK troops on the Eastern EU border.
AIUI there's a US Pfizer factory where the supply of lipids is the bottleneck. I imagine there's some very high-level diplomacy going on at the moment between the UK, USA and Pfizer themselves, as to how they might react if the EU seeks to limit exports.
(declaration of interest. I live in the UAE, have had one Pfizer vaccine and would quite like another!)
Pfizer is understood to have considered contingencies if there is disruption, but believes any friction in supply would be negative. "We have been clear with all stakeholders that the free movement of goods and supply across borders is absolutely critical to Pfizer and the patients we serve," it said.
The measures, which were unveiled ahead of a summit of EU leaders starting tomorrow, are strongly backed by France. Italy has also stressed the need to be tough in policing export authorisations. But the proposals have provoked deep concern in some other capitals, which warn that they may jeopardise complex supply chains for vaccines and their ingredients.
“They are ill-thought-through, impetuous and aggressive and they seem to be a solution to a problem we don’t actually have,” said one EU diplomat.
Countries that have raised concerns in EU meetings over the past two days include Belgium, Finland, Sweden and the Netherlands. Angela Merkel, German chancellor, told the media on Tuesday that it was necessary to be “very careful about imposing blanket export bans” given the importance of securing supply chains. But she still stressed that the EU was the world’s biggest vaccine exporter, while other parts of the world were exporting nothing at all.
The new rules would build on an existing EU authorisation scheme, in place since February, which was essentially concerned with making sure vaccine makers failing to meet their obligations to the bloc did not ship much needed supplies abroad. The scheme was a response to supply problems at AstraZeneca.
But the updated version would allow exports to be stopped even if the drugmaker concerned was meeting its contractual commitments to Brussels.
The EU plans also foresee shipments being stopped on the grounds that the destination country is far ahead of the bloc in vaccinating its population, or already has strong availability of vaccines. The draft legal proposal argues that this is relevant to the EU's own “security of supply”. ----end----
If the EU does block Pfizer exports then the Government needs to react swiftly and disproportionately. Immediate cessation of exports of lipids to the EU, and withdrawal of UK troops on the Eastern EU border.
Yes to the second, no to the former. Take the moral high ground on vaccines (though be open to encouraging the U.K. producer to only fill existing orders then switch to elsewhere) but make it clear that if they jeopardise our lives in this way then we see no reason to stand up for them against Russia.
I disagree with both proposals. Defending Europe against Russia is in our own enlightened self interest.
If they decide the rule of law no longer applies and are voiding our contracts, then voiding the NI Protocol would be a better solution.
The EU is about to kill British people in a fit of spiteful petulance, to hide their own failings; moreover, they admit this move will barely benefit them at all
The idea we won’t retaliate is nuts. I agree we should ‘try’ and maintain the moral high ground, but it may prove emotionally difficult
Genuine question: what right does Prince Harry have to work in the USA? Does he have a right to work by virtue of being married to an American? Does he need a visa?
I've always been curious.
It's a non-job.
Not at all. It’s very important.
He’s not just making oodles of money giving speeches to investment bankers and documentaries for Netflix.
He’s working for a *mental health* company
He’s not such a bad guy giving up his valuable time like that...
What does this company actually do? I have an interest in mental health provision because I have personal experience of what it does to people and their families.
Lots of people talk about it. It has become really quite fashionable to do so. Actual practical help is rather thin on the ground, especially afterwards. Try getting a job from companies after explaining that your patchy CV is because of mental health illness and you will find that their interest in better mental health vanishes as fast as snow in summer.
If he is going to do something practical to help with that, good on him. If it's just another talking shop or another forum for him to talk about himself, not so good.
Amazing double standards around Harry. He has set up the Invictus games which changed many peoples lives from overwhelming struggle to one of hope and achievement. That already puts him in the top 0.1% or better of people influencing and improving others lives.
Yes, there are double standards around Invictus. I remember a few years earlier Jimmy Carr made a joke that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq would mean Britain would soon have a brilliant Paralympic team, and he got absolute pelters for it.
That was the classic case of people being offended on behalf of others.
The war vets, of course, appreciated the dark humour - and went on to get dozens of Paralympic medals!
All that outrage over Lee Hurst joke on twitter over the weekend...I was only thinking yesterday, it was the sort of gag Jimmy Carr would do, as a tame warm up one.
I was pretty much the only one defending that joke on here at the time.
I think the main issue is the audience. A Twitter audience is different from a TV/radio audience, which is different to a comedy club audience - with decreasing expectations of taste and decency.
Most definitely. I also think those who feigned offence had more problems with the teller of the joke than the joke itself. As has been said even in 2021 if that came out the mouth of Jimmy Carr on Channel 4 it would have got a mixture of laughs and a few groans (if there were a studio audience).
Lee Hurst was pretty funny on TTIAO. I thought Nick Hancock made that show, it's a shame much like Mark Lamarr from Buzzcocks they keep a relatively low profile these days given the dross that currently passes for comedy on the Beeb.
I do miss Mark Lamarr, back in the days when he'd goad guests into walking off Buzzcocks, and didn't care who he offended. Phill Jupitus has also disappeared, and Bill Bailey sticks to his musical comedy show on stage.
The only UK 'comedy' show I regularly watch now is the late-night Countdown, and occasionally HIGNFY - apart from that it's all Youtube podcasts and Netflix specials. Network TV has pretty much lost comedy completely.
It's odd how little non-political comedy there is now, especially with the long tail earning potential of the streaming services. Black Books is still out there, earning a living on five different platforms, yet the same era HIGNFY doesn’t have enough interest to even see it stuck on Britbox.
(And the early seasons of Buzzcocks do still provide entertainment).
"non-political comedy" You mean comedy? I have seen nothing recently that goes under the label political comedy that is actually funny. It is nearly always a lefty going full on rant.
This is mental. EU MSs are raiding their own vaccine plants about their own vaccines. How pissed off must AZ be right now.
The sort of acts you would only expect to see in places like Venezuela....when they discover somebody has been making bog roll on the quiet.
If I was AZ, I’d be telling them I was going to honour the initial orders, and I was then going to stop doing business with them. If I was especially pissed off, I might even look into whether the contract was void.
Actually, now that the Italian police have possibly contaminated the doses in Italy, hasn’t we better be responsible and bring them here for “disposal”?
FT article on the EU vax ban. Seems it is strongly (and rightly) opposed by several northern states, but its being done on QMV, so it will probably go through, and it will hinder our vax program - ie more Brits will die
If this happens - and Brits die unnecessarily - I honestly do not see how EU/UK relations will ever recover. It will be like the Cold War.
With friends like this, who needs enemies.
Imagine if you’re the PM and you have to stand up in the Commons and announce that our vaccine drive is going to slow, enormously, because our contracted, purchased supplies have been illegally seized by the EU. Then you have to say ‘as a result, lockdown will be extended’
The reaction of the British public will be explosive. Blind fury
My slender hope is that this is politicking for show. They will pass the ‘law’ but won’t apply it, because saner minds will prevail. But this is the EU in full-blown psychosis, so who knows. Look at Merkel’s madness, today
The obvious "fudge" the EU do is make sure just enough is allowed to be exported for 2nd doses of Pfizer and that's it. Therefore, they claim a win and they get to act like a big bully, we are still slowed down having to rely on just AZN for a few months, but not with the total disaster of Grannies dying left, right and centre because they didn't get their second dose.
But then even that might be too sane.....the way the EU are acting, they might want to show the UK 12 week strategy up as inferior to their approach, and the obviously way to do that, block Pfizer exports.
Possibly. But since their criteria include "vaccines and ingredients" we're exporting plenty of "ingredients" to them. Currently.
Oh, and if there is a delay in the UK vaccine program, I suspect there will be no EU summer holidays for Brits. At all.
The measures, which were unveiled ahead of a summit of EU leaders starting tomorrow, are strongly backed by France. Italy has also stressed the need to be tough in policing export authorisations. But the proposals have provoked deep concern in some other capitals, which warn that they may jeopardise complex supply chains for vaccines and their ingredients.
“They are ill-thought-through, impetuous and aggressive and they seem to be a solution to a problem we don’t actually have,” said one EU diplomat.
Countries that have raised concerns in EU meetings over the past two days include Belgium, Finland, Sweden and the Netherlands. Angela Merkel, German chancellor, told the media on Tuesday that it was necessary to be “very careful about imposing blanket export bans” given the importance of securing supply chains. But she still stressed that the EU was the world’s biggest vaccine exporter, while other parts of the world were exporting nothing at all.
The new rules would build on an existing EU authorisation scheme, in place since February, which was essentially concerned with making sure vaccine makers failing to meet their obligations to the bloc did not ship much needed supplies abroad. The scheme was a response to supply problems at AstraZeneca.
But the updated version would allow exports to be stopped even if the drugmaker concerned was meeting its contractual commitments to Brussels.
The EU plans also foresee shipments being stopped on the grounds that the destination country is far ahead of the bloc in vaccinating its population, or already has strong availability of vaccines. The draft legal proposal argues that this is relevant to the EU's own “security of supply”. ----end----
If the EU does block Pfizer exports then the Government needs to react swiftly and disproportionately. Immediate cessation of exports of lipids to the EU, and withdrawal of UK troops on the Eastern EU border.
Yes to the second, no to the former. Take the moral high ground on vaccines (though be open to encouraging the U.K. producer to only fill existing orders then switch to elsewhere) but make it clear that if they jeopardise our lives in this way then we see no reason to stand up for them against Russia.
