Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Brexit discussion thread XIV (Please read OP before posting)

Options
1…1314161819…555

Comments

  • Options
    #452
    BlitzKrieg
    Registered Users Posts: 14,685 ✭✭✭✭BlitzKrieg


    there's a lot of brexit/eu related dick waving going on in relation to covid and its been kinda set up for a while. At least as far back as August.


    In august the European Commission made a 400 million euro guarantee to helping poorer countries get access to the vaccine (see here https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_20_1540)

    This is on top of the 232 million dollars just the European commission already put in + funds from individual countries

    So of course in september Boris does a charity dick wave and goes for 500 million (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54303061)


    Now thats paying off with brexiteer charity dick waving on twitter declaring the UK has donated 100 million more to helping poor countries over the EU

    https://twitter.com/brexit_muppet/status/1354954195380674560

    Of course thats ignoring the actual figures (EU member states + EU institutions have put almost 2000 million dollars into the funding) and ignoring that the UK funding is actually conditional on other states donating too.

    actual breakdown of funding can be found here:

    https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/access-to-covid-19-tools-tracker

    in the uk funding it has this little nugget "£250m are conditional to a matching of 1£ for every US$4 contributed by others"


    So while it's being used for a fair bit of Brexit dick waving and rule britannia etc.

    1) Its conditional on other nations donating more then the UK

    2) the figures for both nations is not the whole amount but just a brief bit of Boris showboating


  • Options
    #453
    sondagefaux
    Registered Users Posts: 1,443 ✭✭✭sondagefaux


    Larbre34 wrote: »
    Assuming they proceed with that regime.

    I think they'll be looking at deeply serious, society changing shortages by then, not to mention existential threats to business and employment. I wouldn't rule out serious civil disorder as a consequence.

    I also wouldn't rule out Johnson and Raab and a few other lunatics fully subscribing to the definition of madness either and doubling down on this stuff, so it'll be very interesting.

    Believe it or not, this is where WTO rules (the real ones, not Brexiteer fantasy versions) come into play.

    Under WTO rules, the UK has to apply the same rules to all imports from WTO countries, unless there's a specific agreement with a country or group of countries to provide preferential treatment.

    The agreement the UK has with the EU simply gets rid of tariffs on originating goods.

    There is no agreement to waive other import controls or to reduce them for imports from the EU.

    The UK can temporarily waive controls but other WTO countries can complain and take action if the UK doesn't implement the same controls on EU imports as it applies to their goods.

    Six months seems to be a reasonable amount of time under WTO rules to allow the UK to put the required systems in place. More than that would be pushing it, and one or more WTO members will take action against the UK if it continues to discriminate against their goods.

    Apart from WTO issues, the lack of checks and controls gives legitimate EU businesses a competitive advantage while dodgy EU businesses, including ones controlled by criminals, can send any old crap into Britain.


  • Options
    #454
    sondagefaux
    Registered Users Posts: 1,443 ✭✭✭sondagefaux


    BlitzKrieg wrote: »
    there's a lot of brexit/eu related dick waving going on in relation to covid and its been kinda set up for a while. At least as far back as August.


    In august the European Commission made a 400 million euro guarantee to helping poorer countries get access to the vaccine (see here https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_20_1540)

    This is on top of the 232 million dollars just the European commission already put in + funds from individual countries

    So of course in september Boris does a charity dick wave and goes for 500 million (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54303061)


    Now thats paying off with brexiteer charity dick waving on twitter declaring the UK has donated 100 million more to helping poor countries over the EU

    https://twitter.com/brexit_muppet/status/1354954195380674560

    Of course thats ignoring the actual figures (EU member states + EU institutions have put almost 2000 million dollars into the funding) and ignoring that the UK funding is actually conditional on other states donating too.

    actual breakdown of funding can be found here:

    https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/access-to-covid-19-tools-tracker

    in the uk funding it has this little nugget "£250m are conditional to a matching of 1£ for every US$4 contributed by others"


    So while it's being used for a fair bit of Brexit dick waving and rule britannia etc.

    1) Its conditional on other nations donating more then the UK

    2) the figures for both nations is not the whole amount but just a brief bit of Boris showboating

    The EU response points out that the combined EU spend is €2.7 biĺlion.

    It has also introduced export controls on vaccines produced by companies with which it has Advance Purchase Agreements, with a long list of neighbouring countries that are exempt, plus less-developed countries, including the 92 less-developed countries in the COVAX initiative.

