Undefined discussion subject.
Comments
-
Until the disease burns itself out around the world I think we will be doing yearly (or even bi-yearly) vaccinations for years to come to combat new variations.solarflare said:
One wonders if mass vaccination will become the country's new painting of the Forth Rail Bridge i.e. basically you start at the beginning again immediately after you've finished the last go.stodge said:Morning all
I realise this won't be a popular view but I have serious qualms about the current vaccination programme.
The one thing I have no qualms about whatsoever is the vaccine itself - we should all be vaccinated and it's worrying to see such poor intended take-up in some communities and I'm pleased this is being addressed by religious and other community leaders.
My problem remains with the notion vaccinating a lot of people once is the way forward.
I disagree.
We should be doing this properly. There have been documented instances of individuals getting the first Pfizer vaccination and then contracting Covid and dying. Pfizer made it abundantly clear the maximum immunity is achieved one week after the second vaccination or four week in total after the first vaccination.
We should be proceeding on that basis - ensuring those who are most at risk are properly vaccinated with two vaccinations twenty one days apart. As far as I can see all the current available vaccines rely on two vaccinations - that may not be the case in time but it is now. We use booster vaccinations regularly - MMR and the annual flu vaccination for example.
It's my view getting a smaller number properly protected is preferable to providing a limited degree of immunity for a larger number. The Pfizer vaccination achieves 52% protection 12 days after the first vaccination - 95% is achieved seven days after the second vaccination.
Oxford-AZ is a little better with Moderna better still.
I think there are political reasons why the Government has taken the action it has and I think they are wrong. I want us all to be vaccinated but properly and effectively - we don't, after all, really know how long immunity will last and it may be we will all need further vaccination later in the year.
The figures suggest lock down is having the desired impact in reducing case numbers - ensuring those at risk are properly vaccinated to reduce deaths and hospitalisations seems the obvious way forward in conjunction with the maintenance of restrictions until all those over 50 are properly vaccinated (with two vaccinations).0 -
The thing is that Pope looks the real deal to me. That makes competition for the batting places severe apart from opening. There are 5 or 6 serious contenders for only 3 spaces 3-5. But Lawrence does look the part.ydoethur said:
This is a pretty fierce test of Dan Lawrence. If he can dig England out of this he should be secure for the foreseeable.FrancisUrquhart said:I said 74 looked a long way away....
Bairstow is yet again running like a lunatic.0 -
What options for the future in the opening department? Because Sibley isn't the answer.DavidL said:
The thing is that Pope looks the real deal to me. That makes competition for the batting places severe apart from opening. There are 5 or 6 serious contenders for only 3 spaces 3-5. But Lawrence does look the part.ydoethur said:
This is a pretty fierce test of Dan Lawrence. If he can dig England out of this he should be secure for the foreseeable.FrancisUrquhart said:I said 74 looked a long way away....
Bairstow is yet again running like a lunatic.0 -
It is controversial - but note the intention is still to vaccinate everyone twice. And certainly in the case of the AZN vaccine, the evidence suggests that delaying the booster might well increase the level of eventual immunity.stodge said:Morning all
I realise this won't be a popular view but I have serious qualms about the current vaccination programme.
The one thing I have no qualms about whatsoever is the vaccine itself - we should all be vaccinated and it's worrying to see such poor intended take-up in some communities and I'm pleased this is being addressed by religious and other community leaders.
My problem remains with the notion vaccinating a lot of people once is the way forward.
I disagree.
We should be doing this properly. There have been documented instances of individuals getting the first Pfizer vaccination and then contracting Covid and dying. Pfizer made it abundantly clear the maximum immunity is achieved one week after the second vaccination or four week in total after the first vaccination.
We should be proceeding on that basis - ensuring those who are most at risk are properly vaccinated with two vaccinations twenty one days apart. As far as I can see all the current available vaccines rely on two vaccinations - that may not be the case in time but it is now. We use booster vaccinations regularly - MMR and the annual flu vaccination for example.
It's my view getting a smaller number properly protected is preferable to providing a limited degree of immunity for a larger number. The Pfizer vaccination achieves 52% protection 12 days after the first vaccination - 95% is achieved seven days after the second vaccination.
Oxford-AZ is a little better with Moderna better still.
I think there are political reasons why the Government has taken the action it has and I think they are wrong. I want us all to be vaccinated but properly and effectively - we don't, after all, really know how long immunity will last and it may be we will all need further vaccination later in the year.
The figures suggest lock down is having the desired impact in reducing case numbers - ensuring those at risk are properly vaccinated to reduce deaths and hospitalisations seems the obvious way forward in conjunction with the maintenance of restrictions until all those over 50 are properly vaccinated (with two vaccinations).
If infection levels (and death rates) weren’t at such a high level, there wouldn’t be a case for it, especially with the Pfizer vaccine, but it’s a balance of risks argument.
I think it’s wrong to think the decision was taken for political reasons - though it is a political call, taken on the advice of SAGE.4 -
Australian Open: More players to quarantine after another positive Covid test on Melbourne flight - https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/556952950
-
Not coming to the NYT anytime soon:
https://twitter.com/stianwestlake/status/1350770350771023877?s=203 -
Burns is on paternity leave. But a traditional area of strength for England is not looking great at the moment.FrancisUrquhart said:
What options for the future in the opening department? Because Sibley isn't the answer.DavidL said:
The thing is that Pope looks the real deal to me. That makes competition for the batting places severe apart from opening. There are 5 or 6 serious contenders for only 3 spaces 3-5. But Lawrence does look the part.ydoethur said:
This is a pretty fierce test of Dan Lawrence. If he can dig England out of this he should be secure for the foreseeable.FrancisUrquhart said:I said 74 looked a long way away....
Bairstow is yet again running like a lunatic.0 -
Ordinary Australians stranded in other countries are understandably annoyed about this tournament going ahead.FrancisUrquhart said:Australian Open: More players to quarantine after another positive Covid test on Melbourne flight - https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/55695295
0 -
And let's not forget the NY Times' article on the UK's "sputtering" vaccine roll out.Mysticrose said:I'm growing a little weary of US channels, especially CNN, bashing Britain. There have been a whole series of articles focused on what a cock-up the country now is. Brexit has been a particular source of derision. Here's CNN's latest:
https://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/uk-travel-2021-crisis/index.html
And here was a real pre-Christmas piece of savage attack:
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/12/21/uk/boris-johnson-covid-analysis-intl-gbr/index.html
I'm a left-leaner who voted Labour and campaigned vigorously for Remain. Even I'm getting irritated by this constant negativity. It's not only that it's a case of 'pot, kettle, black'. It's two other things which I am increasingly feeling.
1. Brexit has not (yet) been the disaster some were excitedly predicting. Yes there are teething issues but, frankly, it has gone quite smoothly so far. We have a trade deal and our vaccine rollout is undeniably faster thanks to shaking off the EU shackles.
2. The vaccine rollout is a STELLAR success so far. The UK is on course to be the global leader on mass vaccination of its citizens (Israel, UAE, Bahrain are doing well too with smaller populations). In a handful of months we will have the vast majority of the country vaccinated, the virus all but eliminated and our citizens able to travel the world as a result. It is absolutely clear that airlines in conjunction with the WHO are going to make vaccination the prerequisite for travel.
Yes there have been cock-ups and u-turns but Boris Johnson and Britain are doing alright.2 -
SouthamObserver said:
Up from their previous 1%! The polls are not moving. The country is divided. It's very hard to see how that changes.HYUFD said:Tories take a 2% lead with Survation
https://twitter.com/Survation/status/1350608757525508102?s=20
Unlike other pollsters Survation uses UK data. Add 1% to Con and Lab for the GB equivalent provided by other companies.SouthamObserver said:
Up from their previous 1%! The polls are not moving. The country is divided. It's very hard to see how that changes.HYUFD said:Tories take a 2% lead with Survation
https://twitter.com/Survation/status/1350608757525508102?s=200 -
The NHS is vaccinating at the rate of 140 jabs a minute....RobD said:
And let's not forget the NY Times' article on the UK's "sputtering" vaccine roll out.Mysticrose said:I'm growing a little weary of US channels, especially CNN, bashing Britain. There have been a whole series of articles focused on what a cock-up the country now is. Brexit has been a particular source of derision. Here's CNN's latest:
https://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/uk-travel-2021-crisis/index.html
And here was a real pre-Christmas piece of savage attack:
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/12/21/uk/boris-johnson-covid-analysis-intl-gbr/index.html
I'm a left-leaner who voted Labour and campaigned vigorously for Remain. Even I'm getting irritated by this constant negativity. It's not only that it's a case of 'pot, kettle, black'. It's two other things which I am increasingly feeling.
1. Brexit has not (yet) been the disaster some were excitedly predicting. Yes there are teething issues but, frankly, it has gone quite smoothly so far. We have a trade deal and our vaccine rollout is undeniably faster thanks to shaking off the EU shackles.
2. The vaccine rollout is a STELLAR success so far. The UK is on course to be the global leader on mass vaccination of its citizens (Israel, UAE, Bahrain are doing well too with smaller populations). In a handful of months we will have the vast majority of the country vaccinated, the virus all but eliminated and our citizens able to travel the world as a result. It is absolutely clear that airlines in conjunction with the WHO are going to make vaccination the prerequisite for travel.
Yes there have been cock-ups and u-turns but Boris Johnson and Britain are doing alright.1 -
Yes, it doesn't seem to have a political call as much as stodge suggests. Having the biggest impact as soon as possible seems to have been the thinking.Nigelb said:
It is controversial - but note the intention is still to vaccinate everyone twice. And certainly in the case of the AZN vaccine, the evidence suggests that delaying the booster might well increase the level of eventual immunity.stodge said:Morning all
I realise this won't be a popular view but I have serious qualms about the current vaccination programme.
The one thing I have no qualms about whatsoever is the vaccine itself - we should all be vaccinated and it's worrying to see such poor intended take-up in some communities and I'm pleased this is being addressed by religious and other community leaders.
My problem remains with the notion vaccinating a lot of people once is the way forward.
I disagree.
We should be doing this properly. There have been documented instances of individuals getting the first Pfizer vaccination and then contracting Covid and dying. Pfizer made it abundantly clear the maximum immunity is achieved one week after the second vaccination or four week in total after the first vaccination.
We should be proceeding on that basis - ensuring those who are most at risk are properly vaccinated with two vaccinations twenty one days apart. As far as I can see all the current available vaccines rely on two vaccinations - that may not be the case in time but it is now. We use booster vaccinations regularly - MMR and the annual flu vaccination for example.
It's my view getting a smaller number properly protected is preferable to providing a limited degree of immunity for a larger number. The Pfizer vaccination achieves 52% protection 12 days after the first vaccination - 95% is achieved seven days after the second vaccination.
Oxford-AZ is a little better with Moderna better still.
I think there are political reasons why the Government has taken the action it has and I think they are wrong. I want us all to be vaccinated but properly and effectively - we don't, after all, really know how long immunity will last and it may be we will all need further vaccination later in the year.
The figures suggest lock down is having the desired impact in reducing case numbers - ensuring those at risk are properly vaccinated to reduce deaths and hospitalisations seems the obvious way forward in conjunction with the maintenance of restrictions until all those over 50 are properly vaccinated (with two vaccinations).
If infection levels (and death rates) weren’t at such a high level, there wouldn’t be a case for it, especially with the Pfizer vaccine, but it’s a balance of risks argument.
I think it’s wrong to think the decision was taken for political reasons - though it is a political call, taken on the advice of SAGE.0 -
Disaster.FrancisUrquhart said:
The NHS is vaccinating at the rate of 140 jabs a minute....RobD said:
And let's not forget the NY Times' article on the UK's "sputtering" vaccine roll out.Mysticrose said:I'm growing a little weary of US channels, especially CNN, bashing Britain. There have been a whole series of articles focused on what a cock-up the country now is. Brexit has been a particular source of derision. Here's CNN's latest:
https://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/uk-travel-2021-crisis/index.html
And here was a real pre-Christmas piece of savage attack:
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/12/21/uk/boris-johnson-covid-analysis-intl-gbr/index.html
I'm a left-leaner who voted Labour and campaigned vigorously for Remain. Even I'm getting irritated by this constant negativity. It's not only that it's a case of 'pot, kettle, black'. It's two other things which I am increasingly feeling.
1. Brexit has not (yet) been the disaster some were excitedly predicting. Yes there are teething issues but, frankly, it has gone quite smoothly so far. We have a trade deal and our vaccine rollout is undeniably faster thanks to shaking off the EU shackles.
2. The vaccine rollout is a STELLAR success so far. The UK is on course to be the global leader on mass vaccination of its citizens (Israel, UAE, Bahrain are doing well too with smaller populations). In a handful of months we will have the vast majority of the country vaccinated, the virus all but eliminated and our citizens able to travel the world as a result. It is absolutely clear that airlines in conjunction with the WHO are going to make vaccination the prerequisite for travel.
Yes there have been cock-ups and u-turns but Boris Johnson and Britain are doing alright.3 -
And your qualifications for this are ? Could you let is know what your scientific field of expertise is?stodge said:Morning all
We should be doing this properly. There have been documented instances of individuals getting the first Pfizer vaccination and then contracting Covid and dying. Pfizer made it abundantly clear the maximum immunity is achieved one week after the second vaccination or four week in total after the first vaccination.
We should be proceeding on that basis - ensuring those who are most at risk are properly vaccinated with two vaccinations twenty one days apart. As far as I can see all the current available vaccines rely on two vaccinations - that may not be the case in time but it is now. We use booster vaccinations regularly - MMR and the annual flu vaccination for example.
It's my view getting a smaller number properly protected is preferable to providing a limited degree of immunity for a larger number. The Pfizer vaccination achieves 52% protection 12 days after the first vaccination - 95% is achieved seven days after the second vaccination.
Oxford-AZ is a little better with Moderna better still.
I think there are political reasons why the Government has taken the action it has and I think they are wrong. I want us all to be vaccinated but properly and effectively - we don't, after all, really know how long immunity will last and it may be we will all need further vaccination later in the year.
Believe it or not, there is a scientific literature on this that you have could have examined before setting yourself up as an expert.
Because the same problem with double dose vaccines has occurred before in other epidemics.1 -
When talking of a person who has just passed away, "complex" is often the word of choice to tip the wink that he or she had an unpleasant side but without going into details. I think the Telegraph is using it in that sense here, i.e. treating our history as something to be extra extra careful about in any way criticizing. For me this is a lazy wimp out. Whilst there is no such thing as the definitive objective truth about the past, this "patriotic" approach to it shows little interest in trying to gain a better understanding.Nigelb said:
The juxtaposition of “complex past” and “woke militants” requires a level of self delusion (or cynicism) which is quite impressive.SouthamObserver said:Culture War is pretty much all the government has
https://twitter.com/cjayanetti/status/13507567613687521290 -
HYUFD said:
That former junior 1970s minister left Labour over the Iraq War and is an SNP member.malcolmg said:No future for Scottish Labour if it remains Unionist, former minister says
A FORMER Labour minister has said there is no future for Labour in Scotland if it continues to be a Unionist party.
In an exclusive interview with the Sunday National in the wake of leader Richard Leonard’s resignation, Les Huckfield said that unless the party changed its stance on independence it was “never going to get anywhere”.
https://www.thenational.scot/news/19017357.no-future-scottish-labour-remains-unionist-former-minister-says/
Labour is not going to win back Nat voters from the SNP, its best hope is to remain a Unionist Party and win Tory and LD tactical votes to beat the SNP
I believe there are many voters who vote SNP for Holyrood who can be persuaded to support Labour for Westminster. The 2017 GE provided evidence of that.HYUFD said:
That former junior 1970s minister left Labour over the Iraq War and is an SNP member.malcolmg said:No future for Scottish Labour if it remains Unionist, former minister says
A FORMER Labour minister has said there is no future for Labour in Scotland if it continues to be a Unionist party.
