Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 19.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • jack_sparrow

    7717

  • LeoV

    2487

  • Waynemarlow

    2174

  • mad

    1399

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Old, but gold. Explains so much of what Whyne and Jambalaya wax lyrical about. And the guy was a mate of Boris.   A.A. Gill (Sunday Times journalist and food critic) writing about Brexit bef

No way I'm going to PA. This was a top thread, now it's fucked. Thank you fucking idiots.

I was thinking for the last few days that  as a pro union lifelong Alliance voter I should respond to this post but turning on the radio this morning and hearing Mike Nesbitt made me decide to act.

Posted Images

7 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

Leo don't you mean there 17 million doses for the UK?

EU;
AZ delivered that for sure did not come from the UK or the US or India; 17 M.
And if 1 m was exported to the UK as CMS said, EU production was 18 M of AZ.

But AZ said in December it would deliver 100 M in 1 quarter, a bit optimistic we know now, but Pfizer was able to do it with 2 main production plants. And on first take the Pfizer is harder to produce.

Politico;
The back and forth of threats and negotiations is further proof that the new vaccine diplomacy that has gripped much of the globe is no different from the old diplomacy, as POLITICO reports in this overnight deep dive into the phenomenon. “International diplomacy is a cold-hearted place,” said Jeremy Hunt, the former U.K. foreign secretary who now chairs the House of Commons health committee. “People want to know what you’re going to do to scratch their back if they are going to scratch yours.”

Link to post
Share on other sites

Leo, the figures from your quote above do not match what other sources state. The 1st figures below are in line with what we keep hearing, so not sure what the 24.6 million refers to? No one in UK is telling the truth?

2nd dose administered
2 775 481 (4,5%)
 
1st dose administered
28 991 188 (46,5%)
 
from your quote above

Pfizer/BioNTech - 44.3% (10.9m) Oxford/AstraZeneca - 55.7% (13.7m) Please note these are estimates up to 14/3.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Europe has woken up to the UK gamble ... Jean-Yves le Drian, French foreign minister has pointed to the UK policy of going flat out on 1st doses, with no reserve for 2nd doses, and now shitting itself. Again repeats the facts of EU exports 77 million, including 21 million to UK, and no evidence of any vaccine export from UK.

Turning up the heat.

Link to post
Share on other sites

CMS,
a few million difference between distributed, in stock for reserve, estimated jabbed and registered as been given could happen.
The source relies on the UK numbers buried in the warning system for side effects. Yellow card system, and is an estimate...

But import numbers before distribution should be easy to publish for the UK.
For AZ now 1M from the EU, 5 M from India (blocking the rest) rest produced in UK.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And AZ has a peculiar problem with numbers, as the first shot is an half shot dose, and 2d a full. So 10 M first shots is only 5m second ones. How are they reporting that ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

UK gov extended the repatriation period by another 6 months for UK registered vessels currently in the EU to be returned tax-free. RYA/British Marine wanted 3 years, and still hope to get further extensions in light of covid restrictions preventing repatriation.

However, any CE marked vessel imported to the UK for sale will need to obtain a new UKCA mark via a post-construction assessment and third party verification, cost £500 - £5000 depending on vessel. Same for a UK vessel entering the EU, even if it already has a CE mark, which seems unreasonable to me.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

UK gov has extended the EU fishing catch quota for another 6 months, so EU quotas in UK waters will remain at pre-Brexit levels for a while longer.

Is this a change of tone?

Edit: Until end of July, so 4 months more, not 6.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, hump101 said:

Same for a UK vessel entering the EU, even if it already has a CE mark, which seems unreasonable to me.

Maybe that a UK business entity could change something structural allowed under UKSA so it is not CE compliant any more.
For instance a keel chance that effects stability.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The UK-EU Specialised Committee for the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland met today. According to the UK government statement, it took place in 'a constructive atmosphere'.
And the European Commission agrees on the 'constructive atmosphere'.

More here;
https://twitter.com/DPhinnemore/status/
Funny comment; They had a chat about the weather and how much everyone's looking forward to getting a summer holiday this year. End of meeting.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, LeoV said:

Maybe that a UK business entity could change something structural allowed under UKSA so it is not CE compliant any more.
For instance a keel change that effects stability.