I disagree with both proposals. Defending Europe against Russia is in our own enlightened self interest.
If they decide the rule of law no longer applies and are voiding our contracts, then voiding the NI Protocol would be a better solution.
The EU is about to kill British people in a fit of spiteful petulance, to hide their own failings; moreover, they admit this move will barely benefit them at all
The idea we won’t retaliate is nuts. I agree we should ‘try’ and maintain the moral high ground, but it may prove emotionally difficult
The EU have been driven so mad by Brexit and UK success on vaccines, they are literally targeting us, while cozying up to Russia and China....Russia, run by a ruthless dictator, who thinks nothing of putting whole towns at risk to poison somebody he doesn't like or China, the state responsible for this pandemic and happy to enslave millions of ethnic minorities, and both who are quite happy to steal your companies IP, make knock-offs and bust the original companies.
It's amazing. AZ's tweets (see below in @Leon's 2.25pm post) are perfectly clear, and explain where these vaccines are going and when. And yet the European anti-AZ zealots are somehow managing to find even more fuel for their barmy conspiracy theories, such as this idiocy:
But the questions don't follow. Troops aren't battlefield hardware. They're battlefield hardnuts.
You gov say in the question the size of the army is to be reduced
Yep, then the follow-ups ask where the priority should be, cyber or hardware, and cyber wins. This does not show public support for cutting troop numbers. It just shows public support for prioritizing cyber over hardware.
It's also a very leading question. Hardware sounds like the contents of a junkyard, vs. the more relevant sounding 'cyber warfare'. If you said 'ships, helicopters and planes' vs. 'Minitoring of Twitter', you'd get a different outcome.
Yes. "Cyber" sounds like the box to tick there. "Do you at least try and keep up with today's world or are you completely stuck in your ways?" And as a supplementary point, the intricacies of modern warfare would be right towards the top of a list of subjects that most members of the general public know sweet FA about. Which very much includes me in this case. You can pour what I know about military matters into a thimble and it won't overflow.
One easy way to test this "fairness" argument — or absolute BS as is more accurate — is to ponder whether the EU would be sending the UK extra doses if we had fallen behind them in the roll out. I suspect we'd be told "you should have joined the EU Vaccines Strategy".
Yes. We have the newspaper articles from last year. It's clear there would have been a lot of smug gloating from EU politicians if the situation was reversed. They did think they were clever for securing doses at a lower price.
Oh, if the situation was reversed, there would be daily Guardian headlines of the gloating Europeans, the Remoaners in the UK would be all over the news, and there would be serious pressure on the PM to resign.
As it actually played out, I guess UvdL can count her lucky stars that she doesn't have to submit herself to the people for approval.
FT article on the EU vax ban. Seems it is strongly (and rightly) opposed by several northern states, but its being done on QMV, so it will probably go through, and it will hinder our vax program - ie more Brits will die
If this happens - and Brits die unnecessarily - I honestly do not see how EU/UK relations will ever recover. It will be like the Cold War.
With friends like this, who needs enemies.
Imagine if you’re the PM and you have to stand up in the Commons and announce that our vaccine drive is going to slow, enormously, because our contracted, purchased supplies have been illegally seized by the EU. Then you have to say ‘as a result, lockdown will be extended’
The reaction of the British public will be explosive. Blind fury
My slender hope is that this is politicking for show. They will pass the ‘law’ but won’t apply it, because saner minds will prevail. But this is the EU in full-blown psychosis, so who knows. Look at Merkel’s madness, today
The obvious "fudge" the EU do is make sure just enough is allowed to be exported for 2nd doses of Pfizer and that's it. Therefore, they claim a win and they get to act like a big bully, we are still slowed down having to rely on just AZN for a few months, but not with the total disaster of Grannies dying left, right and centre because they didn't get their second dose.
But then even that might be too sane.....the way the EU are acting, they might want to show the UK 12 week strategy up as inferior to their approach, and the obviously way to do that, block Pfizer exports.
Possibly. But since their criteria include "vaccines and ingredients" we're exporting plenty of "ingredients" to them. Currently.
Oh, and if there is a delay in the UK vaccine program, I suspect there will be no EU summer holidays for Brits. At all.
You see the mistake you are making there is you are applying sensible logic.....If the EU were applying such a strategy you wouldn't rubbish a life saving vaccine that you have millions of doses of and working constructively with all vaccine makers to up supply.
I am truely amazed how the EU and the EU countries are doing this.
Making a mistake is one thing, continuing time after time to cock it up is another, and not learning from any mistakes.
It's a bit like a job I'm working on. I got given a document riddled with errors. I pointed them out. It comes back with even more errors and the errors not all removed.
You really have to lose faith at a point they have any competency.
I remember quite a few years ago hiring an Indian firm to build a website for a new business I setup...it was the most frustrating experience of my life. I would point out issues and obvious mistakes, be told yes yes we have it covered, and the next revision, not only would they not be fixed, they had managed to introduce more. I think it took 3-4 months before I had to bin them off and hire some people in Estonia, who sorted it all in a few weeks.
Quite standard - the productivity multiplier is as real as the wage multiplier.
When you put them together - the cost vs work actually done is rather interesting.
One company I work for discovered that the cheapest locations for software development were, in order
1) London and Eastern Europe tied in first place 2) US 3) Canada 4) India
London and Bulgaria / Sofia from memory.
Eastern Europe can be very expensive now as productivity isn't as great as it might be.
I would argue that nearshoring to other UK cities will easily match London and might work out cheaper.
Quite possibly - though if you pay lower wages than London, all the top talent goes there.
I've encountered a few attempts to setup up software development around the UK. The ones that have succeeded have to pay big wages to stop the drift to London. As in at least 2/3rd of the London rate...
There's a lot of great talent that really doesn't want to work on what are perceived as soul destroying projects in banks. If you look to recruit in Nottingham, Birmingham etc (especially with the ubiquity of remote working, and the ability to build local clusters of employees who can meet up socially) it can improve everyone's quality of life.
Yes - but if you offer wages of 50% of London rate or less (which I have seen), don't be surprised if you find all the good ones end up in London.
A choice of a nice house and good life or living in a rabbit hutch/someone's spare room is hardly a choice unless you are stupid.
One easy way to test this "fairness" argument — or absolute BS as is more accurate — is to ponder whether the EU would be sending the UK extra doses if we had fallen behind them in the roll out. I suspect we'd be told "you should have joined the EU Vaccines Strategy".
Yes. We have the newspaper articles from last year. It's clear there would have been a lot of smug gloating from EU politicians if the situation was reversed. They did think they were clever for securing doses at a lower price.
Oh, if the situation was reversed, there would be daily Guardian headlines of the gloating Europeans, the Remoaners in the UK would be all over the news, and there would be serious pressure on the PM to resign.
As it actually played out, I guess UvdL can count her lucky stars that she doesn't have to submit herself to the people for approval.
You can feel in the Guardian articles that they know this is terrible, but can't quite say it, instead trying very weak whataboutery. The classic the "UK doesn't have an export ban, but they don't export, so that's an export ban in all but name".
I am truely amazed how the EU and the EU countries are doing this.
Making a mistake is one thing, continuing time after time to cock it up is another, and not learning from any mistakes.
It's a bit like a job I'm working on. I got given a document riddled with errors. I pointed them out. It comes back with even more errors and the errors not all removed.
You really have to lose faith at a point they have any competency.
I remember quite a few years ago hiring an Indian firm to build a website for a new business I setup...it was the most frustrating experience of my life. I would point out issues and obvious mistakes, be told yes yes we have it covered, and the next revision, not only would they not be fixed, they had managed to introduce more. I think it took 3-4 months before I had to bin them off and hire some people in Estonia, who sorted it all in a few weeks.
Quite standard - the productivity multiplier is as real as the wage multiplier.
When you put them together - the cost vs work actually done is rather interesting.
One company I work for discovered that the cheapest locations for software development were, in order
1) London and Eastern Europe tied in first place 2) US 3) Canada 4) India
London and Bulgaria / Sofia from memory.
Eastern Europe can be very expensive now as productivity isn't as great as it might be.
I would argue that nearshoring to other UK cities will easily match London and might work out cheaper.
Quite possibly - though if you pay lower wages than London, all the top talent goes there.
I've encountered a few attempts to setup up software development around the UK. The ones that have succeeded have to pay big wages to stop the drift to London. As in at least 2/3rd of the London rate...
There's a lot of great talent that really doesn't want to work on what are perceived as soul destroying projects in banks. If you look to recruit in Nottingham, Birmingham etc (especially with the ubiquity of remote working, and the ability to build local clusters of employees who can meet up socially) it can improve everyone's quality of life.
Yes - but if you offer wages of 50% of London rate or less (which I have seen), don't be surprised if you find all the good ones end up in London.
A choice of a nice house and good life or living in a rabbit hutch/someone's spare room is hardly a choice unless you are stupid.
The rates that I have seen offered for some jobs would result in a cut in standards of living - even outside London.
I've already mentioned the case of a friend, who was offered a job by his company down the road from where he lived, rather than travelling to London. At a salary that wouldn't pay his mortgage.
The measures, which were unveiled ahead of a summit of EU leaders starting tomorrow, are strongly backed by France. Italy has also stressed the need to be tough in policing export authorisations. But the proposals have provoked deep concern in some other capitals, which warn that they may jeopardise complex supply chains for vaccines and their ingredients.