In an exclusive interview with the Sunday National in the wake of leader Richard Leonard’s resignation, Les Huckfield said that unless the party changed its stance on independence it was “never going to get anywhere”.
https://www.thenational.scot/news/19017357.no-future-scottish-labour-remains-unionist-former-minister-says/
Labour is not going to win back Nat voters from the SNP, its best hope is to remain a Unionist Party and win Tory and LD tactical votes to beat the SNP0 -
James Bracey can open the batting, and is on tour as a spare wicketkeeper.FrancisUrquhart said:
What options for the future in the opening department? Because Sibley isn't the answer.DavidL said:
The thing is that Pope looks the real deal to me. That makes competition for the batting places severe apart from opening. There are 5 or 6 serious contenders for only 3 spaces 3-5. But Lawrence does look the part.ydoethur said:
This is a pretty fierce test of Dan Lawrence. If he can dig England out of this he should be secure for the foreseeable.FrancisUrquhart said:I said 74 looked a long way away....
Bairstow is yet again running like a lunatic.
(I would keep Sibley ahead of Burns, btw.)0 -
So apparently culture war isn't 'all the Government has' after all. We can build new megafactories, crush Covid, and defend our cultural inheritance all at the same time. Multitasking, I love it!CarlottaVance said:Not coming to the NYT anytime soon:
https://twitter.com/stianwestlake/status/1350770350771023877?s=205 -
They should have tiled a big Union Jack onto its front. It is a bit anonymous as it is.CarlottaVance said:Not coming to the NYT anytime soon:
https://twitter.com/stianwestlake/status/1350770350771023877?s=200 -
For me, and IANAE, it seems a remarkably pure utilitarian calculation. How do we reduce the pressure on the hospitals and the morgue fastest? I am content to accept the calculations of those who have far more data, knowledge and experience.YBarddCwsc said:
And your qualifications for this are ? Could you let is know what your scientific field of expertise is?stodge said:Morning all
We should be doing this properly. There have been documented instances of individuals getting the first Pfizer vaccination and then contracting Covid and dying. Pfizer made it abundantly clear the maximum immunity is achieved one week after the second vaccination or four week in total after the first vaccination.
We should be proceeding on that basis - ensuring those who are most at risk are properly vaccinated with two vaccinations twenty one days apart. As far as I can see all the current available vaccines rely on two vaccinations - that may not be the case in time but it is now. We use booster vaccinations regularly - MMR and the annual flu vaccination for example.
It's my view getting a smaller number properly protected is preferable to providing a limited degree of immunity for a larger number. The Pfizer vaccination achieves 52% protection 12 days after the first vaccination - 95% is achieved seven days after the second vaccination.
Oxford-AZ is a little better with Moderna better still.
I think there are political reasons why the Government has taken the action it has and I think they are wrong. I want us all to be vaccinated but properly and effectively - we don't, after all, really know how long immunity will last and it may be we will all need further vaccination later in the year.
Believe it or not, there is a scientific literature on this that you have could have examined before setting yourself up as an expert.
Because the same problem with double dose vaccines has occurred before in other epidemics.0 -
It's possible he might. But I think it would have to be restricted to unofficial action via his supporters. I get the impression his (below average sized) hands are no longer on the POTUS levers. So, to take one example, he might wish to declare martial law but he would not be allowed to.kjh said:
I predicted he would go quietly just before Christmas. Off to Florida and never return. That worked out well.kinabalu said:Florida, surely, but I won't be betting on it. More fitting would be if he vanishes for a short period and then turns up - Colonel Kuntz style - crazed and bloated in a deep jungle compound somewhere thousands of miles away, addressing the faithful through youtube, rambling still about stolen elections and being the real president, but with more sound & fury now, filters off, letting it all hang out: "Radical left, no ID, no ID, Patriots are coming, drain the swamp! release the kraken! all the beautiful babies ..." Until, one day, a tough and resourceful young man on a mission arrives. He carries a pair of scissors.
It is difficult to see what he can do now, but with all the potential civil cases (Dominion, IRS, being sued by people claiming rape, etc, etc) that could bankrupt him and all the potential criminal cases (Sedition, IRS again, etc, etc) that could send him to jail for life, then unless he does just think he is immune for some reason, why wouldn't he go all out for something spectacular in the last couple of days? Can't think what though. Martial law? Getting the nutters to take over the State senate buildings? Can't think of anything more rational he can do.0 -
Why do you think our vaccine rollout would have been any different if we'd been in the EU and the European Medicines Agency had still been in London?Mysticrose said:1. Brexit has not (yet) been the disaster some were excitedly predicting. Yes there are teething issues but, frankly, it has gone quite smoothly so far. We have a trade deal and our vaccine rollout is undeniably faster thanks to shaking off the EU shackles.
0 -
Guernsey on last night's ITV evening news:
https://twitter.com/itvnews/status/1350505712024219648?s=200 -
Yes, but I mean distinguishing from the annual flu vaccine for the most vulnerable versus annually vaccinating the entire adult population (if not kids too).FrancisUrquhart said:
Many experts from the beginning of this pandemic have suggested that your Covid shot could well become like the annual flu jab.solarflare said:
One wonders if mass vaccination will become the country's new painting of the Forth Rail Bridge i.e. basically you start at the beginning again immediately after you've finished the last go.stodge said:Morning all
I realise this won't be a popular view but I have serious qualms about the current vaccination programme.
The one thing I have no qualms about whatsoever is the vaccine itself - we should all be vaccinated and it's worrying to see such poor intended take-up in some communities and I'm pleased this is being addressed by religious and other community leaders.
My problem remains with the notion vaccinating a lot of people once is the way forward.
I disagree.
We should be doing this properly. There have been documented instances of individuals getting the first Pfizer vaccination and then contracting Covid and dying. Pfizer made it abundantly clear the maximum immunity is achieved one week after the second vaccination or four week in total after the first vaccination.
We should be proceeding on that basis - ensuring those who are most at risk are properly vaccinated with two vaccinations twenty one days apart. As far as I can see all the current available vaccines rely on two vaccinations - that may not be the case in time but it is now. We use booster vaccinations regularly - MMR and the annual flu vaccination for example.
It's my view getting a smaller number properly protected is preferable to providing a limited degree of immunity for a larger number. The Pfizer vaccination achieves 52% protection 12 days after the first vaccination - 95% is achieved seven days after the second vaccination.
Oxford-AZ is a little better with Moderna better still.
I think there are political reasons why the Government has taken the action it has and I think they are wrong. I want us all to be vaccinated but properly and effectively - we don't, after all, really know how long immunity will last and it may be we will all need further vaccination later in the year.
The figures suggest lock down is having the desired impact in reducing case numbers - ensuring those at risk are properly vaccinated to reduce deaths and hospitalisations seems the obvious way forward in conjunction with the maintenance of restrictions until all those over 50 are properly vaccinated (with two vaccinations).
Obviously it's not clear if that will be necessary, and will be easier if we only need one jab not too, but still, a different kettle of fish from the flu vaccine programme.0 -
Because slow as they are, that's not the biggest problem with the EU's scheme.williamglenn said:
Why do you think our vaccine rollout would have been any different if we'd been in the EU and the European Medicines Agency had still been in London?Mysticrose said:1. Brexit has not (yet) been the disaster some were excitedly predicting. Yes there are teething issues but, frankly, it has gone quite smoothly so far. We have a trade deal and our vaccine rollout is undeniably faster thanks to shaking off the EU shackles.
1 -
They should have spent more time practising their tennis.Andy_JS said:
Ordinary Australians stranded in other countries are understandably annoyed about this tournament going ahead.FrancisUrquhart said:Australian Open: More players to quarantine after another positive Covid test on Melbourne flight - https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/55695295
1 -
It's not even an order of magnitude bigger, maybe a factor of a couple. I wouldn't be worried at all about needing yearly vaccinations for it.solarflare said:
Yes, but I mean distinguishing from the annual flu vaccine for the most vulnerable versus annually vaccinating the entire adult population (if not kids too).FrancisUrquhart said:
Many experts from the beginning of this pandemic have suggested that your Covid shot could well become like the annual flu jab.solarflare said:
One wonders if mass vaccination will become the country's new painting of the Forth Rail Bridge i.e. basically you start at the beginning again immediately after you've finished the last go.stodge said:Morning all
I realise this won't be a popular view but I have serious qualms about the current vaccination programme.
The one thing I have no qualms about whatsoever is the vaccine itself - we should all be vaccinated and it's worrying to see such poor intended take-up in some communities and I'm pleased this is being addressed by religious and other community leaders.
My problem remains with the notion vaccinating a lot of people once is the way forward.
I disagree.
We should be doing this properly. There have been documented instances of individuals getting the first Pfizer vaccination and then contracting Covid and dying. Pfizer made it abundantly clear the maximum immunity is achieved one week after the second vaccination or four week in total after the first vaccination.
We should be proceeding on that basis - ensuring those who are most at risk are properly vaccinated with two vaccinations twenty one days apart. As far as I can see all the current available vaccines rely on two vaccinations - that may not be the case in time but it is now. We use booster vaccinations regularly - MMR and the annual flu vaccination for example.
It's my view getting a smaller number properly protected is preferable to providing a limited degree of immunity for a larger number. The Pfizer vaccination achieves 52% protection 12 days after the first vaccination - 95% is achieved seven days after the second vaccination.
Oxford-AZ is a little better with Moderna better still.
I think there are political reasons why the Government has taken the action it has and I think they are wrong. I want us all to be vaccinated but properly and effectively - we don't, after all, really know how long immunity will last and it may be we will all need further vaccination later in the year.
The figures suggest lock down is having the desired impact in reducing case numbers - ensuring those at risk are properly vaccinated to reduce deaths and hospitalisations seems the obvious way forward in conjunction with the maintenance of restrictions until all those over 50 are properly vaccinated (with two vaccinations).
Obviously it's not clear if that will be necessary, and will be easier if we only need one jab not too, but still, a different kettle of fish from the flu vaccine programme.1 -
But to them, it must seem a complete racket.noneoftheabove said:
They should have spent more time practising their tennis.Andy_JS said:
Ordinary Australians stranded in other countries are understandably annoyed about this tournament going ahead.FrancisUrquhart said:Australian Open: More players to quarantine after another positive Covid test on Melbourne flight - https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/55695295
Pause.
I do need to get my coat, as I'm off for a walk. Have a good afternoon.0 -
The EU's scheme is voluntary. We wouldn't have been 'shackled' to it, and it might not even have existed in that form if we had been part of the decision making process.RobD said:
Because slow as they are, that's not the biggest problem with the EU's scheme.williamglenn said:
Why do you think our vaccine rollout would have been any different if we'd been in the EU and the European Medicines Agency had still been in London?Mysticrose said:1. Brexit has not (yet) been the disaster some were excitedly predicting. Yes there are teething issues but, frankly, it has gone quite smoothly so far. We have a trade deal and our vaccine rollout is undeniably faster thanks to shaking off the EU shackles.
1 -
I note we've motored away from the USA's death rate - previously we had a gap of around 40 deaths/1 million but we're up to 81 (1301 vs 1220)0
-
So the EU's slow vaccine roll out is because of Brexit?williamglenn said:
The EU's scheme is voluntary. We wouldn't have been 'shackled' to it, and it might not even have existed in that form if we had been part of the decision making process.RobD said:
Because slow as they are, that's not the biggest problem with the EU's scheme.williamglenn said:
Why do you think our vaccine rollout would have been any different if we'd been in the EU and the European Medicines Agency had still been in London?Mysticrose said:1. Brexit has not (yet) been the disaster some were excitedly predicting. Yes there are teething issues but, frankly, it has gone quite smoothly so far. We have a trade deal and our vaccine rollout is undeniably faster thanks to shaking off the EU shackles.
1 -
It's the European Commission, who on this issue have managed to make the UK government look well organised and competent, a rarity.RobD said:
Because slow as they are, that's not the biggest problem with the EU's scheme.williamglenn said:
Why do you think our vaccine rollout would have been any different if we'd been in the EU and the European Medicines Agency had still been in London?Mysticrose said:1. Brexit has not (yet) been the disaster some were excitedly predicting. Yes there are teething issues but, frankly, it has gone quite smoothly so far. We have a trade deal and our vaccine rollout is undeniably faster thanks to shaking off the EU shackles.
1 -
The Left-Wing Indy supporters who voted SNP in 2015 and then Labour in 2017 attracted by Corbyn went back to SNP in 2019 and are not coming back.justin124 said:HYUFD said:
That former junior 1970s minister left Labour over the Iraq War and is an SNP member.malcolmg said:No future for Scottish Labour if it remains Unionist, former minister says
A FORMER Labour minister has said there is no future for Labour in Scotland if it continues to be a Unionist party.
In an exclusive interview with the Sunday National in the wake of leader Richard Leonard’s resignation, Les Huckfield said that unless the party changed its stance on independence it was “never going to get anywhere”.
https://www.thenational.scot/news/19017357.no-future-scottish-labour-remains-unionist-former-minister-says/
Labour is not going to win back Nat voters from the SNP, its best hope is to remain a Unionist Party and win Tory and LD tactical votes to beat the SNP
I believe there are many voters who vote SNP for Holyrood who can be persuaded to support Labour for Westminster. The 2017 GE provided evidence of that.HYUFD said:
That former junior 1970s minister left Labour over the Iraq War and is an SNP member.malcolmg said:No future for Scottish Labour if it remains Unionist, former minister says
A FORMER Labour minister has said there is no future for Labour in Scotland if it continues to be a Unionist party.
In an exclusive interview with the Sunday National in the wake of leader Richard Leonard’s resignation, Les Huckfield said that unless the party changed its stance on independence it was “never going to get anywhere”.
https://www.thenational.scot/news/19017357.no-future-scottish-labour-remains-unionist-former-minister-says/
Labour is not going to win back Nat voters from the SNP, its best hope is to remain a Unionist Party and win Tory and LD tactical votes to beat the SNP0 -
I'm sure the same thing has happened many times before, for example with Obama and which European leader he was going to phone first. Everyone said it wouldn't be the UK, and in the end it was.FrancisUrquhart said:The Sunday Telegraph reports that Biden is planning on making the United Kingdom the site of his first trip outside of North America.
I seemed to.remember 100s of tweets about how Biden hates Boris so much he will blank him and the UK....1 -
I'm now just waiting for the 100s of tweets about how where he visits first doesn't matter.Andy_JS said:
I'm sure the same thing has happened many times before, for example with Obama and which European leader he was going to phone first. Everyone said it wouldn't be the UK, and in the end it was.FrancisUrquhart said:The Sunday Telegraph reports that Biden is planning on making the United Kingdom the site of his first trip outside of North America.
I seemed to.remember 100s of tweets about how Biden hates Boris so much he will blank him and the UK....3 -
Especially after SKS and his pronouncements/votes on Brexit and indyref 2, I expect.Alistair said:
The Left-Wing Indy supporters who voted SNP in 2015 and then Labour in 2017 attracted by Corbyn went back to SNP in 2019 and are not coming back.justin124 said:HYUFD said:
That former junior 1970s minister left Labour over the Iraq War and is an SNP member.malcolmg said:No future for Scottish Labour if it remains Unionist, former minister says
A FORMER Labour minister has said there is no future for Labour in Scotland if it continues to be a Unionist party.