Fair comment, but the CE  marking is only ever applicable to the first build. There is no requirement here in France to keep a vessel compliant to the CE standard to which it was originally approved, and I suspect many secondhand vessels no longer meet their original standard.

Having said that, it should at least capture obviously sub-standard or dangerous modifications, in the absence of regular testing for boats and yachts, as is required for cars.

Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, hump101 said:

There is no requirement here in France to keep a vessel compliant to the CE standard to which it was originally approved, a

I think you have that obligation as a shipyard.

  • Declaration of conformity. A document in which the boat builder, shipyard or importer of the recreational craft declares that it meets all requirements. It also describes under which technical regulations the craft is designed and built.

In that part it says you must keep the conformity in all boats produced later on, or ask for new CE.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, LeoV said:

I think you have that obligation as a shipyard.

  • Declaration of conformity. A document in which the boat builder, shipyard or importer of the recreational craft declares that it meets all requirements. It also describes under which technical regulations the craft is designed and built.

In that part it says you must keep the conformity in all boats produced later on, or ask for new CE.

You've got me going through the RCD now! It's an interesting read, but initial read seems to be that it is about having a responsible body for each vessel at the point of first entry into the EU/EEA, or manufacture if built in the EU/EEA.

Regarding maintaining conformity:

"Repair" doesn't exist in the document.

"Maintain" only applies to builders standards and member states.

"Modify" and "modification" applies to rights of member states and onus on manufacturers to ensure all examples are the same as the one that was approved, or get approval for the changes to the production. This doesn't apply to owners or any body that is not deemed responsible. A bit of a grey area, as clearly the original manufacturer can rightfully claim not to be responsible for a modification made by others, even if done with CE parts, as they won't warrant the workmanship.

I'll have a chat with my local chantier naval to see how they address this. Thankfully my boats are all too old!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The rules have a bit of flex, thank god. Bit do not temper to much with stability or safety.
And boat shows are there to show of new boats to the public and... to your competitors.

I ended up in a new boat by a new builder represented on boats show by a newby distributor, with a few competing boatbuilders, and discussed it if it was in the right category. The friendly distributor jumped in and had no clue what we were talking about ... Industry keeps each other in check.

There was one case where a yard put a lifting keel on a fixed keel design and did not file for a new declaration.
He had to stop selling till new declaration was done.

And for repair and maintenance for consumers there is some thing called consumer protection law, it has to be better or the same as original specced. And most yards do that without even thinking to much about the rules.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Those are clear cut cases of manufacturer/importer, and their obligations are clearly covered in the RCD. My concern is your last paragraph. Who determines if it is better or the same? The owner cannot, and most yards don't have the capability to prove efficacy, even if they have many years of experience to ensure their proposal is safe. Maybe I need to start touting my services to yards to justify by calculation their work!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, hump101 said:

The owner cannot, and most yards don't have the capability to prove efficacy,

Rule of thumb for small stuff, hence people who are smart go to a yard with a good reputation and experience level.

Normally you try to get the materials list and lamination sched from the architect/builder.
If it is complex, you hire experts. That niche is often filled by starting engineers for small projects to very serious refit companies for superyachts.

If simple and no information and no money for experts, you go by experience and go on the safe side.
Still in doubt, if you have a good supplier of materials, they have some insights too, sometimes even connections to original builders working now at a different yard. This world is small.
And if really not sure, you refuse and say to the owner the boat is more suitable for a dumpster.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have the feeling that this story is going to have some twists and turns. Let us take a recent Beneteau, sold to UK new, then sold as used boat back into Europe. The RCD could interpret this situation 2 ways. Either accept original CE conformity, or insist that there is a risk of non-conformity, so new certification needed. Then, each country will interpret how they answer this question. In France my guess is that it will depend if the person at the Affaires Maritimes had a good dinner, good sex, and slept well ... or not. That is how they deal with everything else, so why change?

A different attitude from UK could easily have brought seamless solutions of mutual acceptance and alignment of standards. But the Brexit dogma could not accept that.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, cms said:

A different attitude from UK could easily have brought seamless solutions of mutual acceptance and alignment of standards. But the Brexit dogma could not accept that.