    The UK is not on the list of countries exempted from the export controls, although there is an exemption for Northern Ireland.

    https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/qanda_21_308


  • Options
    #455
    sondagefaux
    Registered Users Posts: 1,443 ✭✭✭sondagefaux


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    If so, expect serious trouble in the North and finger-pointing at the ROI.

    Ironically, Northern Ireland is the one part of the UK where the checks and controls are being applied in full.

    Of course, they're the EU ones rather than the UK ones...

    To give a flavour of how badly prepared the UK is:
    Herts for Refugees sends water, clothing, tents, sleeping bags and toiletries to refugee camps in France and Greece.

    But since January 1, said CEO Angus Clark, it has been unable to do so – because officials claim there is no guidance on how to do it.

    “I’ve spent the last couple of weeks trying to establish what we need to do,” he said.

    “I’ve spent hours on the phone to HMRC... but they just don’t have the information. Their position is that they don’t know. That’s it, basically. They can’t help me with information because it doesn’t exist.”

    https://www.hertsad.co.uk/news/hertfordshire-refugee-charity-says-hmrc-cannot-explain-brexit-7080818

    https://trans.info/en/data-from-french-authorities-shows-90-of-uk-export-health-certificates-filled-in-wrong-220171


  • Options
    #456
    RobMc59
    Registered Users Posts: 4,831 ✭✭✭RobMc59


    sondagefaux wrote: »
    The EU response points out that the combined EU spend is €2.7 biĺlion.

    It has also introduced export controls on vaccines produced by companies with which it has Advance Purchase Agreements, with a long list of neighbouring countries that are exempt, plus less-developed countries, including the 92 less-developed countries in the COVAX initiative.

    The UK is not on the list of countries exempted from the export controls.

    https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/qanda_21_308

    With Die Welt highly critical of Brussels handling of the vaccine saga they had to try and do something to divert attention away from their incompetence.
    Acting like a tin pot dictatorship isn't going to enhance eu prestige around the world though.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #457
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users Posts: 14,359 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    RobMc59 wrote: »
    With Die Welt highly critical of Brussels handling of the vaccine saga they had to try and do something to divert attention away from their incompetence.
    Acting like a tin pot dictatorship isn't going to enhance eu prestige around the world though.

    Can you explain how the EU is acting "like a tin pot dictatorship"?


  • Options
    #458
    Hurrache
    Registered Users Posts: 10,151 ✭✭✭✭Hurrache


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    Can you explain how the EU is acting "like a tin pot dictatorship"?

    He won't, it's just what he believes. He's been saying the same stuff for days in the vaccine thread.


  • Options
    #459
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users Posts: 14,359 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    Hurrache wrote: »
    He won't, it's just what he believes. He's been saying the same stuff for days in the vaccine thread.

    Well, this is an opportunity to up his game so.


  • Options
    #460
    Larbre34
    Registered Users Posts: 23,842 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    If so, expect serious trouble in the North and finger-pointing at the ROI.

    They can point away. We in the RoI were perfectly happy with our peaceful and prosperoys co-existence under our mutual EU partnership.

    We did absolutely nothing to our constitutional position, but said from the beginning that we would do everything in power to protect it and also our trading relationship, economy and peace on island under the terms of the GFA. Let not a sinner in Northern Ireland be one bit surprised about that.

    They will be redirected to the leadership of the Conservative and Unionist Party of Great Britain and that of the Democratic Unionist Party of Northern Ireland to seek answers for the lies they told and the fantasy they spun.


  • Options
    #461
    RobMc59
    Registered Users Posts: 4,831 ✭✭✭RobMc59


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    Can you explain how the EU is acting "like a tin pot dictatorship"?

    Unilaterally imposing vaccine controls in an attempt to divert attention from their spectacularly inept handling of the vaccine situation in the EU. After months of huffing and puffing the EU has come to the same conclusions as the rest of us in the world.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #462
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users Posts: 14,359 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    RobMc59 wrote: »
    Unilaterally imposing vaccine controls in an attempt to divert attention from their spectacularly inept handling of the vaccine situation in the EU. After months of huffing and puffing the EU has come to the same conclusions as the rest of us in the world.

    What are those conclusions?


  • Options
    #463
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users Posts: 14,359 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    Larbre34 wrote: »
    They can point away. We in the RoI were perfectly happy with our peaceful and prosperoys co-existence under our mutual EU partnership.

    We did absolutely nothing to our constitutional position, but said from the beginning that we would do everything in power to protect it and also our trading relationship, economy and peace on island under the terms of the GFA. Let not a sinner in Northern Ireland be one bit surprised about that.