In an exclusive interview with the Sunday National in the wake of leader Richard Leonard’s resignation, Les Huckfield said that unless the party changed its stance on independence it was “never going to get anywhere”.
https://www.thenational.scot/news/19017357.no-future-scottish-labour-remains-unionist-former-minister-says/
Labour is not going to win back Nat voters from the SNP, its best hope is to remain a Unionist Party and win Tory and LD tactical votes to beat the SNP
I believe there are many voters who vote SNP for Holyrood who can be persuaded to support Labour for Westminster. The 2017 GE provided evidence of that.HYUFD said:
That former junior 1970s minister left Labour over the Iraq War and is an SNP member.malcolmg said:No future for Scottish Labour if it remains Unionist, former minister says
A FORMER Labour minister has said there is no future for Labour in Scotland if it continues to be a Unionist party.
In an exclusive interview with the Sunday National in the wake of leader Richard Leonard’s resignation, Les Huckfield said that unless the party changed its stance on independence it was “never going to get anywhere”.
https://www.thenational.scot/news/19017357.no-future-scottish-labour-remains-unionist-former-minister-says/
Labour is not going to win back Nat voters from the SNP, its best hope is to remain a Unionist Party and win Tory and LD tactical votes to beat the SNP0 -
Once you are round the negotiating table in Brussels, there is a powerful urge to be seen to be "communautaire", i.e. to sell out your country's interests for an illusory payback at the European level, while giving more and more power to the Eurocracy. So, in theory, we could have stayed outside the vaccine scheme if we hadn't left. In practice, we might not have done so. And we have probably saved thousands, or maybe tens of thousands, of lives as a result.williamglenn said:
The EU's scheme is voluntary. We wouldn't have been 'shackled' to it, and it might not even have existed in that form if we had been part of the decision making process.RobD said:
Because slow as they are, that's not the biggest problem with the EU's scheme.williamglenn said:
Why do you think our vaccine rollout would have been any different if we'd been in the EU and the European Medicines Agency had still been in London?Mysticrose said:1. Brexit has not (yet) been the disaster some were excitedly predicting. Yes there are teething issues but, frankly, it has gone quite smoothly so far. We have a trade deal and our vaccine rollout is undeniably faster thanks to shaking off the EU shackles.
4 -
One thing I have never seen -- though presumably it must exist -- is Labour's own explanation for the catastrophe that engulfed the Party in Scotland.justin124 said:
I believe there are many voters who vote SNP for Holyrood who can be persuaded to support Labour for Westminster. The 2017 GE provided evidence of that.
To go from holding 41 seats in 2010 (many with huge majorities and held continuously for many decades) to just 1 in 2015 does require more of an explanation than "we campaigned on the winning side with the wicked Tories in a referendum".
I would be moderately interested in whether Labour have inquired as to why the catastrophe happened & in the famous phrase of politicians -- what lessons were learned. 😉
How did they lose the hearts and minds of the working class voters in the Central Belt so suddenly and comprehensively?
I have my own hypothesis for this, based on examination of Labour's behaviour in its fiefdoms in Wales -- but I am interested in the Labour party's explanation.2 -
Biden has to come here for G7 in June. Doubt he will go anywhere else before then.Andy_JS said:
I'm sure the same thing has happened many times before, for example with Obama and which European leader he was going to phone first. Everyone said it wouldn't be the UK, and in the end it was.FrancisUrquhart said:The Sunday Telegraph reports that Biden is planning on making the United Kingdom the site of his first trip outside of North America.
I seemed to.remember 100s of tweets about how Biden hates Boris so much he will blank him and the UK....0 -
I know you live there, but I like to imagine that you own vast quantities of shares in Guernsey PLC that rise a little in value every time you post a good news story about the place. It's charming.CarlottaVance said:Guernsey on last night's ITV evening news:
https://twitter.com/itvnews/status/1350505712024219648?s=201 -
FWIW -YBarddCwsc said:
One thing I have never seen -- though presumably it must exist -- is Labour's own explanation for the catastrophe that engulfed the Party in Scotland.justin124 said:
I believe there are many voters who vote SNP for Holyrood who can be persuaded to support Labour for Westminster. The 2017 GE provided evidence of that.
To go from holding 41 seats in 2010 (many with huge majorities and held continuously for many decades) to just 1 in 2015 does require more of an explanation than "we campaigned on the winning side with the wicked Tories in a referendum".
I would be moderately interested in whether Labour have inquired as to why the catastrophe happened & in the famous phrase of politicians -- what lessons were learned. 😉
How did they lose the hearts and minds of the working class voters in the Central Belt so suddenly and comprehensively?
I have my own hypothesis for this, based on examination of Labour's behaviour in its fiefdoms in Wales -- but I am interested in the Labour party's explanation.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jun/15/labour-election-loss-down-to-lack-of-ideas-not-passion-says-jim-murphy
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/05/labours-problems-scotland-go-well-beyond-jim-murphy
https://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2015/04/29/has-any-labour-leader-ever-run-a-worse-campaign-than-jim-murphy/
Edit: of course, being FPTP with 3 competing parties (not counting the Greens and SSocs, perhaps unfairly) wouldn't help. But even so.0 -
Disagreed. The four Chief Medical Officer representing all 4 home nations, the JCVI and the MHRA and a lot of other scientific evidence unanimously say this is the right thing to do. Their logic seems to be unimpeachable.stodge said:Morning all
I realise this won't be a popular view but I have serious qualms about the current vaccination programme.
The one thing I have no qualms about whatsoever is the vaccine itself - we should all be vaccinated and it's worrying to see such poor intended take-up in some communities and I'm pleased this is being addressed by religious and other community leaders.
My problem remains with the notion vaccinating a lot of people once is the way forward.
I disagree.
We should be doing this properly. There have been documented instances of individuals getting the first Pfizer vaccination and then contracting Covid and dying. Pfizer made it abundantly clear the maximum immunity is achieved one week after the second vaccination or four week in total after the first vaccination.
We should be proceeding on that basis - ensuring those who are most at risk are properly vaccinated with two vaccinations twenty one days apart. As far as I can see all the current available vaccines rely on two vaccinations - that may not be the case in time but it is now. We use booster vaccinations regularly - MMR and the annual flu vaccination for example.
It's my view getting a smaller number properly protected is preferable to providing a limited degree of immunity for a larger number. The Pfizer vaccination achieves 52% protection 12 days after the first vaccination - 95% is achieved seven days after the second vaccination.
Oxford-AZ is a little better with Moderna better still.
I think there are political reasons why the Government has taken the action it has and I think they are wrong. I want us all to be vaccinated but properly and effectively - we don't, after all, really know how long immunity will last and it may be we will all need further vaccination later in the year.
The figures suggest lock down is having the desired impact in reducing case numbers - ensuring those at risk are properly vaccinated to reduce deaths and hospitalisations seems the obvious way forward in conjunction with the maintenance of restrictions until all those over 50 are properly vaccinated (with two vaccinations).
Your number for Pfizer seems to be flawed, I'm not sure where you're suggesting 52% protection 12 days after the first dose came from. That seems to be a lower number by including the people who got the infection before the 12 days.
The JCVI reported that one dose alone was enough to give 70% protection after 12 days, rising to 95% a week after the second.
The easiest way to demonstrate it is with numbers, lets round to 14 million high risk people with an initial 14 million doses available.
Scenario 1: Vaccinate and give booster vaccination to half the people.
7 million have 95% protection = 350k vulnerable
7 million unvaccinated = 7 million vulnerable
Total vulnerable: 7,350,000
Scenario 2: Vaccinate everyone once, wait for booster.
14 million have 70% protection.
Total vulnerable: 4,200,000
Scenario 1 has 75% more vulnerable people than scenario 2. No brainer.3 -
Doing ok:Fishing said:
Once you are round the negotiating table in Brussels, there is a powerful urge to be seen to be "communautaire", i.e. to sell out your country's interests for an illusory payback at the European level, while giving more and more power to the Eurocracy. So, in theory, we could have stayed outside the vaccine scheme if we hadn't left. In practice, we might not have done so. And we have probably saved thousands, or maybe tens of thousands, of lives as a result.williamglenn said:
The EU's scheme is voluntary. We wouldn't have been 'shackled' to it, and it might not even have existed in that form if we had been part of the decision making process.RobD said:
Because slow as they are, that's not the biggest problem with the EU's scheme.williamglenn said:
Why do you think our vaccine rollout would have been any different if we'd been in the EU and the European Medicines Agency had still been in London?Mysticrose said:1. Brexit has not (yet) been the disaster some were excitedly predicting. Yes there are teething issues but, frankly, it has gone quite smoothly so far. We have a trade deal and our vaccine rollout is undeniably faster thanks to shaking off the EU shackles.
2 -
It's a bit premature to talk about saving lives when we still have the worst death toll in Europe.Fishing said:
Once you are round the negotiating table in Brussels, there is a powerful urge to be seen to be "communautaire", i.e. to sell out your country's interests for an illusory payback at the European level, while giving more and more power to the Eurocracy. So, in theory, we could have stayed outside the vaccine scheme if we hadn't left. In practice, we might not have done so. And we have probably saved thousands, or maybe tens of thousands, of lives as a result.williamglenn said:
The EU's scheme is voluntary. We wouldn't have been 'shackled' to it, and it might not even have existed in that form if we had been part of the decision making process.RobD said:
Because slow as they are, that's not the biggest problem with the EU's scheme.williamglenn said:
Why do you think our vaccine rollout would have been any different if we'd been in the EU and the European Medicines Agency had still been in London?Mysticrose said:1. Brexit has not (yet) been the disaster some were excitedly predicting. Yes there are teething issues but, frankly, it has gone quite smoothly so far. We have a trade deal and our vaccine rollout is undeniably faster thanks to shaking off the EU shackles.
Surely as a British patriot you must look at it the other way round: if the EU had been able to benefit from the presence of a country with a superior model for the delivery of healthcare, then the scheme would have been planned differently, to the benefit of hundreds of millions of Europeans.1 -
It doesn't and never did, it's a desperate sign of neediness and quite unattractive of this country.RobD said:
I'm now just waiting for the 100s of tweets about how where he visits first doesn't matter.Andy_JS said:
I'm sure the same thing has happened many times before, for example with Obama and which European leader he was going to phone first. Everyone said it wouldn't be the UK, and in the end it was.FrancisUrquhart said:The Sunday Telegraph reports that Biden is planning on making the United Kingdom the site of his first trip outside of North America.
I seemed to.remember 100s of tweets about how Biden hates Boris so much he will blank him and the UK....
However, it is also true that various people act as though it matters and then change tune if we are near the top of the list, and those people cannot have it both ways.1 -
The EU hasn't suddenly changed now that the UK has left. It is the same as it ever was.williamglenn said:
It's a bit premature to talk about saving lives when we still have the worst death toll in Europe.Fishing said:
Once you are round the negotiating table in Brussels, there is a powerful urge to be seen to be "communautaire", i.e. to sell out your country's interests for an illusory payback at the European level, while giving more and more power to the Eurocracy. So, in theory, we could have stayed outside the vaccine scheme if we hadn't left. In practice, we might not have done so. And we have probably saved thousands, or maybe tens of thousands, of lives as a result.williamglenn said:
The EU's scheme is voluntary. We wouldn't have been 'shackled' to it, and it might not even have existed in that form if we had been part of the decision making process.RobD said:
Because slow as they are, that's not the biggest problem with the EU's scheme.williamglenn said:
Why do you think our vaccine rollout would have been any different if we'd been in the EU and the European Medicines Agency had still been in London?Mysticrose said:1. Brexit has not (yet) been the disaster some were excitedly predicting. Yes there are teething issues but, frankly, it has gone quite smoothly so far. We have a trade deal and our vaccine rollout is undeniably faster thanks to shaking off the EU shackles.
Surely as a British patriot you must look at it the other way round: if the EU had been able to benefit from the presence of a country with a superior model for the delivery of healthcare, then the scheme would have been planned differently, to the benefit of hundreds of millions of Europeans.3 -
I’d flip that and ask why every EU member has chosen to go with the EU scheme. Critics will say - yes, we could have done what we’ve done in the EU - but there does seem to have been an overarching push for unity amongst the EU when it came to vaccines. Presumably the UK would have been under the same pressurewilliamglenn said:
Why do you think our vaccine rollout would have been any different if we'd been in the EU and the European Medicines Agency had still been in London?Mysticrose said:1. Brexit has not (yet) been the disaster some were excitedly predicting. Yes there are teething issues but, frankly, it has gone quite smoothly so far. We have a trade deal and our vaccine rollout is undeniably faster thanks to shaking off the EU shackles.
0 -
It is very simple, a large proportion of Labour voters in 2010 were in favour of Independence.YBarddCwsc said:
One thing I have never seen -- though presumably it must exist -- is Labour's own explanation for the catastrophe that engulfed the Party in Scotland.justin124 said:
I believe there are many voters who vote SNP for Holyrood who can be persuaded to support Labour for Westminster. The 2017 GE provided evidence of that.
To go from holding 41 seats in 2010 (many with huge majorities and held continuously for many decades) to just 1 in 2015 does require more of an explanation than "we campaigned on the winning side with the wicked Tories in a referendum".
I would be moderately interested in whether Labour have inquired as to why the catastrophe happened & in the famous phrase of politicians -- what lessons were learned. 😉
How did they lose the hearts and minds of the working class voters in the Central Belt so suddenly and comprehensively?
I have my own hypothesis for this, based on examination of Labour's behaviour in its fiefdoms in Wales -- but I am interested in the Labour party's explanation.
In 2014 Labour repeatedly called Independence supporters Nazis.
What happened next followed logically from that.1 -
Yes, it is fascinating. Even an explanation that it was reaching a tipping point and the referendum pushed them over the edge doesn't seem satisfactory for the scale of what happened.YBarddCwsc said:
One thing I have never seen -- though presumably it must exist -- is Labour's own explanation for the catastrophe that engulfed the Party in Scotland.justin124 said:
I believe there are many voters who vote SNP for Holyrood who can be persuaded to support Labour for Westminster. The 2017 GE provided evidence of that.
To go from holding 41 seats in 2010 (many with huge majorities and held continuously for many decades) to just 1 in 2015 does require more of an explanation than "we campaigned on the winning side with the wicked Tories in a referendum".
I would be moderately interested in whether Labour have inquired as to why the catastrophe happened & in the famous phrase of politicians -- what lessons were learned. 😉
How did they lose the hearts and minds of the working class voters in the Central Belt so suddenly and comprehensively?
I have my own hypothesis for this, based on examination of Labour's behaviour in its fiefdoms in Wales -- but I am interested in the Labour party's explanation.0 -
We had so many opt outs. It’s quite possible this would have been one.Razedabode said:
I’d flip that and ask why every EU member has chosen to go with the EU scheme. Critics will say - yes, we could have done what we’ve done in the EU - but there does seem to have been an overarching push for unity amongst the EU when it came to vaccines. Presumably the UK would have been under the same pressurewilliamglenn said:
Why do you think our vaccine rollout would have been any different if we'd been in the EU and the European Medicines Agency had still been in London?Mysticrose said:1. Brexit has not (yet) been the disaster some were excitedly predicting. Yes there are teething issues but, frankly, it has gone quite smoothly so far. We have a trade deal and our vaccine rollout is undeniably faster thanks to shaking off the EU shackles.