“They are ill-thought-through, impetuous and aggressive and they seem to be a solution to a problem we don’t actually have,” said one EU diplomat.
Countries that have raised concerns in EU meetings over the past two days include Belgium, Finland, Sweden and the Netherlands. Angela Merkel, German chancellor, told the media on Tuesday that it was necessary to be “very careful about imposing blanket export bans” given the importance of securing supply chains. But she still stressed that the EU was the world’s biggest vaccine exporter, while other parts of the world were exporting nothing at all.
The new rules would build on an existing EU authorisation scheme, in place since February, which was essentially concerned with making sure vaccine makers failing to meet their obligations to the bloc did not ship much needed supplies abroad. The scheme was a response to supply problems at AstraZeneca.
But the updated version would allow exports to be stopped even if the drugmaker concerned was meeting its contractual commitments to Brussels.
The EU plans also foresee shipments being stopped on the grounds that the destination country is far ahead of the bloc in vaccinating its population, or already has strong availability of vaccines. The draft legal proposal argues that this is relevant to the EU's own “security of supply”. ----end----
If the EU does block Pfizer exports then the Government needs to react swiftly and disproportionately. Immediate cessation of exports of lipids to the EU, and withdrawal of UK troops on the Eastern EU border.
Yes to the second, no to the former. Take the moral high ground on vaccines (though be open to encouraging the U.K. producer to only fill existing orders then switch to elsewhere) but make it clear that if they jeopardise our lives in this way then we see no reason to stand up for them against Russia.
I disagree with both proposals. Defending Europe against Russia is in our own enlightened self interest.
If they decide the rule of law no longer applies and are voiding our contracts, then voiding the NI Protocol would be a better solution.
The EU is about to kill British people in a fit of spiteful petulance, to hide their own failings; moreover, they admit this move will barely benefit them at all
The idea we won’t retaliate is nuts. I agree we should ‘try’ and maintain the moral high ground, but it may prove emotionally difficult
Since the UK has no excess deaths anymore and likely never will again the idea that the EU is going to kill British people is an exaggeration.
This is economics as much as health, especially if it delays us lifting lockdown.
Of course we should retaliate but we should be smarter than the EU. There is no point cutting off our own nose to hurt our face. Any retaliation should be in a way that benefits the UK, in a way that hurts Europe. Invoking Article 16 seems like a good starting point.
I am expecting a second Pfizer dose. My husband needs his second AZ dose. If the EU's actions put those at risk or ensure our lockdown continues and my daughter's business fails, the EU - despite my dislike of Brexit - can get stuffed. I would expect the British government to take appropriate action against an entity which seeks to harm Britain in such a way.
Another EU journalist. Raving about 30m hidden AZ doses ‘destined for Britain’
Literally halfway through the thread he seamlessly walks away from this by saying ‘it doesn’t matter if they were going to Britain or not’, then carries on raving. 5,000 retweets. This mad shit is going viral
"Don't want to be paranoid, but maybe they know that something is wrong with the vaccine and they don't want to sell certain batches anymore. The behavior of this company is more than strange."
To be fair to the EU (it’s hard, but I’ll give it a go) AZ has made some perplexing errors - eg the latest gaffe in America. These feed into the lunatic theories. Shame
On the other hand, everyone seems to forget this is the cheapest jab by a distance, the easiest to use and distribute, the IP is being freely exported (cf India) and it is all being done NOT-FOR-PROFIT
It occurs to me that this generosity was an error. If AZ were charging $20 a jab rather than $2, everyone would probably be saying ‘what a brilliant vaccine, please can we have some more, at whatever price, you are too kind’.
People always place more value on things that cost more, even if they are exactly the same as free equivalents. See the behavior of readers to newspapers you buy versus newspapers given away.
The vaccine as a Veblen good.
Seems to work for the fairly average Sinovac effort.
Anyway, wish me luck. I am now Chair of Trustees of my old primary school and chairing my first Governors and Trustees meeting and AGM tonight - by Zoom.
I am expecting a second Pfizer dose. My husband needs his second AZ dose. If the EU's actions put those at risk or ensure our lockdown continues and my daughter's business fails, the EU - despite my dislike of Brexit - can get stuffed. I would expect the British government to take appropriate action against an entity which seeks to harm Britain in such a way.
I am expecting a second Pfizer dose. My husband needs his second AZ dose. If the EU's actions put those at risk or ensure our lockdown continues and my daughter's business fails, the EU - despite my dislike of Brexit - can get stuffed. I would expect the British government to take appropriate action against an entity which seeks to harm Britain in such a way.
I hope it doesn't come to that.
My parents are awaiting their second doses, due to their medical conditions they have basically been shielding for the past 12 months straight. 12 months locked inside their own home. This is their only route to freedom.....
Genuine question: what right does Prince Harry have to work in the USA? Does he have a right to work by virtue of being married to an American? Does he need a visa?
I've always been curious.
It's a non-job.
Not at all. It’s very important.
He’s not just making oodles of money giving speeches to investment bankers and documentaries for Netflix.
He’s working for a *mental health* company
He’s not such a bad guy giving up his valuable time like that...
What does this company actually do? I have an interest in mental health provision because I have personal experience of what it does to people and their families.
Lots of people talk about it. It has become really quite fashionable to do so. Actual practical help is rather thin on the ground, especially afterwards. Try getting a job from companies after explaining that your patchy CV is because of mental health illness and you will find that their interest in better mental health vanishes as fast as snow in summer.
If he is going to do something practical to help with that, good on him. If it's just another talking shop or another forum for him to talk about himself, not so good.
Amazing double standards around Harry. He has set up the Invictus games which changed many peoples lives from overwhelming struggle to one of hope and achievement. That already puts him in the top 0.1% or better of people influencing and improving others lives.
Yes, there are double standards around Invictus. I remember a few years earlier Jimmy Carr made a joke that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq would mean Britain would soon have a brilliant Paralympic team, and he got absolute pelters for it.
That was the classic case of people being offended on behalf of others.
The war vets, of course, appreciated the dark humour - and went on to get dozens of Paralympic medals!
All that outrage over Lee Hurst joke on twitter over the weekend...I was only thinking yesterday, it was the sort of gag Jimmy Carr would do, as a tame warm up one.
I was pretty much the only one defending that joke on here at the time.
I think the main issue is the audience. A Twitter audience is different from a TV/radio audience, which is different to a comedy club audience - with decreasing expectations of taste and decency.
Most definitely. I also think those who feigned offence had more problems with the teller of the joke than the joke itself. As has been said even in 2021 if that came out the mouth of Jimmy Carr on Channel 4 it would have got a mixture of laughs and a few groans (if there were a studio audience).
Lee Hurst was pretty funny on TTIAO. I thought Nick Hancock made that show, it's a shame much like Mark Lamarr from Buzzcocks they keep a relatively low profile these days given the dross that currently passes for comedy on the Beeb.
I do miss Mark Lamarr, back in the days when he'd goad guests into walking off Buzzcocks, and didn't care who he offended. Phill Jupitus has also disappeared, and Bill Bailey sticks to his musical comedy show on stage.
The only UK 'comedy' show I regularly watch now is the late-night Countdown, and occasionally HIGNFY - apart from that it's all Youtube podcasts and Netflix specials. Network TV has pretty much lost comedy completely.
It's odd how little non-political comedy there is now, especially with the long tail earning potential of the streaming services. Black Books is still out there, earning a living on five different platforms, yet the same era HIGNFY doesn’t have enough interest to even see it stuck on Britbox.
(And the early seasons of Buzzcocks do still provide entertainment).
"non-political comedy" You mean comedy? I have seen nothing recently that goes under the label political comedy that is actually funny. It is nearly always a lefty going full on rant.
Stewart Lee, a lefty, can be blisteringly funny, in a surreal way
I love how he takes an idea and runs with it, to absolutely absurd lengths. Also his timing is impeccable
Genuine question: what right does Prince Harry have to work in the USA? Does he have a right to work by virtue of being married to an American? Does he need a visa?
I've always been curious.
It's a non-job.
Not at all. It’s very important.
He’s not just making oodles of money giving speeches to investment bankers and documentaries for Netflix.
He’s working for a *mental health* company
He’s not such a bad guy giving up his valuable time like that...
What does this company actually do? I have an interest in mental health provision because I have personal experience of what it does to people and their families.
Lots of people talk about it. It has become really quite fashionable to do so. Actual practical help is rather thin on the ground, especially afterwards. Try getting a job from companies after explaining that your patchy CV is because of mental health illness and you will find that their interest in better mental health vanishes as fast as snow in summer.
If he is going to do something practical to help with that, good on him. If it's just another talking shop or another forum for him to talk about himself, not so good.
It will be a platform for him to advocate about mental health... I think they are a consultant to firms but just know what I read in a news article
Genuine question: what right does Prince Harry have to work in the USA? Does he have a right to work by virtue of being married to an American? Does he need a visa?
I've always been curious.
It's a non-job.
Not at all. It’s very important.
He’s not just making oodles of money giving speeches to investment bankers and documentaries for Netflix.
He’s working for a *mental health* company
He’s not such a bad guy giving up his valuable time like that...
What does this company actually do? I have an interest in mental health provision because I have personal experience of what it does to people and their families.
