This is interesting. EC official claiming that this makes a difference. From Reuters.
To me it looks like a carefully worded statement designed to perhaps unruffle feathers, that makes no practical difference as it will have no real impact on the current position.
It does not admit that the EU can obtain vaccine from the UK. It says it is possible (which we all know already), but identifies no mechanism where it can be forced.
It is also from an EC official, so there may be weasel words involved. Tweet at bottom.
On that poll he is just 2% away from being the first Tory leader to lead the Tories to be the largest party in Wales, at least on votes, at either Senedd or Westminster level since universal suffrage in 1918
You can pick polls out if you wish but the real one is only a few weeks away
RT has enough time to negatively effect the election, but of course Boris vaccine success is likely to limit RT damage
On that poll he is just 2% away from being the first Tory leader to lead the Tories to be the largest party in Wales, at least on votes, at either Senedd or Westminster level since universal suffrage in 1918
Far be it for me to defend Johnson, but I suspect it has more to do with the perception of his leading the world out of the pandemic rather than RT's rather chaotic critique of Labour's Covid lockdown.
Almost exactly the same thing happened to me a decade ago. It did reach court and the guy was convicted and given a suspended sentence. 🤦🏻♂️
When crime is committed against you then your first thoughts - well my thoughts at the time - are the death sentence. Once you calm down you conclude that you were being overly fair. Really bad shit ought to happen to criminals.
The problem you then have is the courts. They're not so keen on death sentences or worse, and they also seem to want to bore everyone to death with peripheral matters rather than the case. The juries are hopeless. I've done jury service twice and there will always be Mr Stupid in the mix.
As such I'd like to own a great big Chieftan tank. Sadly that's disallowed. Unfortunately I have to accept that, a bit reluctantly, but in doing so it makes the better person of me.
This is interesting. EC official claiming that this makes a difference. From Reuters.
To me it looks like a carefully worded statement designed to perhaps unruffle feathers, that makes no practical difference as it will have no real impact on the current position.
It does not admit that the EU can obtain vaccine from the UK. It says it is possible (which we all know already), but identifies no mechanism where it can be forced.
It is also from an EC official, so there may be weasel words involved.
This is interesting. EC official claiming that this makes a difference. From Reuters.
To me it looks like a carefully worded statement designed to perhaps unruffle feathers, that makes no practical difference as it will have no real impact on the current position.
It does not admit that the EU can obtain vaccine from the UK. It says it is possible (which we all know already), but identifies no mechanism where it can be forced.
It is also from an EC official, so there may be weasel words involved. Tweet at bottom.
You mean there's a fair chance that, over a decade into opposition, Labour might hang on to a seat they've held since it was created in 1974?
Gripping stuff
Oh God, you're not one of those idiots that objects to political betting being discussed on a website called politicalbetting.com?
Just wryly observing the breathless rush to highlight a small improvement in Labour's odds of retaining a heartland seat that they should never be in a position to lose, whereas three new polls showing an increasing national Tory lead are dismissed out of hand as no evidence of any continuing vaccine bounce at all...
In case you've not noticed, there's been a massive change in the political landscape in the last 10 years.
I still expect nothing other than a Labour loss.
Of course I might be wrong.
Great post.
- We'll see on May 6th how great it was.
Don't do that 'May 6th' lark Mr K - It's '6th May'. I'll be keeping an eye on my overseas properties with you around.
Interesting one. I just type it as I say it. And I say it that way - month first. Not sure why. I just do. Bit like I always put my left sock on first.
I won't pry into your sock choices. I'd go for the same on both feet, but not that worried.
How would you describe the dates of Xmas or April Fools'?
"December the 25th" seems very American to me.
'Remember, remember the 5th of November' - obviously works better in the rhyme, but just seems better.
Maybe I naturally take the most efficient route. Month first needs no link word. It's May sixth. You can drop the the. But the other way you have to put the of in. Sixth May sounds absolutely appalling.
Using ordinal indicators in dates is archaic, full stop. No newspapers do it and haven't for years.
So 2 April or April 2 – not 2nd April, April the 2nd, the 2nd of April, or April 2nd. How you say it is personal choice, but kill the clutter in text please.
I'd say I've agreed with pretty much everything you've posted this year - but I can't agree with that. 2nd April aids readability. Your brain reads it as 'second of April'. Whereas your brain reads '2 April' as 'two April', and needs a fraction of a second to translate to what the writer meant. Only a fraction of a second, mind - it's not a major inconvenience. But still. Written ordinals are a courtesy to the reader.
Which presumably means that the Moggster used Roman Numerals and Latin constructions. Which will at least keep the brain sharp if the error rate is to be kept down.
The Tele amplifying Galloway's A4U pal Jamie Blackett there. The truest thing I've ever said about Unionism is that it would bum or be bummed by anyone in aid of the Union.
Police in Northern Ireland are stopping and detaining a disproportionate number of black, Asian and mixed race travellers under anti-terrorism laws, according to newly disclosed data.
More than a third of those stopped and three-quarters of those detained in 2019 were not white, said a report by Jonathan Hall QC, who conducted an independent review of the UK’s terrorism legislation.
Of 559 stops of travellers in 2019, 55% were white, almost a quarter were categorised as Asian or Chinese and 14% were black or of mixed race.
More than 98% of Northern Ireland’s population is white, according to the 2011 census.
Of the 31 travellers detained under terrorism legislation, just 13% were white while a quarter were black or of mixed race and just over half were categorised as Asian, Chinese or other.
Ah but there's a distinction when the EU released the contract.
The UK government has a deal with AstraZeneca UK whereas the EU has a deal with AstraZeneca.
It's nonsense anyway. Of course the prior contract with the UK doesn't prevent AZ fulfilling its contract with the EU. Why on earth should it? They contracted to use their best efforts to build up production to meet the EU order, which they are doing, albeit with some production problems which are not unexpected.
Police in Northern Ireland are stopping and detaining a disproportionate number of black, Asian and mixed race travellers under anti-terrorism laws, according to newly disclosed data.
More than a third of those stopped and three-quarters of those detained in 2019 were not white, said a report by Jonathan Hall QC, who conducted an independent review of the UK’s terrorism legislation.
Of 559 stops of travellers in 2019, 55% were white, almost a quarter were categorised as Asian or Chinese and 14% were black or of mixed race.
More than 98% of Northern Ireland’s population is white, according to the 2011 census.
Of the 31 travellers detained under terrorism legislation, just 13% were white while a quarter were black or of mixed race and just over half were categorised as Asian, Chinese or other.
You mean there's a fair chance that, over a decade into opposition, Labour might hang on to a seat they've held since it was created in 1974?
Gripping stuff
Oh God, you're not one of those idiots that objects to political betting being discussed on a website called politicalbetting.com?
Just wryly observing the breathless rush to highlight a small improvement in Labour's odds of retaining a heartland seat that they should never be in a position to lose, whereas three new polls showing an increasing national Tory lead are dismissed out of hand as no evidence of any continuing vaccine bounce at all...
In case you've not noticed, there's been a massive change in the political landscape in the last 10 years.
I still expect nothing other than a Labour loss.
Of course I might be wrong.
Great post.
- We'll see on May 6th how great it was.
Don't do that 'May 6th' lark Mr K - It's '6th May'. I'll be keeping an eye on my overseas properties with you around.
Interesting one. I just type it as I say it. And I say it that way - month first. Not sure why. I just do. Bit like I always put my left sock on first.
I won't pry into your sock choices. I'd go for the same on both feet, but not that worried.
How would you describe the dates of Xmas or April Fools'?
"December the 25th" seems very American to me.
'Remember, remember the 5th of November' - obviously works better in the rhyme, but just seems better.
Maybe I naturally take the most efficient route. Month first needs no link word. It's May sixth. You can drop the the. But the other way you have to put the of in. Sixth May sounds absolutely appalling.
Well it'd always be 'the sixth of May'.
Do you have American relations or influences?
Your choice may well become the accepted norm, if it isn't already, but quite interesting to understand.
Using ordinal indicators in dates is archaic, full stop. No newspapers do it and haven't for years.
So 2 April or April 2 – not 2nd April, April the 2nd, the 2nd of April, or April 2nd. How you say it is personal choice, but kill the clutter in text please.
I'd say I've agreed with pretty much everything you've posted this year - but I can't agree with that. 2nd April aids readability. Your brain reads it as 'second of April'. Whereas your brain reads '2 April' as 'two April', and needs a fraction of a second to translate to what the writer meant. Only a fraction of a second, mind - it's not a major inconvenience. But still. Written ordinals are a courtesy to the reader.
Well ordinal indicators aren't used by any news network or newspaper, and haven't been for years. They just look old-fashioned and cluttered.
Today is 30 March, nothing confusing about that, and typographically much more elegant.
The Tele amplifying Galloway's A4U pal Jamie Blackett there. The truest thing I've ever said about Unionism is that it would bum or be bummed by anyone in aid of the Union.
We are too big a country not to have a Second Chamber of some form, only smaller countries like New Zealand and Israel only have 1 chamber in their Parliament
Ah but there's a distinction when the EU released the contract.
The UK government has a deal with AstraZeneca UK whereas the EU has a deal with AstraZeneca.
It's nonsense anyway. Of course the prior contract with the UK doesn't prevent AZ fulfilling its contract with the EU. Why on earth should it? They contracted to use their best efforts to build up production to meet the EU order, which they are doing, albeit with some production problems which are not unexpected.
Yup, as I noted at the time, as soon as one side of the party starts banging on about a moral obligation they have no contractual leg to stand on.
Police in Northern Ireland are stopping and detaining a disproportionate number of black, Asian and mixed race travellers under anti-terrorism laws, according to newly disclosed data.
More than a third of those stopped and three-quarters of those detained in 2019 were not white, said a report by Jonathan Hall QC, who conducted an independent review of the UK’s terrorism legislation.
Of 559 stops of travellers in 2019, 55% were white, almost a quarter were categorised as Asian or Chinese and 14% were black or of mixed race.
More than 98% of Northern Ireland’s population is white, according to the 2011 census.
Of the 31 travellers detained under terrorism legislation, just 13% were white while a quarter were black or of mixed race and just over half were categorised as Asian, Chinese or other.
What proportion of travelling terrorists are white, black or Asian and other nowadays?
Have you not heard of the:
Indian Republican Army Uzbekistan Volunteer Force Ugandan Freedom Fighters Indonesian National Liberation Army Lebanese Volunteer Force
The comparison with the population of NI in the Guardian piece looks weaselly.
Aside from different demographics by age and ethnicity / race / whatever, the comparison should perhaps be with % of travellers, or bringing into considerations reasons for travel etc.
The Tele amplifying Galloway's A4U pal Jamie Blackett there. The truest thing I've ever said about Unionism is that it would bum or be bummed by anyone in aid of the Union.
If Salmond wants to stir up street demonstrations Catalonia style after Boris refuses a legal indyref2 tough, Boris will just ignore him, play off Salmond and Sturgeon against each other and if the demonstations turn violent against the police and see destruction of premises of law abiding shopkeepers that will only turn waverers against the Nationalists
You mean there's a fair chance that, over a decade into opposition, Labour might hang on to a seat they've held since it was created in 1974?
