|
Post by nucleusofswarm on Jan 28, 2021 17:45:38 GMT
Germany’s move could raise questions in the UK, where the vaccine is approved for all persons aged 18 and over. When the UK regulator, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), approved it for emergency use last month, health authorities acknowledged there was a small amount of data on older populations, but that more results would become available this year. The MHRA did not immediately respond to a request for comment.So maybe not so much a bizarre or petulant decision but an extremely cautious one. Hopefully AstraZeneca will share their latest analysis soon to allay any fears. Because as a child of a parent in her late seventies who has had the AstraZeneca jab I am extremely alarmed that we are only finding out now that there was only "a small amount of data" available before the vaccine was approved last month. Now, I'll preface this by saying I'm not a doctor or immunologist, so always seek professional advice. What I can offer, as someone who follows the vaccine discussion, is that, if you've heard about the '8% effective' bit and it worries you from all the chatter about Germany, it turns out it was actually due to a misread of the data. What's more, the data thus far (here's a piece from The Lancet) says the Astra vaccine has the same efficacy in the over 70s as in younger recipients. Obviously, more data will be great and important (which is coming, thanks to the Oxford US trial), but what we have so far is promising. www.businessinsider.com/oxford-astrazeneca-vaccine-older-people-study-effective-german-government-2021-1?r=US&IR=Twww.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)32623-4/fulltext
|
|
|
Post by tuigirl on Jan 28, 2021 20:30:11 GMT
As I mentioned in the Health thread, "Germany's" reaction (I would like to place myself to the sidelines here) is nothing but a SMOKESCREEN. Please do not interpred any kind of competence into this.
|
|
|
Post by number13 on Jan 28, 2021 23:34:05 GMT
As I mentioned in the Health thread, "Germany's" reaction (I would like to place myself to the sidelines here) is nothing but a SMOKESCREEN. Please do not interpred any kind of competence into this. Thanks tuigirl, I read your other post, very interesting. Being cynical me I'd already assumed it was politics...
Apparently sequencing is one thing we did have the infrastructure for, also Denmark if I remember rightly? Though I've no idea why this was for either country.
|
|
|
Post by tuigirl on Jan 29, 2021 8:50:47 GMT
As I mentioned in the Health thread, "Germany's" reaction (I would like to place myself to the sidelines here) is nothing but a SMOKESCREEN. Please do not interpred any kind of competence into this. Thanks tuigirl , I read your other post, very interesting. Being cynical me I'd already assumed it was politics...
Apparently sequencing is one thing we did have the infrastructure for, also Denmark if I remember rightly? Though I've no idea why this was for either country.
Well, what isn't politics these days? No wonder the whole COVID this is handled in such a non-sensical and ineffective way (apart from New Zealand, that is).
Blackadder comes to mind: A war hasn’t been fought this badly since Olaf the Hairy, High Chief of all the Vikings, accidentally ordered 80,000 battle helmets with the horns on the inside.
And yes, the UK at least got the surveillance and the sequencing right. You know where the mutants are. Yes you did not act upon it until the droppings hit the fan, but at least you had a detailed picture of number and trajectory of these droppings.
In Germany, they can hit you unexpectantly from behind and you only know about it when something soft and warm flows down your back.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2021 10:24:05 GMT
|
|
lidar2
Castellan
You know, now that you mention it, I actually do rather like Attack of the Cybermen ...
Likes: 5,813
|
Post by lidar2 on Jan 29, 2021 10:34:28 GMT
In reference to the above Financial Times story about Pig exports, it notes that we gave the EU a six month transition period to embed new procedures, which the EU declined to reciprocate, resulting in in it being easier for EU suppliers to sell their goods to purchasers than those in the UK. It seems to me that there is an effort underway to make life difficult. I fail to see how one can blame Brexiteers and the Government and not the EU. Nor how it demonstrates that we are better off 'in'.
At the risk of stating the obvious, this wouldn't be happening if we had remined 'in'.