Lots of people talk about it. It has become really quite fashionable to do so. Actual practical help is rather thin on the ground, especially afterwards. Try getting a job from companies after explaining that your patchy CV is because of mental health illness and you will find that their interest in better mental health vanishes as fast as snow in summer.
If he is going to do something practical to help with that, good on him. If it's just another talking shop or another forum for him to talk about himself, not so good.
Amazing double standards around Harry. He has set up the Invictus games which changed many peoples lives from overwhelming struggle to one of hope and achievement. That already puts him in the top 0.1% or better of people influencing and improving others lives.
Yes, there are double standards around Invictus. I remember a few years earlier Jimmy Carr made a joke that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq would mean Britain would soon have a brilliant Paralympic team, and he got absolute pelters for it.
That was the classic case of people being offended on behalf of others.
The war vets, of course, appreciated the dark humour - and went on to get dozens of Paralympic medals!
All that outrage over Lee Hurst joke on twitter over the weekend...I was only thinking yesterday, it was the sort of gag Jimmy Carr would do, as a tame warm up one.
I was pretty much the only one defending that joke on here at the time.
I think the main issue is the audience. A Twitter audience is different from a TV/radio audience, which is different to a comedy club audience - with decreasing expectations of taste and decency.
Most definitely. I also think those who feigned offence had more problems with the teller of the joke than the joke itself. As has been said even in 2021 if that came out the mouth of Jimmy Carr on Channel 4 it would have got a mixture of laughs and a few groans (if there were a studio audience).
Lee Hurst was pretty funny on TTIAO. I thought Nick Hancock made that show, it's a shame much like Mark Lamarr from Buzzcocks they keep a relatively low profile these days given the dross that currently passes for comedy on the Beeb.
I do miss Mark Lamarr, back in the days when he'd goad guests into walking off Buzzcocks, and didn't care who he offended. Phill Jupitus has also disappeared, and Bill Bailey sticks to his musical comedy show on stage.
The only UK 'comedy' show I regularly watch now is the late-night Countdown, and occasionally HIGNFY - apart from that it's all Youtube podcasts and Netflix specials. Network TV has pretty much lost comedy completely.
It's odd how little non-political comedy there is now, especially with the long tail earning potential of the streaming services. Black Books is still out there, earning a living on five different platforms, yet the same era HIGNFY doesn’t have enough interest to even see it stuck on Britbox.
(And the early seasons of Buzzcocks do still provide entertainment).
"non-political comedy" You mean comedy? I have seen nothing recently that goes under the label political comedy that is actually funny. It is nearly always a lefty going full on rant.
I quite like Upstart Crow, where the main joke is on/about Shakespear claiming the invention of phrases that he didn't invent, nicking ideas and passing them off as his own, and the fact that some of the plays are not funny (the comedies) or very funny (the tragedies) etc etc. Often a bit of reflection of modern life too (Wills journeys on the stage coach seem very familiar to modern train travails...) I suspect not to everyones tast.
But the questions don't follow. Troops aren't battlefield hardware. They're battlefield hardnuts.
You gov say in the question the size of the army is to be reduced
Yep, then the follow-ups ask where the priority should be, cyber or hardware, and cyber wins. This does not show public support for cutting troop numbers. It just shows public support for prioritizing cyber over hardware.
It's also a very leading question. Hardware sounds like the contents of a junkyard, vs. the more relevant sounding 'cyber warfare'. If you said 'ships, helicopters and planes' vs. 'Minitoring of Twitter', you'd get a different outcome.
Yes. "Cyber" sounds like the box to tick there. "Do you at least try and keep up with today's world or are you completely stuck in your ways?" And as a supplementary point, the intricacies of modern warfare would be right towards the top of a list of subjects that most members of the general public know sweet FA about. Which very much includes me in this case. You can pour what I know about military matters into a thimble and it won't overflow.
As someone who would generally support the government, this review seems like a rare look at the defence sector that ignores the huge vested interests within the military ranks. Recent technological innovations have totally changed how the military needs to work in the future - we don't need hundreds of manned fighter jets and a large standing army when the main threats of the future are from space and online, and unmanned aircraft are better in almost every way than their maned equivalents.
Maybe it's one of those things that only a Conservative government can do, in the same way that only a Labour government can push serious NHS modernisation through.
I am expecting a second Pfizer dose. My husband needs his second AZ dose. If the EU's actions put those at risk or ensure our lockdown continues and my daughter's business fails, the EU - despite my dislike of Brexit - can get stuffed. I would expect the British government to take appropriate action against an entity which seeks to harm Britain in such a way.
I hope it doesn't come to that.
A lot of experts believe that mixing the vaccines is not only safe but may actually be an improvement.
One easy way to test this "fairness" argument — or absolute BS as is more accurate — is to ponder whether the EU would be sending the UK extra doses if we had fallen behind them in the roll out. I suspect we'd be told "you should have joined the EU Vaccines Strategy".
Yes. We have the newspaper articles from last year. It's clear there would have been a lot of smug gloating from EU politicians if the situation was reversed. They did think they were clever for securing doses at a lower price.
Oh, if the situation was reversed, there would be daily Guardian headlines of the gloating Europeans, the Remoaners in the UK would be all over the news, and there would be serious pressure on the PM to resign.
As it actually played out, I guess UvdL can count her lucky stars that she doesn't have to submit herself to the people for approval.
The best way out of this crisis for the EU is for the EU Council or Parliament to force UvdL to resign, to replace her with someone else, with a budget and instruction to work with the vaccine companies to increase production as quickly as possible.
Big questions for EU media and politicians at all level about what democratic accountability means, and not allowing the EU's leader to use a nationalistic argument to distract from her failure.
Anyway, wish me luck. I am now Chair of Trustees of my old primary school and chairing my first Governors and Trustees meeting and AGM tonight - by Zoom.
The measures, which were unveiled ahead of a summit of EU leaders starting tomorrow, are strongly backed by France. Italy has also stressed the need to be tough in policing export authorisations. But the proposals have provoked deep concern in some other capitals, which warn that they may jeopardise complex supply chains for vaccines and their ingredients.
“They are ill-thought-through, impetuous and aggressive and they seem to be a solution to a problem we don’t actually have,” said one EU diplomat.
Countries that have raised concerns in EU meetings over the past two days include Belgium, Finland, Sweden and the Netherlands. Angela Merkel, German chancellor, told the media on Tuesday that it was necessary to be “very careful about imposing blanket export bans” given the importance of securing supply chains. But she still stressed that the EU was the world’s biggest vaccine exporter, while other parts of the world were exporting nothing at all.
The new rules would build on an existing EU authorisation scheme, in place since February, which was essentially concerned with making sure vaccine makers failing to meet their obligations to the bloc did not ship much needed supplies abroad. The scheme was a response to supply problems at AstraZeneca.
But the updated version would allow exports to be stopped even if the drugmaker concerned was meeting its contractual commitments to Brussels.
The EU plans also foresee shipments being stopped on the grounds that the destination country is far ahead of the bloc in vaccinating its population, or already has strong availability of vaccines. The draft legal proposal argues that this is relevant to the EU's own “security of supply”. ----end----
If the EU does block Pfizer exports then the Government needs to react swiftly and disproportionately. Immediate cessation of exports of lipids to the EU, and withdrawal of UK troops on the Eastern EU border.
Yes to the second, no to the former. Take the moral high ground on vaccines (though be open to encouraging the U.K. producer to only fill existing orders then switch to elsewhere) but make it clear that if they jeopardise our lives in this way then we see no reason to stand up for them against Russia.
I disagree with both proposals. Defending Europe against Russia is in our own enlightened self interest.
If they decide the rule of law no longer applies and are voiding our contracts, then voiding the NI Protocol would be a better solution.
The EU is about to kill British people in a fit of spiteful petulance, to hide their own failings; moreover, they admit this move will barely benefit them at all
The idea we won’t retaliate is nuts. I agree we should ‘try’ and maintain the moral high ground, but it may prove emotionally difficult
Since the UK has no excess deaths anymore and likely never will again the idea that the EU is going to kill British people is an exaggeration.
This is economics as much as health, especially if it delays us lifting lockdown.
Of course we should retaliate but we should be smarter than the EU. There is no point cutting off our own nose to hurt our face. Any retaliation should be in a way that benefits the UK, in a way that hurts Europe. Invoking Article 16 seems like a good starting point.
This isn’t about ‘excess deaths’. It’s about Britons dying of Covid who would otherwise have had the vax and been fine - if the EU hadn’t stolen the vials. This is now a plausible prospect.
When the truth of what is happening percolates down to the people (IF it happens, I still hope this lunacy is just for show) then the public reaction is going to be off-the-dial. Imagine the headlines the Mail or the Sun will conjure out of this. The pressure on HMG to do something genuinely nasty, as revenge, will be intense.
The measures, which were unveiled ahead of a summit of EU leaders starting tomorrow, are strongly backed by France. Italy has also stressed the need to be tough in policing export authorisations. But the proposals have provoked deep concern in some other capitals, which warn that they may jeopardise complex supply chains for vaccines and their ingredients.
“They are ill-thought-through, impetuous and aggressive and they seem to be a solution to a problem we don’t actually have,” said one EU diplomat.
Countries that have raised concerns in EU meetings over the past two days include Belgium, Finland, Sweden and the Netherlands. Angela Merkel, German chancellor, told the media on Tuesday that it was necessary to be “very careful about imposing blanket export bans” given the importance of securing supply chains. But she still stressed that the EU was the world’s biggest vaccine exporter, while other parts of the world were exporting nothing at all.