Gripping stuff
Oh God, you're not one of those idiots that objects to political betting being discussed on a website called politicalbetting.com?
Just wryly observing the breathless rush to highlight a small improvement in Labour's odds of retaining a heartland seat that they should never be in a position to lose, whereas three new polls showing an increasing national Tory lead are dismissed out of hand as no evidence of any continuing vaccine bounce at all...
In case you've not noticed, there's been a massive change in the political landscape in the last 10 years.
I still expect nothing other than a Labour loss.
Of course I might be wrong.
Great post.
- We'll see on May 6th how great it was.
Don't do that 'May 6th' lark Mr K - It's '6th May'. I'll be keeping an eye on my overseas properties with you around.
Interesting one. I just type it as I say it. And I say it that way - month first. Not sure why. I just do. Bit like I always put my left sock on first.
I won't pry into your sock choices. I'd go for the same on both feet, but not that worried.
How would you describe the dates of Xmas or April Fools'?
"December the 25th" seems very American to me.
'Remember, remember the 5th of November' - obviously works better in the rhyme, but just seems better.
Maybe I naturally take the most efficient route. Month first needs no link word. It's May sixth. You can drop the the. But the other way you have to put the of in. Sixth May sounds absolutely appalling.
This is interesting. EC official claiming that this makes a difference. From Reuters.
To me it looks like a carefully worded statement designed to perhaps unruffle feathers, that makes no practical difference as it will have no real impact on the current position.
It does not admit that the EU can obtain vaccine from the UK. It says it is possible (which we all know already), but identifies no mechanism where it can be forced.
It is also from an EC official, so there may be weasel words involved. Tweet at bottom.
Ah but there's a distinction when the EU released the contract.
The UK government has a deal with AstraZeneca UK whereas the EU has a deal with AstraZeneca.
If I were an AZN person, I could live with that statement that AZN has no legal obligations to the UK that would prevent it from fulfilling its obligations to the EU, as there is no timeline in that statement, and so the only timeline that can apply is the one in the contract, which is a best efforts one.
Even if AZN's obligations to the UK mean that the EU does not get supplied from UK plants or Halix until the UK contract is completed, under those conditions, AZN is still fulfilling its obligations to the EU under its contract with the EU. It's just that the delivery schedule is pushed back, perhaps even to a delivery date which renders it past use to the EU.
Using ordinal indicators in dates is archaic, full stop. No newspapers do it and haven't for years.
So 2 April or April 2 – not 2nd April, April the 2nd, the 2nd of April, or April 2nd. How you say it is personal choice, but kill the clutter in text please.
I'd say I've agreed with pretty much everything you've posted this year - but I can't agree with that. 2nd April aids readability. Your brain reads it as 'second of April'. Whereas your brain reads '2 April' as 'two April', and needs a fraction of a second to translate to what the writer meant. Only a fraction of a second, mind - it's not a major inconvenience. But still. Written ordinals are a courtesy to the reader.
Plus if you're saying April 2 then when is April 21?
Is that the 21st day of April or the month of April this year?
If you insist upon using American style dates then April 21st is the the 21st day of April, not the whole month for this year.
Ooo that's a good one, Philip. Very sharp there. That's a winner.
The Tele amplifying Galloway's A4U pal Jamie Blackett there. The truest thing I've ever said about Unionism is that it would bum or be bummed by anyone in aid of the Union.
If Salmond wants to stir up street demonstrations Catalonia style after Boris refuses a legal indyref2 tough, Boris will just ignore him, play off Salmond and Sturgeon against each other and if the demonstations turn violent against the police that will only turn waverers against the Nationalists
The sad thing for me is that this has now become something like Corbyns left v Conservatives ERG in Scotland and to play out after a toxic referendum campaign where, even if Independence is won, the internal divisions will be rancid and play out over years
On that poll he is just 2% away from being the first Tory leader to lead the Tories to be the largest party in Wales, at least on votes, at either Senedd or Westminster level since universal suffrage in 1918
Did you hear about the Irish singer standing for election to the Welsh Parliament?
You mean there's a fair chance that, over a decade into opposition, Labour might hang on to a seat they've held since it was created in 1974?
Gripping stuff
Oh God, you're not one of those idiots that objects to political betting being discussed on a website called politicalbetting.com?
Just wryly observing the breathless rush to highlight a small improvement in Labour's odds of retaining a heartland seat that they should never be in a position to lose, whereas three new polls showing an increasing national Tory lead are dismissed out of hand as no evidence of any continuing vaccine bounce at all...
In case you've not noticed, there's been a massive change in the political landscape in the last 10 years.
I still expect nothing other than a Labour loss.
Of course I might be wrong.
Great post.
- We'll see on May 6th how great it was.
Don't do that 'May 6th' lark Mr K - It's '6th May'. I'll be keeping an eye on my overseas properties with you around.
Interesting one. I just type it as I say it. And I say it that way - month first. Not sure why. I just do. Bit like I always put my left sock on first.
I won't pry into your sock choices. I'd go for the same on both feet, but not that worried.
How would you describe the dates of Xmas or April Fools'?
"December the 25th" seems very American to me.
'Remember, remember the 5th of November' - obviously works better in the rhyme, but just seems better.
Maybe I naturally take the most efficient route. Month first needs no link word. It's May sixth. You can drop the the. But the other way you have to put the of in. Sixth May sounds absolutely appalling.
In the case of Westminster, I think a revising chamber is very very important, because of the untramelled authority of the Commons and its confrontational nature, and the dispersed nature of our constitution.
You mean there's a fair chance that, over a decade into opposition, Labour might hang on to a seat they've held since it was created in 1974?
Gripping stuff
Oh God, you're not one of those idiots that objects to political betting being discussed on a website called politicalbetting.com?
Just wryly observing the breathless rush to highlight a small improvement in Labour's odds of retaining a heartland seat that they should never be in a position to lose, whereas three new polls showing an increasing national Tory lead are dismissed out of hand as no evidence of any continuing vaccine bounce at all...
In case you've not noticed, there's been a massive change in the political landscape in the last 10 years.
I still expect nothing other than a Labour loss.
Of course I might be wrong.
Great post.
- We'll see on May 6th how great it was.
Don't do that 'May 6th' lark Mr K - It's '6th May'. I'll be keeping an eye on my overseas properties with you around.
Interesting one. I just type it as I say it. And I say it that way - month first. Not sure why. I just do. Bit like I always put my left sock on first.
I won't pry into your sock choices. I'd go for the same on both feet, but not that worried.
How would you describe the dates of Xmas or April Fools'?
"December the 25th" seems very American to me.
'Remember, remember the 5th of November' - obviously works better in the rhyme, but just seems better.
Maybe I naturally take the most efficient route. Month first needs no link word. It's May sixth. You can drop the the. But the other way you have to put the of in. Sixth May sounds absolutely appalling.
6 May or May 6.
But what about Philip's point?
May 21 is ambiguous.
Many things are ambiguous out of context, and are not in context.
Ah but there's a distinction when the EU released the contract.
The UK government has a deal with AstraZeneca UK whereas the EU has a deal with AstraZeneca.
It's nonsense anyway. Of course the prior contract with the UK doesn't prevent AZ fulfilling its contract with the EU. Why on earth should it? They contracted to use their best efforts to build up production to meet the EU order, which they are doing, albeit with some production problems which are not unexpected.
Yup, as I noted at the time, as soon as one side of the party starts banging on about a moral obligation they have no contractual leg to stand on.
When the facts are against you - pound the law When the law is against you - pound the facts When both are against you - pound the table.
You mean there's a fair chance that, over a decade into opposition, Labour might hang on to a seat they've held since it was created in 1974?
Gripping stuff
Oh God, you're not one of those idiots that objects to political betting being discussed on a website called politicalbetting.com?
Just wryly observing the breathless rush to highlight a small improvement in Labour's odds of retaining a heartland seat that they should never be in a position to lose, whereas three new polls showing an increasing national Tory lead are dismissed out of hand as no evidence of any continuing vaccine bounce at all...
In case you've not noticed, there's been a massive change in the political landscape in the last 10 years.
I still expect nothing other than a Labour loss.
Of course I might be wrong.
Great post.
- We'll see on May 6th how great it was.
Don't do that 'May 6th' lark Mr K - It's '6th May'. I'll be keeping an eye on my overseas properties with you around.
Interesting one. I just type it as I say it. And I say it that way - month first. Not sure why. I just do. Bit like I always put my left sock on first.
I won't pry into your sock choices. I'd go for the same on both feet, but not that worried.
How would you describe the dates of Xmas or April Fools'?
"December the 25th" seems very American to me.
'Remember, remember the 5th of November' - obviously works better in the rhyme, but just seems better.
Maybe I naturally take the most efficient route. Month first needs no link word. It's May sixth. You can drop the the. But the other way you have to put the of in. Sixth May sounds absolutely appalling.
6 May or May 6.
But what about Philip's point?
May 21 is ambiguous.
21 May
Or use May 21, 2021 (if indeed it is this year)
21st May could theoretically be any year.
As neither newspapers nor news networks use ordinal indicators anymore, and haven't for years, I think we can conclude they are archaic clutter!
You mean there's a fair chance that, over a decade into opposition, Labour might hang on to a seat they've held since it was created in 1974?
Gripping stuff
Oh God, you're not one of those idiots that objects to political betting being discussed on a website called politicalbetting.com?
Just wryly observing the breathless rush to highlight a small improvement in Labour's odds of retaining a heartland seat that they should never be in a position to lose, whereas three new polls showing an increasing national Tory lead are dismissed out of hand as no evidence of any continuing vaccine bounce at all...
In case you've not noticed, there's been a massive change in the political landscape in the last 10 years.
I still expect nothing other than a Labour loss.
Of course I might be wrong.
Great post.
- We'll see on May 6th how great it was.
Don't do that 'May 6th' lark Mr K - It's '6th May'. I'll be keeping an eye on my overseas properties with you around.
Interesting one. I just type it as I say it. And I say it that way - month first. Not sure why. I just do. Bit like I always put my left sock on first.
I won't pry into your sock choices. I'd go for the same on both feet, but not that worried.
How would you describe the dates of Xmas or April Fools'?
"December the 25th" seems very American to me.
'Remember, remember the 5th of November' - obviously works better in the rhyme, but just seems better.
Maybe I naturally take the most efficient route. Month first needs no link word. It's May sixth. You can drop the the. But the other way you have to put the of in. Sixth May sounds absolutely appalling.
Well it'd always be 'the sixth of May'.
Do you have American relations or influences?
Your choice may well become the accepted norm, if it isn't already, but quite interesting to understand.
I do like some Americanisms yes. Not as a matter of course though. There's some I don't like.
Using ordinal indicators in dates is archaic, full stop. No newspapers do it and haven't for years.
So 2 April or April 2 – not 2nd April, April the 2nd, the 2nd of April, or April 2nd. How you say it is personal choice, but kill the clutter in text please.