More fundamentally, it demonstrates the folly of picking a fight* we can't win against a stronger opponent who is willing to fight dirty
* Not literally a fight of course, more of a competitive rivalry and oneupmanship as the UK seeks to get one over on the EU by proving it is better off 'out' and the EU likewise seeks to get one over on the UK by proving the UK is worse off 'out'
|
|
|
Post by number13 on Jan 29, 2021 10:55:14 GMT
At the risk of stating the obvious, this wouldn't be happening if we had remined 'in'.
More fundamentally, it demonstrates the folly of picking a fight* we can't win against a stronger opponent who is willing to fight dirty
* Not literally a fight of course, more of a competitive rivalry and oneupmanship as the UK seeks to get one over on the EU by proving it is better off 'out' and the EU likewise seeks to get one over on the UK by proving the UK is worse off 'out'
lidar2 I think the site has made a pig's ear of the quoting in your previous post and thus generated a virtual porkie. I'm scratching my head as to how a post about piggies was attributed to me?
My few recent posts on this thread have all related to the pig's breakfast of vaccine procurement across the Channel and the EU's collective failure to bring home the bacon in this regard.
(Forgive my hamming it up in reply, I'll stop while I'm on a roll ( sausage roll, of course.) )
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2021 11:01:27 GMT
At the risk of stating the obvious, this wouldn't be happening if we had remined 'in'.
More fundamentally, it demonstrates the folly of picking a fight* we can't win against a stronger opponent who is willing to fight dirty
* Not literally a fight of course, more of a competitive rivalry and oneupmanship as the UK seeks to get one over on the EU by proving it is better off 'out' and the EU likewise seeks to get one over on the UK by proving the UK is worse off 'out'
That's a fair enough and a reason why many feel we were better off in. My sentiment is the moral view, never to side with the bully for an easier ride. It may be a harder life outside of the gang that plays dirty, but it is one of self respect, for better or worse. The point I raise in the above case is that all things being fair and equal, trade can operate better, than if one side is actively trying to make the other fail, or to make themselves look better in contrast. I cannot side with anyone who works that way and never have. As Michael Caine said “People say ‘Oh, you’ll be poor, you’ll be this, you’ll be that’. I say I’d rather be a poor master of my fate than having someone I don’t know making me rich by running it.”
|
|
lidar2
Castellan
You know, now that you mention it, I actually do rather like Attack of the Cybermen ...
Likes: 5,813
|
Post by lidar2 on Jan 29, 2021 11:11:54 GMT
It's not edifying is it? Something our government & medical authorities have got right in all this was to get well ahead on funding vaccine development, ordering vast quantities and signing contracts well ahead of time and doing the authorisation studies in a really efficient way. If the cross-Channel situation was reversed, the tirade of posts and broadcasts criticising Boris & co for not getting the vaccines would be off the scale. And blaming Brexit for it, no doubt.
The latest from the EU today is a truly strange announcement from Germany that they aren't giving some people a vaccine which they haven't got and haven't authorised for anyone. I'm sure there will be lots of people here and in other countries only too happy to get the doses that Germany haven't got and now don't want.
Oh absolutely. I have been reading about again it just now. Where the latest decision leaves the supply situation for the most vulnerable in the EU, for example. I suppose if we had remained within the EU, none of this would be happening. We would be as bereft of supplies and late in rolling out as everyone else and languishing at 2% of the population vaccinated as opposed to 11% at present. The threats to block exports of the Pfizer vaccine out of the EU also makes be question the way import and export rules are being used at present with other goods. www.spectator.co.uk/article/germany-has-just-undermined-the-eu-s-vaccine-argument
There also seems to be some effort to level the playing field still in some of the BBC reporting:
Also worth reading for those with paywall access ( I bought the print edition today):
It will surprise that I actually agree with you on this one - the EU has not covered itself in glory over this and the UK has come out better.
As important as this issue is though, I am not sure that it really says anything about leave or remain. Governments across the world face lots of issues and each handles them differently. Some handle them well, some handle them badly. Right now the big issue is covid vaccinations and to give credit where it is due the UK has clearly handled it better (so far, and let's keep our fingers crossed for the future). But in 2022 it will be a different issue that governments are facing and who is to say whether the UK or the EU will handle it better, never mind the US, Russia, China, India etc. And in 2023 it will be something different again and who knows which country or group of countries will handle that issue better.
