Pussycatgearman is upset. Nothing new, but what got him talking like Leon?
I think Galloway was the first person to block me on Twitter so I only see his tweets when other folk quote them and thus I only have a passing oversight of his ‘journey’. I get the impression that the foetid little pool that he’s paddling in has made him even more mental.
Nevertheless I’m predicting that Unionism will get so desperate that they’ll end up recruiting him in some capacity or other.
I made the mistake of googling for him + 'strapon' ... so am none the wiser as to his reason for talking dirty, even if it makes a change from 'meow'.
This reminds me, the recent headers and posting discussions on PB re indyref2 (the usual tanky/colonialist stuff aside) have been interesting and innovative and yet nobody is addressing who is fronting Better Together 2. Something to bear in mind.
Dream team Gordon and Gover I’m assuming? Don’t call me Baroness Ruth as handmaiden if she can tear herself away from reforming the HoL by becoming a member of it.
Mphm. (Scepticism not aimed at you, but at that combination. I'm just wondering whose credibility would drop quickest as a result of appearing in that threesome, but also who has most to lose, not least in terms of 'my heritage/reputation'.)
I think that's probably right, but I'm sure Gove wouldn't be in the front-line....
As it happens, I think the Broon, would be pretty persuasive on the economics of independence and is probably trusted by the sort of voters who the No team would need to win over. Not to be under-estimated as he still appears to be pretty fired up. Probably sees saving the UK as a legacy issue reputationally.
There would need to be a Tory in the team and Ruth Davidson polls pretty well so far as I am aware. And as a very strong Remainer is well-placed to flag the parallels between Brexit and Sindy.
Compared to the somewhat less than charismatic Lord Darling they would not be such a bad team for the Union.
I
To be fair to Darling he did beat the more charismatic Salmond by a comfortable 10% margin in the 2014 indyref.
Scots tend to like dull but serious, which may also mean SLab could ultimately revive under Starmer there too. Indeed on current polls and with a new leader replacing the hapless Leonard, SLab could even retake second place from the Tories at Holyrood in May, particularly making gains on the list.
Agree with that. It's why I think Brown could be a significant asset to No campaign. Another example: no-one is duller or more serious than Theresa May who managed to bomb in England while doing surprisingly well in Scotland in 2017. Horses for courses.
But wasn't 2017 down to the fizzing ball of youthful energy that was then Ruth Davidson?
I cannot believe Boris achieved that "man of sorrows and acquainted with grief" look in the Mail photograph without hours of practise and coaching. This is all orchestrated to take a hit, get it out of the way, preempt an attack from Sir Abstainalot at pmq and clear the decks for a sunlit uplands narrative as the vaccine kicks in.
I actually do not accept that
He is featured in all todays papers and each photo is different but shows him deeply affected
I have no reason to think that the enormity of this pandemic and consequences genuinely upset him
How can you (quite rightly) condemn Drakeford for his woeful performance on deaths per 100,000 and in the next breath give Johnson a free pass?
I am not giving him a free pass and he did say mistakes have been made
My point is that It is unfair to suggest he was not genuinely upset yesterday.
I don't know the man, however, from what I have read about him, he appears to have little empathy or compassion for those close to him. It thus takes some imagination to paint him in the light you suggest. Although,as I say, I don't know the guy, so you may be correct.
I actually would like to think on something as upsetting as this we could agree that the moment was highly charged and emotional for him
To suggest he faked it is just playing politics
As there is really no way of assessing the PM's sincerity or otherwise, I prefer to judge him on his actions.
It would only be interesting, indeed astonishing, if such caveats weren't in the contract.
It is completely inconceivable that the contract wouldn't include lots of such caveats. There is absolutely no way AZ would have given a firm commitment on delivery dates for a brand-new vaccine, involving new production facilities and dependent on other suppliers who themselves were also doing things for the first time, all in a super-fast timescale.
Having our weekly delivery from Sainsbury's later on today, only have a few substitutions (Cod fillets instead of cod loins, different type of yoghurt from what was ordered,)
The issue is not being able to order things in the first place, no courgettes, avocado, and aubergines, that sort of thing.
Prices have gone up quite a few things.
You need to shop at a more competent supermarket, avocados are in plentiful supply at Waitrose and I am sure courgettes and aubergines were on the shelves. The avocado I'm having for lunch comes from Colombia so presumably unaffected by Brexit
We ordered a supplementary shop from Waitrose a fortnight ago, no courgettes, aubergines, or avocados arrived.
I've never been that fortunate. One person in our house enjoys all three of these. It isn't me!
Didn't James Bond once eat an avocado pear as a dessert because Ian Fleming had only heard about these exotic fruit second hand?
He had been living partly in Jamaica for 7 years before writing the first novel, so it seems incredibly unlikely.
Hmm. Maybe it was someone else. I might need to spend the rest of the week leafing through old books.
Golly, never knew M&S did food in 1959, I thought it was something they branched into in the 80s.
The T in my BLT yesterday hailed from Belgium. If the poor little Belgians can produce fresh tomatoes in January why not farmer Giles? I assume the vital ingredient is LPG, though it isn't mentioned on the packet.
I'm being worse than complacent. I'm straight in laying him both for the 24 GOP nomination and for next POTUS. I have a chunky 4 digit liability already.
Rare strong advice on this one, if taking him on, lay for POTUS not GOP, trade out your GOP position and move it all onto POTUS.
Trading at 9 for Republican nomination and 15 for President, if he is nominated he if far more likely to trade mostly at 3 again than 1.5 for all the same reasons, so the odds are completely out of line. Whilst there is a theoretical chance of winning POTUS as a third party candidate, with your approach you can rule that out as impossible (it is negligible).
It would only be interesting, indeed astonishing, if such caveats weren't in the contract.
It is completely inconceivable that the contract wouldn't include lots of such caveats. There is absolutely no way AZ would have given a firm commitment on delivery dates for a brand-new vaccine, involving new production facilities and dependent on other suppliers who themselves were also doing things for the first time, all in a super-fast timescale.
As AZ CEO has continually stated the contract is based on best endeavors.
I'm actually surprised how polite he is being in public considering the games the EU seem to be playing.
It's not clear - he says that the "best efforts" stuff is in the EU contract because it was signed 3 months later, giving them less time to get the process sorted out.
From context it seems to imply that this didn't extend to the UK contract, but that is an implication drawn from an interview that may or may not have been conducted in another language, may or may not have been translated etc etc....
So London is now going to have to compete with a NY finance industry that has full equivalence in the EU. I can’t see how those parts of the market survive. If they haven’t left already they will now.
(edit: ah, I see this has been posted down below...)
"These men were entirely innocent of the charges brought against them, and Scotland’s chief prosecutor has admitted in open court that these charges were brought maliciously."
I'm being worse than complacent. I'm straight in laying him both for the 24 GOP nomination and for next POTUS. I have a chunky 4 digit liability already.