I'd say I've agreed with pretty much everything you've posted this year - but I can't agree with that. 2nd April aids readability. Your brain reads it as 'second of April'. Whereas your brain reads '2 April' as 'two April', and needs a fraction of a second to translate to what the writer meant. Only a fraction of a second, mind - it's not a major inconvenience. But still. Written ordinals are a courtesy to the reader.
Well ordinal indicators aren't used by any news network or newspaper, and haven't been for years. They just look old-fashioned and cluttered.
Today is 30 March, nothing confusing about that, and typographically much more elegant.
The problem with not using ordinals is that dates are ordinals. If they were not then New Year's Day should be 0 (or 0.5 at noon if you like), not 1, January.
Police in Northern Ireland are stopping and detaining a disproportionate number of black, Asian and mixed race travellers under anti-terrorism laws, according to newly disclosed data.
More than a third of those stopped and three-quarters of those detained in 2019 were not white, said a report by Jonathan Hall QC, who conducted an independent review of the UK’s terrorism legislation.
Of 559 stops of travellers in 2019, 55% were white, almost a quarter were categorised as Asian or Chinese and 14% were black or of mixed race.
More than 98% of Northern Ireland’s population is white, according to the 2011 census.
Of the 31 travellers detained under terrorism legislation, just 13% were white while a quarter were black or of mixed race and just over half were categorised as Asian, Chinese or other.
If I were an AZN person, I could live with that statement that AZN has no legal obligations to the UK that would prevent it from fulfilling its obligations to the EU, as there is no timeline in that statement, and so the only timeline that can apply is the one in the contract, which is a best efforts one.
Even if AZN's obligations to the UK mean that the EU does not get supplied from UK plants or Halix until the UK contract is completed, under those conditions, AZN is still fulfilling its obligations to the EU under its contract with the EU. It's just that the delivery schedule is pushed back, perhaps even to a delivery date which renders it past use to the EU.
A clause saying company X has no legal obligations to any other party which would prevent it executing the contact is pretty standard. All it typically means is that they haven't signed an exclusivity agreement which would conflict with the new contract. That of course is true in this case. There really is nothing to see here.
Lord only knows why the EU is behaving so stupidly in this, especially since they seemed to have calmed down from their initial bout of hysteria.
This is interesting. EC official claiming that this makes a difference. From Reuters.
To me it looks like a carefully worded statement designed to perhaps unruffle feathers, that makes no practical difference as it will have no real impact on the current position.
It does not admit that the EU can obtain vaccine from the UK. It says it is possible (which we all know already), but identifies no mechanism where it can be forced.
It is also from an EC official, so there may be weasel words involved. Tweet at bottom.
Ah but there's a distinction when the EU released the contract.
The UK government has a deal with AstraZeneca UK whereas the EU has a deal with AstraZeneca.
Why on earth did AstraZeneca commit to 100 million doses to the EU in Q1? OK, so you have 30 million actually delivered plus maybe 20 million stretch, which didn't materialise. Fair enough. Where did they think the other 50 million doses would come from? They would know the UK plants are accounted for, leaving just two plants in the EU, one of which was doubtful. They can't have done any planning whatever.
The EU should have challenged the numbers with the suppliers, but AZ are the ones that didn't deliver on their commitments, by an order of magnitude.
This is interesting. EC official claiming that this makes a difference. From Reuters.
To me it looks like a carefully worded statement designed to perhaps unruffle feathers, that makes no practical difference as it will have no real impact on the current position.
It does not admit that the EU can obtain vaccine from the UK. It says it is possible (which we all know already), but identifies no mechanism where it can be forced.
It is also from an EC official, so there may be weasel words involved. Tweet at bottom.
It's not the obligations to the UK that are preventing supply, it's the production problems. So the statement as quoted can be entirely true, and yet make no difference.
The EU contract would have been supplied in full if there had not been production problems, but if there had not been a contract with the UK government the vaccine wouldn't exist at all.
The Tele amplifying Galloway's A4U pal Jamie Blackett there. The truest thing I've ever said about Unionism is that it would bum or be bummed by anyone in aid of the Union.
Did you get this outraged when your fellow Nats compared modern day Scotland to Empire controlled India?
Don't know that I'm particularly outraged, but in any case I don't remember that one. You keep a note of what my 'fellow Nats' are up to and I'll keep updating the Yoons' (growing) bumming list.
France's data is so unreliable. A figure of 30,702 positive tests is being quoted in the media, but the results of 150,000 tests have not been taken into account in the figures.
This is interesting. EC official claiming that this makes a difference. From Reuters.
To me it looks like a carefully worded statement designed to perhaps unruffle feathers, that makes no practical difference as it will have no real impact on the current position.
It does not admit that the EU can obtain vaccine from the UK. It says it is possible (which we all know already), but identifies no mechanism where it can be forced.
It is also from an EC official, so there may be weasel words involved. Tweet at bottom.
Ah but there's a distinction when the EU released the contract.
The UK government has a deal with AstraZeneca UK whereas the EU has a deal with AstraZeneca.
Why on earth did AstraZeneca commit to 100 million doses to the EU in Q1? OK, so you have 30 million actually delivered plus maybe 20 million stretch, which didn't materialise. Fair enough. Where did they think the other 50 million doses would come from? They would know the UK plants are accounted for, leaving just two plants in the EU, one of which was doubtful. They can't have done any planning whatever.
The EU should have challenged the numbers with the suppliers, but AZ are the ones that didn't deliver on their commitments, by an order of magnitude.
It wasn't a commitment; it is perhaps best called an aspiration.
Sanofi did not deliver on their order either, as their vaccine didn't even work.
That's one of the reasons I think pretty much all the stuff coming out of the EC since January on AZ is a pantomime.
Police in Northern Ireland are stopping and detaining a disproportionate number of black, Asian and mixed race travellers under anti-terrorism laws, according to newly disclosed data.
More than a third of those stopped and three-quarters of those detained in 2019 were not white, said a report by Jonathan Hall QC, who conducted an independent review of the UK’s terrorism legislation.
Of 559 stops of travellers in 2019, 55% were white, almost a quarter were categorised as Asian or Chinese and 14% were black or of mixed race.
More than 98% of Northern Ireland’s population is white, according to the 2011 census.
Of the 31 travellers detained under terrorism legislation, just 13% were white while a quarter were black or of mixed race and just over half were categorised as Asian, Chinese or other.
You mean there's a fair chance that, over a decade into opposition, Labour might hang on to a seat they've held since it was created in 1974?
Gripping stuff
Oh God, you're not one of those idiots that objects to political betting being discussed on a website called politicalbetting.com?
Just wryly observing the breathless rush to highlight a small improvement in Labour's odds of retaining a heartland seat that they should never be in a position to lose, whereas three new polls showing an increasing national Tory lead are dismissed out of hand as no evidence of any continuing vaccine bounce at all...
In case you've not noticed, there's been a massive change in the political landscape in the last 10 years.
I still expect nothing other than a Labour loss.
Of course I might be wrong.
Great post.
- We'll see on May 6th how great it was.
Don't do that 'May 6th' lark Mr K - It's '6th May'. I'll be keeping an eye on my overseas properties with you around.
Interesting one. I just type it as I say it. And I say it that way - month first. Not sure why. I just do. Bit like I always put my left sock on first.
I won't pry into your sock choices. I'd go for the same on both feet, but not that worried.
How would you describe the dates of Xmas or April Fools'?
"December the 25th" seems very American to me.
'Remember, remember the 5th of November' - obviously works better in the rhyme, but just seems better.
Maybe I naturally take the most efficient route. Month first needs no link word. It's May sixth. You can drop the the. But the other way you have to put the of in. Sixth May sounds absolutely appalling.
6 May or May 6.
But what about Philip's point?
May 21 is ambiguous.
21 May
Or use May 21, 2021 (if indeed it is this year)
21st May could theoretically be any year.
As neither newspapers nor news networks use ordinal indicators anymore, and haven't for years, I think we can conclude they are archaic clutter!
Printed arabic does away with all the short vowels as unnecessary clutter.
You mean there's a fair chance that, over a decade into opposition, Labour might hang on to a seat they've held since it was created in 1974?
Gripping stuff
Oh God, you're not one of those idiots that objects to political betting being discussed on a website called politicalbetting.com?
Just wryly observing the breathless rush to highlight a small improvement in Labour's odds of retaining a heartland seat that they should never be in a position to lose, whereas three new polls showing an increasing national Tory lead are dismissed out of hand as no evidence of any continuing vaccine bounce at all...
In case you've not noticed, there's been a massive change in the political landscape in the last 10 years.
I still expect nothing other than a Labour loss.
Of course I might be wrong.
Great post.
- We'll see on May 6th how great it was.
Don't do that 'May 6th' lark Mr K - It's '6th May'. I'll be keeping an eye on my overseas properties with you around.
Interesting one. I just type it as I say it. And I say it that way - month first. Not sure why. I just do. Bit like I always put my left sock on first.
I won't pry into your sock choices. I'd go for the same on both feet, but not that worried.
How would you describe the dates of Xmas or April Fools'?
"December the 25th" seems very American to me.
'Remember, remember the 5th of November' - obviously works better in the rhyme, but just seems better.
Maybe I naturally take the most efficient route. Month first needs no link word. It's May sixth. You can drop the the. But the other way you have to put the of in. Sixth May sounds absolutely appalling.
Well it'd always be 'the sixth of May'.
Do you have American relations or influences?
Your choice may well become the accepted norm, if it isn't already, but quite interesting to understand.
I do like some Americanisms yes. Not as a matter of course though. There's some I don't like.
All rather interesting as to how language evolves.
We have a shared language with the US and, I'd sort of prefer that they arrived at our way of thinking in such issues, but mostly, I guess, we'll adopt their preferences. I've mostly given up on 'colour' for example, although I'll still write it that way, but will use 'color ' in code.
(My 'mostly, I guess' is I think quite American for example. The fact that I then go on to reuse 'mostly' in the next sentence would have poor old Mr Fowler rocking in his grave.)
This is interesting. EC official claiming that this makes a difference. From Reuters.
To me it looks like a carefully worded statement designed to perhaps unruffle feathers, that makes no practical difference as it will have no real impact on the current position.
It does not admit that the EU can obtain vaccine from the UK. It says it is possible (which we all know already), but identifies no mechanism where it can be forced.
It is also from an EC official, so there may be weasel words involved. Tweet at bottom.
Ah but there's a distinction when the EU released the contract.
The UK government has a deal with AstraZeneca UK whereas the EU has a deal with AstraZeneca.
Why on earth did AstraZeneca commit to 100 million doses to the EU in Q1? OK, so you have 30 million actually delivered plus maybe 20 million stretch, which didn't materialise. Fair enough. Where did they think the other 50 million doses would come from? They would know the UK plants are accounted for, leaving just two plants in the EU, one of which was doubtful. They can't have done any planning whatever.
The EU should have challenged the numbers with the suppliers, but AZ are the ones that didn't deliver on their commitments, by an order of magnitude.
They also made big promises to the UK, but HMG haven't thrown their toys out of the pram.