Vaccinating our population quicker than the EU will give the UK a short term economic boost in 2021 (although we have more ground to make up in the first place), but none of the current vaccine arguments alter the fundamental economic and commercial reality that the EU single market works. Mrs Thatcher's belief in the power and benefits of markets is vindicated by her Single Market. Its members become more prosperous with a higher GDP as a result of their membership. UK GDP will be lower in 2030 because we left than it will be had we remained. And lower still in 2040, etc . . . . That means lower living standards for everyone in the UK, fewer jobs, less money for the NHS, education, state pensions, etc.
Also worth noting that - so far as I can tell from what I have read - the EU's collective vaccination purchase was not compulsory or required by a treaty - the 27 chose to do it because they (wrongly) thought it seemed like a good idea. Any member, including the UK had we still been a member, could have opted out and done their own thing. Thus it is not absolutely correct to say we would be in the same boat as the EU had we remained a member.
|
|
lidar2
Castellan
You know, now that you mention it, I actually do rather like Attack of the Cybermen ...
Likes: 5,813
|
Post by lidar2 on Jan 29, 2021 11:14:05 GMT
At the risk of stating the obvious, this wouldn't be happening if we had remined 'in'.
More fundamentally, it demonstrates the folly of picking a fight* we can't win against a stronger opponent who is willing to fight dirty
* Not literally a fight of course, more of a competitive rivalry and oneupmanship as the UK seeks to get one over on the EU by proving it is better off 'out' and the EU likewise seeks to get one over on the UK by proving the UK is worse off 'out'
lidar2 I think the site has made a pig's ear of the quoting in your previous post and thus generated a virtual porkie. I'm scratching my head as to how a post about piggies was attributed to me?
My few recent posts on this thread have all related to the pig's breakfast of vaccine procurement across the Channel and the EU's collective failure to bring home the bacon in this regard.
(Forgive my hamming it up in reply, I'll stop while I'm on a roll ( sausage roll, of course.) ) Apologies - original post edited
|
|
|
Post by number13 on Jan 29, 2021 11:19:47 GMT
lidar2 I think the site has made a pig's ear of the quoting in your previous post and thus generated a virtual porkie. I'm scratching my head as to how a post about piggies was attributed to me?
My few recent posts on this thread have all related to the pig's breakfast of vaccine procurement across the Channel and the EU's collective failure to bring home the bacon in this regard.
(Forgive my hamming it up in reply, I'll stop while I'm on a roll ( sausage roll, of course.) ) Apologies - original post edited Thanks! And for giving me a bit of fun writing my post.
|
|
|
Post by number13 on Jan 29, 2021 11:38:47 GMT
Now back on serious topic, the final scales have fallen from my eyes very recently in regard to the EU. I voted Remain (back in what seems like another world) and while I expected some squabbling over trade and borders after Brexit, I never expected behaviour such as we have seen over the vaccine supply issue.
First unresponsive and painfully slow in the name of 'bloc solidarity', not science, and then bullying and protectionist by instinct in response to the problems this caused, their behaviour has been disgraceful and it's to the great credit of a few European politicians that they have spoken out against it.
Threatening to block vaccine supply to the people of a friendly country, because of their own incompetence and in response to a commercial dispute with a company in that country is not the act of a group I would wish to be a member of. Nor is one country in that group very publicly casting doubt on the efficacy of a vaccine - by pure coincidence, the vaccine at the centre of the dispute - for what looks suspiciously like political reasons.
Even in The Guardian - (one story that JHD hasn't posted a link to, so I will.)
(And the SNP response doesn't surprise me at all. The UK (and England in particular) are always wrong, about everything, in all circumstances. The EU and Scotland are always right. It's the new version of The Auld Alliance.)
|
|
lidar2
Castellan
You know, now that you mention it, I actually do rather like Attack of the Cybermen ...
Likes: 5,813
|
Post by lidar2 on Jan 29, 2021 11:39:28 GMT
At the risk of stating the obvious, this wouldn't be happening if we had remined 'in'.