Rare strong advice on this one, if taking him on, lay for POTUS not GOP, trade out your GOP position and move it all onto POTUS.
Trading at 9 for Republican nomination and 15 for President, if he is nominated he if far more likely to trade mostly at 3 again than 1.5 for all the same reasons, so the odds are completely out of line. Whilst there is a theoretical chance of winning POTUS as a third party candidate, with your approach you can rule that out as impossible (it is negligible).
Disclosure - I have backed him for nominee.
You may also be interested in laying 22 other party to win, that is better than laying Trump at 15.
It would only be interesting, indeed astonishing, if such caveats weren't in the contract.
It is completely inconceivable that the contract wouldn't include lots of such caveats. There is absolutely no way AZ would have given a firm commitment on delivery dates for a brand-new vaccine, involving new production facilities and dependent on other suppliers who themselves were also doing things for the first time, all in a super-fast timescale.
As AZ CEO has continually stated the contract is based on best endeavors.
I'm actually surprised how polite he is being in public considering the games the EU seem to be playing.
So London is now going to have to compete with a NY finance industry that has full equivalence in the EU. I can’t see how those parts of the market survive. If they haven’t left already they will now.
But, the BBC seem to think Mark Drakeford has overtaken Nicola Sturgeon & Arlene Foster in the Great Vaccine Race.
England 10.6 % Wales 9.2 % N Ireland 8.6 % Scotland 8.0 %
Go, Mark, go. See if you can chase down the Shagster.
From yesterday
My main takeaway from that, is that the "bundle" of trajectories is close - the different in percentage of population vaccinated is only a few days apart.
I'm thinking possibly supply of equipment might be an issue as well, but it looks as though Swinney is making exactly the same mistakes as Williamson (again).
Clever from SKS asking for early vaccination of teachers.
Boris may well have planned that anyway but now will find it challenging to do so.
Smart politics. It may or may not be smart epidemiology....
It might be, now that the very high risk are almost done the vaccine can be used to suppress the community spread even to a limited degree by vaccination of those people who have high contact with the public, so that's teachers, police and supermarket workers.
Der Spiegel (pretty mainstream magazine though with a bias to being anti whoever is in power) reporting the "maybe only give AZ to younger people" speculation too now - I don't think there's much doubt that it's under consideration, though it'll be Friday (EMA decision) and Saturday (German discussion with states) that will decide it.
I may be wrong, but the clear impression that I'm getting from the partial leaks is that the issue is that the clinical trials showed generally good effectiveness for AZ but the sample size for over-65s was small enough to produce a large margin of error for that group - very much like our often-discussed Scottish subsamples, which occasionally produce very odd results. Possibly the 95% certainty range does extend down to 8% as reported at the extreme low end.
You can look at that data in two ways. Either you say "The pattern for the elderly seems similar to everyone else, maybe a bit lower but not dramatically, so let's push ahead, as otherwise we'll be short of vaccine to supply." That's the British position as I understand it - if we had an infinite supply of 95% effective Pfizer, tested extensively on the elderly, we'd only use that - but we don't. Or you say "The elderly are especially vulnerable to Covid so we need to get this right. Let's delay giving them the AZ vaccine until we have reliable AZ results for the elderly, even if that slows rollout." That seems to be what the Germans are considering (and it would also explain why they'rre being so hardline about Pfizer's supply, as it's the main available alternative).
I don't think either position is incomprehensible or stupid, or a reason to panic (or to slag off Handelsblatt for reporting what they're told). The vaccine probably works well for all age groups, and it's just a question of whether to be super-cautious because the elderly sample is still small.
except it is a reason to criticise the reporting because they went well beyond that point.
Like you I imagine they will try to pretend a decision to approve only for under 65s vindicates their reporting, but they made and defended a much starker point about efficacy.
And since you've criticised people for criticising the reporting as we shall find out the decision soon, by your own terms their reporting should be criticised for confusing the situation rather than wait for official confirmation. They also don't have an obligation to parrot what they are told.
So I think theres still plenty of room for criticism even if the regulator goes cautious.
"These men were entirely innocent of the charges brought against them, and Scotland’s chief prosecutor has admitted in open court that these charges were brought maliciously."
Not a good look, is it?
Can someone explain who would benefit from bringing the charges maliciously?
Der Spiegel (pretty mainstream magazine though with a bias to being anti whoever is in power) reporting the "maybe only give AZ to younger people" speculation too now - I don't think there's much doubt that it's under consideration, though it'll be Friday (EMA decision) and Saturday (German discussion with states) that will decide it.
I may be wrong, but the clear impression that I'm getting from the partial leaks is that the issue is that the clinical trials showed generally good effectiveness for AZ but the sample size for over-65s was small enough to produce a large margin of error for that group - very much like our often-discussed Scottish subsamples, which occasionally produce very odd results. Possibly the 95% certainty range does extend down to 8% as reported at the extreme low end.
You can look at that data in two ways. Either you say "The pattern for the elderly seems similar to everyone else, maybe a bit lower but not dramatically, so let's push ahead, as otherwise we'll be short of vaccine to supply." That's the British position as I understand it - if we had an infinite supply of 95% effective Pfizer, tested extensively on the elderly, we'd only use that - but we don't. Or you say "The elderly are especially vulnerable to Covid so we need to get this right. Let's delay giving them the AZ vaccine until we have reliable AZ results for the elderly, even if that slows rollout." That seems to be what the Germans are considering (and it would also explain why they'rre being so hardline about Pfizer's supply, as it's the main available alternative).
I don't think either position is incomprehensible or stupid, or a reason to panic (or to slag off Handelsblatt for reporting what they're told). The vaccine probably works well for all age groups, and it's just a question of whether to be super-cautious because the elderly sample is still small.
except it is a reason to criticise the reporting because they went well beyond that point.
Like you I imagine they will try to pretend a decision to approve only for under 65s vindicates their reporting, but they made and defended a much starker point about efficacy.
And since you've criticised people for criticising the reporting as we shall find out the decision soon, by your own terms their reporting should be criticised for confusing the situation rather than wait for official confirmation. They also don't have an obligation to parrot what they are told.
So I think theres still plenty of room for criticism even if the regulator goes cautious.
If Nick's assumptions are correct they are absolutely worthy of the criticism. To only publish the lower bound of a wide confidence interval is utterly misleading and irresponsible.
Firstly, Andy Wightman. A Green MSP who has resigned from the Party as the result of an obscure (to me) row about trans issues. He is contemplating standing as an Independent. He is widely respected and may well get in on the List.
Secondly, Joanna Cherry QC. She is a very formidable SNP MP who has fallen out big-time with the Sturgeon/Murrell duopoly. Some deft internal politicking meant that she was excluded from standing for Holyrood.