This is interesting. EC official claiming that this makes a difference. From Reuters.
To me it looks like a carefully worded statement designed to perhaps unruffle feathers, that makes no practical difference as it will have no real impact on the current position.
It does not admit that the EU can obtain vaccine from the UK. It says it is possible (which we all know already), but identifies no mechanism where it can be forced.
It is also from an EC official, so there may be weasel words involved. Tweet at bottom.
Ah but there's a distinction when the EU released the contract.
The UK government has a deal with AstraZeneca UK whereas the EU has a deal with AstraZeneca.
Why on earth did AstraZeneca commit to 100 million doses to the EU in Q1? OK, so you have 30 million actually delivered plus maybe 20 million stretch, which didn't materialise. Fair enough. Where did they think the other 50 million doses would come from? They would know the UK plants are accounted for, leaving just two plants in the EU, one of which was doubtful. They can't have done any planning whatever.
The EU should have challenged the numbers with the suppliers, but AZ are the ones that didn't deliver on their commitments, by an order of magnitude.
You don't know what they have 'committed' to. According to the contract, even the indicative delivery schedule is subject to regulatory approval, which wasn't in place when this all kicked off.
Back in January, the EU's contract negotiator said that they weren't expecting deliveries to pick up until April "as already agreed in the existing contracts" (https://euobserver.com/coronavirus/150587). This only became a massive political issue because other countries were able to vaccinate faster.
This is interesting. EC official claiming that this makes a difference. From Reuters.
To me it looks like a carefully worded statement designed to perhaps unruffle feathers, that makes no practical difference as it will have no real impact on the current position.
It does not admit that the EU can obtain vaccine from the UK. It says it is possible (which we all know already), but identifies no mechanism where it can be forced.
It is also from an EC official, so there may be weasel words involved. Tweet at bottom.
Ah but there's a distinction when the EU released the contract.
The UK government has a deal with AstraZeneca UK whereas the EU has a deal with AstraZeneca.
Why on earth did AstraZeneca commit to 100 million doses to the EU in Q1? OK, so you have 30 million actually delivered plus maybe 20 million stretch, which didn't materialise. Fair enough. Where did they think the other 50 million doses would come from? They would know the UK plants are accounted for, leaving just two plants in the EU, one of which was doubtful. They can't have done any planning whatever.
The EU should have challenged the numbers with the suppliers, but AZ are the ones that didn't deliver on their commitments, by an order of magnitude.
They didn't commit to anything though.
Once again you blindly side with the EU. Your love of this organisation is very, very strange. It's an almost religious response, maybe you need to go to a church or temple to get some actual fulfillment in your life rather than deifying a political organisation.
Police in Northern Ireland are stopping and detaining a disproportionate number of black, Asian and mixed race travellers under anti-terrorism laws, according to newly disclosed data.
More than a third of those stopped and three-quarters of those detained in 2019 were not white, said a report by Jonathan Hall QC, who conducted an independent review of the UK’s terrorism legislation.
Of 559 stops of travellers in 2019, 55% were white, almost a quarter were categorised as Asian or Chinese and 14% were black or of mixed race.
More than 98% of Northern Ireland’s population is white, according to the 2011 census.
Of the 31 travellers detained under terrorism legislation, just 13% were white while a quarter were black or of mixed race and just over half were categorised as Asian, Chinese or other.
France's data is so unreliable. A figure of 30,702 positive tests is being quoted in the media, but the results of 150,000 tests have not been taken into account in the figures.
The Tele amplifying Galloway's A4U pal Jamie Blackett there. The truest thing I've ever said about Unionism is that it would bum or be bummed by anyone in aid of the Union.
Did you get this outraged when your fellow Nats compared modern day Scotland to Empire controlled India?
Don't know that I'm particularly outraged, but in any case I don't remember that one. You keep a note of what my 'fellow Nats' are up to and I'll keep updating the Yoons' (growing) bumming list.
Strange you don't remember, it was MalcolmG who made that analogy on here, I pointed out the idiocy of it, and you also added your thought as well at the time.
I suppose you take as much notice of your posts as everyone else does.
This is interesting. EC official claiming that this makes a difference. From Reuters.
To me it looks like a carefully worded statement designed to perhaps unruffle feathers, that makes no practical difference as it will have no real impact on the current position.
It does not admit that the EU can obtain vaccine from the UK. It says it is possible (which we all know already), but identifies no mechanism where it can be forced.
It is also from an EC official, so there may be weasel words involved. Tweet at bottom.
Ah but there's a distinction when the EU released the contract.
The UK government has a deal with AstraZeneca UK whereas the EU has a deal with AstraZeneca.
Why on earth did AstraZeneca commit to 100 million doses to the EU in Q1? OK, so you have 30 million actually delivered plus maybe 20 million stretch, which didn't materialise. Fair enough. Where did they think the other 50 million doses would come from? They would know the UK plants are accounted for, leaving just two plants in the EU, one of which was doubtful. They can't have done any planning whatever.
The EU should have challenged the numbers with the suppliers, but AZ are the ones that didn't deliver on their commitments, by an order of magnitude.
You don't know what they have 'committed' to. According to the contract, even the indicative delivery schedule is subject to regulatory approval, which wasn't in place when this all kicked off.
Back in January, the EU's contract negotiator said that they weren't expecting deliveries to pick up until April "as already agreed in the existing contracts" (https://euobserver.com/coronavirus/150587). This only became a massive political issue because other countries were able to vaccinate faster.
This is spot on.
The EU Commission simply never had the imagination to realise that normal life could return faster. They haggled over pricing, not delivery schedules. And then they had a temper tantrum when they realized they'd fucked up.
This is interesting. EC official claiming that this makes a difference. From Reuters.
To me it looks like a carefully worded statement designed to perhaps unruffle feathers, that makes no practical difference as it will have no real impact on the current position.
It does not admit that the EU can obtain vaccine from the UK. It says it is possible (which we all know already), but identifies no mechanism where it can be forced.
It is also from an EC official, so there may be weasel words involved. Tweet at bottom.
Ah but there's a distinction when the EU released the contract.
The UK government has a deal with AstraZeneca UK whereas the EU has a deal with AstraZeneca.
Why on earth did AstraZeneca commit to 100 million doses to the EU in Q1? OK, so you have 30 million actually delivered plus maybe 20 million stretch, which didn't materialise. Fair enough. Where did they think the other 50 million doses would come from? They would know the UK plants are accounted for, leaving just two plants in the EU, one of which was doubtful. They can't have done any planning whatever.
The EU should have challenged the numbers with the suppliers, but AZ are the ones that didn't deliver on their commitments, by an order of magnitude.
It wasn't a commitment; it is perhaps best called an aspiration.
Sanofi did not deliver on their order either, as their vaccine didn't even work.
That's one of the reasons I think pretty much all the stuff coming out of the EC since January on AZ is a pantomime.
Re Sanofi, my understanding is that their efficacy was in the 50s, so if it had been first out the gate, it would have been hailed as a great success. Unfortunately, with better results from Pfizer, Moderna and AZ, efficacy "in the 50s" was simply not good enough and they pulled the product.
This is interesting. EC official claiming that this makes a difference. From Reuters.
To me it looks like a carefully worded statement designed to perhaps unruffle feathers, that makes no practical difference as it will have no real impact on the current position.
It does not admit that the EU can obtain vaccine from the UK. It says it is possible (which we all know already), but identifies no mechanism where it can be forced.
It is also from an EC official, so there may be weasel words involved. Tweet at bottom.
Ah but there's a distinction when the EU released the contract.
The UK government has a deal with AstraZeneca UK whereas the EU has a deal with AstraZeneca.
Why on earth did AstraZeneca commit to 100 million doses to the EU in Q1? OK, so you have 30 million actually delivered plus maybe 20 million stretch, which didn't materialise. Fair enough. Where did they think the other 50 million doses would come from? They would know the UK plants are accounted for, leaving just two plants in the EU, one of which was doubtful. They can't have done any planning whatever.
The EU should have challenged the numbers with the suppliers, but AZ are the ones that didn't deliver on their commitments, by an order of magnitude.
You don't know what they have 'committed' to. According to the contract, even the indicative delivery schedule is subject to regulatory approval, which wasn't in place when this all kicked off.
Back in January, the EU's contract negotiator said that they weren't expecting deliveries to pick up until April "as already agreed in the existing contracts" (https://euobserver.com/coronavirus/150587). This only became a massive political issue because other countries were able to vaccinate faster.
This is spot on.
The EU Commission simply never had the imagination to realise that normal life could return faster. They haggled over pricing, not delivery schedules. And then they had a temper tantrum when they realized they'd fucked up.
So normal life can return faster then? A little island of normal life in a Europe of Covid?
This is interesting. EC official claiming that this makes a difference. From Reuters.
To me it looks like a carefully worded statement designed to perhaps unruffle feathers, that makes no practical difference as it will have no real impact on the current position.
It does not admit that the EU can obtain vaccine from the UK. It says it is possible (which we all know already), but identifies no mechanism where it can be forced.
It is also from an EC official, so there may be weasel words involved. Tweet at bottom.
Ah but there's a distinction when the EU released the contract.
The UK government has a deal with AstraZeneca UK whereas the EU has a deal with AstraZeneca.
Why on earth did AstraZeneca commit to 100 million doses to the EU in Q1? OK, so you have 30 million actually delivered plus maybe 20 million stretch, which didn't materialise. Fair enough. Where did they think the other 50 million doses would come from? They would know the UK plants are accounted for, leaving just two plants in the EU, one of which was doubtful. They can't have done any planning whatever.
The EU should have challenged the numbers with the suppliers, but AZ are the ones that didn't deliver on their commitments, by an order of magnitude.
You don't know what they have 'committed' to. According to the contract, even the indicative delivery schedule is subject to regulatory approval, which wasn't in place when this all kicked off.
Back in January, the EU's contract negotiator said that they weren't expecting deliveries to pick up until April "as already agreed in the existing contracts" (https://euobserver.com/coronavirus/150587). This only became a massive political issue because other countries were able to vaccinate faster.
This is spot on.
The EU Commission simply never had the imagination to realise that normal life could return faster. They haggled over pricing, not delivery schedules. And then they had a temper tantrum when they realized they'd fucked up.
So normal life can return faster then? A little island of normal life in a Europe of Covid?
By 21 June restrictions are due to be lifted here. There is no such date for anywhere else.
This is interesting. EC official claiming that this makes a difference. From Reuters.
To me it looks like a carefully worded statement designed to perhaps unruffle feathers, that makes no practical difference as it will have no real impact on the current position.
It does not admit that the EU can obtain vaccine from the UK. It says it is possible (which we all know already), but identifies no mechanism where it can be forced.
It is also from an EC official, so there may be weasel words involved. Tweet at bottom.
Ah but there's a distinction when the EU released the contract.
The UK government has a deal with AstraZeneca UK whereas the EU has a deal with AstraZeneca.