Yes, it is blinkered stupidity to try and create new UK certifications. In offshore energy we use a wide range of different standards for different aspects of projects, European, American, Norwegian, Japanese, regardless of the actual location of the project. There is just no requirement for yet another photocopy of an existing standard, and all they are doing is putting up barriers to UK exporters and importers. There is nothing unique about the UK market that requires anything more onerous than Norway, or less onerous than EU.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not know of anyone in the UK marine leisure industry who wanted to have different standards from the RCD. We bloody wrote the thing!

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, that is the insanity. The EU standards are just a wholesale cut and paste of BS, and UK was integral in the development of those standard post EU adoption, and the new ones like RCD. Still, it is no more insane than Brexit, so it should not be a surprise. F**k business, after all!

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, hump101 said:

Fair comment, but the CE  marking is only ever applicable to the first build. There is no requirement here in France to keep a vessel compliant to the CE standard to which it was originally approved, and I suspect many secondhand vessels no longer meet their original standard.

Having said that, it should at least capture obviously sub-standard or dangerous modifications, in the absence of regular testing for boats and yachts, as is required for cars.

CE marking is all about building a fair market across the EU so anything imported whether it is new or second hand (otherwise it would be easy to cheat by offering new stuff non compliant by declaring it second hand) has to be CE marked which often is just a declaration of compliance . Things that were CE marked in the past and stayed in the EU are on an equal footing, for stuff that come in and out it is greyer... You could imagine a CE marked boat is exported to a third party where final fitting is carried out, substandard work gets cheaply done then the boat is reimported to be sold as second hand. Not sure it makes sense financially for a boat but may be it could for other things... At the moment Oak is exported from France to be turned into furniture in China, then reimported and sold as "French oak furniture" in France so my scenario is not that far fetched!

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hump101 said:

Yes, that is the insanity. The EU standards are just a wholesale cut and paste of BS, and UK was integral in the development of those standard post EU adoption, and the new ones like RCD. Still, it is no more insane than Brexit, so it should not be a surprise. F**k business, after all!

In construction the design standard for calculating winds (EN 1991-1-4) is nearly a copy and paste job of the old BS wind code (BS 6399). That was convenient as I learnt the BS code first....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Having been bitten by my warranty issue import/fix/export in UK in January we're now going to do things differently.

New case : Inverter that got damaged in transport to South of France last year, ship to Holland for examination/fix.  

Good for UK business :lol:

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Panoramix said:

In construction the design standard for calculating winds (EN 1991-1-4) is nearly a copy and paste job of the old BS wind code (BS 6399). That was convenient as I learnt the BS code first....

To be fair there is a lot of TU standards as well, particularly in automotive and machinery, and NF in electrical, but like you I also learned the BS standards and recognise most of it in the EN equivalents.

Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, hump101 said:

To be fair there is a lot of TU standards as well, particularly in automotive and machinery, and NF in electrical, but like you I also learned the BS standards and recognise most of it in the EN equivalents.

Steel is also very similar but the old BS on timber was completely different from the timber eurocode. I think that the timber Eurocode was more or less written from scratch, there is a paragraph in it for British style timber frame, it will be interesting to see if it stays or not!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m posting this video strictly because of the comments section.

For one thing, Apparently we Irish had an aristocracy, who the fuck knew. Lol

Also, I just found out that it was Irish landowners who starved the Irish. What a ‘orrible bunch of cunts we were. Lol

“And all the troubles are due to people living in the past” 

The fookin irony of this one on so many levels coming from a little Englander yearning for empire whilst the bastard child of empire (the NI unionists) build bonfires on the 12th every year to celebrate a battle that happened over 300 years ago.

 

Fuck me pink but the British educational system has an awful lot to answer for.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/many-small-uk-exporters-giving-up-on-eu-due-to-brexit-1.4522783

Many small UK exporters giving up on EU due to Brexit

Burden of red tape means that 25% of small UK exporters have halted sales

about an hour ago
 
UK exporters are struggling with shipment delays and loss of goods due to Brexit. Photograph: NEIL HALL/EPA

UK exporters are struggling with shipment delays and loss of goods due to Brexit. Photograph: NEIL HALL/EPA

One in four small UK exporters have halted sales to the European Union because of red tape caused by Brexit, according to a survey published Monday.

The polling by the Federation of Small Businesses will add to concern that leaving the EU is further damaging the pandemic-hit economy by reducing trade and increasing costs. Official figures show exports and imports fell sharply after Britain completed its withdrawal from the bloc on December 31st.