More fundamentally, it demonstrates the folly of picking a fight* we can't win against a stronger opponent who is willing to fight dirty
* Not literally a fight of course, more of a competitive rivalry and oneupmanship as the UK seeks to get one over on the EU by proving it is better off 'out' and the EU likewise seeks to get one over on the UK by proving the UK is worse off 'out'
That's a fair enough and a reason why many feel we were better off in. My sentiment is the moral view, never to side with the bully for an easier ride. It may be a harder life outside of the gang that plays dirty, but it is one of self respect, for better or worse. The point I raise in the above case is that all things being fair and equal, trade can operate better, than if one side is actively trying to make the other fail, or to make themselves look better in contrast. I cannot side with anyone who works that way and never have. As Michael Caine said “People say ‘Oh, you’ll be poor, you’ll be this, you’ll be that’. I say I’d rather be a poor master of my fate than having someone I don’t know making me rich by running it.”
That's a very reasonable point of view and I have to respect it and admire your honesty. I can't help but wonder if the referendum result might have been different in 2016 if the Leave campaign had been equally honest about how brexit would make us poorer, but that's water under the bridge now.
I'm not sure it is entirely fair to characterise it as bullying given that we picked the fight in the sense that we set ourselves up against the EU as a "better" way. However you characterise the current relationship, I certainly don't think we were bullied while we were a member - we obviously didn't get everything our own way 100% of the time, but by and large we held our own and more often than not we won the argument. Now that we are outside we put ourselves in a position where the EU will want to ensure the UK is worse off outside (otherwise other countries might decide to leave) and made ourselves vulnerable to bullying. With the best will in the world I just can't see how that was a good idea.
There is a brilliant Yes Minister scene where Sir Humphrey explains why Britain is in the EU (EEC as it them was). I can't post you tube clips so I can't put it here, but its not hard to find. Like everything in Yes Minister it is very very funny but also very very true - and everything that has happened since 2016 simply proves the truth of it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2021 11:50:15 GMT
That's a fair enough and a reason why many feel we were better off in. My sentiment is the moral view, never to side with the bully for an easier ride. It may be a harder life outside of the gang that plays dirty, but it is one of self respect, for better or worse. The point I raise in the above case is that all things being fair and equal, trade can operate better, than if one side is actively trying to make the other fail, or to make themselves look better in contrast. I cannot side with anyone who works that way and never have. As Michael Caine said “People say ‘Oh, you’ll be poor, you’ll be this, you’ll be that’. I say I’d rather be a poor master of my fate than having someone I don’t know making me rich by running it.”
That's a very reasonable point of view and I have to respect it and admire your honesty. I can't help but wonder if the referendum result might have been different in 2016 if the Leave campaign had been equally honest about how brexit would make us poorer, but that's water under the bridge now.
I'm not sure it is entirely fair to characterise it as bullying given that we picked the fight in the sense that we set ourselves up against the EU as a "better" way. However you characterise the current relationship, I certainly don't think we were bullied while we were a member - we obviously didn't get everything our own way 100% of the time, but by and large we held our own and more often than not we won the argument. Now that we are outside we put ourselves in a position where the EU will want to ensure the UK is worse off outside (otherwise other countries might decide to leave) and made ourselves vulnerable to bullying. With the best will in the world I just can't see how that was a good idea.
There is a brilliant Yes Minister scene where Sir Humphrey explains why Britain is in the EU (EEC as it them was). I can't post you tube clips so I can't put it here, but its not hard to find. Like everything in Yes Minister it is very very funny but also very very true - and everything that has happened since 2016 simply proves the truth of it.
Thanks. I must say I had no problem with our membership prior to the Referendum, as I have mentioned a few times way back and my decision was a narrow one, based more on a global outlook. My feelings in a negative sense have developed by the way the Brexit process evolved. I acknowledge that much has transpired to show that life will be harder and a lot of the benefits of being in the club have been lost for good, but the negotiating strategy and bad faith, hardened my outlook. I am not hard right in outlook, nor staunchly political or protective of the Government's performance, but prefer to seek some balance, where neither side is blameless.
|
|
lidar2
Castellan
You know, now that you mention it, I actually do rather like Attack of the Cybermen ...