Why on earth did AstraZeneca commit to 100 million doses to the EU in Q1? OK, so you have 30 million actually delivered plus maybe 20 million stretch, which didn't materialise. Fair enough. Where did they think the other 50 million doses would come from? They would know the UK plants are accounted for, leaving just two plants in the EU, one of which was doubtful. They can't have done any planning whatever.
The EU should have challenged the numbers with the suppliers, but AZ are the ones that didn't deliver on their commitments, by an order of magnitude.
You don't know what they have 'committed' to. According to the contract, even the indicative delivery schedule is subject to regulatory approval, which wasn't in place when this all kicked off.
Back in January, the EU's contract negotiator said that they weren't expecting deliveries to pick up until April "as already agreed in the existing contracts" (https://euobserver.com/coronavirus/150587). This only became a massive political issue because other countries were able to vaccinate faster.
This is spot on.
The EU Commission simply never had the imagination to realise that normal life could return faster. They haggled over pricing, not delivery schedules. And then they had a temper tantrum when they realized they'd fucked up.
So normal life can return faster then? A little island of normal life in a Europe of Covid?
If life returns to normal in the UK, then for most of the population of the UK, life has returned to normal. It is just a small percentage of us for whom international travel outside of the annual holiday is normal life.
This is interesting. EC official claiming that this makes a difference. From Reuters.
To me it looks like a carefully worded statement designed to perhaps unruffle feathers, that makes no practical difference as it will have no real impact on the current position.
It does not admit that the EU can obtain vaccine from the UK. It says it is possible (which we all know already), but identifies no mechanism where it can be forced.
It is also from an EC official, so there may be weasel words involved. Tweet at bottom.
Ah but there's a distinction when the EU released the contract.
The UK government has a deal with AstraZeneca UK whereas the EU has a deal with AstraZeneca.
Why on earth did AstraZeneca commit to 100 million doses to the EU in Q1? OK, so you have 30 million actually delivered plus maybe 20 million stretch, which didn't materialise. Fair enough. Where did they think the other 50 million doses would come from? They would know the UK plants are accounted for, leaving just two plants in the EU, one of which was doubtful. They can't have done any planning whatever.
The EU should have challenged the numbers with the suppliers, but AZ are the ones that didn't deliver on their commitments, by an order of magnitude.
You don't know what they have 'committed' to. According to the contract, even the indicative delivery schedule is subject to regulatory approval, which wasn't in place when this all kicked off.
Back in January, the EU's contract negotiator said that they weren't expecting deliveries to pick up until April "as already agreed in the existing contracts" (https://euobserver.com/coronavirus/150587). This only became a massive political issue because other countries were able to vaccinate faster.
This is spot on.
The EU Commission simply never had the imagination to realise that normal life could return faster. They haggled over pricing, not delivery schedules. And then they had a temper tantrum when they realized they'd fucked up.
So normal life can return faster then? A little island of normal life in a Europe of Covid?
By 21 June restrictions are due to be lifted here. There is no such date for anywhere else.
You are promising me normal life on the 21st of June? 🤗
This is interesting. EC official claiming that this makes a difference. From Reuters.
To me it looks like a carefully worded statement designed to perhaps unruffle feathers, that makes no practical difference as it will have no real impact on the current position.
It does not admit that the EU can obtain vaccine from the UK. It says it is possible (which we all know already), but identifies no mechanism where it can be forced.
It is also from an EC official, so there may be weasel words involved. Tweet at bottom.
Ah but there's a distinction when the EU released the contract.
The UK government has a deal with AstraZeneca UK whereas the EU has a deal with AstraZeneca.
Why on earth did AstraZeneca commit to 100 million doses to the EU in Q1? OK, so you have 30 million actually delivered plus maybe 20 million stretch, which didn't materialise. Fair enough. Where did they think the other 50 million doses would come from? They would know the UK plants are accounted for, leaving just two plants in the EU, one of which was doubtful. They can't have done any planning whatever.
The EU should have challenged the numbers with the suppliers, but AZ are the ones that didn't deliver on their commitments, by an order of magnitude.
You don't know what they have 'committed' to. According to the contract, even the indicative delivery schedule is subject to regulatory approval, which wasn't in place when this all kicked off.
Back in January, the EU's contract negotiator said that they weren't expecting deliveries to pick up until April "as already agreed in the existing contracts" (https://euobserver.com/coronavirus/150587). This only became a massive political issue because other countries were able to vaccinate faster.
The 100 million figure didn't come from Astrazeneca despite the EU quoting it regularly and as far as I know not contradicted by AZ? My point is, that number is and was completely unrealistic. There was no way they were going to deliver on it.
I accept the EU has been the second-most cackhanded operator in this business. I wouldn't in their position make a huge political point about it, as it only draws attention to your own incompetence. Also making it into a conspiracy doesn't help as it's clearly a huge cock-up.
Nevertheless I expect suppliers to supply, and if not, give an good explanation of why not. Clear explanations haven't been forthcoming from Astrazeneca either.
Police in Northern Ireland are stopping and detaining a disproportionate number of black, Asian and mixed race travellers under anti-terrorism laws, according to newly disclosed data.
More than a third of those stopped and three-quarters of those detained in 2019 were not white, said a report by Jonathan Hall QC, who conducted an independent review of the UK’s terrorism legislation.
Of 559 stops of travellers in 2019, 55% were white, almost a quarter were categorised as Asian or Chinese and 14% were black or of mixed race.
More than 98% of Northern Ireland’s population is white, according to the 2011 census.
Of the 31 travellers detained under terrorism legislation, just 13% were white while a quarter were black or of mixed race and just over half were categorised as Asian, Chinese or other.
Indeed and the Continuity IRA are still going etc, but what are the racial breakdown like nowadays? EG for the past 5 years?
Is it purely white people that have been charged with terrorism nowadays related to travel in NI?
Based on the analysis I have read, yes it is pretty much white people responsible for terrorism in Northern Ireland and that which seeps into the Britain.
This is interesting. EC official claiming that this makes a difference. From Reuters.
To me it looks like a carefully worded statement designed to perhaps unruffle feathers, that makes no practical difference as it will have no real impact on the current position.
It does not admit that the EU can obtain vaccine from the UK. It says it is possible (which we all know already), but identifies no mechanism where it can be forced.
It is also from an EC official, so there may be weasel words involved. Tweet at bottom.
Ah but there's a distinction when the EU released the contract.
The UK government has a deal with AstraZeneca UK whereas the EU has a deal with AstraZeneca.
Why on earth did AstraZeneca commit to 100 million doses to the EU in Q1? OK, so you have 30 million actually delivered plus maybe 20 million stretch, which didn't materialise. Fair enough. Where did they think the other 50 million doses would come from? They would know the UK plants are accounted for, leaving just two plants in the EU, one of which was doubtful. They can't have done any planning whatever.
The EU should have challenged the numbers with the suppliers, but AZ are the ones that didn't deliver on their commitments, by an order of magnitude.
You don't know what they have 'committed' to. According to the contract, even the indicative delivery schedule is subject to regulatory approval, which wasn't in place when this all kicked off.
Back in January, the EU's contract negotiator said that they weren't expecting deliveries to pick up until April "as already agreed in the existing contracts" (https://euobserver.com/coronavirus/150587). This only became a massive political issue because other countries were able to vaccinate faster.
The 100 million figure didn't come from Astrazeneca despite the EU quoting it regularly and as far as I know not contradicted by AZ? My point is, that number is and was completely unrealistic. There was no way they were going to deliver on it.
I accept the EU has been the second-most cackhanded operator in this business. I wouldn't in their position make a huge political point about it, as it only draws attention to your own incompetence. Also making it into a conspiracy doesn't help as it's clearly a huge cock-up.
Nevertheless I expect suppliers to supply, and if not, give an good explanation of why not. Clear explanations haven't been forthcoming from Astrazeneca either.
I find AZN's less than stellar messaging truly confounding.
This is interesting. EC official claiming that this makes a difference. From Reuters.
To me it looks like a carefully worded statement designed to perhaps unruffle feathers, that makes no practical difference as it will have no real impact on the current position.
It does not admit that the EU can obtain vaccine from the UK. It says it is possible (which we all know already), but identifies no mechanism where it can be forced.
It is also from an EC official, so there may be weasel words involved. Tweet at bottom.
Ah but there's a distinction when the EU released the contract.
The UK government has a deal with AstraZeneca UK whereas the EU has a deal with AstraZeneca.
Why on earth did AstraZeneca commit to 100 million doses to the EU in Q1? OK, so you have 30 million actually delivered plus maybe 20 million stretch, which didn't materialise. Fair enough. Where did they think the other 50 million doses would come from? They would know the UK plants are accounted for, leaving just two plants in the EU, one of which was doubtful. They can't have done any planning whatever.
The EU should have challenged the numbers with the suppliers, but AZ are the ones that didn't deliver on their commitments, by an order of magnitude.
You don't know what they have 'committed' to. According to the contract, even the indicative delivery schedule is subject to regulatory approval, which wasn't in place when this all kicked off.
Back in January, the EU's contract negotiator said that they weren't expecting deliveries to pick up until April "as already agreed in the existing contracts" (https://euobserver.com/coronavirus/150587). This only became a massive political issue because other countries were able to vaccinate faster.
The 100 million figure didn't come from Astrazeneca despite the EU quoting it regularly and as far as I know not contradicted by AZ? My point is, that number is and was completely unrealistic. There was no way they were going to deliver on it.
I accept the EU has been the second-most cackhanded operator in this business. I wouldn't in their position make a huge political point about it, as it only draws attention to your own incompetence. Also making it into a conspiracy doesn't help as it's clearly a huge cock-up.
Nevertheless I expect suppliers to supply, and if not, give an good explanation of why not. Clear explanations haven't been forthcoming from Astrazeneca either.
It's just late, there isn't much doubt that the order will be completed in full. But they were late for the UK too, but you (and the EU) seem to conveniently miss that.
I'm wondering, what makes showing a slip of paper (or some other document) showing you aren't at risk of transmitting a highly communicable disease dystopian?
I'm wondering, what makes showing a slip of paper (or some other document) showing you aren't at risk of transmitting a highly communicable disease dystopian?
Pretty standard for travel to countries with endemic tropical diseases.
I'm wondering, what makes showing a slip of paper (or some other document) showing you aren't at risk of transmitting a highly communicable disease dystopian?
Some of the Luddites think it will be exclusively on the phone (It won't) and because they are out of touch with the real world.
Just because they hate new technology they think the whole world does as well.
I'm wondering, what makes showing a slip of paper (or some other document) showing you aren't at risk of transmitting a highly communicable disease dystopian?
This is interesting. EC official claiming that this makes a difference. From Reuters.
To me it looks like a carefully worded statement designed to perhaps unruffle feathers, that makes no practical difference as it will have no real impact on the current position.
It does not admit that the EU can obtain vaccine from the UK. It says it is possible (which we all know already), but identifies no mechanism where it can be forced.
It is also from an EC official, so there may be weasel words involved. Tweet at bottom.
Ah but there's a distinction when the EU released the contract.
The UK government has a deal with AstraZeneca UK whereas the EU has a deal with AstraZeneca.