Thirdly, trans issues appears to be one of the dividing lines between Cherry and the Salmondites on the one hand and Sturgeon and her supporters, on the other.
(Still following...)
Fourthly, we are seeing this being played out in the Salmond trial with a number of senior SNP figures (Cherry, Angus MacNeil, Kenny MacAskill, malcolmg, etc) making remarkably disobliging comments about Sturgeon.
This has all largely by-passed the Scottish public but it makes the internal politicking of Corbyn-era Labour look like a kindergarten squabble by comparison.
Carnyx, Malc et al should be able to fill in the details...
Clever from SKS asking for early vaccination of teachers.
Boris may well have planned that anyway but now will find it challenging to do so.
Smart politics. It may or may not be smart epidemiology....
It isn't - teachers can still be infectious and it will allow the mixing of children resulting in spreading around families.
The one thing it might resolve is schools having to deal with lack of teaching staff but it doesn't solve the issues of cohorts needing to go into isolation due to contact.
This analysis sets out why richer countries funding vaccines for poorer countries, as soon as possible, is massively in out interest.
The Economic Case for Global Vaccinations: An Epidemiological Model with International Production Networks https://www.nber.org/papers/w28395#fromrss COVID-19 pandemic had a devastating effect on both lives and livelihoods in 2020. The arrival of effective vaccines can be a major game changer. However, vaccines are in short supply as of early 2021 and most of them are reserved for the advanced economies. We show that the global GDP loss of not inoculating all the countries, relative to a counterfactual of global vaccinations, is higher than the cost of manufacturing and distributing vaccines globally. We use an economic-epidemiological framework that combines a SIR model with international production and trade networks. Based on this framework, we estimate the costs for 65 countries and 35 sectors. Our estimates suggest that up to 49 percent of the global economic costs of the pandemic in 2021 are borne by the advanced economies even if they achieve universal vaccination in their own countries.
This analysis sets out why richer countries funding vaccines for poorer countries, as soon as possible, is massively in out interest.
The Economic Case for Global Vaccinations: An Epidemiological Model with International Production Networks https://www.nber.org/papers/w28395#fromrss COVID-19 pandemic had a devastating effect on both lives and livelihoods in 2020. The arrival of effective vaccines can be a major game changer. However, vaccines are in short supply as of early 2021 and most of them are reserved for the advanced economies. We show that the global GDP loss of not inoculating all the countries, relative to a counterfactual of global vaccinations, is higher than the cost of manufacturing and distributing vaccines globally. We use an economic-epidemiological framework that combines a SIR model with international production and trade networks. Based on this framework, we estimate the costs for 65 countries and 35 sectors. Our estimates suggest that up to 49 percent of the global economic costs of the pandemic in 2021 are borne by the advanced economies even if they achieve universal vaccination in their own countries.
Yes, the economic case has been clear for absolutely ages to have an oversupply of vaccines. Europe completely neglected its duty to itself and to the rest of the world by not subsidising at least enough production capacity for itself as we have done, which can then be used to supply developing nations at a much faster rate and for a cut price.
Clever from SKS asking for early vaccination of teachers.
Boris may well have planned that anyway but now will find it challenging to do so.
Smart politics. It may or may not be smart epidemiology....
It isn't - teachers can still be infectious and it will allow the mixing of children resulting in spreading around families.
The one thing it might resolve is schools having to deal with lack of teaching staff but it doesn't solve the issues of cohorts needing to go into isolation due to contact.
It's not terribly helpful unless we also vaccinate vulnerable parents, of course.
So London is now going to have to compete with a NY finance industry that has full equivalence in the EU. I can’t see how those parts of the market survive. If they haven’t left already they will now.
"The report added the industry will also likely see dark liquidity “re-gravitating back to London” as the UK looks to champion alternative pools of liquidity to attract non-EU activity. The UK’s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) recently lowered the LIS threshold for EU-listed stocks to €15,000 making dark trading more attractive and less restrictive."
This analysis sets out why richer countries funding vaccines for poorer countries, as soon as possible, is massively in out interest.
The Economic Case for Global Vaccinations: An Epidemiological Model with International Production Networks https://www.nber.org/papers/w28395#fromrss COVID-19 pandemic had a devastating effect on both lives and livelihoods in 2020. The arrival of effective vaccines can be a major game changer. However, vaccines are in short supply as of early 2021 and most of them are reserved for the advanced economies. We show that the global GDP loss of not inoculating all the countries, relative to a counterfactual of global vaccinations, is higher than the cost of manufacturing and distributing vaccines globally. We use an economic-epidemiological framework that combines a SIR model with international production and trade networks. Based on this framework, we estimate the costs for 65 countries and 35 sectors. Our estimates suggest that up to 49 percent of the global economic costs of the pandemic in 2021 are borne by the advanced economies even if they achieve universal vaccination in their own countries.
It could also be argued (simplistically, I admit) that much of our physical wealth is produced by poor people in developing countries and we need them to carry on working.
Japan's prime minister has been forced to apologise after several of his ministers visited nightclubs, despite the government asking the public to avoid unnecessary outings.
Very bad obviously, although clearly Japan's Cabinet is more fun than ours. Can't imagine many of them have been clubbing for a while, even pre-Covid.
If GOP senators don't bar him from office he will be running in 2024.
I'm not sure I agree for several reasons, although accept it's a serious possibility.
Obstacles include:
1. He has serious legal and possibly financial problems separate from impeachment.
2. He is deeply personal hurt by defeat and won't run if he doesn't think he'll win.
3. Many of his biggest defenders don't want him to stand due either to personal ambition or a belief he won't win - they will stand by him but remind him of 2.
4. He will be 78. Whilst he seems in surprisingly robust form for a man with his risk factors, and it didn't stop Biden, quite a lot can happen medically in four years in your late 70s if you're obese and so on.
It's fascinating. The GOP is infected by far right populism going by the name of MAGA. If they split into GOP and MAGA, the Dems win. If they don't split they have to either purge MAGA or become MAGA. But they can't purge MAGA without fostering the split which they must avoid. Ergo they must become MAGA. But MAGA can't work under a career politician. It needs a charismatic celebrity outsider to front it. That's an essential part of its USP. It needs Donald Trump. But Donald Trump will not be standing for all of the reasons you list and more. So, if they go this route, who will it be? Tucker Carlson? Alex Jones? This has the feel of a series of logic steps, each impeccable, leading to a ludicrous conclusion. Which is one of the reasons it is so fascinating.
But, the BBC seem to think Mark Drakeford has overtaken Nicola Sturgeon & Arlene Foster in the Great Vaccine Race.
England 10.6 % Wales 9.2 % N Ireland 8.6 % Scotland 8.0 %
Go, Mark, go. See if you can chase down the Shagster.
From yesterday
My main takeaway from that, is that the "bundle" of trajectories is close - the different in percentage of population vaccinated is only a few days apart.