    They will be redirected to the leadership of the Conservative and Unionist Party of Great Britain and that of the Democratic Unionist Party of Northern Ireland to seek answers for the lies they told and the fantasy they spun.

    What you suggest is true and logical. Sadly, truth and logic are alien concepts to this populist and Brexiteer Tory party and their glove puppets in The Telegraph, Mail, Sun and Express.


  • Options
    #464
    RobMc59
    Registered Users Posts: 4,831 ✭✭✭RobMc59


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    What are those conclusions?

    That the vaccines are fit for purpose,which is something that the rest of the world already knows and has done for some considerable time..


  • Options
    #465
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users Posts: 14,359 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    RobMc59 wrote: »
    That the vaccines are fit for purpose,which is something that the rest of the world already knows and has done for some considerable time..

    Yet, it could be argued that Britain jumped the gun and took a chance for political purposes. Would you agree with that?


  • Options
    #466
    prawnsambo
    Registered Users Posts: 13,201 ✭✭✭✭prawnsambo


    RobMc59 wrote: »
    That the vaccines are fit for purpose,which is something that the rest of the world already knows and has done for some considerable time..
    Considerable time? It's literally just over a month since the UK gave indemnified emergency use authorisation for it. That's a lot of caveats by the way. Especially the indemnified bit.


  • Options
    #467
    RobMc59
    Registered Users Posts: 4,831 ✭✭✭RobMc59


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    Yet, it could be argued that Britain jumped the gun and took a chance for political purposes. Would you agree with that?

    No,I believe the UK and other nations were correct in approving vaccines in an emergency situation.
    Are you happy with the way the EU has handled vaccine approval?Watching Euronews yesterday,Die Welt which is an influential news outlet has been scathing in its criticism of the EU s handling of the whole situation.


  • Options
    #468
    yagan
    Registered Users Posts: 2,666 ✭✭✭yagan


    RobMc59 wrote: »
    That the vaccines are fit for purpose,which is something that the rest of the world already knows and has done for some considerable time..
    THe longer the period between two courses of a vaccine the greater the risk of a new strain developing that can overcome it.


  • Options
    #469
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users Posts: 14,359 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    RobMc59 wrote: »
    No,I believe the UK and other nations were correct in approving vaccines in an emergency situation.
    Are you happy with the way the EU has handled vaccine approval?Watching Euronews yesterday,Die Welt which is an influential news outlet has been scathing in its criticism of the EU s handling of the whole situation.

    I don't know enough yet about the nuances. I trust the EU. Have they messed up or were they deceived by AZ? I dunno yet. It seems to me that they were methodical in their handling of vaccine approval overall.

    Both the EU and UK agencies had similar rolling reviews, information and assessing procedures yet, suddenly, the UK approves the vaccine. It seems to me that the Tories rushed through their approval because the UK's mortality rate is criminal and they could point to their "nimble" vaccine approval as a deflection. It looks like a political move to me.


  • Options
    #470
    sondagefaux
    Registered Users Posts: 1,443 ✭✭✭sondagefaux


    RobMc59 wrote: »
    Unilaterally imposing vaccine controls in an attempt to divert attention from their spectacularly inept handling of the vaccine situation in the EU. After months of huffing and puffing the EU has come to the same conclusions as the rest of us in the world.

    These export controls only apply to vaccines that the EU has purchased already under Advanced Purchase Agreements, and they are permissive, not mandatory.

    In other words, member states can use them, they don't have to.

    There are lots of people in the UK saying that Astra Zeneca must supply it first before it supplies the EU because of contracts, but when the EU takes action to ensure that companies it's paid and has contracts with to supply it with vaccines acts similarly, it's a problem?

    This is the direct, and predictable, result of AstraZeneca signing two contradictory contracts.


  • Options
    #471
    sondagefaux
    Registered Users Posts: 1,443 ✭✭✭sondagefaux


    RobMc59 wrote: »
    That the vaccines are fit for purpose,which is something that the rest of the world already knows and has done for some considerable time..

    Is that why the US Food and Drugs Administration (FDA) hasn't approved the AstraZeneca vaccine yet?
    When will AstraZeneca's COVID-19 vaccine be available in the US?
    Hilary Brueck Jan 8, 2021, 2:24 PM

    In the UK, vaccines Pfizer, Moderna, and AstraZeneca are being used to fight the pandemic. AstraZeneca's hasn't been approved for use yet in the US.
    AstraZeneca may not apply for a US FDA Emergency Use Authorization until the spring. The data from their UK trial was "odd" and had one "pretty serious error" in it, a US vaccine expert said.