0 -
So you don't think the loss of the UK was a significant blow? Typical anti-British attitude.RobD said:
The EU hasn't suddenly changed now that the UK has left. It is the same as it ever was.williamglenn said:
It's a bit premature to talk about saving lives when we still have the worst death toll in Europe.Fishing said:
Once you are round the negotiating table in Brussels, there is a powerful urge to be seen to be "communautaire", i.e. to sell out your country's interests for an illusory payback at the European level, while giving more and more power to the Eurocracy. So, in theory, we could have stayed outside the vaccine scheme if we hadn't left. In practice, we might not have done so. And we have probably saved thousands, or maybe tens of thousands, of lives as a result.williamglenn said:
The EU's scheme is voluntary. We wouldn't have been 'shackled' to it, and it might not even have existed in that form if we had been part of the decision making process.RobD said:
Because slow as they are, that's not the biggest problem with the EU's scheme.williamglenn said:
Why do you think our vaccine rollout would have been any different if we'd been in the EU and the European Medicines Agency had still been in London?Mysticrose said:1. Brexit has not (yet) been the disaster some were excitedly predicting. Yes there are teething issues but, frankly, it has gone quite smoothly so far. We have a trade deal and our vaccine rollout is undeniably faster thanks to shaking off the EU shackles.
Surely as a British patriot you must look at it the other way round: if the EU had been able to benefit from the presence of a country with a superior model for the delivery of healthcare, then the scheme would have been planned differently, to the benefit of hundreds of millions of Europeans.0 -
The Nazi bit was ironic really when you had SLAB coming out with stuff like this - dead serious in this case:Alistair said:
It is very simple, a large proportion of Labour voters in 2010 were in favour of Independence.YBarddCwsc said:
One thing I have never seen -- though presumably it must exist -- is Labour's own explanation for the catastrophe that engulfed the Party in Scotland.justin124 said:
I believe there are many voters who vote SNP for Holyrood who can be persuaded to support Labour for Westminster. The 2017 GE provided evidence of that.
To go from holding 41 seats in 2010 (many with huge majorities and held continuously for many decades) to just 1 in 2015 does require more of an explanation than "we campaigned on the winning side with the wicked Tories in a referendum".
I would be moderately interested in whether Labour have inquired as to why the catastrophe happened & in the famous phrase of politicians -- what lessons were learned. 😉
How did they lose the hearts and minds of the working class voters in the Central Belt so suddenly and comprehensively?
I have my own hypothesis for this, based on examination of Labour's behaviour in its fiefdoms in Wales -- but I am interested in the Labour party's explanation.
In 2014 Labour repeatedly called Independence supporters Nazis.
What happened next followed logically from that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBH55ZeZU4w0 -
Um. The medical regulatory system has changed in the staff / resources available to it.RobD said:
The EU hasn't suddenly changed now that the UK has left. It is the same as it ever was.williamglenn said:
It's a bit premature to talk about saving lives when we still have the worst death toll in Europe.Fishing said:
Once you are round the negotiating table in Brussels, there is a powerful urge to be seen to be "communautaire", i.e. to sell out your country's interests for an illusory payback at the European level, while giving more and more power to the Eurocracy. So, in theory, we could have stayed outside the vaccine scheme if we hadn't left. In practice, we might not have done so. And we have probably saved thousands, or maybe tens of thousands, of lives as a result.williamglenn said:
The EU's scheme is voluntary. We wouldn't have been 'shackled' to it, and it might not even have existed in that form if we had been part of the decision making process.RobD said:
Because slow as they are, that's not the biggest problem with the EU's scheme.williamglenn said:
Why do you think our vaccine rollout would have been any different if we'd been in the EU and the European Medicines Agency had still been in London?Mysticrose said:1. Brexit has not (yet) been the disaster some were excitedly predicting. Yes there are teething issues but, frankly, it has gone quite smoothly so far. We have a trade deal and our vaccine rollout is undeniably faster thanks to shaking off the EU shackles.
Surely as a British patriot you must look at it the other way round: if the EU had been able to benefit from the presence of a country with a superior model for the delivery of healthcare, then the scheme would have been planned differently, to the benefit of hundreds of millions of Europeans.1 -
No, I'm saying that blaming the EU's slow vaccine rollout on Brexit is utterly ridiculous.williamglenn said:
So you don't think the loss of the UK was a significant blow? Typical anti-British attitude.RobD said:
The EU hasn't suddenly changed now that the UK has left. It is the same as it ever was.williamglenn said:
It's a bit premature to talk about saving lives when we still have the worst death toll in Europe.Fishing said:
Once you are round the negotiating table in Brussels, there is a powerful urge to be seen to be "communautaire", i.e. to sell out your country's interests for an illusory payback at the European level, while giving more and more power to the Eurocracy. So, in theory, we could have stayed outside the vaccine scheme if we hadn't left. In practice, we might not have done so. And we have probably saved thousands, or maybe tens of thousands, of lives as a result.williamglenn said:
The EU's scheme is voluntary. We wouldn't have been 'shackled' to it, and it might not even have existed in that form if we had been part of the decision making process.RobD said:
Because slow as they are, that's not the biggest problem with the EU's scheme.williamglenn said:
Why do you think our vaccine rollout would have been any different if we'd been in the EU and the European Medicines Agency had still been in London?Mysticrose said:1. Brexit has not (yet) been the disaster some were excitedly predicting. Yes there are teething issues but, frankly, it has gone quite smoothly so far. We have a trade deal and our vaccine rollout is undeniably faster thanks to shaking off the EU shackles.
Surely as a British patriot you must look at it the other way round: if the EU had been able to benefit from the presence of a country with a superior model for the delivery of healthcare, then the scheme would have been planned differently, to the benefit of hundreds of millions of Europeans.1 -
Yes, there was a good bit of thread after the US election in which it was claimed that Biden's personal loathing for Boris would lead to him and the UK being shunned and ostracized during his presidency. That thread ended in the breaking news that Biden's first phone call to other world leaders had been a long chat with BorisFrancisUrquhart said:The Sunday Telegraph reports that Biden is planning on making the United Kingdom the site of his first trip outside of North America.
I seemed to.remember 100s of tweets about how Biden hates Boris so much he will blank him and the UK....
And now that Biden's first overseas visit will be to the UK, we'll no doubt never hear another word on the subject again...2 -
Presumably Labours task is to convince ex lab - now SNP - voters that their aspirations in terms of social justice an fairness etc etc can be achieved within the UK without taking the perceived risk of independence.Carnyx said:
Especially after SKS and his pronouncements/votes on Brexit and indyref 2, I expect.Alistair said:
The Left-Wing Indy supporters who voted SNP in 2015 and then Labour in 2017 attracted by Corbyn went back to SNP in 2019 and are not coming back.justin124 said:HYUFD said:
That former junior 1970s minister left Labour over the Iraq War and is an SNP member.malcolmg said:No future for Scottish Labour if it remains Unionist, former minister says
A FORMER Labour minister has said there is no future for Labour in Scotland if it continues to be a Unionist party.
In an exclusive interview with the Sunday National in the wake of leader Richard Leonard’s resignation, Les Huckfield said that unless the party changed its stance on independence it was “never going to get anywhere”.
https://www.thenational.scot/news/19017357.no-future-scottish-labour-remains-unionist-former-minister-says/
Labour is not going to win back Nat voters from the SNP, its best hope is to remain a Unionist Party and win Tory and LD tactical votes to beat the SNP
I believe there are many voters who vote SNP for Holyrood who can be persuaded to support Labour for Westminster. The 2017 GE provided evidence of that.HYUFD said:
That former junior 1970s minister left Labour over the Iraq War and is an SNP member.malcolmg said:No future for Scottish Labour if it remains Unionist, former minister says
A FORMER Labour minister has said there is no future for Labour in Scotland if it continues to be a Unionist party.
In an exclusive interview with the Sunday National in the wake of leader Richard Leonard’s resignation, Les Huckfield said that unless the party changed its stance on independence it was “never going to get anywhere”.
https://www.thenational.scot/news/19017357.no-future-scottish-labour-remains-unionist-former-minister-says/
Labour is not going to win back Nat voters from the SNP, its best hope is to remain a Unionist Party and win Tory and LD tactical votes to beat the SNP
We’ve not really got under the skin of those issues so far. I.e for all the issues with Scottish fishing now, what’s to say there wouldn’t be larger, more damaging issues with Indy (which is entirely a possibility considering rUK makes up approx of 60 bill worth of Scottish exports). I’ve not yet seen a convincing argument for that.0 -
Thank goodness that the UK has 'probably saved thousands, or maybe tens of thousands, of lives' otherwise the UK might have the highest number of deaths in Europe.Fishing said:
Once you are round the negotiating table in Brussels, there is a powerful urge to be seen to be "communautaire", i.e. to sell out your country's interests for an illusory payback at the European level, while giving more and more power to the Eurocracy. So, in theory, we could have stayed outside the vaccine scheme if we hadn't left. In practice, we might not have done so. And we have probably saved thousands, or maybe tens of thousands, of lives as a result.williamglenn said:
The EU's scheme is voluntary. We wouldn't have been 'shackled' to it, and it might not even have existed in that form if we had been part of the decision making process.RobD said:
Because slow as they are, that's not the biggest problem with the EU's scheme.williamglenn said:
Why do you think our vaccine rollout would have been any different if we'd been in the EU and the European Medicines Agency had still been in London?Mysticrose said:1. Brexit has not (yet) been the disaster some were excitedly predicting. Yes there are teething issues but, frankly, it has gone quite smoothly so far. We have a trade deal and our vaccine rollout is undeniably faster thanks to shaking off the EU shackles.
0 -
If, say, Germany left, and then the EU made a mess of something, I'm sure people would be saying the problem was the lack of German expertise.RobD said:
No, I'm saying that blaming the EU's slow vaccine rollout on Brexit is utterly ridiculous.williamglenn said:
So you don't think the loss of the UK was a significant blow? Typical anti-British attitude.RobD said:
The EU hasn't suddenly changed now that the UK has left. It is the same as it ever was.williamglenn said:
It's a bit premature to talk about saving lives when we still have the worst death toll in Europe.Fishing said:
Once you are round the negotiating table in Brussels, there is a powerful urge to be seen to be "communautaire", i.e. to sell out your country's interests for an illusory payback at the European level, while giving more and more power to the Eurocracy. So, in theory, we could have stayed outside the vaccine scheme if we hadn't left. In practice, we might not have done so. And we have probably saved thousands, or maybe tens of thousands, of lives as a result.williamglenn said:
The EU's scheme is voluntary. We wouldn't have been 'shackled' to it, and it might not even have existed in that form if we had been part of the decision making process.RobD said:
Because slow as they are, that's not the biggest problem with the EU's scheme.williamglenn said:
Why do you think our vaccine rollout would have been any different if we'd been in the EU and the European Medicines Agency had still been in London?Mysticrose said:1. Brexit has not (yet) been the disaster some were excitedly predicting. Yes there are teething issues but, frankly, it has gone quite smoothly so far. We have a trade deal and our vaccine rollout is undeniably faster thanks to shaking off the EU shackles.
Surely as a British patriot you must look at it the other way round: if the EU had been able to benefit from the presence of a country with a superior model for the delivery of healthcare, then the scheme would have been planned differently, to the benefit of hundreds of millions of Europeans.0 -
The UKs response to vaccines has been - world beating. We can give credit for that.Theuniondivvie said:
Thank goodness that the UK has 'probably saved thousands, or maybe tens of thousands, of lives' otherwise the UK might have the highest number of deaths in Europe.Fishing said:
Once you are round the negotiating table in Brussels, there is a powerful urge to be seen to be "communautaire", i.e. to sell out your country's interests for an illusory payback at the European level, while giving more and more power to the Eurocracy. So, in theory, we could have stayed outside the vaccine scheme if we hadn't left. In practice, we might not have done so. And we have probably saved thousands, or maybe tens of thousands, of lives as a result.williamglenn said:
The EU's scheme is voluntary. We wouldn't have been 'shackled' to it, and it might not even have existed in that form if we had been part of the decision making process.RobD said:
Because slow as they are, that's not the biggest problem with the EU's scheme.williamglenn said:
Why do you think our vaccine rollout would have been any different if we'd been in the EU and the European Medicines Agency had still been in London?Mysticrose said:1. Brexit has not (yet) been the disaster some were excitedly predicting. Yes there are teething issues but, frankly, it has gone quite smoothly so far. We have a trade deal and our vaccine rollout is undeniably faster thanks to shaking off the EU shackles.
It’s response to the pandemic - has not.4 -
Especially if it this venal halfwit making the decisions or some other Tory wrong 'un like himstodge said:Morning all
I'm going to be different and say with one important caveat, I'm fairly supportive of Robert Jenrick's proposals on statues. It should be up to local people to decide and the planning consultation process is as good a method as any.
Where I part company is the notion a Minister will have the final veto - this is grotesque centralisation typical of how this Government thinks and acts. This isn't about a 2,000 home development on farmland - this is about a local statue and it should be left to the elected local councillors to take the final decision.
Conservatives used to believe in decentralisation - now it seems every decision has to either go through No.10 or Whitehall.1 -
Um, that's because the G7 is here this year - I suspect you are reading more into it than I would be.BluestBlue said:
Yes, there was a good bit of thread after the US election in which it was claimed that Biden's personal loathing for Boris would lead to him and the UK being shunned and ostracized during his presidency. That thread ended in the breaking news that Biden's first phone call to other world leaders had been a long chat with BorisFrancisUrquhart said:The Sunday Telegraph reports that Biden is planning on making the United Kingdom the site of his first trip outside of North America.
I seemed to.remember 100s of tweets about how Biden hates Boris so much he will blank him and the UK....
And now that Biden's first overseas visit will be to the UK, we'll no doubt never hear another word on the subject again...0 -
Yanks do have quite a droll British sense of humour about whom they choose as their heroes.Fishing said:
If I recall, JPJ succeeded in getting his own ship sunk in the engagement that made his reputation in the USA.
(Don't mention the earlier stuff, though.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-jZ5qxlqjU0 -
they are usually empty though, not many people will be interested after 10pmFrancisUrquhart said:
Some supermarket pharmacies are already open 18hrs a day. And the store are open 24hrs, with staff and security, so you send jabbers there with little extra hassle. Much easier than a civic centre that never nornally opens during those sort of hours.malcolmg said:
Yes a couple of shelfstackers filling in will do the trick.FrancisUrquhart said:
They aren't struggling for people to rapidly expand the programme. The trials will be at supermarkets pharmacies who already have people working nearly 24hrs already.eek said:
Um, you need to find people to do it.FrancisUrquhart said:NHS chief executive Simon Stevens says a 24/7 vaccinations pilot will begin in 10 days' time
Too slow. Should have been setup by now.and quickly get a handle on if it will work.0 -
What has this got to do with experience? It's all about bureaucracy and national self-interest with regards to vaccine production contracts.williamglenn said:
If, say, Germany left, and then the EU made a mess of something, I'm sure people would be saying the problem was the lack of German expertise.RobD said:
No, I'm saying that blaming the EU's slow vaccine rollout on Brexit is utterly ridiculous.williamglenn said:
So you don't think the loss of the UK was a significant blow? Typical anti-British attitude.RobD said:
The EU hasn't suddenly changed now that the UK has left. It is the same as it ever was.williamglenn said:
It's a bit premature to talk about saving lives when we still have the worst death toll in Europe.Fishing said:
Once you are round the negotiating table in Brussels, there is a powerful urge to be seen to be "communautaire", i.e. to sell out your country's interests for an illusory payback at the European level, while giving more and more power to the Eurocracy. So, in theory, we could have stayed outside the vaccine scheme if we hadn't left. In practice, we might not have done so. And we have probably saved thousands, or maybe tens of thousands, of lives as a result.williamglenn said:
The EU's scheme is voluntary. We wouldn't have been 'shackled' to it, and it might not even have existed in that form if we had been part of the decision making process.RobD said:
Because slow as they are, that's not the biggest problem with the EU's scheme.williamglenn said:
Why do you think our vaccine rollout would have been any different if we'd been in the EU and the European Medicines Agency had still been in London?Mysticrose said:1. Brexit has not (yet) been the disaster some were excitedly predicting. Yes there are teething issues but, frankly, it has gone quite smoothly so far. We have a trade deal and our vaccine rollout is undeniably faster thanks to shaking off the EU shackles.