You mean .... Mark Drakeford could actually win a gold medal .... 😳😳😳
What a lovely story. After a years worth of bitching on pb.com from all the Welsh posters, unloved Mark Drakeford comes good at the end, and snatches v. from the jaws of d.
But, it looks hard -- the gradients of E,W and S look the same over the last few days. The trajectories are moving in step.
They need to be pumping the drugs into Mark to give him the extra bit of whizz. Or someone needs to trip the Shagster up.
It would only be interesting, indeed astonishing, if such caveats weren't in the contract.
It is completely inconceivable that the contract wouldn't include lots of such caveats. There is absolutely no way AZ would have given a firm commitment on delivery dates for a brand-new vaccine, involving new production facilities and dependent on other suppliers who themselves were also doing things for the first time, all in a super-fast timescale.
As AZ CEO has continually stated the contract is based on best endeavors.
I'm actually surprised how polite he is being in public considering the games the EU seem to be playing.
I don't know what the EU think they're playing at. They really are in a negotiation where AZ hold all the cards. After all, if the EU get too bolshie AZ have the option to simply walk away from the contract, close their European factory and concentrate on other markets.
And there is exactly feck all the EU can do about it.
So the 'win' here for the EU is they accept a lower delivery than they want, and the lose is that they get none at all.
It would only be interesting, indeed astonishing, if such caveats weren't in the contract.
It is completely inconceivable that the contract wouldn't include lots of such caveats. There is absolutely no way AZ would have given a firm commitment on delivery dates for a brand-new vaccine, involving new production facilities and dependent on other suppliers who themselves were also doing things for the first time, all in a super-fast timescale.
As AZ CEO has continually stated the contract is based on best endeavors.
I'm actually surprised how polite he is being in public considering the games the EU seem to be playing.
Not in his interest to piss them off even if they are playing silly buggers - that's government for you.
Ridiculous to think that Boris wasn't genuinely upset.
Nobody likes to be blamed for things they've done.
Upset and sorrow are two different things though. If he was truly sorry then we wouldn't be ploughing on with the same failed policies and same failed ministers who have overseen at least 60,000 completely needless deaths and an economic disaster that will cost us £500bn in additional debt.
So London is now going to have to compete with a NY finance industry that has full equivalence in the EU. I can’t see how those parts of the market survive. If they haven’t left already they will now.
"The report added the industry will also likely see dark liquidity “re-gravitating back to London” as the UK looks to champion alternative pools of liquidity to attract non-EU activity. The UK’s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) recently lowered the LIS threshold for EU-listed stocks to €15,000 making dark trading more attractive and less restrictive."
You wouldn't know what dark liquidity is if it asked to join you and Bob Hope for lunch.
Hold on this is Mr "we need tougher restrictions, like what, the zoos, close the zoos"....
Do not worry - the public are not fooled by labour's opportunism.
They are seriously now trying to claim they were for closing the borders all along. Only the PB Party has been calling for this consistently over the past 10 months.
It would only be interesting, indeed astonishing, if such caveats weren't in the contract.
It is completely inconceivable that the contract wouldn't include lots of such caveats. There is absolutely no way AZ would have given a firm commitment on delivery dates for a brand-new vaccine, involving new production facilities and dependent on other suppliers who themselves were also doing things for the first time, all in a super-fast timescale.
As AZ CEO has continually stated the contract is based on best endeavors.
I'm actually surprised how polite he is being in public considering the games the EU seem to be playing.
I don't know what the EU think they're playing at. They really are in a negotiation where AZ hold all the cards. After all, if the EU get too bolshie AZ have the option to simply walk away from the contract, close their European factory and concentrate on other markets.
And there is exactly feck all the EU can do about it.
So the 'win' here for the EU is they accept a lower delivery than they want, and the lose is that they get none at all.
Wrong. The EU is one of the largest markets for pharmaceuticals in the world. That gives them a lot of muscle. AZ will not want to antagonise them more than necessary, so no, AZ do not hold all the cards, far from it.
If GOP senators don't bar him from office he will be running in 2024.
I'm not sure I agree for several reasons, although accept it's a serious possibility.
Obstacles include:
1. He has serious legal and possibly financial problems separate from impeachment.
2. He is deeply personal hurt by defeat and won't run if he doesn't think he'll win.
3. Many of his biggest defenders don't want him to stand due either to personal ambition or a belief he won't win - they will stand by him but remind him of 2.
4. He will be 78. Whilst he seems in surprisingly robust form for a man with his risk factors, and it didn't stop Biden, quite a lot can happen medically in four years in your late 70s if you're obese and so on.
It's fascinating. The GOP is infected by far right populism going by the name of MAGA. If they split into GOP and MAGA, the Dems win. If they don't split they have to either purge MAGA or become MAGA. But they can't purge MAGA without fostering the split which they must avoid. Ergo they must become MAGA. But MAGA can't work under a career politician. It needs a charismatic celebrity outsider to front it. That's an essential part of its USP. It needs Donald Trump. But Donald Trump will not be standing for all of the reasons you list and more. So, if they go this route, who will it be? Tucker Carlson? Alex Jones? This has the feel of a series of logic steps, each impeccable, leading to a ludicrous conclusion. Which is one of the reasons it is so fascinating.
At the time, everyone thought Donald Trump being President was an absolute joke. What seems ludicrous now may be obvious in hindsight.
Ridiculous to think that Boris wasn't genuinely upset.
Nobody likes to be blamed for things they've done.
Upset and sorrow are two different things though. If he was truly sorry then we wouldn't be ploughing on with the same failed policies and same failed ministers who have overseen at least 60,000 completely needless deaths and an economic disaster that will cost us £500bn in additional debt.
If a hotel quarantine policy is introduced later today (I hope it is) then will there be any other European country that has gone further than that?
It would only be interesting, indeed astonishing, if such caveats weren't in the contract.
It is completely inconceivable that the contract wouldn't include lots of such caveats. There is absolutely no way AZ would have given a firm commitment on delivery dates for a brand-new vaccine, involving new production facilities and dependent on other suppliers who themselves were also doing things for the first time, all in a super-fast timescale.
As AZ CEO has continually stated the contract is based on best endeavors.
I'm actually surprised how polite he is being in public considering the games the EU seem to be playing.
I don't know what the EU think they're playing at. They really are in a negotiation where AZ hold all the cards. After all, if the EU get too bolshie AZ have the option to simply walk away from the contract, close their European factory and concentrate on other markets.
And there is exactly feck all the EU can do about it.
So the 'win' here for the EU is they accept a lower delivery than they want, and the lose is that they get none at all.
...and in the glare of world-wide publicity that they themselves have created.
It would only be interesting, indeed astonishing, if such caveats weren't in the contract.
It is completely inconceivable that the contract wouldn't include lots of such caveats. There is absolutely no way AZ would have given a firm commitment on delivery dates for a brand-new vaccine, involving new production facilities and dependent on other suppliers who themselves were also doing things for the first time, all in a super-fast timescale.