    AstraZeneca is now conducting a larger trial of nearly 30,000 people in the US.

    ...

    The AstraZeneca trial also included at least one big mistake. A subset of trial participants under 55 years old were accidentally administered a half-dose first shot, followed by a full-strength second jab.

    "That's a pretty serious error," Dr. Cody Meissner, chief of pediatric infectious disease at Tufts Medical Center, and one of the vaccine experts on the FDA's advisory committee, told Insider of the mishap.

    Those patients who had a less potent initial shot, followed by a full-strength booster actually appeared more protected from coronavirus infections, with efficacy surging to 90% in the subgroup. Experts were puzzled by that.

    "I won't go to the point of saying that it's not biologically plausible, but it's a little bit odd," Meissner said.

    "It generates a little bit of pause, and makes one eager to actually look at the data and see what they found and to understand it a little bit more carefully."

    https://www.businessinsider.com/when-will-astrazeneca-covid-vaccine-be-approved-in-us-2021-1


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #472
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,410 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    RobMc59 wrote: »
    That the vaccines are fit for purpose,which is something that the rest of the world already knows and has done for some considerable time..

    The UK approved the vaccine for emergency use, and accepted full liability for any averse effects on patience. The tests run by AZ did not include trials with anyone over 55 years of age.

    On day one, the first patient to get the vaccine was a 91 year old. Also on day one, two subjects went into anaphylactic shock from the vaccine. Now that is risky behaviour - all for the optics of politics. It is from this type of risky behaviours that disasters come.

    The Russians approved their Sputnik vaccine in August - I wonder why the UK did not go with that one - too risky or too Rusky?


  • Options
    #473
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    RobMc59 wrote: »
    That the vaccines are fit for purpose,which is something that the rest of the world already knows and has done for some considerable time..

    You're saying "know" but I think you mean "believe".

    I don't think anyone knows that the approved vaccines are fit for purpose actually.

    I'm also confident that any people asserting that they knew the approved vaccines "were going to be approved" without any due diligence would likely be the loudest detractors of a botched, rushed job on approval of a vaccine which was later deemed inadequate.

    FWIW, I have no reason to distrust the EMA on this, do you? It is the EMA that approves after all, not the EU.

    Perhaps when the EMA was HQ'd in the UK it would have been faster? Though of course Raab and other prominent Tories would have you believe that the UK workers' inefficiencies would probably have led to an even more protracted decision making process!


  • Options
    #474
    peter kern
    Registered Users Posts: 3,359 ✭✭✭peter kern


    there is 3 parts in play 1 the approval and i guess the eu has done well here if thinks go wrong that all the people will say the f.cking eu bought to quickly ...

    where it did not do well is part 2 buying, and we have already discussed that a month ago was its buying strategy. i would not say it was bad, but it is evident that they put their money on the wrong horses, most likely by pure luck , it is clear that the uk did better in this department . ie the result is better 11 % vs 2 %
    I guess its not that hard to admit this. and its about time they got something right ...

    part 3 how well well the vaccination will work in each country we dont know yet.

    but defo part 2 is a success for brexit to buy better in than eu . at a high price but its a success


  • Options
    #475
    RobMc59
    Registered Users Posts: 4,831 ✭✭✭RobMc59


    sondagefaux wrote: »
    Is that why the US Food and Drugs Administration (FDA) hasn't approved the AstraZeneca vaccine yet?



    https://www.businessinsider.com/when-will-astrazeneca-covid-vaccine-be-approved-in-us-2021-1

    The FDA do what Phizer wants them to do,I have first hand experience of this whilst working for a French pharmaceutical company manufacturing an intermediate for astra zenecas crestor statin drug.Phizer cast doubt on the product as they had just released their own statin drug lipitor.The FDA backed Phizer.Their claims were found to be unfounded but astra zeneca were effectively hobbled to promote phizers product.


  • Options
    #476
    Lemming
    Registered Users Posts: 14,148 ✭✭✭✭Lemming


    RobMc59 wrote: »
    The FDA do what Phizer wants them to do,I have first hand experience of this whilst working for a French pharmaceutical company manufacturing an intermediate for astra zenecas crestor statin drug.Phizer cast doubt on the product as they had just released their own statin drug lipitor.The FDA backed Phizer.Their claims were found to be unfounded but astra zeneca were effectively hobbled to promote phizers product.