The new rules would build on an existing EU authorisation scheme, in place since February, which was essentially concerned with making sure vaccine makers failing to meet their obligations to the bloc did not ship much needed supplies abroad. The scheme was a response to supply problems at AstraZeneca.
But the updated version would allow exports to be stopped even if the drugmaker concerned was meeting its contractual commitments to Brussels.
The EU plans also foresee shipments being stopped on the grounds that the destination country is far ahead of the bloc in vaccinating its population, or already has strong availability of vaccines. The draft legal proposal argues that this is relevant to the EU's own “security of supply”. ----end----
If the EU does block Pfizer exports then the Government needs to react swiftly and disproportionately. Immediate cessation of exports of lipids to the EU, and withdrawal of UK troops on the Eastern EU border.
Yes to the second, no to the former. Take the moral high ground on vaccines (though be open to encouraging the U.K. producer to only fill existing orders then switch to elsewhere) but make it clear that if they jeopardise our lives in this way then we see no reason to stand up for them against Russia.
I disagree with both proposals. Defending Europe against Russia is in our own enlightened self interest.
If they decide the rule of law no longer applies and are voiding our contracts, then voiding the NI Protocol would be a better solution.
The EU is about to kill British people in a fit of spiteful petulance, to hide their own failings; moreover, they admit this move will barely benefit them at all
The idea we won’t retaliate is nuts. I agree we should ‘try’ and maintain the moral high ground, but it may prove emotionally difficult
Since the UK has no excess deaths anymore and likely never will again the idea that the EU is going to kill British people is an exaggeration.
This is economics as much as health, especially if it delays us lifting lockdown.
Of course we should retaliate but we should be smarter than the EU. There is no point cutting off our own nose to hurt our face. Any retaliation should be in a way that benefits the UK, in a way that hurts Europe. Invoking Article 16 seems like a good starting point.
We need to make it clear to others that the EU:-
1. Now seems to believe that it is entitled to everything on its territory, regardless of whether it has paid for it or not and regardless of the law or others' contractual or legal entitlements; 2. Does not believe in the value of contracts or other legal agreements; 3. Is willing to make inaccurate and misleading statements about companies and regardless of the harm done to those companies or its citizens; and 4. Ignores scientific advice.
And contrast this with Britain's so far much better behaviour, at least with regard to the pharmaceutical sector.
We should be rapidly unlocking at least back to the point we were at in July last year domestically, while keeping the border sealed to protect our gains domestically. That's the trade-off.
Telling people to stay at home when nobody is dying is unforgiveable.
Given what we know about the current strains, a full unlock now would quickly fill up ICU with 30-50 year olds.
That is why the roadmap is linking levels of vaccination to reducing the levels of restrictions.
I think that's a load of bollocks sorry.
More than a fifth over 50s have been vaccinated already, the vulnerable under 50s. The majority of adults have been vaccinated now, which means they're much less likely to pass the virus on.
With our level of vaccinations, even with the new variant, there's little reason why ICUs should escalate any more than they did last July.
Hospital admissions R is around 0.8
Who are all these people being admitted to hospital - *now*?
If you let rip, it's not long before you are back at admissions R of 1.x and then we are in the same position as Europe.
Hence a phased approach.
There's a five week lag between the effect of new vaccinations on hospital admissions.
How low do you think hospital admissions will be in five weeks ?
Hopefully nice and low. Hopefully.
We have a nice 0.8 (or so) R for hospitals at the moment. The issue is that 0.8 turns into 1.05 quite easily.
I don't want to do this all over again. At this point a 5 weeks is not much to ask to get security - at that point we will (the fuckwits willing) have the over 50s done to a high level - including getting areas such as Newham to a better state....
Actually 5 weeks for an entire country is an awful lot to ask. If we say that a life spent locked down is only getting 50% of its normal value (which I don't think is unreasonable), the 5 weeks of lockdown for the country represents about ~40,000 entire birth-death lifetimes lost, or 3 million years of life lost. That's the same loss of years of life as 300,000 covid deaths. If I told you that lifting lockdown now risks another 50k deaths (but its unlikely to be that bad, and there is a better than evens chance it's less than 10k), but retaining it for 5 weeks cost 300k deaths, this should be a no brainer.
You can't say lockdown life is only worth 50%... because then you'd have to admit it's been a complete and utter mistake.
500k lives saved (optimistically) with average 15 years of life left (very optimistic) gives 7.5m years of life saved.
Set against 60m people locked down for over 6 months at 50% life value is >15m years of life spent.
This analysis doesn't work because it assumes an alternative to lockdown in which, as the virus ran riot, people would have gone cheerfully about their daily lives as normal.
It's the fallacy at the heart of most of this sentiment. It denies the harsh reality of covid and hence is known as covid denialism.
(You are re-defining Covid denialism - but I'll let that pass.)
It's the false dichotomy thing again. As you say, assuming "an alternative to lockdown in which, as the virus ran riot, people would have gone cheerfully about their daily lives as normal" would be an absurd position to hold. I agree. Only extreme-wing libertarians would hold such a view. Not even Contrarian would argue for this.
But you are not considering another possibility: an alternative to lockdown in which, as the virus ran riot, people would NOT have gone about their daily lives as normal because they would have "locked down" voluntarily to differing degrees by taking responsibility for themselves.
I don't think I am. It means not accepting the physical reality of the disease. Its virulence and velocity. That sentiment was implicit in the analysis I was responding to.
Yep, what you suggest there is (was) the real counterfactual. There'd have been an ad-hoc, people-led response. Bottom up rather than top down, we could say. Health and economic outcome from that? Worse on both counts is my very strong opinion, but of course it's not a 100% provable thing.
Do you truly think it would have worked out better that way?
Has there been any more news about the chap in Italy who died in the days after being jabbed, which resulted in the doctors/nurses being classed as suspects?
Genuine question: what right does Prince Harry have to work in the USA? Does he have a right to work by virtue of being married to an American? Does he need a visa?
I've always been curious.
It's a non-job.
Not at all. It’s very important.
He’s not just making oodles of money giving speeches to investment bankers and documentaries for Netflix.
He’s working for a *mental health* company
He’s not such a bad guy giving up his valuable time like that...
What does this company actually do? I have an interest in mental health provision because I have personal experience of what it does to people and their families.
Lots of people talk about it. It has become really quite fashionable to do so. Actual practical help is rather thin on the ground, especially afterwards. Try getting a job from companies after explaining that your patchy CV is because of mental health illness and you will find that their interest in better mental health vanishes as fast as snow in summer.
If he is going to do something practical to help with that, good on him. If it's just another talking shop or another forum for him to talk about himself, not so good.
Amazing double standards around Harry. He has set up the Invictus games which changed many peoples lives from overwhelming struggle to one of hope and achievement. That already puts him in the top 0.1% or better of people influencing and improving others lives.
Yes, there are double standards around Invictus. I remember a few years earlier Jimmy Carr made a joke that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq would mean Britain would soon have a brilliant Paralympic team, and he got absolute pelters for it.
That was the classic case of people being offended on behalf of others.
The war vets, of course, appreciated the dark humour - and went on to get dozens of Paralympic medals!
All that outrage over Lee Hurst joke on twitter over the weekend...I was only thinking yesterday, it was the sort of gag Jimmy Carr would do, as a tame warm up one.
I was pretty much the only one defending that joke on here at the time.
I think the main issue is the audience. A Twitter audience is different from a TV/radio audience, which is different to a comedy club audience - with decreasing expectations of taste and decency.
Most definitely. I also think those who feigned offence had more problems with the teller of the joke than the joke itself. As has been said even in 2021 if that came out the mouth of Jimmy Carr on Channel 4 it would have got a mixture of laughs and a few groans (if there were a studio audience).
Lee Hurst was pretty funny on TTIAO. I thought Nick Hancock made that show, it's a shame much like Mark Lamarr from Buzzcocks they keep a relatively low profile these days given the dross that currently passes for comedy on the Beeb.
I do miss Mark Lamarr, back in the days when he'd goad guests into walking off Buzzcocks, and didn't care who he offended. Phill Jupitus has also disappeared, and Bill Bailey sticks to his musical comedy show on stage.
The only UK 'comedy' show I regularly watch now is the late-night Countdown, and occasionally HIGNFY - apart from that it's all Youtube podcasts and Netflix specials. Network TV has pretty much lost comedy completely.
It's odd how little non-political comedy there is now, especially with the long tail earning potential of the streaming services. Black Books is still out there, earning a living on five different platforms, yet the same era HIGNFY doesn’t have enough interest to even see it stuck on Britbox.
(And the early seasons of Buzzcocks do still provide entertainment).
"non-political comedy" You mean comedy? I have seen nothing recently that goes under the label political comedy that is actually funny. It is nearly always a lefty going full on rant.
I quite like Upstart Crow, where the main joke is on/about Shakespear claiming the invention of phrases that he didn't invent, nicking ideas and passing them off as his own, and the fact that some of the plays are not funny (the comedies) or very funny (the tragedies) etc etc. Often a bit of reflection of modern life too (Wills journeys on the stage coach seem very familiar to modern train travails...) I suspect not to everyones tast.
I just discovered Upstart Crow. Looks funny, thanks.