Why on earth did AstraZeneca commit to 100 million doses to the EU in Q1? OK, so you have 30 million actually delivered plus maybe 20 million stretch, which didn't materialise. Fair enough. Where did they think the other 50 million doses would come from? They would know the UK plants are accounted for, leaving just two plants in the EU, one of which was doubtful. They can't have done any planning whatever.
The EU should have challenged the numbers with the suppliers, but AZ are the ones that didn't deliver on their commitments, by an order of magnitude.
You don't know what they have 'committed' to. According to the contract, even the indicative delivery schedule is subject to regulatory approval, which wasn't in place when this all kicked off.
Back in January, the EU's contract negotiator said that they weren't expecting deliveries to pick up until April "as already agreed in the existing contracts" (https://euobserver.com/coronavirus/150587). This only became a massive political issue because other countries were able to vaccinate faster.
This is spot on.
The EU Commission simply never had the imagination to realise that normal life could return faster. They haggled over pricing, not delivery schedules. And then they had a temper tantrum when they realized they'd fucked up.
So normal life can return faster then? A little island of normal life in a Europe of Covid?
By 21 June restrictions are due to be lifted here. There is no such date for anywhere else.
You are promising me normal life on the 21st of June? 🤗
Not so far off really.
In Rhos on Sea and Colwyn Bay today the beaches were packed and lots of people enjoying themselves as if it was mid summer
While reasonable social distancing and mask wearing was quite good, the people are enjoying freedom and the genie is out of the bottle
The near 60% vaccination rate is clearly influencing behaviour and I am not at all sure the people are listening to the politicians anymore
This is interesting. EC official claiming that this makes a difference. From Reuters.
To me it looks like a carefully worded statement designed to perhaps unruffle feathers, that makes no practical difference as it will have no real impact on the current position.
It does not admit that the EU can obtain vaccine from the UK. It says it is possible (which we all know already), but identifies no mechanism where it can be forced.
It is also from an EC official, so there may be weasel words involved. Tweet at bottom.
Ah but there's a distinction when the EU released the contract.
The UK government has a deal with AstraZeneca UK whereas the EU has a deal with AstraZeneca.
Why on earth did AstraZeneca commit to 100 million doses to the EU in Q1? OK, so you have 30 million actually delivered plus maybe 20 million stretch, which didn't materialise. Fair enough. Where did they think the other 50 million doses would come from? They would know the UK plants are accounted for, leaving just two plants in the EU, one of which was doubtful. They can't have done any planning whatever.
The EU should have challenged the numbers with the suppliers, but AZ are the ones that didn't deliver on their commitments, by an order of magnitude.
You don't know what they have 'committed' to. According to the contract, even the indicative delivery schedule is subject to regulatory approval, which wasn't in place when this all kicked off.
Back in January, the EU's contract negotiator said that they weren't expecting deliveries to pick up until April "as already agreed in the existing contracts" (https://euobserver.com/coronavirus/150587). This only became a massive political issue because other countries were able to vaccinate faster.
This is spot on.
The EU Commission simply never had the imagination to realise that normal life could return faster. They haggled over pricing, not delivery schedules. And then they had a temper tantrum when they realized they'd fucked up.
So normal life can return faster then? A little island of normal life in a Europe of Covid?
Normal life in the UK will return - one would hope - by the middle of May.
But you know what, the EU is (belatedly) getting there. Indeed, I'm going to go out on a limb, and say that the great EU vaccine debacle is coming to an end.
Why?
Three things:
1. The US is going to basically be done in eight weeks time. That means that the production capacity currently being used to fill US orders is going to be used elsewhere. And this is a LOT of capacity. Over the last three days, the US managed to get more than 10 million jabs in arms. J&J alone will deliver 11 million shots this week - and their pace of deliveries hasn't peaked yet.
2. Plants in Europe are finally ramping up. The Moderna plant in Switzerland is doing great. There are a couple of new Pfizer plants coming on board (and Pfizer has now increased its target production for this year to 2.5 billion shots - that's a trebling of expected production since the start of this year).
3. The Danes and the Austrians are getting excess Pfizer jabs from the Israelis. The Germans now say they'll be 60% done by the end of June (and if that's double jabbed with Pfizer/Moderna - then that's pretty well done). Other countries are sounding more optimistic about vaccines.
Simply, those charts at World of Data on EU vaccination doses per day are rising, and they're going to continue to rise. Now, will they be several months behind the UK, the US and Israel? Yes. And tens of thousands of people will have died unnecessarily, and normality will have been delayed by a quarter.
But normality (or what passes for it) will be back in the EU by September. There are simply too many vaccine doses available in the world for it not to be the case.
This is interesting. EC official claiming that this makes a difference. From Reuters.
To me it looks like a carefully worded statement designed to perhaps unruffle feathers, that makes no practical difference as it will have no real impact on the current position.
It does not admit that the EU can obtain vaccine from the UK. It says it is possible (which we all know already), but identifies no mechanism where it can be forced.
It is also from an EC official, so there may be weasel words involved. Tweet at bottom.
Ah but there's a distinction when the EU released the contract.
The UK government has a deal with AstraZeneca UK whereas the EU has a deal with AstraZeneca.
Why on earth did AstraZeneca commit to 100 million doses to the EU in Q1? OK, so you have 30 million actually delivered plus maybe 20 million stretch, which didn't materialise. Fair enough. Where did they think the other 50 million doses would come from? They would know the UK plants are accounted for, leaving just two plants in the EU, one of which was doubtful. They can't have done any planning whatever.
The EU should have challenged the numbers with the suppliers, but AZ are the ones that didn't deliver on their commitments, by an order of magnitude.
You don't know what they have 'committed' to. According to the contract, even the indicative delivery schedule is subject to regulatory approval, which wasn't in place when this all kicked off.
Back in January, the EU's contract negotiator said that they weren't expecting deliveries to pick up until April "as already agreed in the existing contracts" (https://euobserver.com/coronavirus/150587). This only became a massive political issue because other countries were able to vaccinate faster.
This is spot on.
The EU Commission simply never had the imagination to realise that normal life could return faster. They haggled over pricing, not delivery schedules. And then they had a temper tantrum when they realized they'd fucked up.
So normal life can return faster then? A little island of normal life in a Europe of Covid?
By 21 June restrictions are due to be lifted here. There is no such date for anywhere else.
You are promising me normal life on the 21st of June? 🤗
Not so far off really.
Are you ready? Are you ready for normal? Yes I am. Yes I am.
So if we get right, April, May, Normal. And the best way to get it wrong is rush it? Then whoever wrote the front page of today’s Daily Mail can go push their head into a bucket of **g* **m**
This is interesting. EC official claiming that this makes a difference. From Reuters.
To me it looks like a carefully worded statement designed to perhaps unruffle feathers, that makes no practical difference as it will have no real impact on the current position.
It does not admit that the EU can obtain vaccine from the UK. It says it is possible (which we all know already), but identifies no mechanism where it can be forced.
It is also from an EC official, so there may be weasel words involved. Tweet at bottom.
Ah but there's a distinction when the EU released the contract.
The UK government has a deal with AstraZeneca UK whereas the EU has a deal with AstraZeneca.
Why on earth did AstraZeneca commit to 100 million doses to the EU in Q1? OK, so you have 30 million actually delivered plus maybe 20 million stretch, which didn't materialise. Fair enough. Where did they think the other 50 million doses would come from? They would know the UK plants are accounted for, leaving just two plants in the EU, one of which was doubtful. They can't have done any planning whatever.
The EU should have challenged the numbers with the suppliers, but AZ are the ones that didn't deliver on their commitments, by an order of magnitude.
You don't know what they have 'committed' to. According to the contract, even the indicative delivery schedule is subject to regulatory approval, which wasn't in place when this all kicked off.
Back in January, the EU's contract negotiator said that they weren't expecting deliveries to pick up until April "as already agreed in the existing contracts" (https://euobserver.com/coronavirus/150587). This only became a massive political issue because other countries were able to vaccinate faster.
This is spot on.
The EU Commission simply never had the imagination to realise that normal life could return faster. They haggled over pricing, not delivery schedules. And then they had a temper tantrum when they realized they'd fucked up.
So normal life can return faster then? A little island of normal life in a Europe of Covid?
Normal life in the UK will return - one would hope - by the middle of May.
But you know what, the EU is (belatedly) getting there. Indeed, I'm going to go out on a limb, and say that the great EU vaccine debacle is coming to an end.
Why?
Three things:
1. The US is going to basically be done in eight weeks time. That means that the production capacity currently being used to fill US orders is going to be used elsewhere. And this is a LOT of capacity. Over the last three days, the US managed to get more than 10 million jabs in arms. J&J alone will deliver 11 million shots this week - and their pace of deliveries hasn't peaked yet.
2. Plants in Europe are finally ramping up. The Moderna plant in Switzerland is doing great. There are a couple of new Pfizer plants coming on board (and Pfizer has now increased its target production for this year to 2.5 billion shots - that's a trebling of expected production since the start of this year).
3. The Danes and the Austrians are getting excess Pfizer jabs from the Israelis. The Germans now say they'll be 60% done by the end of June (and if that's double jabbed with Pfizer/Moderna - then that's pretty well done). Other countries are sounding more optimistic about vaccines.
Simply, those charts at World of Data on EU vaccination doses per day are rising, and they're going to continue to rise. Now, will they be several months behind the UK, the US and Israel? Yes. And tens of thousands of people will have died unnecessarily, and normality will have been delayed by a quarter.
But normality (or what passes for it) will be back in the EU by September. There are simply too many vaccine doses available in the world for it not to be the case.
That bit in Return Of The King when the dead leap out the boats and surge all over the battlefield bringing the battle to an end. It’s like that isn’t it.
The problem isn't the certificate, it's that the government are doing it with a tracking app and database. It's a police state measure.
There'll also be a paper option in the article I read over the weekend.
The piece of paper will probably have a barcode or QR on it that you have to use to log in to some sort kind of system, which will therefore be almost as effective a tracking tool as an app. Although frankly, what concerns me most is that this is all being used as the back door to bringing in a biometric ID card system, which we'll all end up needing for all sorts of things, be required by law to carry, that the police and any number of other state busybodies will be permitted to demand to see, and which we'll be saddled with forever.
The problem isn't the certificate, it's that the government are doing it with a tracking app and database. It's a police state measure.
There'll also be a paper option in the article I read over the weekend.
You'd be idiotic to use the app in that case.
I think it is designed for people who like live a digital life.
No need to worry about what happens if you can't find a paper one if you never have one.
I think one of the other issues is that it might be external pressure for it to be kept digitally, I think a couple of airlines and countries want it digitised so they don't have to worry about fake paper vaccines.
This is interesting. EC official claiming that this makes a difference. From Reuters.
To me it looks like a carefully worded statement designed to perhaps unruffle feathers, that makes no practical difference as it will have no real impact on the current position.
It does not admit that the EU can obtain vaccine from the UK. It says it is possible (which we all know already), but identifies no mechanism where it can be forced.
It is also from an EC official, so there may be weasel words involved. Tweet at bottom.
Ah but there's a distinction when the EU released the contract.