“Three months on from the end of the transition period, what we hoped would prove to be teething problems are in danger of becoming permanent, systemic ones,” said FSB National chairman Mike Cherry. “While larger firms have the resources and bandwidth to overcome them regardless, smaller traders are struggling, and considering whether exports are worth the effort anymore.”

The survey found that 23 per cent of exporters have temporarily halted sales to EU customers and a further 4 per cent have decided to stop selling into the bloc permanently after new trading rules took effect from the start of the year. The vast majority of those doing business with Europe have been hit by shipment delays or loss of goods, and many are considering establishing a presence in an EU country to ease their exporting process, according to the survey of almost 1,500 firms. - Bloomberg

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^^
Same will happen in the EU, whenever the UK gets their "take back control" in order as the EU seems to have.
Many here expect a free ride for the EU till end 2022, and for some sectors even later.
Already there are seminars dedicated how to take advantage of this situation.
UK SME having trouble to export, and EU SME, not much trouble to export.
UK SME see rising costs of materials sourced in the EU, EU SME, do not import much from the UK, so no effect.

But it is project fear ...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh oh, free trade is king. Business will adapt. WTF BOE, just nationalize them. To be asked to inform them, OK, but approval ???

The Bank of England is demanding that lenders seek its approval before relocating UK jobs or operations to the EU, after becoming concerned that EU regulators are asking for more to move than is necessary for financial stability after Brexit. ⁦

@FT

Everyone expects the EU to slowly move a lot of financial stuff relating to the EU out of London, not all and not fast.

Link to post
Share on other sites

EU, UK and AZ still talking at the moment on a solution.

On the Halix mystery;

Harry Flore, Chairman of the Halix Supervisory Board, confirms 5-6m/month produced there, since December.
Which is *masses* more than anyone thought to believe from AZ and UK communications.
He can not say more, NDA from AZ. And nobody in the public knows where they are. At least 15m doses.
in Dutch;
https://www.ad.nl/binnenland/het-mysterie-van-het-leidse-halix-hier-worden-miljoenen-astrazeneca-vaccins-gemaakt~a5a172da/

Other information, but not confirmed by Halix or AZ;
AZ or the UK/Oxford did not finance Halix, they had no production problems, or yield problems.
Halix are the most experienced out of all AZ production sites in Europe to produce vaccines. They even made the trial batches of AZ vaccine.
A bit of financial support came from Cepi, thought to be help to get the trial started, not for production of substrate.

Much is talked about the difference in contracts between UK/AZ and EU/AZ, but what is missing is the info on the Halix to AZ contract. As at that time only one production line was active, since January 3. AZ does not own that factory.
And Halix are pissed, they want to see their product appear on the market. Owned by a German family, BTW.

The Italian found stock of AZ, that bottling company is part of a group with a AZ plant in the US.
That US plant is named in the EU contracts as backup production site. Not in the UK contact.
So it could have come from Halix, but not all, or from the US, then logic says it is for the EU, from India less likely.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/9/2021 at 8:32 AM, MiddayGun said:

Bit late back to the party because I've been travelling back from Mozambique.

Hi Mate,

Bet you're glad to be in Blighty.  Heard anything from the guys on site ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand that after AZ blaming yield problems in Belgium for cutting EU 1st quarter supply to 30% and at the same time saying that because UK signed "much earlier" the yield problems had been solved in UK plants ... turns out to be total bollocks and another lie from AZ. 1st quarter deliveries to UK are also approx 30% of what was promised ... due to yield problems in UK plants.

You could not make this up.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, cms said:

1st quarter deliveries to UK are also approx 30% of what was promised ... due to yield problems in UK plants.

Described as small 2 production lines in one factory and a backroom at Oxford. 2M a month of production.

Interesting is to see the ramifications in future dealing with UK based companies and EU spending projects.
In all contracts EU first will appear. But preferable UK totally out of hte supply chain.

With J&J (Dutch/US) the contract has been changed, production and bottling in the EU. And production in EU for the US, and bottling in the US. Was before production here and only bottling in the US.
UK has to ask the US for it now.