Likes: 5,813
|
Post by lidar2 on Jan 29, 2021 12:24:07 GMT
That's a very reasonable point of view and I have to respect it and admire your honesty. I can't help but wonder if the referendum result might have been different in 2016 if the Leave campaign had been equally honest about how brexit would make us poorer, but that's water under the bridge now.
I'm not sure it is entirely fair to characterise it as bullying given that we picked the fight in the sense that we set ourselves up against the EU as a "better" way. However you characterise the current relationship, I certainly don't think we were bullied while we were a member - we obviously didn't get everything our own way 100% of the time, but by and large we held our own and more often than not we won the argument. Now that we are outside we put ourselves in a position where the EU will want to ensure the UK is worse off outside (otherwise other countries might decide to leave) and made ourselves vulnerable to bullying. With the best will in the world I just can't see how that was a good idea.
There is a brilliant Yes Minister scene where Sir Humphrey explains why Britain is in the EU (EEC as it them was). I can't post you tube clips so I can't put it here, but its not hard to find. Like everything in Yes Minister it is very very funny but also very very true - and everything that has happened since 2016 simply proves the truth of it.
Thanks. I must say I had no problem with our membership prior to the Referendum, as I have mentioned a few times way back and my decision was a narrow one, based more on a global outlook. My feelings in a negative sense have developed by the way the Brexit process evolved. I acknowledge that much has transpired to show that life will be harder and a lot of the benefits of being in the club have been lost for good, but the negotiating strategy and bad faith, hardened my outlook. I am not hard right in outlook, nor staunchly political or protective of the Government's performance, but prefer to seek some balance, where neither side is blameless. Funnily enough the negotiation process hardened my outlook the other way. The more it went on the more we realised how much we were going to lose and how little we would gain, the more bonkers brexit seemed. The EU have behaved outrageously and I don't like it any more than you do, but where we differ is that I don't hold that against them - I take the view that we live in a dog eat dog world and all the EU is doing is playing by the rules of that world the same as we do. The only difference between the UK and the EU is not one of morality but one of strength and, because the EU position vis a vis the UK is inherently stronger, the EU will inevitably come out on top. Everything that has happened since 2016 has reinforced that view and made brexit seem more and more foolish.
I am on the right politically and if we were discussing anything other than brexit the chances are my views would be to the right of yours, but hopefully we will be able to agree on something sometime.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2021 12:34:20 GMT
Thanks. I must say I had no problem with our membership prior to the Referendum, as I have mentioned a few times way back and my decision was a narrow one, based more on a global outlook. My feelings in a negative sense have developed by the way the Brexit process evolved. I acknowledge that much has transpired to show that life will be harder and a lot of the benefits of being in the club have been lost for good, but the negotiating strategy and bad faith, hardened my outlook. I am not hard right in outlook, nor staunchly political or protective of the Government's performance, but prefer to seek some balance, where neither side is blameless. ..... but hopefully we will be able to agree on something sometime.
Indeed. Fortunately I suspect we may have common ground in a shared liking for a certain old TV programme and audio drama about a time traveller in a police telephone box...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2021 13:03:49 GMT
I hope this doesn't sound in any way patronising or whatever, but it really is such a refreshing pleasure to read such an impassioned subject being discussed with such a tone of politeness and mutual respect.
I am pretty appalled by the EU's actions during this pandemic vaccine crisis. Yes, it's a dog eat dog world, and yes they are a huge bloc whereas the UK is 'just' an island. I can see both sides - we all want this horrific virus to be over, or curtailed at least, and I am learning things from this very thread about the mechanics of how these things work. Reading such debates on social media and seeing them dissolve into name-calling and point-scoring turns me away and into my sci-fi/horror bubble and wilful ignorance!
Anyway, long may this kind of discourse continue!
|
|
|
Post by nucleusofswarm on Jan 29, 2021 13:48:20 GMT
That's a very reasonable point of view and I have to respect it and admire your honesty. I can't help but wonder if the referendum result might have been different in 2016 if the Leave campaign had been equally honest about how brexit would make us poorer, but that's water under the bridge now.