It's amazing. AZ's tweets (see below in @Leon's 2.25pm post) are perfectly clear, and explain where these vaccines are going and when. And yet the European anti-AZ zealots are somehow managing to find even more fuel for their barmy conspiracy theories, such as this idiocy:
I am expecting a second Pfizer dose. My husband needs his second AZ dose. If the EU's actions put those at risk or ensure our lockdown continues and my daughter's business fails, the EU - despite my dislike of Brexit - can get stuffed. I would expect the British government to take appropriate action against an entity which seeks to harm Britain in such a way.
I hope it doesn't come to that.
A lot of experts believe that mixing the vaccines is not only safe but may actually be an improvement.
Maybe. But there may now be a risk of not getting one at all. And a slightly greater risk that lockdown will be extended with catastrophic economic consequences for us all, especially the young. So I am not feeling a great deal of respect for the EU at the moment. Not least because their idiotic behaviour is also putting my own family there at risk.
But the questions don't follow. Troops aren't battlefield hardware. They're battlefield hardnuts.
You gov say in the question the size of the army is to be reduced
Yep, then the follow-ups ask where the priority should be, cyber or hardware, and cyber wins. This does not show public support for cutting troop numbers. It just shows public support for prioritizing cyber over hardware.
It's also a very leading question. Hardware sounds like the contents of a junkyard, vs. the more relevant sounding 'cyber warfare'. If you said 'ships, helicopters and planes' vs. 'Minitoring of Twitter', you'd get a different outcome.
Yes. "Cyber" sounds like the box to tick there. "Do you at least try and keep up with today's world or are you completely stuck in your ways?" And as a supplementary point, the intricacies of modern warfare would be right towards the top of a list of subjects that most members of the general public know sweet FA about. Which very much includes me in this case. You can pour what I know about military matters into a thimble and it won't overflow.
we don't need hundreds of manned fighter jets and a large standing army when the main threats of the future are from space and online
Do you want to cast your eyes over the engagements of the past 20 years. Are you saying that that is the last we will see of such engagements? When did the bell go to mark the passing of that era?
Genuine question: what right does Prince Harry have to work in the USA? Does he have a right to work by virtue of being married to an American? Does he need a visa?
I've always been curious.
It's a non-job.
Not at all. It’s very important.
He’s not just making oodles of money giving speeches to investment bankers and documentaries for Netflix.
He’s working for a *mental health* company
He’s not such a bad guy giving up his valuable time like that...
What does this company actually do? I have an interest in mental health provision because I have personal experience of what it does to people and their families.
Lots of people talk about it. It has become really quite fashionable to do so. Actual practical help is rather thin on the ground, especially afterwards. Try getting a job from companies after explaining that your patchy CV is because of mental health illness and you will find that their interest in better mental health vanishes as fast as snow in summer.
If he is going to do something practical to help with that, good on him. If it's just another talking shop or another forum for him to talk about himself, not so good.
Amazing double standards around Harry. He has set up the Invictus games which changed many peoples lives from overwhelming struggle to one of hope and achievement. That already puts him in the top 0.1% or better of people influencing and improving others lives.
Yes, there are double standards around Invictus. I remember a few years earlier Jimmy Carr made a joke that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq would mean Britain would soon have a brilliant Paralympic team, and he got absolute pelters for it.
That was the classic case of people being offended on behalf of others.
The war vets, of course, appreciated the dark humour - and went on to get dozens of Paralympic medals!
All that outrage over Lee Hurst joke on twitter over the weekend...I was only thinking yesterday, it was the sort of gag Jimmy Carr would do, as a tame warm up one.
I was pretty much the only one defending that joke on here at the time.
I think the main issue is the audience. A Twitter audience is different from a TV/radio audience, which is different to a comedy club audience - with decreasing expectations of taste and decency.
Most definitely. I also think those who feigned offence had more problems with the teller of the joke than the joke itself. As has been said even in 2021 if that came out the mouth of Jimmy Carr on Channel 4 it would have got a mixture of laughs and a few groans (if there were a studio audience).
Lee Hurst was pretty funny on TTIAO. I thought Nick Hancock made that show, it's a shame much like Mark Lamarr from Buzzcocks they keep a relatively low profile these days given the dross that currently passes for comedy on the Beeb.
I do miss Mark Lamarr, back in the days when he'd goad guests into walking off Buzzcocks, and didn't care who he offended. Phill Jupitus has also disappeared, and Bill Bailey sticks to his musical comedy show on stage.
The only UK 'comedy' show I regularly watch now is the late-night Countdown, and occasionally HIGNFY - apart from that it's all Youtube podcasts and Netflix specials. Network TV has pretty much lost comedy completely.
It's odd how little non-political comedy there is now, especially with the long tail earning potential of the streaming services. Black Books is still out there, earning a living on five different platforms, yet the same era HIGNFY doesn’t have enough interest to even see it stuck on Britbox.
(And the early seasons of Buzzcocks do still provide entertainment).
"non-political comedy" You mean comedy? I have seen nothing recently that goes under the label political comedy that is actually funny. It is nearly always a lefty going full on rant.
Stewart Lee, a lefty, can be blisteringly funny, in a surreal way
I love how he takes an idea and runs with it, to absolutely absurd lengths. Also his timing is impeccable
His routines are meticulously planned, rehearsed and timed. Prompts are written all over his hands. He's class. See his excellent book: How I Escaped My Certain Fate.
One easy way to test this "fairness" argument — or absolute BS as is more accurate — is to ponder whether the EU would be sending the UK extra doses if we had fallen behind them in the roll out. I suspect we'd be told "you should have joined the EU Vaccines Strategy".
Yes. We have the newspaper articles from last year. It's clear there would have been a lot of smug gloating from EU politicians if the situation was reversed. They did think they were clever for securing doses at a lower price.
Oh, if the situation was reversed, there would be daily Guardian headlines of the gloating Europeans, the Remoaners in the UK would be all over the news, and there would be serious pressure on the PM to resign.
As it actually played out, I guess UvdL can count her lucky stars that she doesn't have to submit herself to the people for approval.
The best way out of this crisis for the EU is for the EU Council or Parliament to force UvdL to resign, to replace her with someone else, with a budget and instruction to work with the vaccine companies to increase production as quickly as possible.
Big questions for EU media and politicians at all level about what democratic accountability means, and not allowing the EU's leader to use a nationalistic argument to distract from her failure.
In the olden days you would have expected Mutti Merkel to bang heads together and get the EU to wise up. She was generally sensible (absent her Wilkommen gesture - but at least that was an attempt to do good, even if it was badly naive)
Now she seems powerless. And error-prone - the Easter debacle is an example.
Macron is clearly pathetic. Scared of Le Pen. The Dutch aren’t big enough to make a difference. Draghi is as bad as Macron - ‘suffocate pharma’
Europe lacks good leadership, at the worst possible moment
Genuine question: what right does Prince Harry have to work in the USA? Does he have a right to work by virtue of being married to an American? Does he need a visa?
I've always been curious.
It's a non-job.
Not at all. It’s very important.
He’s not just making oodles of money giving speeches to investment bankers and documentaries for Netflix.
He’s working for a *mental health* company
He’s not such a bad guy giving up his valuable time like that...
What does this company actually do? I have an interest in mental health provision because I have personal experience of what it does to people and their families.
Lots of people talk about it. It has become really quite fashionable to do so. Actual practical help is rather thin on the ground, especially afterwards. Try getting a job from companies after explaining that your patchy CV is because of mental health illness and you will find that their interest in better mental health vanishes as fast as snow in summer.
If he is going to do something practical to help with that, good on him. If it's just another talking shop or another forum for him to talk about himself, not so good.
Amazing double standards around Harry. He has set up the Invictus games which changed many peoples lives from overwhelming struggle to one of hope and achievement. That already puts him in the top 0.1% or better of people influencing and improving others lives.
Yes, there are double standards around Invictus. I remember a few years earlier Jimmy Carr made a joke that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq would mean Britain would soon have a brilliant Paralympic team, and he got absolute pelters for it.
That was the classic case of people being offended on behalf of others.
The war vets, of course, appreciated the dark humour - and went on to get dozens of Paralympic medals!
All that outrage over Lee Hurst joke on twitter over the weekend...I was only thinking yesterday, it was the sort of gag Jimmy Carr would do, as a tame warm up one.
I was pretty much the only one defending that joke on here at the time.
I think the main issue is the audience. A Twitter audience is different from a TV/radio audience, which is different to a comedy club audience - with decreasing expectations of taste and decency.
Most definitely. I also think those who feigned offence had more problems with the teller of the joke than the joke itself. As has been said even in 2021 if that came out the mouth of Jimmy Carr on Channel 4 it would have got a mixture of laughs and a few groans (if there were a studio audience).
Lee Hurst was pretty funny on TTIAO. I thought Nick Hancock made that show, it's a shame much like Mark Lamarr from Buzzcocks they keep a relatively low profile these days given the dross that currently passes for comedy on the Beeb.
I do miss Mark Lamarr, back in the days when he'd goad guests into walking off Buzzcocks, and didn't care who he offended. Phill Jupitus has also disappeared, and Bill Bailey sticks to his musical comedy show on stage.
The only UK 'comedy' show I regularly watch now is the late-night Countdown, and occasionally HIGNFY - apart from that it's all Youtube podcasts and Netflix specials. Network TV has pretty much lost comedy completely.