Surely as a British patriot you must look at it the other way round: if the EU had been able to benefit from the presence of a country with a superior model for the delivery of healthcare, then the scheme would have been planned differently, to the benefit of hundreds of millions of Europeans.1 -
It’s a sign of our massively insecure national ego that we have such discussions at all. The insane handwringing in so many quarters about that freaking bust of Churchill that Bush Jr borrowed was, from any objective standpoint, childish in the extreme. Why should we care how a man decorates his office? I also remember the Daily Mail absolutely freaking out on its front page about Obama referring, quite accurately, to France as being their “oldest ally”. Mad. Quite mad.kle4 said:
It doesn't and never did, it's a desperate sign of neediness and quite unattractive of this country.RobD said:
I'm now just waiting for the 100s of tweets about how where he visits first doesn't matter.Andy_JS said:
I'm sure the same thing has happened many times before, for example with Obama and which European leader he was going to phone first. Everyone said it wouldn't be the UK, and in the end it was.FrancisUrquhart said:The Sunday Telegraph reports that Biden is planning on making the United Kingdom the site of his first trip outside of North America.
I seemed to.remember 100s of tweets about how Biden hates Boris so much he will blank him and the UK....
However, it is also true that various people act as though it matters and then change tune if we are near the top of the list, and those people cannot have it both ways.1 -
Our model of subsidising domestic manufacturing was never going to be possible within the EU, it's the main reason we stayed out of it because our deal with AZ was based on a huge domestic manufacturing investment. In the EU that becomes an argument about who gets what subsidies and which companies in which countries get the resulting jobs, especially given that pharma is a high value industry where loads of European countries are lacking investment from private industry.williamglenn said:
It's a bit premature to talk about saving lives when we still have the worst death toll in Europe.Fishing said:
Once you are round the negotiating table in Brussels, there is a powerful urge to be seen to be "communautaire", i.e. to sell out your country's interests for an illusory payback at the European level, while giving more and more power to the Eurocracy. So, in theory, we could have stayed outside the vaccine scheme if we hadn't left. In practice, we might not have done so. And we have probably saved thousands, or maybe tens of thousands, of lives as a result.williamglenn said:
The EU's scheme is voluntary. We wouldn't have been 'shackled' to it, and it might not even have existed in that form if we had been part of the decision making process.RobD said:
Because slow as they are, that's not the biggest problem with the EU's scheme.williamglenn said:
Why do you think our vaccine rollout would have been any different if we'd been in the EU and the European Medicines Agency had still been in London?Mysticrose said:1. Brexit has not (yet) been the disaster some were excitedly predicting. Yes there are teething issues but, frankly, it has gone quite smoothly so far. We have a trade deal and our vaccine rollout is undeniably faster thanks to shaking off the EU shackles.
Surely as a British patriot you must look at it the other way round: if the EU had been able to benefit from the presence of a country with a superior model for the delivery of healthcare, then the scheme would have been planned differently, to the benefit of hundreds of millions of Europeans.
Ultimately the EU scheme is pants and we've done well to stay out of it. You need to be realistic and realise that one member out of 27 asking for a different way of doing things will end up making no difference. There's 30 years of evidence to support that.2 -
Tbf YBarddCwsc was wondering what Labour's own explanation was.Alistair said:
It is very simple, a large proportion of Labour voters in 2010 were in favour of Independence.YBarddCwsc said:
One thing I have never seen -- though presumably it must exist -- is Labour's own explanation for the catastrophe that engulfed the Party in Scotland.justin124 said:
I believe there are many voters who vote SNP for Holyrood who can be persuaded to support Labour for Westminster. The 2017 GE provided evidence of that.
To go from holding 41 seats in 2010 (many with huge majorities and held continuously for many decades) to just 1 in 2015 does require more of an explanation than "we campaigned on the winning side with the wicked Tories in a referendum".
I would be moderately interested in whether Labour have inquired as to why the catastrophe happened & in the famous phrase of politicians -- what lessons were learned. 😉
How did they lose the hearts and minds of the working class voters in the Central Belt so suddenly and comprehensively?
I have my own hypothesis for this, based on examination of Labour's behaviour in its fiefdoms in Wales -- but I am interested in the Labour party's explanation.
In 2014 Labour repeatedly called Independence supporters Nazis.
What happened next followed logically from that.
There are quite a few out there, mainly one faction blaming it on another faction, or occasionally uniting to blame it all on the demonic EssEnnPee. None of them take any personal responsibility, hence SLab are still Donald Ducked and will continue to be whoever gets Buggins' turn for the leadership next.
1 -
If the EMA had still been in London it is quite possible that vaccine approval would have been faster - so the slower pace of vaccine roll out in the EU may indeed be a function of the EU's reaction to Brexit.RobD said:
No, I'm saying that blaming the EU's slow vaccine rollout on Brexit is utterly ridiculous.williamglenn said:
So you don't think the loss of the UK was a significant blow? Typical anti-British attitude.RobD said:
The EU hasn't suddenly changed now that the UK has left. It is the same as it ever was.williamglenn said:
It's a bit premature to talk about saving lives when we still have the worst death toll in Europe.Fishing said:
Once you are round the negotiating table in Brussels, there is a powerful urge to be seen to be "communautaire", i.e. to sell out your country's interests for an illusory payback at the European level, while giving more and more power to the Eurocracy. So, in theory, we could have stayed outside the vaccine scheme if we hadn't left. In practice, we might not have done so. And we have probably saved thousands, or maybe tens of thousands, of lives as a result.williamglenn said:
The EU's scheme is voluntary. We wouldn't have been 'shackled' to it, and it might not even have existed in that form if we had been part of the decision making process.RobD said:
Because slow as they are, that's not the biggest problem with the EU's scheme.williamglenn said:
Why do you think our vaccine rollout would have been any different if we'd been in the EU and the European Medicines Agency had still been in London?Mysticrose said:1. Brexit has not (yet) been the disaster some were excitedly predicting. Yes there are teething issues but, frankly, it has gone quite smoothly so far. We have a trade deal and our vaccine rollout is undeniably faster thanks to shaking off the EU shackles.
Surely as a British patriot you must look at it the other way round: if the EU had been able to benefit from the presence of a country with a superior model for the delivery of healthcare, then the scheme would have been planned differently, to the benefit of hundreds of millions of Europeans.
2 -
And the UK was traditionally a successful voice for a free market approach rather than national self-interest.RobD said:
What has this got to do with experience? It's all about bureaucracy and national self-interest with regards to vaccine contracts.williamglenn said:
If, say, Germany left, and then the EU made a mess of something, I'm sure people would be saying the problem was the lack of German expertise.RobD said:
No, I'm saying that blaming the EU's slow vaccine rollout on Brexit is utterly ridiculous.williamglenn said:
So you don't think the loss of the UK was a significant blow? Typical anti-British attitude.RobD said:
The EU hasn't suddenly changed now that the UK has left. It is the same as it ever was.williamglenn said:
It's a bit premature to talk about saving lives when we still have the worst death toll in Europe.Fishing said:
Once you are round the negotiating table in Brussels, there is a powerful urge to be seen to be "communautaire", i.e. to sell out your country's interests for an illusory payback at the European level, while giving more and more power to the Eurocracy. So, in theory, we could have stayed outside the vaccine scheme if we hadn't left. In practice, we might not have done so. And we have probably saved thousands, or maybe tens of thousands, of lives as a result.williamglenn said:
The EU's scheme is voluntary. We wouldn't have been 'shackled' to it, and it might not even have existed in that form if we had been part of the decision making process.RobD said:
Because slow as they are, that's not the biggest problem with the EU's scheme.williamglenn said:
Why do you think our vaccine rollout would have been any different if we'd been in the EU and the European Medicines Agency had still been in London?Mysticrose said:1. Brexit has not (yet) been the disaster some were excitedly predicting. Yes there are teething issues but, frankly, it has gone quite smoothly so far. We have a trade deal and our vaccine rollout is undeniably faster thanks to shaking off the EU shackles.
Surely as a British patriot you must look at it the other way round: if the EU had been able to benefit from the presence of a country with a superior model for the delivery of healthcare, then the scheme would have been planned differently, to the benefit of hundreds of millions of Europeans.0 -
Is Air Force One short of jet fuel? If a US President were determined to visit somewhere else first, it wouldn't be hard to make it happen.eek said:
Um, that's because the G7 is here this year - I suspect you are reading more into it than I would be.BluestBlue said:
Yes, there was a good bit of thread after the US election in which it was claimed that Biden's personal loathing for Boris would lead to him and the UK being shunned and ostracized during his presidency. That thread ended in the breaking news that Biden's first phone call to other world leaders had been a long chat with BorisFrancisUrquhart said:The Sunday Telegraph reports that Biden is planning on making the United Kingdom the site of his first trip outside of North America.
I seemed to.remember 100s of tweets about how Biden hates Boris so much he will blank him and the UK....
And now that Biden's first overseas visit will be to the UK, we'll no doubt never hear another word on the subject again...1 -
LOL, unionists will grasp at any straw for their inferiority complex of Global Britainwilliamglenn said:
In other words he’s not going to make any foreign visits until the G7 meeting.FrancisUrquhart said:The Sunday Telegraph reports that Biden is planning on making the United Kingdom the site of his first trip outside of North America..
0 -
What is interesting / different about the vaccine roll out isnthe sense of urgency. We need to do 350k/day, hmm seems like going some...oh we have hit that, right 500k/day by next week and we want to do 5m / week in 2-3 months time.Razedabode said:
The UKs response to vaccines has been - world beating. We can give credit for that.Theuniondivvie said:
Thank goodness that the UK has 'probably saved thousands, or maybe tens of thousands, of lives' otherwise the UK might have the highest number of deaths in Europe.Fishing said:
Once you are round the negotiating table in Brussels, there is a powerful urge to be seen to be "communautaire", i.e. to sell out your country's interests for an illusory payback at the European level, while giving more and more power to the Eurocracy. So, in theory, we could have stayed outside the vaccine scheme if we hadn't left. In practice, we might not have done so. And we have probably saved thousands, or maybe tens of thousands, of lives as a result.williamglenn said:
The EU's scheme is voluntary. We wouldn't have been 'shackled' to it, and it might not even have existed in that form if we had been part of the decision making process.RobD said:
Because slow as they are, that's not the biggest problem with the EU's scheme.williamglenn said:
Why do you think our vaccine rollout would have been any different if we'd been in the EU and the European Medicines Agency had still been in London?Mysticrose said:1. Brexit has not (yet) been the disaster some were excitedly predicting. Yes there are teething issues but, frankly, it has gone quite smoothly so far. We have a trade deal and our vaccine rollout is undeniably faster thanks to shaking off the EU shackles.
It’s response to the pandemic - has not.
So many other aspects in handling of the pandemic have felt like the old stereotype of a Spanish workman, mañana.4 -
Either it was a lone voice in that regards, in which case it wouldn't have mattered, or there are other countries with a similar voice, in which case it clearly had no effect on the final outcome.williamglenn said:
And the UK was traditionally a successful voice for a free market approach rather than national self-interest.RobD said:
What has this got to do with experience? It's all about bureaucracy and national self-interest with regards to vaccine contracts.williamglenn said:
If, say, Germany left, and then the EU made a mess of something, I'm sure people would be saying the problem was the lack of German expertise.RobD said:
No, I'm saying that blaming the EU's slow vaccine rollout on Brexit is utterly ridiculous.williamglenn said:
So you don't think the loss of the UK was a significant blow? Typical anti-British attitude.RobD said:
The EU hasn't suddenly changed now that the UK has left. It is the same as it ever was.williamglenn said:
It's a bit premature to talk about saving lives when we still have the worst death toll in Europe.Fishing said:
Once you are round the negotiating table in Brussels, there is a powerful urge to be seen to be "communautaire", i.e. to sell out your country's interests for an illusory payback at the European level, while giving more and more power to the Eurocracy. So, in theory, we could have stayed outside the vaccine scheme if we hadn't left. In practice, we might not have done so. And we have probably saved thousands, or maybe tens of thousands, of lives as a result.williamglenn said:
The EU's scheme is voluntary. We wouldn't have been 'shackled' to it, and it might not even have existed in that form if we had been part of the decision making process.RobD said:
Because slow as they are, that's not the biggest problem with the EU's scheme.williamglenn said:
Why do you think our vaccine rollout would have been any different if we'd been in the EU and the European Medicines Agency had still been in London?Mysticrose said:1. Brexit has not (yet) been the disaster some were excitedly predicting. Yes there are teething issues but, frankly, it has gone quite smoothly so far. We have a trade deal and our vaccine rollout is undeniably faster thanks to shaking off the EU shackles.
Surely as a British patriot you must look at it the other way round: if the EU had been able to benefit from the presence of a country with a superior model for the delivery of healthcare, then the scheme would have been planned differently, to the benefit of hundreds of millions of Europeans.0 -
I think 18 hours a day is doable but 24? If nothing else I would like to see any premises being used as a temporary medical facility, with thousands of visitors, thoroughly cleaned on a daily basis.FrancisUrquhart said:
Some supermarket pharmacies are already open 18hrs a day. And the store are open 24hrs, with staff and security, so you send jabbers there with little extra hassle. Much easier than a civic centre that never nornally opens during those sort of hours.malcolmg said:
Yes a couple of shelfstackers filling in will do the trick.FrancisUrquhart said:
They aren't struggling for people to rapidly expand the programme. The trials will be at supermarkets pharmacies who already have people working nearly 24hrs already.eek said:
Um, you need to find people to do it.FrancisUrquhart said:NHS chief executive Simon Stevens says a 24/7 vaccinations pilot will begin in 10 days' time
Too slow. Should have been setup by now.and quickly get a handle on if it will work.
1 -
BR wasn't 'his' ship or even US property - it was French Royal property. And he ended up with HMS Serapis as a prize. Net gain of prestige for the US and I expect dosh for JPJ though I don't know how the prize system worked in the Marine Royale.MattW said:
Yanks do have quite a British sense of humour about whom they choose as their heroes.Fishing said:
If I recall, JPJ succeeded in getting his own ship sunk in the engagement that made his reputation in the USA.