    Did you read that article?


  • Options
    #477
    sondagefaux
    Registered Users Posts: 1,443 ✭✭✭sondagefaux


    RobMc59 wrote: »
    The FDA do what Phizer wants them to do,I have first hand experience of this whilst working for a French pharmaceutical company manufacturing an intermediate for astra zenecas crestor statin drug.Phizer cast doubt on the product as they had just released their own statin drug lipitor.The FDA backed Phizer.Their claims were found to be unfounded but astra zeneca were effectively hobbled to promote phizers product.

    It's Pfizer, not Phizer...

    Also AstraZenrca are providing this vaccine at cost, so there's no commercial reason to try to prevent it from being approved.


  • Options
    #478
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    peter kern wrote: »
    there is 3 parts in play 1 the approval and i guess the eu has done well here if thinks go wrong that all the people will say the f.cking eu bought to quickly ...

    where it did not do well is part 2 buying, and we have already discussed that a month ago was its buying strategy. i would not say it was bad, but it is evident that they put their money on the wrong horses, most likely by pure luck , it is clear that the uk did better in this department . ie the result is better 11 % vs 2 %
    I guess its not that hard to admit this. and its about time they got something right ...

    part 3 how well well the vaccination will work in each country we dont know yet.

    but defo part 2 is a success for brexit to buy better in than eu . at a high price but its a success

    very much an aside, but 'overpaying' for vaccines in order to try and get your economy back on it's feet earlier and reducing the impact and cost of the virus via this may actually prove out to be a price very well paid in the long term. I think people getting hung up on £x per dose vs €y per dose may be missing the benefits of first-vaccinated-advantage. This is certainly something that Israel has factored in.


  • Options
    #479
    sondagefaux
    Registered Users Posts: 1,443 ✭✭✭sondagefaux


    peter kern wrote: »
    there is 3 parts in play 1 the approval and i guess the eu has done well here if thinks go wrong that all the people will say the f.cking eu bought to quickly ...

    where it did not do well is part 2 buying, and we have already discussed that a month ago was its buying strategy. i would not say it was bad, but it is evident that they put their money on the wrong horses, most likely by pure luck , it is clear that the uk did better in this department . ie the result is better 11 % vs 2 %
    I guess its not that hard to admit this. and its about time they got something right ...

    part 3 how well well the vaccination will work in each country we dont know yet.

    but defo part 2 is a success for brexit to buy better in than eu . at a high price but its a success

    Eh? The EU and UK have both contracted with all the approved or clinically successful vaccine producers.

    Where's the evidence they backed the wrong horses as opposed to anyone else?

    Some vaccine development efforts were bound to fail, which is why everyone who could backed multiple vaccines.

    Sanofi has run into delays developing its two Covid vaccines and is going to make over 100 million doses of the Pfizer vaccine (also backed by the EU and other countries) instead, for use in the EU, while Pfizer is going to increase production at its facility in Belgium, after a temporary one-week reduction to rejig procedures to allow for increased production.

    How is that backing the wrong horse?

    https://www.lesoir.be/351376/article/2021-01-26/sanofi-va-produire-des-doses-du-vaccin-pfizer

    https://www.lesoir.be/351595/article/2021-01-27/vaccin-pfizerbiontech-rattrape-son-retard-de-production


  • Options
    #480
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,827 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    BlitzKrieg wrote: »
    So of course in september Boris does a charity dick wave and goes for 500 million (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54303061)
    ...
    in the uk funding it has this little nugget "£250m are conditional to a matching of 1£ for every US$4 contributed by others"

    Easily funded from the £25bn-£30bn cuts in International Aid by 2025. That's way more than the nett cost of EU membership used to be.

    It's such a big cut that Parliament will need to change the law to allow it. It won't improve the UK's reputation or improve soft power.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #481
    listermint
    Registered Users Posts: 33,709 ✭✭✭✭listermint


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    very much an aside, but 'overpaying' for vaccines in order to try and get your economy back on it's feet earlier and reducing the impact and cost of the virus via this may actually prove out to be a price very well paid in the long term. I think people getting hung up on £x per dose vs €y per dose may be missing the benefits of first-vaccinated-advantage. This is certainly something that Israel has factored in.

    But as we can see. Covid is not even one of the major concerns economically wise in the UK. In fact the Tories are destroying sectors in numerous other ways.

    No over paying for a vaccine will resolve that possibly purpose incompetence


Advertisement