It's odd how little non-political comedy there is now, especially with the long tail earning potential of the streaming services. Black Books is still out there, earning a living on five different platforms, yet the same era HIGNFY doesn’t have enough interest to even see it stuck on Britbox.
(And the early seasons of Buzzcocks do still provide entertainment).
"non-political comedy" You mean comedy? I have seen nothing recently that goes under the label political comedy that is actually funny. It is nearly always a lefty going full on rant.
Stewart Lee, a lefty, can be blisteringly funny, in a surreal way
I love how he takes an idea and runs with it, to absolutely absurd lengths. Also his timing is impeccable
Watching this whole EU vaccine disaster is a bit like watching a friend you've fallen out with threaten to jump off a bridge. You don't want them to, obviously, but there's a bit of morbid curiosity.
Genuine question: what right does Prince Harry have to work in the USA? Does he have a right to work by virtue of being married to an American? Does he need a visa?
I've always been curious.
It's a non-job.
Not at all. It’s very important.
He’s not just making oodles of money giving speeches to investment bankers and documentaries for Netflix.
He’s working for a *mental health* company
He’s not such a bad guy giving up his valuable time like that...
What does this company actually do? I have an interest in mental health provision because I have personal experience of what it does to people and their families.
Lots of people talk about it. It has become really quite fashionable to do so. Actual practical help is rather thin on the ground, especially afterwards. Try getting a job from companies after explaining that your patchy CV is because of mental health illness and you will find that their interest in better mental health vanishes as fast as snow in summer.
If he is going to do something practical to help with that, good on him. If it's just another talking shop or another forum for him to talk about himself, not so good.
Amazing double standards around Harry. He has set up the Invictus games which changed many peoples lives from overwhelming struggle to one of hope and achievement. That already puts him in the top 0.1% or better of people influencing and improving others lives.
Yes, there are double standards around Invictus. I remember a few years earlier Jimmy Carr made a joke that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq would mean Britain would soon have a brilliant Paralympic team, and he got absolute pelters for it.
That was the classic case of people being offended on behalf of others.
The war vets, of course, appreciated the dark humour - and went on to get dozens of Paralympic medals!
All that outrage over Lee Hurst joke on twitter over the weekend...I was only thinking yesterday, it was the sort of gag Jimmy Carr would do, as a tame warm up one.
I was pretty much the only one defending that joke on here at the time.
I think the main issue is the audience. A Twitter audience is different from a TV/radio audience, which is different to a comedy club audience - with decreasing expectations of taste and decency.
Most definitely. I also think those who feigned offence had more problems with the teller of the joke than the joke itself. As has been said even in 2021 if that came out the mouth of Jimmy Carr on Channel 4 it would have got a mixture of laughs and a few groans (if there were a studio audience).
Lee Hurst was pretty funny on TTIAO. I thought Nick Hancock made that show, it's a shame much like Mark Lamarr from Buzzcocks they keep a relatively low profile these days given the dross that currently passes for comedy on the Beeb.
I do miss Mark Lamarr, back in the days when he'd goad guests into walking off Buzzcocks, and didn't care who he offended. Phill Jupitus has also disappeared, and Bill Bailey sticks to his musical comedy show on stage.
The only UK 'comedy' show I regularly watch now is the late-night Countdown, and occasionally HIGNFY - apart from that it's all Youtube podcasts and Netflix specials. Network TV has pretty much lost comedy completely.
It's odd how little non-political comedy there is now, especially with the long tail earning potential of the streaming services. Black Books is still out there, earning a living on five different platforms, yet the same era HIGNFY doesn’t have enough interest to even see it stuck on Britbox.
(And the early seasons of Buzzcocks do still provide entertainment).
"non-political comedy" You mean comedy? I have seen nothing recently that goes under the label political comedy that is actually funny. It is nearly always a lefty going full on rant.
Stewart Lee, a lefty, can be blisteringly funny, in a surreal way
I love how he takes an idea and runs with it, to absolutely absurd lengths. Also his timing is impeccable
His routines are meticulously planned, rehearsed and timed. Prompts are written all over his hands. He's class. See his excellent book: How I Escaped My Certain Fate.
Watching this whole EU vaccine disaster is a bit like watching a friend you've fallen out with threaten to jump off a bridge. You don't want them to, obviously, but there's a bit of morbid curiosity.
Unfortunately your mad mate has also decided to handcuff himself to you....
You see the mistake you are making there is you are applying sensible logic.....If the EU were applying such a strategy you wouldn't rubbish a life saving vaccine that you have millions of doses of and working constructively with all vaccine makers to up supply.
What I find puzzling about this is that the UK didn't keep secret what the VTF was doing, we've been announcing the deals as they are signed, and publicising the projects to support production. The EU/EC knew about this because they have bragged about the "better" deal they were getting, and laughed about the UK over-paying for vaccines. Did nobody in the EC wonder why we are paying so much, or what it would mean for production?
It's as though the EC simply looked at the headline numbers and chortled to themselves about how the UK had been ripped-off, when if they had dug a bit deeper they would have realised we were strapping a rocket to vaccine production and were set to race ahead of them in vaccination.
But the questions don't follow. Troops aren't battlefield hardware. They're battlefield hardnuts.
You gov say in the question the size of the army is to be reduced
Yep, then the follow-ups ask where the priority should be, cyber or hardware, and cyber wins. This does not show public support for cutting troop numbers. It just shows public support for prioritizing cyber over hardware.
It's also a very leading question. Hardware sounds like the contents of a junkyard, vs. the more relevant sounding 'cyber warfare'. If you said 'ships, helicopters and planes' vs. 'Minitoring of Twitter', you'd get a different outcome.
Yes. "Cyber" sounds like the box to tick there. "Do you at least try and keep up with today's world or are you completely stuck in your ways?" And as a supplementary point, the intricacies of modern warfare would be right towards the top of a list of subjects that most members of the general public know sweet FA about. Which very much includes me in this case. You can pour what I know about military matters into a thimble and it won't overflow.
we don't need hundreds of manned fighter jets and a large standing army when the main threats of the future are from space and online
Do you want to cast your eyes over the engagements of the past 20 years. Are you saying that that is the last we will see of such engagements? When did the bell go to mark the passing of that era?
I am reminded of the ideas in the thirties about aircraft carriers vs battleships.
Someone, from the aircraft carrier side commented thus "If we build only aircraft carriers, and we are wrong, we will lose the Empire. If we build both and are right, we will lose money."
Watching this whole EU vaccine disaster is a bit like watching a friend you've fallen out with threaten to jump off a bridge. You don't want them to, obviously, but there's a bit of morbid curiosity.
Unfortunately your mad mate has also decided to handcuff himself to you....
Alternatively thankfully we just broke the handcuff and separated ourselves from them ...
If the EU are annoyed about vaccine exports, the simple solution is to move the entire vaccine supply chain out of the EU. We could take that role, if they like. That way, no vaccine exports will ever happen from the EU.
It's amazing. AZ's tweets (see below in @Leon's 2.25pm post) are perfectly clear, and explain where these vaccines are going and when. And yet the European anti-AZ zealots are somehow managing to find even more fuel for their barmy conspiracy theories, such as this idiocy:
They are just like the Brexiteers, viewing everything through a distorting lens of bile and fantasy. It's a remarkable sight.
Gosh you're so obsessed with the Brexit thing you've lost all ability to be detached. Bizarre that you cannot see what you are doing.
Poppycock. I'm perfectly detached from both sets of the deranged. It's just that the similarities between them are so striking. One lot think the EU can do no good and automatically therefore must be conspiring against us, the other lot think everything the EU does is automatically good and that therefore AZ are conspiring against EU countries. Both lots ignore perfectly obvious and innocent explanations for what they think are dastardly plots.
But maybe I shouldn't be surprised, come to think of it. It's insecurity driving both, so perhaps it's to be expected that the reactions are so similar.
There is a long history, there, of thinking that practical matters can be dictated by the wishes of the state.
Formula 1 came close to boycotting Italy in 1995, after the death of Ayrton Senna in an accident the previous year.
The Italian magistrates investigating the death wanted to arrest a number of people involved with the Williams team and the F1 organisation as they arrived in Italy.
Bernie Ecclestone told the Italian PM in no uncertain terms, that there would be no races in Italy until they dropped the investigation. It was an accident at a motor race, where everyone involved knew and accepted the inherent risks.
You see the mistake you are making there is you are applying sensible logic.....If the EU were applying such a strategy you wouldn't rubbish a life saving vaccine that you have millions of doses of and working constructively with all vaccine makers to up supply.
What I find puzzling about this is that the UK didn't keep secret what the VTF was doing, we've been announcing the deals as they are signed, and publicising the projects to support production. The EU/EC knew about this because they have bragged about the "better" deal they were getting, and laughed about the UK over-paying for vaccines. Did nobody in the EC wonder why we are paying so much, or what it would mean for production?
It's as though the EC simply looked at the headline numbers and chortled to themselves about how the UK had been ripped-off, when if they had dug a bit deeper they would have realised we were strapping a rocket to vaccine production and were set to race ahead of them in vaccination.
I think this is it....remember when they released the AZN contract, screeching, see, look, its says this....it says UK contract doesn't supersede ours, we get our doses the same time. To which a load of lawyers read it and said, erhhh, it doesn't say that at all, you have misunderstood different clauses relate to different parts of the commitment....and the UK contract isn't with the same company....you have been stitched up like a kipper.