As AZ CEO has continually stated the contract is based on best endeavors.
I'm actually surprised how polite he is being in public considering the games the EU seem to be playing.
I don't know what the EU think they're playing at. They really are in a negotiation where AZ hold all the cards. After all, if the EU get too bolshie AZ have the option to simply walk away from the contract, close their European factory and concentrate on other markets.
And there is exactly feck all the EU can do about it.
So the 'win' here for the EU is they accept a lower delivery than they want, and the lose is that they get none at all.
Wrong. The EU is one of the largest markets for pharmaceuticals in the world. That gives them a lot of muscle. AZ will not want to antagonise them more than necessary, so no, AZ do not hold all the cards, far from it.
A huge difference relevant to the Trump/Boris comparisons is that Trump lacks an empathetic bone in his body and denied and disowned and did not have the vaccine roll-out triumph. Boris' government have made many mistakes, but Boris does empathy and has very authentically taken responsibility fully and shown genuine sorrow. In addition, the HMG has had far more successes in its COVID response than its most ardent critics are willing to admit - not just the vaccine and its rollout, but also testing and genomic sequencing, and much of Rishi's economic response (again, not without it fair and unfair criticisms).
It would only be interesting, indeed astonishing, if such caveats weren't in the contract.
It is completely inconceivable that the contract wouldn't include lots of such caveats. There is absolutely no way AZ would have given a firm commitment on delivery dates for a brand-new vaccine, involving new production facilities and dependent on other suppliers who themselves were also doing things for the first time, all in a super-fast timescale.
As AZ CEO has continually stated the contract is based on best endeavors.
I'm actually surprised how polite he is being in public considering the games the EU seem to be playing.
I don't know what the EU think they're playing at. They really are in a negotiation where AZ hold all the cards. After all, if the EU get too bolshie AZ have the option to simply walk away from the contract, close their European factory and concentrate on other markets.
And there is exactly feck all the EU can do about it.
So the 'win' here for the EU is they accept a lower delivery than they want, and the lose is that they get none at all.
Wrong. The EU is one of the largest markets for pharmaceuticals in the world. That gives them a lot of muscle. AZ will not want to antagonise them more than necessary, so no, AZ do not hold all the cards, far from it.
Big and sclerotic is worse than small and nimble. We're seeing that in real time action.
AZ have something the EU needs. All pharmaceutical companies do, that is how they make their money. Being big and lethargic makes you worse not better.
Is there an effort being made in Scotland to point out dispassionately but clearly that the EU has made a mess of the vaccine compared to the UK - so far at least?
It would only be interesting, indeed astonishing, if such caveats weren't in the contract.
It is completely inconceivable that the contract wouldn't include lots of such caveats. There is absolutely no way AZ would have given a firm commitment on delivery dates for a brand-new vaccine, involving new production facilities and dependent on other suppliers who themselves were also doing things for the first time, all in a super-fast timescale.
As AZ CEO has continually stated the contract is based on best endeavors.
I'm actually surprised how polite he is being in public considering the games the EU seem to be playing.
I don't know what the EU think they're playing at. They really are in a negotiation where AZ hold all the cards. After all, if the EU get too bolshie AZ have the option to simply walk away from the contract, close their European factory and concentrate on other markets.
And there is exactly feck all the EU can do about it.
So the 'win' here for the EU is they accept a lower delivery than they want, and the lose is that they get none at all.
Wrong. The EU is one of the largest markets for pharmaceuticals in the world. That gives them a lot of muscle. AZ will not want to antagonise them more than necessary, so no, AZ do not hold all the cards, far from it.
So - just to be clear - the EU might ban AZ from operating in the EU altogether if they decide to abrogate a contract?
Which would cause no medicine shortages of any kind, I trust?
The EU are behaving like complete fools. It's like watching the DUP over Theresa May's deal - only worse, because you expect the DUP to behave like idiots.
Is there an effort being made in Scotland to point out dispassionately but clearly that the EU has made a mess of the vaccine compared to the UK - so far at least?
I think the EU Commission have taken charge of this particular area.
It would only be interesting, indeed astonishing, if such caveats weren't in the contract.
It is completely inconceivable that the contract wouldn't include lots of such caveats. There is absolutely no way AZ would have given a firm commitment on delivery dates for a brand-new vaccine, involving new production facilities and dependent on other suppliers who themselves were also doing things for the first time, all in a super-fast timescale.
As AZ CEO has continually stated the contract is based on best endeavors.
I'm actually surprised how polite he is being in public considering the games the EU seem to be playing.
I don't know what the EU think they're playing at. They really are in a negotiation where AZ hold all the cards. After all, if the EU get too bolshie AZ have the option to simply walk away from the contract, close their European factory and concentrate on other markets.
And there is exactly feck all the EU can do about it.
So the 'win' here for the EU is they accept a lower delivery than they want, and the lose is that they get none at all.
Wrong. The EU is one of the largest markets for pharmaceuticals in the world. That gives them a lot of muscle. AZ will not want to antagonise them more than necessary, so no, AZ do not hold all the cards, far from it.
The issue for the EU, is that they might end up encouraging companies to manufacture outside the EU.
Clever of Caroline Lucas to have a poster of her constituency behind her.
What about flags though?
Even Boris didn't have one in his call with Biden photo (unless it was photoshopped out). After Keir got on board, he must have realised it was all getting silly, so everyone can stand down.
It would only be interesting, indeed astonishing, if such caveats weren't in the contract.
It is completely inconceivable that the contract wouldn't include lots of such caveats. There is absolutely no way AZ would have given a firm commitment on delivery dates for a brand-new vaccine, involving new production facilities and dependent on other suppliers who themselves were also doing things for the first time, all in a super-fast timescale.
As AZ CEO has continually stated the contract is based on best endeavors.
I'm actually surprised how polite he is being in public considering the games the EU seem to be playing.
I don't know what the EU think they're playing at. They really are in a negotiation where AZ hold all the cards. After all, if the EU get too bolshie AZ have the option to simply walk away from the contract, close their European factory and concentrate on other markets.
And there is exactly feck all the EU can do about it.
So the 'win' here for the EU is they accept a lower delivery than they want, and the lose is that they get none at all.
Wrong. The EU is one of the largest markets for pharmaceuticals in the world. That gives them a lot of muscle. AZ will not want to antagonise them more than necessary, so no, AZ do not hold all the cards, far from it.
This is the kind of stuff that can turn it into a large market and producer to just being a large buyer of pharmaceutical products. There's no doubt that pharma companies from across the world want to sell to EU countries, but the question is whether those pharma companies will want to make the product in Europe given all of the latest shenanigans. Like the IMB over here, it won't move any business but I think it definitely plays into future decision making. Why risk export restrictions in the EU when you can go to Switzerland and enjoy tariff/quota free exports of pharmaceutical goods and services.