(Don't mention the earlier stuff, though.)0 -
One group I hope the Gov't sticks to the original vaccination plan with are the immune suppressed, those are the most likely to have mutant & resistant strains evolve within themselves if the vaccination is half done.2
-
In terms of death rate we're some way off highest:Theuniondivvie said:
Thank goodness that the UK has 'probably saved thousands, or maybe tens of thousands, of lives' otherwise the UK might have the highest number of deaths in Europe.Fishing said:
Once you are round the negotiating table in Brussels, there is a powerful urge to be seen to be "communautaire", i.e. to sell out your country's interests for an illusory payback at the European level, while giving more and more power to the Eurocracy. So, in theory, we could have stayed outside the vaccine scheme if we hadn't left. In practice, we might not have done so. And we have probably saved thousands, or maybe tens of thousands, of lives as a result.williamglenn said:
The EU's scheme is voluntary. We wouldn't have been 'shackled' to it, and it might not even have existed in that form if we had been part of the decision making process.RobD said:
Because slow as they are, that's not the biggest problem with the EU's scheme.williamglenn said:
Why do you think our vaccine rollout would have been any different if we'd been in the EU and the European Medicines Agency had still been in London?Mysticrose said:1. Brexit has not (yet) been the disaster some were excitedly predicting. Yes there are teething issues but, frankly, it has gone quite smoothly so far. We have a trade deal and our vaccine rollout is undeniably faster thanks to shaking off the EU shackles.
https://twitter.com/redouad/status/1350748193592643584?s=20
4 -
It's actually the opposite, the UK took a statist approach of subsidies for manufacturing while the EU took the free market "let's get a big discount" one. They failed to factor in the opportunity cost of a 6-12 month delay to full national immunisation so they could save a few billion euros from the sticker price.williamglenn said:
And the UK was traditionally a successful voice for a free market approach rather than national self-interest.RobD said:
What has this got to do with experience? It's all about bureaucracy and national self-interest with regards to vaccine contracts.williamglenn said:
If, say, Germany left, and then the EU made a mess of something, I'm sure people would be saying the problem was the lack of German expertise.RobD said:
No, I'm saying that blaming the EU's slow vaccine rollout on Brexit is utterly ridiculous.williamglenn said:
So you don't think the loss of the UK was a significant blow? Typical anti-British attitude.RobD said:
The EU hasn't suddenly changed now that the UK has left. It is the same as it ever was.williamglenn said:
It's a bit premature to talk about saving lives when we still have the worst death toll in Europe.Fishing said:
Once you are round the negotiating table in Brussels, there is a powerful urge to be seen to be "communautaire", i.e. to sell out your country's interests for an illusory payback at the European level, while giving more and more power to the Eurocracy. So, in theory, we could have stayed outside the vaccine scheme if we hadn't left. In practice, we might not have done so. And we have probably saved thousands, or maybe tens of thousands, of lives as a result.williamglenn said:
The EU's scheme is voluntary. We wouldn't have been 'shackled' to it, and it might not even have existed in that form if we had been part of the decision making process.RobD said:
Because slow as they are, that's not the biggest problem with the EU's scheme.williamglenn said:
Why do you think our vaccine rollout would have been any different if we'd been in the EU and the European Medicines Agency had still been in London?Mysticrose said:1. Brexit has not (yet) been the disaster some were excitedly predicting. Yes there are teething issues but, frankly, it has gone quite smoothly so far. We have a trade deal and our vaccine rollout is undeniably faster thanks to shaking off the EU shackles.
Surely as a British patriot you must look at it the other way round: if the EU had been able to benefit from the presence of a country with a superior model for the delivery of healthcare, then the scheme would have been planned differently, to the benefit of hundreds of millions of Europeans.
You need to admit to yourself that they fucked it up. The EU got it wrong. Deal with it.4 -
As we were frequently told by Brexiteers, the UK was the equivalent of 19 member states, so carried some weight. If Brexit hadn't happened, we would have been the host of the medicines regulator, as well as having a central government with unique direct experience of operational issues because of the structure of the NHS. It's not much of a stretch to think that we would have had significant influence on what the EU did.RobD said:
Either it was a lone voice in that regards, in which case it wouldn't have mattered, or there are other countries with a similar voice, in which case it clearly had no effect on the final outcome.williamglenn said:
And the UK was traditionally a successful voice for a free market approach rather than national self-interest.RobD said:
What has this got to do with experience? It's all about bureaucracy and national self-interest with regards to vaccine contracts.williamglenn said:
If, say, Germany left, and then the EU made a mess of something, I'm sure people would be saying the problem was the lack of German expertise.RobD said:
No, I'm saying that blaming the EU's slow vaccine rollout on Brexit is utterly ridiculous.williamglenn said:
So you don't think the loss of the UK was a significant blow? Typical anti-British attitude.RobD said:
The EU hasn't suddenly changed now that the UK has left. It is the same as it ever was.williamglenn said:
It's a bit premature to talk about saving lives when we still have the worst death toll in Europe.Fishing said:
Once you are round the negotiating table in Brussels, there is a powerful urge to be seen to be "communautaire", i.e. to sell out your country's interests for an illusory payback at the European level, while giving more and more power to the Eurocracy. So, in theory, we could have stayed outside the vaccine scheme if we hadn't left. In practice, we might not have done so. And we have probably saved thousands, or maybe tens of thousands, of lives as a result.williamglenn said:
The EU's scheme is voluntary. We wouldn't have been 'shackled' to it, and it might not even have existed in that form if we had been part of the decision making process.RobD said:
Because slow as they are, that's not the biggest problem with the EU's scheme.williamglenn said:
Why do you think our vaccine rollout would have been any different if we'd been in the EU and the European Medicines Agency had still been in London?Mysticrose said:1. Brexit has not (yet) been the disaster some were excitedly predicting. Yes there are teething issues but, frankly, it has gone quite smoothly so far. We have a trade deal and our vaccine rollout is undeniably faster thanks to shaking off the EU shackles.
Surely as a British patriot you must look at it the other way round: if the EU had been able to benefit from the presence of a country with a superior model for the delivery of healthcare, then the scheme would have been planned differently, to the benefit of hundreds of millions of Europeans.0 -
I think the whole thing is quite wonderful. :-)Carnyx said:
BR wasn't 'his' ship or even US property - it was French Royal property. And he ended up with HMS Serapis as a prize. Net gain of prestige for the US and I expect dosh for JPJ though I don't know how the prize system worked in the Marine Royale.MattW said:
Yanks do have quite a British sense of humour about whom they choose as their heroes.Fishing said:
If I recall, JPJ succeeded in getting his own ship sunk in the engagement that made his reputation in the USA.
(Don't mention the earlier stuff, though.)
Certainly an interesting man ... charlatan, buccaneer, killer, bit of a serial con-artist, underdog, hero ... and all the rest. Very 18th Century.
Quite appropriate that the ship named for him defeated an alien invasion in a feature film.0 -
We have 30 years worth of experience and evidence that suggests the opposite. You're delusional.williamglenn said:
As we were frequently told by Brexiteers, the UK was the equivalent of 19 member states, so carried some weight. If Brexit hadn't happened, we would have been the host of the medicines regulator, as well as having a central government with unique direct experience of operational issues because of the structure of the NHS. It's not much of a stretch to think that we would have had significant influence on what the EU did.RobD said:
Either it was a lone voice in that regards, in which case it wouldn't have mattered, or there are other countries with a similar voice, in which case it clearly had no effect on the final outcome.williamglenn said:
And the UK was traditionally a successful voice for a free market approach rather than national self-interest.RobD said:
What has this got to do with experience? It's all about bureaucracy and national self-interest with regards to vaccine contracts.williamglenn said:
If, say, Germany left, and then the EU made a mess of something, I'm sure people would be saying the problem was the lack of German expertise.RobD said:
No, I'm saying that blaming the EU's slow vaccine rollout on Brexit is utterly ridiculous.williamglenn said:
So you don't think the loss of the UK was a significant blow? Typical anti-British attitude.RobD said:
The EU hasn't suddenly changed now that the UK has left. It is the same as it ever was.williamglenn said:
It's a bit premature to talk about saving lives when we still have the worst death toll in Europe.Fishing said:
Once you are round the negotiating table in Brussels, there is a powerful urge to be seen to be "communautaire", i.e. to sell out your country's interests for an illusory payback at the European level, while giving more and more power to the Eurocracy. So, in theory, we could have stayed outside the vaccine scheme if we hadn't left. In practice, we might not have done so. And we have probably saved thousands, or maybe tens of thousands, of lives as a result.williamglenn said:
The EU's scheme is voluntary. We wouldn't have been 'shackled' to it, and it might not even have existed in that form if we had been part of the decision making process.RobD said:
Because slow as they are, that's not the biggest problem with the EU's scheme.williamglenn said:
Why do you think our vaccine rollout would have been any different if we'd been in the EU and the European Medicines Agency had still been in London?Mysticrose said:1. Brexit has not (yet) been the disaster some were excitedly predicting. Yes there are teething issues but, frankly, it has gone quite smoothly so far. We have a trade deal and our vaccine rollout is undeniably faster thanks to shaking off the EU shackles.
Surely as a British patriot you must look at it the other way round: if the EU had been able to benefit from the presence of a country with a superior model for the delivery of healthcare, then the scheme would have been planned differently, to the benefit of hundreds of millions of Europeans.1 -
More anti-British defeatism.MaxPB said:
We have 30 years worth of experience and evidence that suggests the opposite. You're delusional.williamglenn said:
As we were frequently told by Brexiteers, the UK was the equivalent of 19 member states, so carried some weight. If Brexit hadn't happened, we would have been the host of the medicines regulator, as well as having a central government with unique direct experience of operational issues because of the structure of the NHS. It's not much of a stretch to think that we would have had significant influence on what the EU did.RobD said:
Either it was a lone voice in that regards, in which case it wouldn't have mattered, or there are other countries with a similar voice, in which case it clearly had no effect on the final outcome.williamglenn said:
And the UK was traditionally a successful voice for a free market approach rather than national self-interest.RobD said:
What has this got to do with experience? It's all about bureaucracy and national self-interest with regards to vaccine contracts.williamglenn said:
If, say, Germany left, and then the EU made a mess of something, I'm sure people would be saying the problem was the lack of German expertise.RobD said:
No, I'm saying that blaming the EU's slow vaccine rollout on Brexit is utterly ridiculous.williamglenn said:
So you don't think the loss of the UK was a significant blow? Typical anti-British attitude.RobD said:
The EU hasn't suddenly changed now that the UK has left. It is the same as it ever was.williamglenn said:
It's a bit premature to talk about saving lives when we still have the worst death toll in Europe.Fishing said:
Once you are round the negotiating table in Brussels, there is a powerful urge to be seen to be "communautaire", i.e. to sell out your country's interests for an illusory payback at the European level, while giving more and more power to the Eurocracy. So, in theory, we could have stayed outside the vaccine scheme if we hadn't left. In practice, we might not have done so. And we have probably saved thousands, or maybe tens of thousands, of lives as a result.williamglenn said:
The EU's scheme is voluntary. We wouldn't have been 'shackled' to it, and it might not even have existed in that form if we had been part of the decision making process.RobD said:
Because slow as they are, that's not the biggest problem with the EU's scheme.williamglenn said:
Why do you think our vaccine rollout would have been any different if we'd been in the EU and the European Medicines Agency had still been in London?Mysticrose said:1. Brexit has not (yet) been the disaster some were excitedly predicting. Yes there are teething issues but, frankly, it has gone quite smoothly so far. We have a trade deal and our vaccine rollout is undeniably faster thanks to shaking off the EU shackles.
Surely as a British patriot you must look at it the other way round: if the EU had been able to benefit from the presence of a country with a superior model for the delivery of healthcare, then the scheme would have been planned differently, to the benefit of hundreds of millions of Europeans.0 -
At some point in the next couple of years this pandemic will be declared over by the WHO (yes - honestly - it will) and it is at that point, or maybe shortly before, that we can discuss the success or otherwise of the approach of various countries. In the meantime no one is entitled to count their chickens. It’s a long way to run yet.CarlottaVance said:
In terms of death rate we're some way off highest:Theuniondivvie said:
Thank goodness that the UK has 'probably saved thousands, or maybe tens of thousands, of lives' otherwise the UK might have the highest number of deaths in Europe.Fishing said:
Once you are round the negotiating table in Brussels, there is a powerful urge to be seen to be "communautaire", i.e. to sell out your country's interests for an illusory payback at the European level, while giving more and more power to the Eurocracy. So, in theory, we could have stayed outside the vaccine scheme if we hadn't left. In practice, we might not have done so. And we have probably saved thousands, or maybe tens of thousands, of lives as a result.williamglenn said:
The EU's scheme is voluntary. We wouldn't have been 'shackled' to it, and it might not even have existed in that form if we had been part of the decision making process.RobD said:
Because slow as they are, that's not the biggest problem with the EU's scheme.williamglenn said:
Why do you think our vaccine rollout would have been any different if we'd been in the EU and the European Medicines Agency had still been in London?Mysticrose said:1. Brexit has not (yet) been the disaster some were excitedly predicting. Yes there are teething issues but, frankly, it has gone quite smoothly so far. We have a trade deal and our vaccine rollout is undeniably faster thanks to shaking off the EU shackles.
https://twitter.com/redouad/status/1350748193592643584?s=204 -
The location of the regulator is not at issue here, it's the procurement which has been a disaster. If the EU were so worried about a loss of experience, they could have bent the rules and kept the regulator in London. But we all know how much they like playing by the rules.williamglenn said:
As we were frequently told by Brexiteers, the UK was the equivalent of 19 member states, so carried some weight. If Brexit hadn't happened, we would have been the host of the medicines regulator, as well as having a central government with unique direct experience of operational issues because of the structure of the NHS. It's not much of a stretch to think that we would have had significant influence on what the EU did.RobD said:
Either it was a lone voice in that regards, in which case it wouldn't have mattered, or there are other countries with a similar voice, in which case it clearly had no effect on the final outcome.williamglenn said:
And the UK was traditionally a successful voice for a free market approach rather than national self-interest.RobD said:
What has this got to do with experience? It's all about bureaucracy and national self-interest with regards to vaccine contracts.williamglenn said:
If, say, Germany left, and then the EU made a mess of something, I'm sure people would be saying the problem was the lack of German expertise.RobD said:
No, I'm saying that blaming the EU's slow vaccine rollout on Brexit is utterly ridiculous.williamglenn said:
So you don't think the loss of the UK was a significant blow? Typical anti-British attitude.RobD said:
The EU hasn't suddenly changed now that the UK has left. It is the same as it ever was.williamglenn said:
It's a bit premature to talk about saving lives when we still have the worst death toll in Europe.Fishing said:
Once you are round the negotiating table in Brussels, there is a powerful urge to be seen to be "communautaire", i.e. to sell out your country's interests for an illusory payback at the European level, while giving more and more power to the Eurocracy. So, in theory, we could have stayed outside the vaccine scheme if we hadn't left. In practice, we might not have done so. And we have probably saved thousands, or maybe tens of thousands, of lives as a result.williamglenn said:
The EU's scheme is voluntary. We wouldn't have been 'shackled' to it, and it might not even have existed in that form if we had been part of the decision making process.RobD said:
Because slow as they are, that's not the biggest problem with the EU's scheme.williamglenn said:
Why do you think our vaccine rollout would have been any different if we'd been in the EU and the European Medicines Agency had still been in London?Mysticrose said:1. Brexit has not (yet) been the disaster some were excitedly predicting. Yes there are teething issues but, frankly, it has gone quite smoothly so far. We have a trade deal and our vaccine rollout is undeniably faster thanks to shaking off the EU shackles.
Surely as a British patriot you must look at it the other way round: if the EU had been able to benefit from the presence of a country with a superior model for the delivery of healthcare, then the scheme would have been planned differently, to the benefit of hundreds of millions of Europeans.4 -
Lol. You lot tried this in 2016, it didn't work very well then either.williamglenn said:
More anti-British defeatism.MaxPB said:
We have 30 years worth of experience and evidence that suggests the opposite. You're delusional.williamglenn said:
As we were frequently told by Brexiteers, the UK was the equivalent of 19 member states, so carried some weight. If Brexit hadn't happened, we would have been the host of the medicines regulator, as well as having a central government with unique direct experience of operational issues because of the structure of the NHS. It's not much of a stretch to think that we would have had significant influence on what the EU did.RobD said:
Either it was a lone voice in that regards, in which case it wouldn't have mattered, or there are other countries with a similar voice, in which case it clearly had no effect on the final outcome.williamglenn said:
And the UK was traditionally a successful voice for a free market approach rather than national self-interest.RobD said:
What has this got to do with experience? It's all about bureaucracy and national self-interest with regards to vaccine contracts.williamglenn said:
If, say, Germany left, and then the EU made a mess of something, I'm sure people would be saying the problem was the lack of German expertise.RobD said:
No, I'm saying that blaming the EU's slow vaccine rollout on Brexit is utterly ridiculous.williamglenn said:
So you don't think the loss of the UK was a significant blow? Typical anti-British attitude.RobD said:
The EU hasn't suddenly changed now that the UK has left. It is the same as it ever was.williamglenn said:
It's a bit premature to talk about saving lives when we still have the worst death toll in Europe.Fishing said:
Once you are round the negotiating table in Brussels, there is a powerful urge to be seen to be "communautaire", i.e. to sell out your country's interests for an illusory payback at the European level, while giving more and more power to the Eurocracy. So, in theory, we could have stayed outside the vaccine scheme if we hadn't left. In practice, we might not have done so. And we have probably saved thousands, or maybe tens of thousands, of lives as a result.williamglenn said:
The EU's scheme is voluntary. We wouldn't have been 'shackled' to it, and it might not even have existed in that form if we had been part of the decision making process.RobD said:
Because slow as they are, that's not the biggest problem with the EU's scheme.williamglenn said:
Why do you think our vaccine rollout would have been any different if we'd been in the EU and the European Medicines Agency had still been in London?Mysticrose said:1. Brexit has not (yet) been the disaster some were excitedly predicting. Yes there are teething issues but, frankly, it has gone quite smoothly so far. We have a trade deal and our vaccine rollout is undeniably faster thanks to shaking off the EU shackles.