Comments
Rank hypocrite that you are.
https://order-order.com/2021/03/24/exclusive-bbc-to-start-impartiality-training-this-week/
Firstly in 1988 from the Times for fabricating a quote from historian Colin Lucas (his own Godfather!).
Secondly in 2004 from the Tory Shadow Front Bench for lying about his fling with Petronella Wyatt.
"Human penises are shrinking because of pollution, warns scientist"
https://news.sky.com/story/human-penises-are-shrinking-because-of-pollution-warns-scientist-12255106
But it was quite funny to find something actually funny on BBC1. And quite funny to find comedy which wasn't political in any way. I'd almost forgotten that you used to get comedy like that on telly.
Basically, it's hard to like comedy that doesn't like me much, or is largely humour-free, or both. Obviously the Mash Report was the distillation of that (annoyingly mostly because the Daily Mash used to be very sharp), but (finger in the air - feels like) 75% of TV comedy falls into that category to some extent. The other 25% is based on painfully awkward situations - watch it between your fingers telly - which can be very good if done well (Alan Partridge, The Office) but is not exactly my cup of tea.
Taskmaster is still very good. Series 10 and 11 haven't been as good as the first 9, but I put that down to the format that covid has forced upon them.
Oh, and on Buzzcocks - I used to love that in the Lamarr/Jupitus/Bailey days. Mark Lamarr was cruel sometimes, but cruelty wasn't the basis of his humour like it was for Simon Amstill. And he was delighted when it bounced back on him or came back in a way he didn't expect. And the humour was largely about music; and it was also about music through a very Radio 6 lens; when Lamarr left it became much more Radio 1.
Though being serious Wirral County Council did for a long time sponsor Tranmere Rovers.
The measures, which were unveiled ahead of a summit of EU leaders starting tomorrow, are strongly backed by France. Italy has also stressed the need to be tough in policing export authorisations. But the proposals have provoked deep concern in some other capitals, which warn that they may jeopardise complex supply chains for vaccines and their ingredients.
“They are ill-thought-through, impetuous and aggressive and they seem to be a solution to a problem we don’t actually have,” said one EU diplomat.
Countries that have raised concerns in EU meetings over the past two days include Belgium, Finland, Sweden and the Netherlands. Angela Merkel, German chancellor, told the media on Tuesday that it was necessary to be “very careful about imposing blanket export bans” given the importance of securing supply chains. But she still stressed that the EU was the world’s biggest vaccine exporter, while other parts of the world were exporting nothing at all.
The new rules would build on an existing EU authorisation scheme, in place since February, which was essentially concerned with making sure vaccine makers failing to meet their obligations to the bloc did not ship much needed supplies abroad. The scheme was a response to supply problems at AstraZeneca.
But the updated version would allow exports to be stopped even if the drugmaker concerned was meeting its contractual commitments to Brussels.
The EU plans also foresee shipments being stopped on the grounds that the destination country is far ahead of the bloc in vaccinating its population, or already has strong availability of vaccines. The draft legal proposal argues that this is relevant to the EU's own “security of supply”.
----end----
If the EU does block Pfizer exports then the Government needs to react swiftly and disproportionately. Immediate cessation of exports of lipids to the EU, and withdrawal of UK troops on the Eastern EU border.
Indeed, I’d be screamingly angry
Younger people can still get very sick from Covid, and some die. The EU move, if it happens, will kill Britons who would not otherwise have died
So far this year the European Commission has proposed a hard border on the island of Ireland, without consultation. They are now proposing to take medication we paid for, and they either won't use it or will slowly dish it out. In both cases lives would likely be lost if the Commission followed through on its proposals.
The Commission has completely lost the plot.
In related news, Nigel Farage is going to sue the EU for theft of intellectual property.
He has prior art claims on all ill-thought-through, impetuous and aggressive ideas that are a solution to a problem we don’t actually have, in a European context.
Sort yourself out first, then you can help everyone else.
“Dr Swan believes that the rapidly decreasing fertility rate means that most men will be unable to produce viable sperm by 2045.“
Despite this, supply does appear to have fallen short of the two million a week promised by AZ's chief executive Pascal Soriot. According to the yellow-card estimates published so far, in only two weeks, the first week of February and March, were more than two million AZ doses dispensed.
https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-what-impact-would-an-eu-export-ban-have-on-the-uks-vaccine-programme-12253761
If they decide the rule of law no longer applies and are voiding our contracts, then voiding the NI Protocol would be a better solution.
Kamski?
Thread:
https://twitter.com/jamescrisp6/status/1374721504492019715?s=21
It's the false dichotomy thing again. As you say, assuming "an alternative to lockdown in which, as the virus ran riot, people would have gone cheerfully about their daily lives as normal" would be an absurd position to hold. I agree. Only extreme-wing libertarians would hold such a view. Not even Contrarian would argue for this.
But you are not considering another possibility: an alternative to lockdown in which, as the virus ran riot, people would NOT have gone about their daily lives as normal because they would have "locked down" voluntarily to differing degrees by taking responsibility for themselves.
(declaration of interest. I live in the UAE, have had one Pfizer vaccine and would quite like another!)
https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-what-impact-would-an-eu-export-ban-have-on-the-uks-vaccine-programme-12253761
The idea we won’t retaliate is nuts. I agree we should ‘try’ and maintain the moral high ground, but it may prove emotionally difficult
Oh, and if there is a delay in the UK vaccine program, I suspect there will be no EU summer holidays for Brits. At all.
Moral compass is totally bent out of shape.
https://twitter.com/chrismiller_uk/status/1374728593448833026
They are just like the Brexiteers, viewing everything through a distorting lens of bile and fantasy. It's a remarkable sight.
As it actually played out, I guess UvdL can count her lucky stars that she doesn't have to submit herself to the people for approval.
https://twitter.com/JamesCrisp6/status/1374721507121885184?s=20
https://twitter.com/JamesCrisp6/status/1374721510833860609?s=20
https://twitter.com/JamesCrisp6/status/1374721512423485453?s=20
I've already mentioned the case of a friend, who was offered a job by his company down the road from where he lived, rather than travelling to London. At a salary that wouldn't pay his mortgage.
This is economics as much as health, especially if it delays us lifting lockdown.
Of course we should retaliate but we should be smarter than the EU. There is no point cutting off our own nose to hurt our face. Any retaliation should be in a way that benefits the UK, in a way that hurts Europe. Invoking Article 16 seems like a good starting point.
Dodgy Dave currently ripping up his bar charts....
I hope it doesn't come to that.
Seems to work for the fairly average Sinovac effort.
Eek!
https://twitter.com/MacaesBruno/status/1374728366000123906?s=20
I love how he takes an idea and runs with it, to absolutely absurd lengths. Also his timing is impeccable
One of my favourite routines:
https://youtu.be/1cgeXd5kRDg
Maybe it's one of those things that only a Conservative government can do, in the same way that only a Labour government can push serious NHS modernisation through.
Big questions for EU media and politicians at all level about what democratic accountability means, and not allowing the EU's leader to use a nationalistic argument to distract from her failure.
When the truth of what is happening percolates down to the people (IF it happens, I still hope this lunacy is just for show) then the public reaction is going to be off-the-dial. Imagine the headlines the Mail or the Sun will conjure out of this. The pressure on HMG to do something genuinely nasty, as revenge, will be intense.
1. Now seems to believe that it is entitled to everything on its territory, regardless of whether it has paid for it or not and regardless of the law or others' contractual or legal entitlements;
2. Does not believe in the value of contracts or other legal agreements;
3. Is willing to make inaccurate and misleading statements about companies and regardless of the harm done to those companies or its citizens; and
4. Ignores scientific advice.
And contrast this with Britain's so far much better behaviour, at least with regard to the pharmaceutical sector.
There is a long history, there, of thinking that practical matters can be dictated by the wishes of the state.
Yep, what you suggest there is (was) the real counterfactual. There'd have been an ad-hoc, people-led response. Bottom up rather than top down, we could say. Health and economic outcome from that? Worse on both counts is my very strong opinion, but of course it's not a 100% provable thing.
Do you truly think it would have worked out better that way?
https://twitter.com/Swen_2017/status/1374731013985861637
Now she seems powerless. And error-prone - the Easter debacle is an example.
Macron is clearly pathetic. Scared of Le Pen. The Dutch aren’t big enough to make a difference. Draghi is as bad as Macron - ‘suffocate pharma’
Europe lacks good leadership, at the worst possible moment
Too much lazy comedy is laughing at other people.
https://twitter.com/EmmanuelleChaze/status/1374734713424916484
It's as though the EC simply looked at the headline numbers and chortled to themselves about how the UK had been ripped-off, when if they had dug a bit deeper they would have realised we were strapping a rocket to vaccine production and were set to race ahead of them in vaccination.
Someone, from the aircraft carrier side commented thus "If we build only aircraft carriers, and we are wrong, we will lose the Empire. If we build both and are right, we will lose money."
And then everyone will be happy, right?
But maybe I shouldn't be surprised, come to think of it. It's insecurity driving both, so perhaps it's to be expected that the reactions are so similar.
The Italian magistrates investigating the death wanted to arrest a number of people involved with the Williams team and the F1 organisation as they arrived in Italy.
Bernie Ecclestone told the Italian PM in no uncertain terms, that there would be no races in Italy until they dropped the investigation. It was an accident at a motor race, where everyone involved knew and accepted the inherent risks.