The UK government has a deal with AstraZeneca UK whereas the EU has a deal with AstraZeneca.
Why on earth did AstraZeneca commit to 100 million doses to the EU in Q1? OK, so you have 30 million actually delivered plus maybe 20 million stretch, which didn't materialise. Fair enough. Where did they think the other 50 million doses would come from? They would know the UK plants are accounted for, leaving just two plants in the EU, one of which was doubtful. They can't have done any planning whatever.
The EU should have challenged the numbers with the suppliers, but AZ are the ones that didn't deliver on their commitments, by an order of magnitude.
You don't know what they have 'committed' to. According to the contract, even the indicative delivery schedule is subject to regulatory approval, which wasn't in place when this all kicked off.
Back in January, the EU's contract negotiator said that they weren't expecting deliveries to pick up until April "as already agreed in the existing contracts" (https://euobserver.com/coronavirus/150587). This only became a massive political issue because other countries were able to vaccinate faster.
This is spot on.
The EU Commission simply never had the imagination to realise that normal life could return faster. They haggled over pricing, not delivery schedules. And then they had a temper tantrum when they realized they'd fucked up.
So normal life can return faster then? A little island of normal life in a Europe of Covid?
Normal life in the UK will return - one would hope - by the middle of May.
But you know what, the EU is (belatedly) getting there. Indeed, I'm going to go out on a limb, and say that the great EU vaccine debacle is coming to an end.
Why?
Three things:
1. The US is going to basically be done in eight weeks time. That means that the production capacity currently being used to fill US orders is going to be used elsewhere. And this is a LOT of capacity. Over the last three days, the US managed to get more than 10 million jabs in arms. J&J alone will deliver 11 million shots this week - and their pace of deliveries hasn't peaked yet.
2. Plants in Europe are finally ramping up. The Moderna plant in Switzerland is doing great. There are a couple of new Pfizer plants coming on board (and Pfizer has now increased its target production for this year to 2.5 billion shots - that's a trebling of expected production since the start of this year).
3. The Danes and the Austrians are getting excess Pfizer jabs from the Israelis. The Germans now say they'll be 60% done by the end of June (and if that's double jabbed with Pfizer/Moderna - then that's pretty well done). Other countries are sounding more optimistic about vaccines.
Simply, those charts at World of Data on EU vaccination doses per day are rising, and they're going to continue to rise. Now, will they be several months behind the UK, the US and Israel? Yes. And tens of thousands of people will have died unnecessarily, and normality will have been delayed by a quarter.
But normality (or what passes for it) will be back in the EU by September. There are simply too many vaccine doses available in the world for it not to be the case.
The issue is whether the EU has paid Pfizer for priority supply with their second tranche. As I read it they haven't and aren't expecting the additional purchases until well into H2, I'm assuming becuase they stuck rigidly to their lower pricing structure while even middle and lower income countries have realised saving money on vaccines is a false economy.
This is interesting. EC official claiming that this makes a difference. From Reuters.
To me it looks like a carefully worded statement designed to perhaps unruffle feathers, that makes no practical difference as it will have no real impact on the current position.
It does not admit that the EU can obtain vaccine from the UK. It says it is possible (which we all know already), but identifies no mechanism where it can be forced.
It is also from an EC official, so there may be weasel words involved. Tweet at bottom.
Ah but there's a distinction when the EU released the contract.
The UK government has a deal with AstraZeneca UK whereas the EU has a deal with AstraZeneca.
Why on earth did AstraZeneca commit to 100 million doses to the EU in Q1? OK, so you have 30 million actually delivered plus maybe 20 million stretch, which didn't materialise. Fair enough. Where did they think the other 50 million doses would come from? They would know the UK plants are accounted for, leaving just two plants in the EU, one of which was doubtful. They can't have done any planning whatever.
The EU should have challenged the numbers with the suppliers, but AZ are the ones that didn't deliver on their commitments, by an order of magnitude.
You don't know what they have 'committed' to. According to the contract, even the indicative delivery schedule is subject to regulatory approval, which wasn't in place when this all kicked off.
Back in January, the EU's contract negotiator said that they weren't expecting deliveries to pick up until April "as already agreed in the existing contracts" (https://euobserver.com/coronavirus/150587). This only became a massive political issue because other countries were able to vaccinate faster.
This is spot on.
The EU Commission simply never had the imagination to realise that normal life could return faster. They haggled over pricing, not delivery schedules. And then they had a temper tantrum when they realized they'd fucked up.
So normal life can return faster then? A little island of normal life in a Europe of Covid?
By 21 June restrictions are due to be lifted here. There is no such date for anywhere else.
You are promising me normal life on the 21st of June? 🤗
Not so far off really.
It’s still ages away. Thankfully the pubs reopen on 12 April, which will be a major step out of this hell. Hopefully the weather will be nice enough to enjoy the beer gardens.
If it is a slip of paper to allow you to enter a country then fine. That is not an issue at all.
If it is an electronic trace to move around your own country then not fine. And also pointless. As someone has already pointed out are we going to sack bar and restaurant staff who haven't had the vaccine? This is not care home or NHS staff dealing with vulnerable people, this is supposed to be normal life. It is the zero covid idiocy writ large.
This is interesting. EC official claiming that this makes a difference. From Reuters.
To me it looks like a carefully worded statement designed to perhaps unruffle feathers, that makes no practical difference as it will have no real impact on the current position.
It does not admit that the EU can obtain vaccine from the UK. It says it is possible (which we all know already), but identifies no mechanism where it can be forced.
It is also from an EC official, so there may be weasel words involved. Tweet at bottom.
Ah but there's a distinction when the EU released the contract.
The UK government has a deal with AstraZeneca UK whereas the EU has a deal with AstraZeneca.
Why on earth did AstraZeneca commit to 100 million doses to the EU in Q1? OK, so you have 30 million actually delivered plus maybe 20 million stretch, which didn't materialise. Fair enough. Where did they think the other 50 million doses would come from? They would know the UK plants are accounted for, leaving just two plants in the EU, one of which was doubtful. They can't have done any planning whatever.
The EU should have challenged the numbers with the suppliers, but AZ are the ones that didn't deliver on their commitments, by an order of magnitude.
You don't know what they have 'committed' to. According to the contract, even the indicative delivery schedule is subject to regulatory approval, which wasn't in place when this all kicked off.
Back in January, the EU's contract negotiator said that they weren't expecting deliveries to pick up until April "as already agreed in the existing contracts" (https://euobserver.com/coronavirus/150587). This only became a massive political issue because other countries were able to vaccinate faster.
This is spot on.
The EU Commission simply never had the imagination to realise that normal life could return faster. They haggled over pricing, not delivery schedules. And then they had a temper tantrum when they realized they'd fucked up.
So normal life can return faster then? A little island of normal life in a Europe of Covid?
By 21 June restrictions are due to be lifted here. There is no such date for anywhere else.
You are promising me normal life on the 21st of June? 🤗
Not so far off really.
Are you ready? Are you ready for normal? Yes I am. Yes I am.
So if we get right, April, May, Normal. And the best way to get it wrong is rush it? Then whoever wrote the front page of today’s Daily Mail can go push their head into a bucket of **g* **m**
You do appear to have a problem that the UK has vaccinated 60% of adults and indications continue to show the roadmap is on track
It is the EU who have failed comprehensively on vaccinating
The problem isn't the certificate, it's that the government are doing it with a tracking app and database. It's a police state measure.
There'll also be a paper option in the article I read over the weekend.
The piece of paper will probably have a barcode or QR on it that you have to use to log in to some sort kind of system, which will therefore be almost as effective a tracking tool as an app. Although frankly, what concerns me most is that this is all being used as the back door to bringing in a biometric ID card system, which we'll all end up needing for all sorts of things, be required by law to carry, that the police and any number of other state busybodies will be permitted to demand to see, and which we'll be saddled with forever.
That's my concern as well however we already have a de facto ID card, the driving license.
I'm wondering, what makes showing a slip of paper (or some other document) showing you aren't at risk of transmitting a highly communicable disease dystopian?
Some of the Luddites think it will be exclusively on the phone (It won't) and because they are out of touch with the real world.
Just because they hate new technology they think the whole world does as well.
My eTa for Canada is online and I have a hard copy
The problem isn't the certificate, it's that the government are doing it with a tracking app and database. It's a police state measure.
There'll also be a paper option in the article I read over the weekend.
You'd be idiotic to use the app in that case.
I think it is designed for people who like live a digital life.
No need to worry about what happens if you can't find a paper one if you never have one.
I think one of the other issues is that it might be external pressure for it to be kept digitally, I think a couple of airlines and countries want it digitised so they don't have to worry about fake paper vaccines.
I'm referring to the domestic use vaccine passport that is being proposed. I fully understand BA wanting the system to be digital and easy to reference with passport numbers. The issue is that Gove is proposing that the government should have access to how many times I go to the pub or cinema every week.
This is interesting. EC official claiming that this makes a difference. From Reuters.
To me it looks like a carefully worded statement designed to perhaps unruffle feathers, that makes no practical difference as it will have no real impact on the current position.
It does not admit that the EU can obtain vaccine from the UK. It says it is possible (which we all know already), but identifies no mechanism where it can be forced.
It is also from an EC official, so there may be weasel words involved. Tweet at bottom.
Ah but there's a distinction when the EU released the contract.
The UK government has a deal with AstraZeneca UK whereas the EU has a deal with AstraZeneca.
Why on earth did AstraZeneca commit to 100 million doses to the EU in Q1? OK, so you have 30 million actually delivered plus maybe 20 million stretch, which didn't materialise. Fair enough. Where did they think the other 50 million doses would come from? They would know the UK plants are accounted for, leaving just two plants in the EU, one of which was doubtful. They can't have done any planning whatever.
The EU should have challenged the numbers with the suppliers, but AZ are the ones that didn't deliver on their commitments, by an order of magnitude.
You don't know what they have 'committed' to. According to the contract, even the indicative delivery schedule is subject to regulatory approval, which wasn't in place when this all kicked off.
Back in January, the EU's contract negotiator said that they weren't expecting deliveries to pick up until April "as already agreed in the existing contracts" (https://euobserver.com/coronavirus/150587). This only became a massive political issue because other countries were able to vaccinate faster.
This is spot on.
The EU Commission simply never had the imagination to realise that normal life could return faster. They haggled over pricing, not delivery schedules. And then they had a temper tantrum when they realized they'd fucked up.
So normal life can return faster then? A little island of normal life in a Europe of Covid?
By 21 June restrictions are due to be lifted here. There is no such date for anywhere else.
You are promising me normal life on the 21st of June? 🤗
Not so far off really.
Are you ready? Are you ready for normal? Yes I am. Yes I am.
So if we get right, April, May, Normal. And the best way to get it wrong is rush it? Then whoever wrote the front page of today’s Daily Mail can go push their head into a bucket of **g* **m**
I think the UK could go a bit quicker, frankly. I'm in Hawaii, and while bars and restaurants are table service only and you're expected to wear a mask on public transport or in the store, live is otherwise completely normal.