Surely as a British patriot you must look at it the other way round: if the EU had been able to benefit from the presence of a country with a superior model for the delivery of healthcare, then the scheme would have been planned differently, to the benefit of hundreds of millions of Europeans.4 -
Arf Arf Arf , unionists need some new scare stories. Is that like how Ireland would be bankrupt. You guys have no clue whatsoever. We will do as Ireland does and trade with sensible countries in the EU.Razedabode said:
Presumably Labours task is to convince ex lab - now SNP - voters that their aspirations in terms of social justice an fairness etc etc can be achieved within the UK without taking the perceived risk of independence.Carnyx said:
Especially after SKS and his pronouncements/votes on Brexit and indyref 2, I expect.Alistair said:
The Left-Wing Indy supporters who voted SNP in 2015 and then Labour in 2017 attracted by Corbyn went back to SNP in 2019 and are not coming back.justin124 said:HYUFD said:
That former junior 1970s minister left Labour over the Iraq War and is an SNP member.malcolmg said:No future for Scottish Labour if it remains Unionist, former minister says
A FORMER Labour minister has said there is no future for Labour in Scotland if it continues to be a Unionist party.
In an exclusive interview with the Sunday National in the wake of leader Richard Leonard’s resignation, Les Huckfield said that unless the party changed its stance on independence it was “never going to get anywhere”.
https://www.thenational.scot/news/19017357.no-future-scottish-labour-remains-unionist-former-minister-says/
Labour is not going to win back Nat voters from the SNP, its best hope is to remain a Unionist Party and win Tory and LD tactical votes to beat the SNP
I believe there are many voters who vote SNP for Holyrood who can be persuaded to support Labour for Westminster. The 2017 GE provided evidence of that.HYUFD said:
That former junior 1970s minister left Labour over the Iraq War and is an SNP member.malcolmg said:No future for Scottish Labour if it remains Unionist, former minister says
A FORMER Labour minister has said there is no future for Labour in Scotland if it continues to be a Unionist party.
In an exclusive interview with the Sunday National in the wake of leader Richard Leonard’s resignation, Les Huckfield said that unless the party changed its stance on independence it was “never going to get anywhere”.
https://www.thenational.scot/news/19017357.no-future-scottish-labour-remains-unionist-former-minister-says/
Labour is not going to win back Nat voters from the SNP, its best hope is to remain a Unionist Party and win Tory and LD tactical votes to beat the SNP
We’ve not really got under the skin of those issues so far. I.e for all the issues with Scottish fishing now, what’s to say there wouldn’t be larger, more damaging issues with Indy (which is entirely a possibility considering rUK makes up approx of 60 bill worth of Scottish exports). I’ve not yet seen a convincing argument for that.0 -
What could change things quite radically is if in 2024 Starmer does well enough outside of Scotland to be invited to form a minority UK government and then puts forward a social-democratic programme that non-Tory voters in Scotland would generally have sympathy with, only for the SNP to bring down that government in the cause of secession. A second 2024 GE conducted in those circumstances would be interesting.justin124 said:HYUFD said:
That former junior 1970s minister left Labour over the Iraq War and is an SNP member.malcolmg said:No future for Scottish Labour if it remains Unionist, former minister says
A FORMER Labour minister has said there is no future for Labour in Scotland if it continues to be a Unionist party.
In an exclusive interview with the Sunday National in the wake of leader Richard Leonard’s resignation, Les Huckfield said that unless the party changed its stance on independence it was “never going to get anywhere”.
https://www.thenational.scot/news/19017357.no-future-scottish-labour-remains-unionist-former-minister-says/
Labour is not going to win back Nat voters from the SNP, its best hope is to remain a Unionist Party and win Tory and LD tactical votes to beat the SNP
I believe there are many voters who vote SNP for Holyrood who can be persuaded to support Labour for Westminster. The 2017 GE provided evidence of that.HYUFD said:
That former junior 1970s minister left Labour over the Iraq War and is an SNP member.malcolmg said:No future for Scottish Labour if it remains Unionist, former minister says
A FORMER Labour minister has said there is no future for Labour in Scotland if it continues to be a Unionist party.
In an exclusive interview with the Sunday National in the wake of leader Richard Leonard’s resignation, Les Huckfield said that unless the party changed its stance on independence it was “never going to get anywhere”.
https://www.thenational.scot/news/19017357.no-future-scottish-labour-remains-unionist-former-minister-says/
Labour is not going to win back Nat voters from the SNP, its best hope is to remain a Unionist Party and win Tory and LD tactical votes to beat the SNP
SNP supporters here, for all their bravado, prefer to gloss over what happened in a similar scenario in 1979.1 -
People like William never learn. I see he has glossed over his claims of a few years ago that we would never leave the EU. He is in complete denial about the flaws and failings of his beloved EU and sadly is beyond help.MaxPB said:
Lol. You lot tried this in 2016, it didn't work very well then either.williamglenn said:
More anti-British defeatism.MaxPB said:
We have 30 years worth of experience and evidence that suggests the opposite. You're delusional.williamglenn said:
As we were frequently told by Brexiteers, the UK was the equivalent of 19 member states, so carried some weight. If Brexit hadn't happened, we would have been the host of the medicines regulator, as well as having a central government with unique direct experience of operational issues because of the structure of the NHS. It's not much of a stretch to think that we would have had significant influence on what the EU did.RobD said:
Either it was a lone voice in that regards, in which case it wouldn't have mattered, or there are other countries with a similar voice, in which case it clearly had no effect on the final outcome.williamglenn said:
And the UK was traditionally a successful voice for a free market approach rather than national self-interest.RobD said:
What has this got to do with experience? It's all about bureaucracy and national self-interest with regards to vaccine contracts.williamglenn said:
If, say, Germany left, and then the EU made a mess of something, I'm sure people would be saying the problem was the lack of German expertise.RobD said:
No, I'm saying that blaming the EU's slow vaccine rollout on Brexit is utterly ridiculous.williamglenn said:
So you don't think the loss of the UK was a significant blow? Typical anti-British attitude.RobD said:
The EU hasn't suddenly changed now that the UK has left. It is the same as it ever was.williamglenn said:
It's a bit premature to talk about saving lives when we still have the worst death toll in Europe.Fishing said:
Once you are round the negotiating table in Brussels, there is a powerful urge to be seen to be "communautaire", i.e. to sell out your country's interests for an illusory payback at the European level, while giving more and more power to the Eurocracy. So, in theory, we could have stayed outside the vaccine scheme if we hadn't left. In practice, we might not have done so. And we have probably saved thousands, or maybe tens of thousands, of lives as a result.williamglenn said:
The EU's scheme is voluntary. We wouldn't have been 'shackled' to it, and it might not even have existed in that form if we had been part of the decision making process.RobD said:
Because slow as they are, that's not the biggest problem with the EU's scheme.williamglenn said:
Why do you think our vaccine rollout would have been any different if we'd been in the EU and the European Medicines Agency had still been in London?Mysticrose said:1. Brexit has not (yet) been the disaster some were excitedly predicting. Yes there are teething issues but, frankly, it has gone quite smoothly so far. We have a trade deal and our vaccine rollout is undeniably faster thanks to shaking off the EU shackles.
Surely as a British patriot you must look at it the other way round: if the EU had been able to benefit from the presence of a country with a superior model for the delivery of healthcare, then the scheme would have been planned differently, to the benefit of hundreds of millions of Europeans.1 -
I don't think it's a sustainable position for the EU to have their regulators based in third countries, had we been offered an EEA style deal without free movement then I think as single market members they could just about have lived with it. As it stands they had to move it, but the manner in which they did it was pretty rubbish. An almost overnight move with employees (many of them from EU countries) were expected to just pick up their lives and move to Amsterdam and the EU plan was based on the majority saying yes. Unsurprisingly that didn't happen and the vast, vast majority refused and many of them transferred to the MHRA.RobD said:
The location of the regulator is not at issue here, it's the procurement which has been a disaster. If the EU were so worried about a loss of experience, they could have bent the rules and kept the regulator in London. But we all know how much they like playing by the rules.williamglenn said:
As we were frequently told by Brexiteers, the UK was the equivalent of 19 member states, so carried some weight. If Brexit hadn't happened, we would have been the host of the medicines regulator, as well as having a central government with unique direct experience of operational issues because of the structure of the NHS. It's not much of a stretch to think that we would have had significant influence on what the EU did.RobD said:
Either it was a lone voice in that regards, in which case it wouldn't have mattered, or there are other countries with a similar voice, in which case it clearly had no effect on the final outcome.williamglenn said:
And the UK was traditionally a successful voice for a free market approach rather than national self-interest.RobD said:
What has this got to do with experience? It's all about bureaucracy and national self-interest with regards to vaccine contracts.williamglenn said:
If, say, Germany left, and then the EU made a mess of something, I'm sure people would be saying the problem was the lack of German expertise.RobD said:
No, I'm saying that blaming the EU's slow vaccine rollout on Brexit is utterly ridiculous.williamglenn said:
So you don't think the loss of the UK was a significant blow? Typical anti-British attitude.RobD said:
The EU hasn't suddenly changed now that the UK has left. It is the same as it ever was.williamglenn said:
It's a bit premature to talk about saving lives when we still have the worst death toll in Europe.Fishing said:
Once you are round the negotiating table in Brussels, there is a powerful urge to be seen to be "communautaire", i.e. to sell out your country's interests for an illusory payback at the European level, while giving more and more power to the Eurocracy. So, in theory, we could have stayed outside the vaccine scheme if we hadn't left. In practice, we might not have done so. And we have probably saved thousands, or maybe tens of thousands, of lives as a result.williamglenn said:
The EU's scheme is voluntary. We wouldn't have been 'shackled' to it, and it might not even have existed in that form if we had been part of the decision making process.RobD said:
Because slow as they are, that's not the biggest problem with the EU's scheme.williamglenn said:
Why do you think our vaccine rollout would have been any different if we'd been in the EU and the European Medicines Agency had still been in London?Mysticrose said:1. Brexit has not (yet) been the disaster some were excitedly predicting. Yes there are teething issues but, frankly, it has gone quite smoothly so far. We have a trade deal and our vaccine rollout is undeniably faster thanks to shaking off the EU shackles.
Surely as a British patriot you must look at it the other way round: if the EU had been able to benefit from the presence of a country with a superior model for the delivery of healthcare, then the scheme would have been planned differently, to the benefit of hundreds of millions of Europeans.
The ultimate failure was not securing a mutual recognition deal for pharmaceutical regulation so that the EMA could selectively recognise MHRA approval of pharmaceutical products and vice versa. Aiui the government offered it early on, but the idea was rejected out of hand because they thought they could capture UK jobs by refusing, which hasn't happened and is very unlikely to happen at any point in the future.0 -
When HMG make a mistake I tend to criticise the individuals who made the defective decisions, or I might point the blame at the malfunctioning institutions and suggest reforms to improve them.MaxPB said:
It's actually the opposite, the UK took a statist approach of subsidies for manufacturing while the EU took the free market "let's get a big discount" one. They failed to factor in the opportunity cost of a 6-12 month delay to full national immunisation so they could save a few billion euros from the sticker price.williamglenn said:
And the UK was traditionally a successful voice for a free market approach rather than national self-interest.RobD said:
What has this got to do with experience? It's all about bureaucracy and national self-interest with regards to vaccine contracts.williamglenn said:
If, say, Germany left, and then the EU made a mess of something, I'm sure people would be saying the problem was the lack of German expertise.RobD said:
No, I'm saying that blaming the EU's slow vaccine rollout on Brexit is utterly ridiculous.williamglenn said:
So you don't think the loss of the UK was a significant blow? Typical anti-British attitude.RobD said:
The EU hasn't suddenly changed now that the UK has left. It is the same as it ever was.williamglenn said:
It's a bit premature to talk about saving lives when we still have the worst death toll in Europe.Fishing said:
Once you are round the negotiating table in Brussels, there is a powerful urge to be seen to be "communautaire", i.e. to sell out your country's interests for an illusory payback at the European level, while giving more and more power to the Eurocracy. So, in theory, we could have stayed outside the vaccine scheme if we hadn't left. In practice, we might not have done so. And we have probably saved thousands, or maybe tens of thousands, of lives as a result.williamglenn said:
The EU's scheme is voluntary. We wouldn't have been 'shackled' to it, and it might not even have existed in that form if we had been part of the decision making process.RobD said:
Because slow as they are, that's not the biggest problem with the EU's scheme.williamglenn said:
Why do you think our vaccine rollout would have been any different if we'd been in the EU and the European Medicines Agency had still been in London?Mysticrose said:1. Brexit has not (yet) been the disaster some were excitedly predicting. Yes there are teething issues but, frankly, it has gone quite smoothly so far. We have a trade deal and our vaccine rollout is undeniably faster thanks to shaking off the EU shackles.
Surely as a British patriot you must look at it the other way round: if the EU had been able to benefit from the presence of a country with a superior model for the delivery of healthcare, then the scheme would have been planned differently, to the benefit of hundreds of millions of Europeans.
You need to admit to yourself that they fucked it up. The EU got it wrong. Deal with it.