So London is now going to have to compete with a NY finance industry that has full equivalence in the EU. I can’t see how those parts of the market survive. If they haven’t left already they will now.
"The report added the industry will also likely see dark liquidity “re-gravitating back to London” as the UK looks to champion alternative pools of liquidity to attract non-EU activity. The UK’s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) recently lowered the LIS threshold for EU-listed stocks to €15,000 making dark trading more attractive and less restrictive."
You wouldn't know what dark liquidity is if it asked to join you and Bob Hope for lunch.
Anonymous large scale trades, away from public exchanges? Effectively a private sale where investors deal outside of the glare of normal public exchange, price and participants not being disclosed.
Clever of Caroline Lucas to have a poster of her constituency behind her.
What about flags though?
Even Boris didn't have one in his call with Biden photo (unless it was photoshopped out). After Keir got on board, he must have realised it was all getting silly, so everyone can stand down.
So London is now going to have to compete with a NY finance industry that has full equivalence in the EU. I can’t see how those parts of the market survive. If they haven’t left already they will now.
"The report added the industry will also likely see dark liquidity “re-gravitating back to London” as the UK looks to champion alternative pools of liquidity to attract non-EU activity. The UK’s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) recently lowered the LIS threshold for EU-listed stocks to €15,000 making dark trading more attractive and less restrictive."
You wouldn't know what dark liquidity is if it asked to join you and Bob Hope for lunch.
Anonymous large scale trades, away from public exchanges? Effectively a private sale where investors deal outside of the glare of normal public exchange, price and participants not being disclosed.
It would only be interesting, indeed astonishing, if such caveats weren't in the contract.
It is completely inconceivable that the contract wouldn't include lots of such caveats. There is absolutely no way AZ would have given a firm commitment on delivery dates for a brand-new vaccine, involving new production facilities and dependent on other suppliers who themselves were also doing things for the first time, all in a super-fast timescale.
As AZ CEO has continually stated the contract is based on best endeavors.
I'm actually surprised how polite he is being in public considering the games the EU seem to be playing.
I don't know what the EU think they're playing at. They really are in a negotiation where AZ hold all the cards. After all, if the EU get too bolshie AZ have the option to simply walk away from the contract, close their European factory and concentrate on other markets.
And there is exactly feck all the EU can do about it.
So the 'win' here for the EU is they accept a lower delivery than they want, and the lose is that they get none at all.
The main win is a political one - that some EU voters will blame the British, Big Pharma, or British Big Pharma, for the mistakes made in EU vaccine procurement, approval and delivery.
It's always bad to see politicians play this game, but it's hardly unknown, alas.
The question is: where are the opposition politicians that will make sure those in charge don't evade the blame?
If GOP senators don't bar him from office he will be running in 2024.
I'm not sure I agree for several reasons, although accept it's a serious possibility.
Obstacles include:
1. He has serious legal and possibly financial problems separate from impeachment.
2. He is deeply personal hurt by defeat and won't run if he doesn't think he'll win.
3. Many of his biggest defenders don't want him to stand due either to personal ambition or a belief he won't win - they will stand by him but remind him of 2.
4. He will be 78. Whilst he seems in surprisingly robust form for a man with his risk factors, and it didn't stop Biden, quite a lot can happen medically in four years in your late 70s if you're obese and so on.
It's fascinating. The GOP is infected by far right populism going by the name of MAGA. If they split into GOP and MAGA, the Dems win. If they don't split they have to either purge MAGA or become MAGA. But they can't purge MAGA without fostering the split which they must avoid. Ergo they must become MAGA. But MAGA can't work under a career politician. It needs a charismatic celebrity outsider to front it. That's an essential part of its USP. It needs Donald Trump. But Donald Trump will not be standing for all of the reasons you list and more. So, if they go this route, who will it be? Tucker Carlson? Alex Jones? This has the feel of a series of logic steps, each impeccable, leading to a ludicrous conclusion. Which is one of the reasons it is so fascinating.
At the time, everyone thought Donald Trump being President was an absolute joke. What seems ludicrous now may be obvious in hindsight.
I think repub voters will forgive MAGA candidates and they will forgive Reaganites.
What they will not forgive are candidates who are not angry as hell with the democrats and their policies. They will not tolerate trimmers, deal doers, consensus seekers. They think they are in a fight (even a war) and they want candidates who share that attitude.
It would only be interesting, indeed astonishing, if such caveats weren't in the contract.
It is completely inconceivable that the contract wouldn't include lots of such caveats. There is absolutely no way AZ would have given a firm commitment on delivery dates for a brand-new vaccine, involving new production facilities and dependent on other suppliers who themselves were also doing things for the first time, all in a super-fast timescale.
As AZ CEO has continually stated the contract is based on best endeavors.
I'm actually surprised how polite he is being in public considering the games the EU seem to be playing.
I don't know what the EU think they're playing at. They really are in a negotiation where AZ hold all the cards. After all, if the EU get too bolshie AZ have the option to simply walk away from the contract, close their European factory and concentrate on other markets.
And there is exactly feck all the EU can do about it.
So the 'win' here for the EU is they accept a lower delivery than they want, and the lose is that they get none at all.
Wrong. The EU is one of the largest markets for pharmaceuticals in the world. That gives them a lot of muscle. AZ will not want to antagonise them more than necessary, so no, AZ do not hold all the cards, far from it.
This is the kind of stuff that can turn it into a large market and producer to just being a large buyer of pharmaceutical products. There's no doubt that pharma companies from across the world want to sell to EU countries, but the question is whether those pharma companies will want to make the product in Europe given all of the latest shenanigans. Like the IMB over here, it won't move any business but I think it definitely plays into future decision making. Why risk export restrictions in the EU when you can go to Switzerland and enjoy tariff/quota free exports of pharmaceutical goods and services.
IIRC this was the kind of thing that India used to try and do, in various industries, many years ago. Trying to political;y control companies and their products. Which resulted in a lot of big outfits keeping their manufacturing and IP outside India.
If GOP senators don't bar him from office he will be running in 2024.
I'm not sure I agree for several reasons, although accept it's a serious possibility.
Obstacles include:
1. He has serious legal and possibly financial problems separate from impeachment.
2. He is deeply personal hurt by defeat and won't run if he doesn't think he'll win.
3. Many of his biggest defenders don't want him to stand due either to personal ambition or a belief he won't win - they will stand by him but remind him of 2.
4. He will be 78. Whilst he seems in surprisingly robust form for a man with his risk factors, and it didn't stop Biden, quite a lot can happen medically in four years in your late 70s if you're obese and so on.