I'm not sure it is entirely fair to characterise it as bullying given that we picked the fight in the sense that we set ourselves up against the EU as a "better" way. However you characterise the current relationship, I certainly don't think we were bullied while we were a member - we obviously didn't get everything our own way 100% of the time, but by and large we held our own and more often than not we won the argument. Now that we are outside we put ourselves in a position where the EU will want to ensure the UK is worse off outside (otherwise other countries might decide to leave) and made ourselves vulnerable to bullying. With the best will in the world I just can't see how that was a good idea.
There is a brilliant Yes Minister scene where Sir Humphrey explains why Britain is in the EU (EEC as it them was). I can't post you tube clips so I can't put it here, but its not hard to find. Like everything in Yes Minister it is very very funny but also very very true - and everything that has happened since 2016 simply proves the truth of it. Thanks. I must say I had no problem with our membership prior to the Referendum, as I have mentioned a few times way back and my decision was a narrow one, based more on a global outlook. My feelings in a negative sense have developed by the way the Brexit process evolved. I acknowledge that much has transpired to show that life will be harder and a lot of the benefits of being in the club have been lost for good, but the negotiating strategy and bad faith, hardened my outlook. I am not hard right in outlook, nor staunchly political or protective of the Government's performance, but prefer to seek some balance, where neither side is blameless. I feel, since we are clearing the air on here a bit: my responses to you were not intended to imply you were some kind of hard right stooge, or deliberately trying to defend the Tories. If you read it that way, I do apologise. My only intent was, as you said, to provide balance and I questioned the sources you provided in the interest of debate, not as political one-upping or a cheap shot. My only standing point would be to vary your provided sources up more, rather than just citing The Spectator and their affiliates as you've used it quite a lot recently. Again, in the interest of balance and variety.
Indeed, we do have common ground in a shared liking for a TV programme and audios about a time traveller in a police phone box. Wonderful isn't it?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2021 15:06:15 GMT
Thanks. I must say I had no problem with our membership prior to the Referendum, as I have mentioned a few times way back and my decision was a narrow one, based more on a global outlook. My feelings in a negative sense have developed by the way the Brexit process evolved. I acknowledge that much has transpired to show that life will be harder and a lot of the benefits of being in the club have been lost for good, but the negotiating strategy and bad faith, hardened my outlook. I am not hard right in outlook, nor staunchly political or protective of the Government's performance, but prefer to seek some balance, where neither side is blameless. I feel, since we are clearing the air on here a bit: my responses to you were not intended to imply you were some kind of hard right stooge, or deliberately trying to defend the Tories. If you read it that way, I do apologise. My only intent was, as you said, to provide balance and I questioned the sources you provided in the interest of debate, not as political one-upping or a cheap shot. My only standing point would be to vary your provided sources up more, rather than just citing The Spectator as you've used it quite a lot recently. Again, in the interest of balance and variety.
Indeed, we do have common ground in a shared liking for a TV programme and audios about a time traveller in a police phone box. Wonderful isn't it?
Noted, thanks. I have been aware of this myself ( it goes against my own teaching and learning principles and I would mark myself down if assessing my own work!) and have actively to broaden this (paywalls are a pain), hence the links to The Herald and la Repubblica the past couple of days - a small step. I was concerned myself of going down a blind alley by seeming to double down on selective facts. I do appreciate others knowledge and perspectives too and like most people here, seek out an optimistic outlook. A dispassionate middle ground is preferable to an emotive partisanship. On a tangent here, but its why I try to avoid discussing aspects of Doctor Who I don't presently care for, anymore, keeping to the positives. I respect that others have a different view and I think its a bit rude when some choose to be dismissive of aspects of the show they dislike, whilst getting offended when their favourite eras are criticised.
|
|
lidar2
Castellan
You know, now that you mention it, I actually do rather like Attack of the Cybermen ...
Likes: 5,813
|
Post by lidar2 on Jan 29, 2021 17:03:09 GMT
I think we're all about to have a virtual group hug
|
|