Uniquely when the EU is criticised it is its very existence that is blamed. This is unhelpful.1 -
And yet it is consistently those looking to attack the UK Government who make the false claims about how the UK is the 'worst in Europe'. Why is your comments about counting chickens only ever seem to be in response to those defending the UK record?DougSeal said:
At some point in the next couple of years this pandemic will be declared over by the WHO (yes - honestly - it will) and it is at that point, or maybe shortly before, that we can discuss the success or otherwise of the approach of various countries. In the meantime no one is entitled to count their chickens. It’s a long way to run yet.CarlottaVance said:
In terms of death rate we're some way off highest:Theuniondivvie said:
Thank goodness that the UK has 'probably saved thousands, or maybe tens of thousands, of lives' otherwise the UK might have the highest number of deaths in Europe.Fishing said:
Once you are round the negotiating table in Brussels, there is a powerful urge to be seen to be "communautaire", i.e. to sell out your country's interests for an illusory payback at the European level, while giving more and more power to the Eurocracy. So, in theory, we could have stayed outside the vaccine scheme if we hadn't left. In practice, we might not have done so. And we have probably saved thousands, or maybe tens of thousands, of lives as a result.williamglenn said:
The EU's scheme is voluntary. We wouldn't have been 'shackled' to it, and it might not even have existed in that form if we had been part of the decision making process.RobD said:
Because slow as they are, that's not the biggest problem with the EU's scheme.williamglenn said:
Why do you think our vaccine rollout would have been any different if we'd been in the EU and the European Medicines Agency had still been in London?Mysticrose said:1. Brexit has not (yet) been the disaster some were excitedly predicting. Yes there are teething issues but, frankly, it has gone quite smoothly so far. We have a trade deal and our vaccine rollout is undeniably faster thanks to shaking off the EU shackles.
https://twitter.com/redouad/status/1350748193592643584?s=200 -
Yes. We'll never know - and of course it's deeply jaundiced to "blame" Brexit for what has happened with the EU vaccine - but it's possible that if we were still a member many lives could have been saved.williamglenn said:
As we were frequently told by Brexiteers, the UK was the equivalent of 19 member states, so carried some weight. If Brexit hadn't happened, we would have been the host of the medicines regulator, as well as having a central government with unique direct experience of operational issues because of the structure of the NHS. It's not much of a stretch to think that we would have had significant influence on what the EU did.RobD said:
Either it was a lone voice in that regards, in which case it wouldn't have mattered, or there are other countries with a similar voice, in which case it clearly had no effect on the final outcome.williamglenn said:
And the UK was traditionally a successful voice for a free market approach rather than national self-interest.RobD said:
What has this got to do with experience? It's all about bureaucracy and national self-interest with regards to vaccine contracts.williamglenn said:
If, say, Germany left, and then the EU made a mess of something, I'm sure people would be saying the problem was the lack of German expertise.RobD said:
No, I'm saying that blaming the EU's slow vaccine rollout on Brexit is utterly ridiculous.williamglenn said:
So you don't think the loss of the UK was a significant blow? Typical anti-British attitude.RobD said:
The EU hasn't suddenly changed now that the UK has left. It is the same as it ever was.williamglenn said:
It's a bit premature to talk about saving lives when we still have the worst death toll in Europe.Fishing said:
Once you are round the negotiating table in Brussels, there is a powerful urge to be seen to be "communautaire", i.e. to sell out your country's interests for an illusory payback at the European level, while giving more and more power to the Eurocracy. So, in theory, we could have stayed outside the vaccine scheme if we hadn't left. In practice, we might not have done so. And we have probably saved thousands, or maybe tens of thousands, of lives as a result.williamglenn said:
The EU's scheme is voluntary. We wouldn't have been 'shackled' to it, and it might not even have existed in that form if we had been part of the decision making process.RobD said:
Because slow as they are, that's not the biggest problem with the EU's scheme.williamglenn said:
Why do you think our vaccine rollout would have been any different if we'd been in the EU and the European Medicines Agency had still been in London?Mysticrose said:1. Brexit has not (yet) been the disaster some were excitedly predicting. Yes there are teething issues but, frankly, it has gone quite smoothly so far. We have a trade deal and our vaccine rollout is undeniably faster thanks to shaking off the EU shackles.
Surely as a British patriot you must look at it the other way round: if the EU had been able to benefit from the presence of a country with a superior model for the delivery of healthcare, then the scheme would have been planned differently, to the benefit of hundreds of millions of Europeans.0 -
A Trump whacko on R4 saying trump won a landslide, no doubt. election was stolen.0
-
Would be nice if you engaged in a debate every now and then, instead of spreading insults.malcolmg said:
Arf Arf Arf , unionists need some new scare stories. Is that like how Ireland would be bankrupt. You guys have no clue whatsoever. We will do as Ireland does and trade with sensible countries in the EU.Razedabode said:
Presumably Labours task is to convince ex lab - now SNP - voters that their aspirations in terms of social justice an fairness etc etc can be achieved within the UK without taking the perceived risk of independence.Carnyx said:
Especially after SKS and his pronouncements/votes on Brexit and indyref 2, I expect.Alistair said:
The Left-Wing Indy supporters who voted SNP in 2015 and then Labour in 2017 attracted by Corbyn went back to SNP in 2019 and are not coming back.justin124 said:HYUFD said:
That former junior 1970s minister left Labour over the Iraq War and is an SNP member.malcolmg said:No future for Scottish Labour if it remains Unionist, former minister says
A FORMER Labour minister has said there is no future for Labour in Scotland if it continues to be a Unionist party.
In an exclusive interview with the Sunday National in the wake of leader Richard Leonard’s resignation, Les Huckfield said that unless the party changed its stance on independence it was “never going to get anywhere”.
https://www.thenational.scot/news/19017357.no-future-scottish-labour-remains-unionist-former-minister-says/
Labour is not going to win back Nat voters from the SNP, its best hope is to remain a Unionist Party and win Tory and LD tactical votes to beat the SNP
I believe there are many voters who vote SNP for Holyrood who can be persuaded to support Labour for Westminster. The 2017 GE provided evidence of that.HYUFD said:
That former junior 1970s minister left Labour over the Iraq War and is an SNP member.malcolmg said:No future for Scottish Labour if it remains Unionist, former minister says
A FORMER Labour minister has said there is no future for Labour in Scotland if it continues to be a Unionist party.
In an exclusive interview with the Sunday National in the wake of leader Richard Leonard’s resignation, Les Huckfield said that unless the party changed its stance on independence it was “never going to get anywhere”.
https://www.thenational.scot/news/19017357.no-future-scottish-labour-remains-unionist-former-minister-says/
Labour is not going to win back Nat voters from the SNP, its best hope is to remain a Unionist Party and win Tory and LD tactical votes to beat the SNP
We’ve not really got under the skin of those issues so far. I.e for all the issues with Scottish fishing now, what’s to say there wouldn’t be larger, more damaging issues with Indy (which is entirely a possibility considering rUK makes up approx of 60 bill worth of Scottish exports). I’ve not yet seen a convincing argument for that.
I’ve said this before - if that’s the type of nationalism you represent, then good luck to Scotland.0 -
If only Scotland could have opted out of the UK & into the EU scheme and waited several months more for the vaccine .....Theuniondivvie said:
Thank goodness that the UK has 'probably saved thousands, or maybe tens of thousands, of lives' otherwise the UK might have the highest number of deaths in Europe.Fishing said:
Once you are round the negotiating table in Brussels, there is a powerful urge to be seen to be "communautaire", i.e. to sell out your country's interests for an illusory payback at the European level, while giving more and more power to the Eurocracy. So, in theory, we could have stayed outside the vaccine scheme if we hadn't left. In practice, we might not have done so. And we have probably saved thousands, or maybe tens of thousands, of lives as a result.williamglenn said:
The EU's scheme is voluntary. We wouldn't have been 'shackled' to it, and it might not even have existed in that form if we had been part of the decision making process.RobD said:
Because slow as they are, that's not the biggest problem with the EU's scheme.williamglenn said:
Why do you think our vaccine rollout would have been any different if we'd been in the EU and the European Medicines Agency had still been in London?Mysticrose said:1. Brexit has not (yet) been the disaster some were excitedly predicting. Yes there are teething issues but, frankly, it has gone quite smoothly so far. We have a trade deal and our vaccine rollout is undeniably faster thanks to shaking off the EU shackles.
1 -
Given Carlotta is normally economical with the truth and exceedingly biased , I would seriously doubt any figures she gives in any event.DougSeal said:
At some point in the next couple of years this pandemic will be declared over by the WHO (yes - honestly - it will) and it is at that point, or maybe shortly before, that we can discuss the success or otherwise of the approach of various countries. In the meantime no one is entitled to count their chickens. It’s a long way to run yet.CarlottaVance said:
In terms of death rate we're some way off highest:Theuniondivvie said:
Thank goodness that the UK has 'probably saved thousands, or maybe tens of thousands, of lives' otherwise the UK might have the highest number of deaths in Europe.Fishing said:
Once you are round the negotiating table in Brussels, there is a powerful urge to be seen to be "communautaire", i.e. to sell out your country's interests for an illusory payback at the European level, while giving more and more power to the Eurocracy. So, in theory, we could have stayed outside the vaccine scheme if we hadn't left. In practice, we might not have done so. And we have probably saved thousands, or maybe tens of thousands, of lives as a result.williamglenn said:
The EU's scheme is voluntary. We wouldn't have been 'shackled' to it, and it might not even have existed in that form if we had been part of the decision making process.RobD said:
Because slow as they are, that's not the biggest problem with the EU's scheme.williamglenn said:
Why do you think our vaccine rollout would have been any different if we'd been in the EU and the European Medicines Agency had still been in London?Mysticrose said:1. Brexit has not (yet) been the disaster some were excitedly predicting. Yes there are teething issues but, frankly, it has gone quite smoothly so far. We have a trade deal and our vaccine rollout is undeniably faster thanks to shaking off the EU shackles.
https://twitter.com/redouad/status/1350748193592643584?s=200 -
What's biased about these particular figures?malcolmg said:
Given Carlotta is normally economical with the truth I and exceedingly biased would seriously doubt any figures she gives in any event.DougSeal said:
At some point in the next couple of years this pandemic will be declared over by the WHO (yes - honestly - it will) and it is at that point, or maybe shortly before, that we can discuss the success or otherwise of the approach of various countries. In the meantime no one is entitled to count their chickens. It’s a long way to run yet.CarlottaVance said:
In terms of death rate we're some way off highest:Theuniondivvie said:
Thank goodness that the UK has 'probably saved thousands, or maybe tens of thousands, of lives' otherwise the UK might have the highest number of deaths in Europe.Fishing said:
Once you are round the negotiating table in Brussels, there is a powerful urge to be seen to be "communautaire", i.e. to sell out your country's interests for an illusory payback at the European level, while giving more and more power to the Eurocracy. So, in theory, we could have stayed outside the vaccine scheme if we hadn't left. In practice, we might not have done so. And we have probably saved thousands, or maybe tens of thousands, of lives as a result.williamglenn said:
The EU's scheme is voluntary. We wouldn't have been 'shackled' to it, and it might not even have existed in that form if we had been part of the decision making process.RobD said:
Because slow as they are, that's not the biggest problem with the EU's scheme.williamglenn said:
Why do you think our vaccine rollout would have been any different if we'd been in the EU and the European Medicines Agency had still been in London?Mysticrose said:1. Brexit has not (yet) been the disaster some were excitedly predicting. Yes there are teething issues but, frankly, it has gone quite smoothly so far. We have a trade deal and our vaccine rollout is undeniably faster thanks to shaking off the EU shackles.
https://twitter.com/redouad/status/1350748193592643584?s=200 -
He was partially correct at least given NI and Gibralter are still in EU.Richard_Tyndall said:
People like William never learn. I see he has glossed over his claims of a few years ago that we would never leave the EU. He is in complete denial about the flaws and failings of his beloved EU and sadly is beyond help.MaxPB said:
Lol. You lot tried this in 2016, it didn't work very well then either.williamglenn said:
More anti-British defeatism.MaxPB said:
We have 30 years worth of experience and evidence that suggests the opposite. You're delusional.williamglenn said:
As we were frequently told by Brexiteers, the UK was the equivalent of 19 member states, so carried some weight. If Brexit hadn't happened, we would have been the host of the medicines regulator, as well as having a central government with unique direct experience of operational issues because of the structure of the NHS. It's not much of a stretch to think that we would have had significant influence on what the EU did.RobD said:
Either it was a lone voice in that regards, in which case it wouldn't have mattered, or there are other countries with a similar voice, in which case it clearly had no effect on the final outcome.williamglenn said:
And the UK was traditionally a successful voice for a free market approach rather than national self-interest.RobD said:
What has this got to do with experience? It's all about bureaucracy and national self-interest with regards to vaccine contracts.williamglenn said:
If, say, Germany left, and then the EU made a mess of something, I'm sure people would be saying the problem was the lack of German expertise.RobD said:
No, I'm saying that blaming the EU's slow vaccine rollout on Brexit is utterly ridiculous.williamglenn said:
So you don't think the loss of the UK was a significant blow? Typical anti-British attitude.RobD said:
The EU hasn't suddenly changed now that the UK has left. It is the same as it ever was.williamglenn said:
It's a bit premature to talk about saving lives when we still have the worst death toll in Europe.Fishing said:
Once you are round the negotiating table in Brussels, there is a powerful urge to be seen to be "communautaire", i.e. to sell out your country's interests for an illusory payback at the European level, while giving more and more power to the Eurocracy. So, in theory, we could have stayed outside the vaccine scheme if we hadn't left. In practice, we might not have done so. And we have probably saved thousands, or maybe tens of thousands, of lives as a result.williamglenn said:
The EU's scheme is voluntary. We wouldn't have been 'shackled' to it, and it might not even have existed in that form if we had been part of the decision making process.RobD said:
Because slow as they are, that's not the biggest problem with the EU's scheme.williamglenn said:
Why do you think our vaccine rollout would have been any different if we'd been in the EU and the European Medicines Agency had still been in London?Mysticrose said:1. Brexit has not (yet) been the disaster some were excitedly predicting. Yes there are teething issues but, frankly, it has gone quite smoothly so far. We have a trade deal and our vaccine rollout is undeniably faster thanks to shaking off the EU shackles.
Surely as a British patriot you must look at it the other way round: if the EU had been able to benefit from the presence of a country with a superior model for the delivery of healthcare, then the scheme would have been planned differently, to the benefit of hundreds of millions of Europeans.1 -
I think the issue is the opposite, when the EU is at fault anyone making the criticisms is painted as anti-European and told to keep the peace while European leaders and politicians simply pass the buck to the EU which they have also made immune from criticism.LostPassword said:
When HMG make a mistake I tend to criticise the individuals who made the defective decisions, or I might point the blame at the malfunctioning institutions and suggest reforms to improve them.MaxPB said:
It's actually the opposite, the UK took a statist approach of subsidies for manufacturing while the EU took the free market "let's get a big discount" one. They failed to factor in the opportunity cost of a 6-12 month delay to full national immunisation so they could save a few billion euros from the sticker price.williamglenn said:
And the UK was traditionally a successful voice for a free market approach rather than national self-interest.RobD said:
What has this got to do with experience? It's all about bureaucracy and national self-interest with regards to vaccine contracts.williamglenn said:
If, say, Germany left, and then the EU made a mess of something, I'm sure people would be saying the problem was the lack of German expertise.RobD said:
No, I'm saying that blaming the EU's slow vaccine rollout on Brexit is utterly ridiculous.williamglenn said:
So you don't think the loss of the UK was a significant blow? Typical anti-British attitude.RobD said:
The EU hasn't suddenly changed now that the UK has left. It is the same as it ever was.williamglenn said:
It's a bit premature to talk about saving lives when we still have the worst death toll in Europe.Fishing said:
Once you are round the negotiating table in Brussels, there is a powerful urge to be seen to be "communautaire", i.e. to sell out your country's interests for an illusory payback at the European level, while giving more and more power to the Eurocracy. So, in theory, we could have stayed outside the vaccine scheme if we hadn't left. In practice, we might not have done so. And we have probably saved thousands, or maybe tens of thousands, of lives as a result.williamglenn said:
The EU's scheme is voluntary. We wouldn't have been 'shackled' to it, and it might not even have existed in that form if we had been part of the decision making process.RobD said:
Because slow as they are, that's not the biggest problem with the EU's scheme.williamglenn said:
Why do you think our vaccine rollout would have been any different if we'd been in the EU and the European Medicines Agency had still been in London?Mysticrose said:1. Brexit has not (yet) been the disaster some were excitedly predicting. Yes there are teething issues but, frankly, it has gone quite smoothly so far. We have a trade deal and our vaccine rollout is undeniably faster thanks to shaking off the EU shackles.
Surely as a British patriot you must look at it the other way round: if the EU had been able to benefit from the presence of a country with a superior model for the delivery of healthcare, then the scheme would have been planned differently, to the benefit of hundreds of millions of Europeans.
You need to admit to yourself that they fucked it up. The EU got it wrong. Deal with it.
Uniquely when the EU is criticised it is its very existence that is blamed. This is unhelpful.3