It's fascinating. The GOP is infected by far right populism going by the name of MAGA. If they split into GOP and MAGA, the Dems win. If they don't split they have to either purge MAGA or become MAGA. But they can't purge MAGA without fostering the split which they must avoid. Ergo they must become MAGA. But MAGA can't work under a career politician. It needs a charismatic celebrity outsider to front it. That's an essential part of its USP. It needs Donald Trump. But Donald Trump will not be standing for all of the reasons you list and more. So, if they go this route, who will it be? Tucker Carlson? Alex Jones? This has the feel of a series of logic steps, each impeccable, leading to a ludicrous conclusion. Which is one of the reasons it is so fascinating.
At the time, everyone thought Donald Trump being President was an absolute joke. What seems ludicrous now may be obvious in hindsight.
And Carlson, for instance, is sufficiently intelligent and superficially plausible to be extremely dangerous.
It would only be interesting, indeed astonishing, if such caveats weren't in the contract.
It is completely inconceivable that the contract wouldn't include lots of such caveats. There is absolutely no way AZ would have given a firm commitment on delivery dates for a brand-new vaccine, involving new production facilities and dependent on other suppliers who themselves were also doing things for the first time, all in a super-fast timescale.
As AZ CEO has continually stated the contract is based on best endeavors.
I'm actually surprised how polite he is being in public considering the games the EU seem to be playing.
I don't know what the EU think they're playing at. They really are in a negotiation where AZ hold all the cards. After all, if the EU get too bolshie AZ have the option to simply walk away from the contract, close their European factory and concentrate on other markets.
And there is exactly feck all the EU can do about it.
So the 'win' here for the EU is they accept a lower delivery than they want, and the lose is that they get none at all.
Wrong. The EU is one of the largest markets for pharmaceuticals in the world. That gives them a lot of muscle. AZ will not want to antagonise them more than necessary, so no, AZ do not hold all the cards, far from it.
This is the kind of stuff that can turn it into a large market and producer to just being a large buyer of pharmaceutical products. There's no doubt that pharma companies from across the world want to sell to EU countries, but the question is whether those pharma companies will want to make the product in Europe given all of the latest shenanigans. Like the IMB over here, it won't move any business but I think it definitely plays into future decision making. Why risk export restrictions in the EU when you can go to Switzerland and enjoy tariff/quota free exports of pharmaceutical goods and services.
I can't disagree with what you say regarding Switzerland, and of course Switzerland does have a very strong pharma and healthcare sector. However, I do think the media are getting a little silly about this. Corporate decisions on where product is manufactured is rarely influenced by storms in teacups like this. It is influenced by a multitude of things, but in particular access to finance, supply chains routes to market and, perhaps more than anything in pharma, access to talent.
It would only be interesting, indeed astonishing, if such caveats weren't in the contract.
It is completely inconceivable that the contract wouldn't include lots of such caveats. There is absolutely no way AZ would have given a firm commitment on delivery dates for a brand-new vaccine, involving new production facilities and dependent on other suppliers who themselves were also doing things for the first time, all in a super-fast timescale.
As AZ CEO has continually stated the contract is based on best endeavors.
I'm actually surprised how polite he is being in public considering the games the EU seem to be playing.
I don't know what the EU think they're playing at. They really are in a negotiation where AZ hold all the cards. After all, if the EU get too bolshie AZ have the option to simply walk away from the contract, close their European factory and concentrate on other markets.
And there is exactly feck all the EU can do about it.
So the 'win' here for the EU is they accept a lower delivery than they want, and the lose is that they get none at all.
Wrong. The EU is one of the largest markets for pharmaceuticals in the world. That gives them a lot of muscle. AZ will not want to antagonise them more than necessary, so no, AZ do not hold all the cards, far from it.
This is the kind of stuff that can turn it into a large market and producer to just being a large buyer of pharmaceutical products. There's no doubt that pharma companies from across the world want to sell to EU countries, but the question is whether those pharma companies will want to make the product in Europe given all of the latest shenanigans. Like the IMB over here, it won't move any business but I think it definitely plays into future decision making. Why risk export restrictions in the EU when you can go to Switzerland and enjoy tariff/quota free exports of pharmaceutical goods and services.
IIRC this was the kind of thing that India used to try and do, in various industries, many years ago. Trying to political;y control companies and their products. Which resulted in a lot of big outfits keeping their manufacturing and IP outside India.
Bearing in mind, there is now a large alternative manufacturing centre just off the north coast of the EU as well, where many of them already have significant production capacity.
So London is now going to have to compete with a NY finance industry that has full equivalence in the EU. I can’t see how those parts of the market survive. If they haven’t left already they will now.
"The report added the industry will also likely see dark liquidity “re-gravitating back to London” as the UK looks to champion alternative pools of liquidity to attract non-EU activity. The UK’s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) recently lowered the LIS threshold for EU-listed stocks to €15,000 making dark trading more attractive and less restrictive."
Yep. By being "nimble and cutting corners" - in line with the new Trotters Inc persona for Global Britain - the City will be able to attract even more "dark liquidity" than it does at the moment. It will be able to go from being a big player in that space to pretty much cornering the market. Much personal remuneration will accrue to the highly skilled participants and they will spend it on "service industries" some of which may be liable to VAT and hence some tax might be collected. Cheers will ring out in the Red Wall as some of this "trickles up" to them in the form of a lick of paint for the town centre.
It would only be interesting, indeed astonishing, if such caveats weren't in the contract.
It is completely inconceivable that the contract wouldn't include lots of such caveats. There is absolutely no way AZ would have given a firm commitment on delivery dates for a brand-new vaccine, involving new production facilities and dependent on other suppliers who themselves were also doing things for the first time, all in a super-fast timescale.
As AZ CEO has continually stated the contract is based on best endeavors.
I'm actually surprised how polite he is being in public considering the games the EU seem to be playing.
I don't know what the EU think they're playing at. They really are in a negotiation where AZ hold all the cards. After all, if the EU get too bolshie AZ have the option to simply walk away from the contract, close their European factory and concentrate on other markets.
And there is exactly feck all the EU can do about it.
So the 'win' here for the EU is they accept a lower delivery than they want, and the lose is that they get none at all.
Wrong. The EU is one of the largest markets for pharmaceuticals in the world. That gives them a lot of muscle. AZ will not want to antagonise them more than necessary, so no, AZ do not hold all the cards, far from it.
AZ holds the biggest card. Vaccines.
From the sounds of it the EU won't be wanting to use it on over 65s anyway, so won't need as many as they'll wait for others.
Ridiculous to think that Boris wasn't genuinely upset.
Nobody likes to be blamed for things they've done.
Upset and sorrow are two different things though. If he was truly sorry then we wouldn't be ploughing on with the same failed policies and same failed ministers who have overseen at least 60,000 completely needless deaths and an economic disaster that will cost us £500bn in additional debt.
If a hotel quarantine policy is introduced later today (I hope it is) then will there be any other European country that has gone further than that?