The UK could probably be at that stage today, without seeing cases and hospitalisations surge out of control.
But I understand why the government is being more cautious than is strictly necessary. The shadow of Xmas is hanging over the UK.
This is interesting. EC official claiming that this makes a difference. From Reuters.
To me it looks like a carefully worded statement designed to perhaps unruffle feathers, that makes no practical difference as it will have no real impact on the current position.
It does not admit that the EU can obtain vaccine from the UK. It says it is possible (which we all know already), but identifies no mechanism where it can be forced.
It is also from an EC official, so there may be weasel words involved. Tweet at bottom.
Ah but there's a distinction when the EU released the contract.
The UK government has a deal with AstraZeneca UK whereas the EU has a deal with AstraZeneca.
Why on earth did AstraZeneca commit to 100 million doses to the EU in Q1? OK, so you have 30 million actually delivered plus maybe 20 million stretch, which didn't materialise. Fair enough. Where did they think the other 50 million doses would come from? They would know the UK plants are accounted for, leaving just two plants in the EU, one of which was doubtful. They can't have done any planning whatever.
The EU should have challenged the numbers with the suppliers, but AZ are the ones that didn't deliver on their commitments, by an order of magnitude.
You don't know what they have 'committed' to. According to the contract, even the indicative delivery schedule is subject to regulatory approval, which wasn't in place when this all kicked off.
Back in January, the EU's contract negotiator said that they weren't expecting deliveries to pick up until April "as already agreed in the existing contracts" (https://euobserver.com/coronavirus/150587). This only became a massive political issue because other countries were able to vaccinate faster.
This is spot on.
The EU Commission simply never had the imagination to realise that normal life could return faster. They haggled over pricing, not delivery schedules. And then they had a temper tantrum when they realized they'd fucked up.
So normal life can return faster then? A little island of normal life in a Europe of Covid?
By 21 June restrictions are due to be lifted here. There is no such date for anywhere else.
You are promising me normal life on the 21st of June? 🤗
Not so far off really.
It’s still ages away. Thankfully the pubs reopen on 12 April, which will be a major step out of this hell. Hopefully the weather will be nice enough to enjoy the beer gardens.
13 more days, I actually think I'm looking forwards to my haircut more than my first pint!
The problem isn't the certificate, it's that the government are doing it with a tracking app and database. It's a police state measure.
There'll also be a paper option in the article I read over the weekend.
The piece of paper will probably have a barcode or QR on it that you have to use to log in to some sort kind of system, which will therefore be almost as effective a tracking tool as an app. Although frankly, what concerns me most is that this is all being used as the back door to bringing in a biometric ID card system, which we'll all end up needing for all sorts of things, be required by law to carry, that the police and any number of other state busybodies will be permitted to demand to see, and which we'll be saddled with forever.
Have you ever travelled to the US or Canada as it is the norm and easy to acquire
Comments
To me it looks like a carefully worded statement designed to perhaps unruffle feathers, that makes no practical difference as it will have no real impact on the current position.
It does not admit that the EU can obtain vaccine from the UK. It says it is possible (which we all know already), but identifies no mechanism where it can be forced.
It is also from an EC official, so there may be weasel words involved. Tweet at bottom.
https://twitter.com/Semyaza666/status/1376929877299957762
RT has enough time to negatively effect the election, but of course Boris vaccine success is likely to limit RT damage
When crime is committed against you then your first thoughts - well my thoughts at the time - are the death sentence. Once you calm down you conclude that you were being overly fair. Really bad shit ought to happen to criminals.
The problem you then have is the courts. They're not so keen on death sentences or worse, and they also seem to want to bore everyone to death with peripheral matters rather than the case.
The juries are hopeless. I've done jury service twice and there will always be Mr Stupid in the mix.
As such I'd like to own a great big Chieftan tank. Sadly that's disallowed. Unfortunately I have to accept that, a bit reluctantly, but in doing so it makes the better person of me.
The EU are having a collective breakdown
The UK government has a deal with AstraZeneca UK whereas the EU has a deal with AstraZeneca.
https://twitter.com/Iblogtoglasgow/status/1376947085086494723?s=20
Indian Republican Army
Uzbekistan Volunteer Force
Ugandan Freedom Fighters
Indonesian National Liberation Army
Lebanese Volunteer Force
As for the conviction stats well as per the latest stats there's something like 352 people charged with 464 offences.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/845311/NI_Terrorism_Legislation_Annual_Statistics_201819.pdf
There's a reason why Northern Ireland has its own terror threat level and it is higher than Britain's.
https://www.mi5.gov.uk/threat-levels
Do you have American relations or influences?
Your choice may well become the accepted norm, if it isn't already, but quite interesting to understand.
Today is 30 March, nothing confusing about that, and typographically much more elegant.
Aside from different demographics by age and ethnicity / race / whatever, the comparison should perhaps be with % of travellers, or bringing into considerations reasons for travel etc.
Hard to disagree.
Even if AZN's obligations to the UK mean that the EU does not get supplied from UK plants or Halix until the UK contract is completed, under those conditions, AZN is still fulfilling its obligations to the EU under its contract with the EU. It's just that the delivery schedule is pushed back, perhaps even to a delivery date which renders it past use to the EU.
Senedd O'Connor!
(I thank you
May 21 is ambiguous.
In the case of Westminster, I think a revising chamber is very very important, because of the untramelled authority of the Commons and its confrontational nature, and the dispersed nature of our constitution.
We need something to knock the corners off.
When the law is against you - pound the facts
When both are against you - pound the table.
Or use May 21, 2021 (if indeed it is this year)
21st May could theoretically be any year.
As neither newspapers nor news networks use ordinal indicators anymore, and haven't for years, I think we can conclude they are archaic clutter!
I know that there continues to be low level violence between the Catholic and Protestant communities, but I'm not sure that sounds art terrorism.
Lord only knows why the EU is behaving so stupidly in this, especially since they seemed to have calmed down from their initial bout of hysteria.
The EU should have challenged the numbers with the suppliers, but AZ are the ones that didn't deliver on their commitments, by an order of magnitude.
The EU contract would have been supplied in full if there had not been production problems, but if there had not been a contract with the UK government the vaccine wouldn't exist at all.
Sanofi did not deliver on their order either, as their vaccine didn't even work.
That's one of the reasons I think pretty much all the stuff coming out of the EC since January on AZ is a pantomime.
Is it purely white people that have been charged with terrorism nowadays related to travel in NI?
We have a shared language with the US and, I'd sort of prefer that they arrived at our way of thinking in such issues, but mostly, I guess, we'll adopt their preferences. I've mostly given up on 'colour' for example, although I'll still write it that way, but will use 'color ' in code.
(My 'mostly, I guess' is I think quite American for example. The fact that I then go on to reuse 'mostly' in the next sentence would have poor old Mr Fowler rocking in his grave.)
Back in January, the EU's contract negotiator said that they weren't expecting deliveries to pick up until April "as already agreed in the existing contracts" (https://euobserver.com/coronavirus/150587). This only became a massive political issue because other countries were able to vaccinate faster.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/03/30/markets-live-latest-coronavirus-news-pound-euro-ftse-100/
Once again you blindly side with the EU. Your love of this organisation is very, very strange. It's an almost religious response, maybe you need to go to a church or temple to get some actual fulfillment in your life rather than deifying a political organisation.
Of the 31 travellers detained how many were engaged in terrorism? Have they been charged or convicted, or released without charge?
https://twitter.com/CamilleColin/status/1376953858874834944
https://twitter.com/jamesjohnson252/status/1376956238991396866?s=20
https://twitter.com/jamesjohnson252/status/1376956243160539136?s=20
https://twitter.com/jamesjohnson252/status/1376956247522574338?s=20
I suppose you take as much notice of your posts as everyone else does.
The EU Commission simply never had the imagination to realise that normal life could return faster. They haggled over pricing, not delivery schedules. And then they had a temper tantrum when they realized they'd fucked up.
https://twitter.com/VKJudit/status/1376963728726458374?s=20
Not so far off really.
I accept the EU has been the second-most cackhanded operator in this business. I wouldn't in their position make a huge political point about it, as it only draws attention to your own incompetence. Also making it into a conspiracy doesn't help as it's clearly a huge cock-up.
Nevertheless I expect suppliers to supply, and if not, give an good explanation of why not. Clear explanations haven't been forthcoming from Astrazeneca either.
https://twitter.com/v_j_freeman/status/1376966679524171776
Just because they hate new technology they think the whole world does as well.
While reasonable social distancing and mask wearing was quite good, the people are enjoying freedom and the genie is out of the bottle
The near 60% vaccination rate is clearly influencing behaviour and I am not at all sure the people are listening to the politicians anymore
But you know what, the EU is (belatedly) getting there. Indeed, I'm going to go out on a limb, and say that the great EU vaccine debacle is coming to an end.
Why?
Three things:
1. The US is going to basically be done in eight weeks time. That means that the production capacity currently being used to fill US orders is going to be used elsewhere. And this is a LOT of capacity. Over the last three days, the US managed to get more than 10 million jabs in arms. J&J alone will deliver 11 million shots this week - and their pace of deliveries hasn't peaked yet.
2. Plants in Europe are finally ramping up. The Moderna plant in Switzerland is doing great. There are a couple of new Pfizer plants coming on board (and Pfizer has now increased its target production for this year to 2.5 billion shots - that's a trebling of expected production since the start of this year).
3. The Danes and the Austrians are getting excess Pfizer jabs from the Israelis. The Germans now say they'll be 60% done by the end of June (and if that's double jabbed with Pfizer/Moderna - then that's pretty well done). Other countries are sounding more optimistic about vaccines.
Simply, those charts at World of Data on EU vaccination doses per day are rising, and they're going to continue to rise. Now, will they be several months behind the UK, the US and Israel? Yes. And tens of thousands of people will have died unnecessarily, and normality will have been delayed by a quarter.
But normality (or what passes for it) will be back in the EU by September. There are simply too many vaccine doses available in the world for it not to be the case.
So if we get right, April, May, Normal. And the best way to get it wrong is rush it?
Then whoever wrote the front page of today’s Daily Mail can go push their head into a bucket of **g* **m**
No need to worry about what happens if you can't find a paper one if you never have one.
I think one of the other issues is that it might be external pressure for it to be kept digitally, I think a couple of airlines and countries want it digitised so they don't have to worry about fake paper vaccines.
If it is an electronic trace to move around your own country then not fine. And also pointless. As someone has already pointed out are we going to sack bar and restaurant staff who haven't had the vaccine? This is not care home or NHS staff dealing with vulnerable people, this is supposed to be normal life. It is the zero covid idiocy writ large.
It is the EU who have failed comprehensively on vaccinating
Who wants to stay in noodling on a keyboard?
I can’t wait to queue at a till or a bar chatting to everyone around me.
Hear a cough or sneeze and not shiver with fear. Not even notice it.
I want to feel like a God again, not a human.
The UK could probably be at that stage today, without seeing cases and hospitalisations surge out of control.
But I understand why the government is being more cautious than is strictly necessary. The shadow of Xmas is hanging over the UK.