(Hotel quarantine for "hotspot" countries, making quarantine at home mandatory for anywhere else, some details over how that will be enforced still to be worked out).
Comments
Spolier alert: fuck all.
Trading at 9 for Republican nomination and 15 for President, if he is nominated he if far more likely to trade mostly at 3 again than 1.5 for all the same reasons, so the odds are completely out of line. Whilst there is a theoretical chance of winning POTUS as a third party candidate, with your approach you can rule that out as impossible (it is negligible).
Disclosure - I have backed him for nominee.
Boris may well have planned that anyway but now will find it challenging to do so.
I'm actually surprised how polite he is being in public considering the games the EU seem to be playing.
It's not clear - he says that the "best efforts" stuff is in the EU contract because it was signed 3 months later, giving them less time to get the process sorted out.
From context it seems to imply that this didn't extend to the UK contract, but that is an implication drawn from an interview that may or may not have been conducted in another language, may or may not have been translated etc etc....
So London is now going to have to compete with a NY finance industry that has full equivalence in the EU. I can’t see how those parts of the market survive. If they haven’t left already they will now.
(edit: ah, I see this has been posted down below...)
More Drakeford Moaning, this time from the Vale of Glamorgan.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-55822834
But, the BBC seem to think Mark Drakeford has overtaken Nicola Sturgeon & Arlene Foster in the Great Vaccine Race.
England 10.6 %
Wales 9.2 %
N Ireland 8.6 %
Scotland 8.0 %
Go, Mark, go. See if you can chase down the Shagster.
Not a good look, is it?
https://www.thetradenews.com/uk-trading-venues-see-eu-market-share-plummet-post-brexit-report-finds/
https://www.thetradenews.com/tp-icap-no-longer-able-to-service-all-eu-clients-as-pandemic-delays-paris-brexit-move/
Smart politics. It may or may not be smart epidemiology....
My main takeaway from that, is that the "bundle" of trajectories is close - the different in percentage of population vaccinated is only a few days apart.
But one can't be sure.
https://www.tes.com/news/coronavirus-schools-online-learning-education-secretary-under-fire-over-remote-learning
I'm thinking possibly supply of equipment might be an issue as well, but it looks as though Swinney is making exactly the same mistakes as Williamson (again).
What is it with educational administrators?
Like you I imagine they will try to pretend a decision to approve only for under 65s vindicates their reporting, but they made and defended a much starker point about efficacy.
And since you've criticised people for criticising the reporting as we shall find out the decision soon, by your own terms their reporting should be criticised for confusing the situation rather than wait for official confirmation. They also don't have an obligation to parrot what they are told.
So I think theres still plenty of room for criticism even if the regulator goes cautious.
Firstly, Andy Wightman. A Green MSP who has resigned from the Party as the result of an obscure (to me) row about trans issues. He is contemplating standing as an Independent. He is widely respected and may well get in on the List.
Secondly, Joanna Cherry QC. She is a very formidable SNP MP who has fallen out big-time with the Sturgeon/Murrell duopoly. Some deft internal politicking meant that she was excluded from standing for Holyrood.
Thirdly, trans issues appears to be one of the dividing lines between Cherry and the Salmondites on the one hand and Sturgeon and her supporters, on the other.
(Still following...)
Fourthly, we are seeing this being played out in the Salmond trial with a number of senior SNP figures (Cherry, Angus MacNeil, Kenny MacAskill, malcolmg, etc) making remarkably disobliging comments about Sturgeon.
This has all largely by-passed the Scottish public but it makes the internal politicking of Corbyn-era Labour look like a kindergarten squabble by comparison.
Carnyx, Malc et al should be able to fill in the details...
The one thing it might resolve is schools having to deal with lack of teaching staff but it doesn't solve the issues of cohorts needing to go into isolation due to contact.
So far every provider has had production delays, it happens. Unless theres proof of nefarious actions is this grown up politics?
The Economic Case for Global Vaccinations: An Epidemiological Model with International Production Networks
https://www.nber.org/papers/w28395#fromrss
COVID-19 pandemic had a devastating effect on both lives and livelihoods in 2020. The arrival of effective vaccines can be a major game changer. However, vaccines are in short supply as of early 2021 and most of them are reserved for the advanced economies. We show that the global GDP loss of not inoculating all the countries, relative to a counterfactual of global vaccinations, is higher than the cost of manufacturing and distributing vaccines globally. We use an economic-epidemiological framework that combines a SIR model with international production and trade networks. Based on this framework, we estimate the costs for 65 countries and 35 sectors. Our estimates suggest that up to 49 percent of the global economic costs of the pandemic in 2021 are borne by the advanced economies even if they achieve universal vaccination in their own countries.
It's been fun to see the Commussion behave just like a normal government in whataboutery, insinuations, angry press statements and distraction.
Nobody likes to be blamed for things they've done.
What a lovely story. After a years worth of bitching on pb.com from all the Welsh posters, unloved Mark Drakeford comes good at the end, and snatches v. from the jaws of d.
But, it looks hard -- the gradients of E,W and S look the same over the last few days. The trajectories are moving in step.
They need to be pumping the drugs into Mark to give him the extra bit of whizz. Or someone needs to trip the Shagster up.
And there is exactly feck all the EU can do about it.
So the 'win' here for the EU is they accept a lower delivery than they want, and the lose is that they get none at all.
(Hoping Big G will forgive me.)
AZ have something the EU needs. All pharmaceutical companies do, that is how they make their money. Being big and lethargic makes you worse not better.
https://twitter.com/AlisonHarrisMSP/status/1354365028770721792?s=20
Which would cause no medicine shortages of any kind, I trust?
The EU are behaving like complete fools. It's like watching the DUP over Theresa May's deal - only worse, because you expect the DUP to behave like idiots.
And it just got easier...
They're hiding behind "The UK govt had a hissy fit" when they released future deliveries to hide historic ones....
I can't imagine why.....
Israel (9.05 million) 47.90 per 100 population
UAE (9.77 million) 27.107 per 100 population
United Kingdom (67 million) 10.79 per 100 population
...
European Union (446 million) 2.11 per 100 population
Still @Nigel_Foremain reckons "big" "muscle" works when it comes to pharmaceuticals. "Big" doesn't work. "Muscle" doesn't work.
Small countries nimbly looking after themselves works.
How and why did it just get easier?
It's always bad to see politicians play this game, but it's hardly unknown, alas.
The question is: where are the opposition politicians that will make sure those in charge don't evade the blame?
What they will not forgive are candidates who are not angry as hell with the democrats and their policies. They will not tolerate trimmers, deal doers, consensus seekers. They think they are in a fight (even a war) and they want candidates who share that attitude.
https://www.rte.ie/news/politics/2021/0126/1192196-opposition-parties-restrictions/
(Hotel quarantine for "hotspot" countries, making quarantine at home mandatory for anywhere else, some details over how that will be enforced still to be worked out).