Pfizer did it nice, both sides contracts and deliveries to both in equal numbers based on population.
Moderna, only to the EU, as UK still has not approved it. Made in Swiss.
AZ, whatever the true is, more to UK then EU. Far more if you take size into account.

Or the UK is right and can lay hands on all EU production, in which case the EU will just block it because of UK thrash talking.
Or the EU is right on having rights on all EU production (not UK production as UK  press says), then why does it take so long for AZ to choose a side.
With every week AZ is becoming less important to the EU, Pfizer is really upping it's game. And with steady but low supply Moderna and J&J around the corner...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, LeoV said:

Described as small 2 production lines in one factory and a backroom at Oxford. 2M a month of production.

Oh, have to be correct, 2m a week, 8m a month. 54m in Q2. Enough for UK only, but not at the speed as they did. Needs extra for that.

Meanwhile J&J is picking up speed, same style of manufacturing as AZ. But big difference, only one shot needed.
Half April first batch delivery is planned. In the EU, not UK.

This is the latest EU prognoses on deliveries, Pfizer and Moderna are numbers which are proven to be reliable.
So reliable here they only have 2 days in stock. AZ shaded was promised, green the expectation.
Divide by 6.5 to equalise for size EU/UK.
ExtMBbLWUAE_ECX?format=jpg&name=large

So it looks like at the moment AZ is going almost half/half on splitting. 54m Uk 70m.
AZ needs the conflict sorted ASAP, as J&J is half the work to get a jab fully working.
 

Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.politico.eu/article/brits-spain-spooked-post-brexit-status/

The end of free movement makes living in Spain more complicated — but fears of imminent deportation are far-fetched.

Nigel Aston, president of Eurocitizens, a group that lobbies for the rights of British nationals in Spain, said many Brits had been living in the country without registering as residents — despite a Spanish rule that says all foreign nationals must register as such after their initial three months in the country. They will now have to legalize their presence but there is no reason whatsoever to suggest Spain would put them on a plane back to the U.K., he said.

“There is a good deal of scaremongering in certain parts of the British press,” he said. “We can speculate why that is — steering anti-EU feeling?”

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Where the fuck is Jack?

I hope he’s alright.
 

I kinda miss the old codger, you know, kinda like a scab that has ceased to hurt and from which a certain amount of unexplainable pleasure can be derived from picking at it.

 

 

:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well today I've got my first real 'Brexit bill', I'm importing an engine for my classic car from Estonia. And despite the fact that VAT has already been paid once on it in the EU, I've now had to pay VAT & Duty again to bring it to the UK + VAT on the postage, plus a £50 fee for some company to fill out the forum. 
£457 I wouldn't have had to pay before. 

I'm sure those economic benefits area already trickling down to me. </s>

Regarding AZ, I'm staying well away from this debate on this one as I think the debates getting quite nasty, but I feel that neither the EU & the UK come up smelling of roses on this one. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sea warrior said:

Where the fuck is Jack?

I hope he’s alright.
 

I kinda miss the old codger, you know, kinda like a scab that has ceased to hurt and from which a certain amount of unexplainable pleasure can be derived from picking at it.

 

 

:-)

I think he got punted for being a dickhead.

Got caught out bullshiting again and as usual went on another posting bender to try and deflect from it. Sadly when he comes back he will have pages of pent up bloviatian to post. But fuck it is nice not having to scroll past his bullshit.

This place is way better without the tiresome thin skinned wanker.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MiddayGun said:

Regarding AZ, I'm staying well away from this debate on this one as I think the debates getting quite nasty, but I feel that neither the EU & the UK come up smelling of roses on this one. 

So bad for relations between them.
And do not forget AZ. EU has started the dispute resolution mechanism.

ExvWa2JWQAA5MEQ?format=jpg&name=4096x409

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, LeoV said:

https://www.politico.eu/article/brits-spain-spooked-post-brexit-status/

The end of free movement makes living in Spain more complicated — but fears of imminent deportation are far-fetched.

Nigel Aston, president of Eurocitizens, a group that lobbies for the rights of British nationals in Spain, said many Brits had been living in the country without registering as residents — despite a Spanish rule that says all foreign nationals must register as such after their initial three months in the country. They will now have to legalize their presence but there is no reason whatsoever to suggest Spain would put them on a plane back to the U.K., he said.

“There is a good deal of scaremongering in certain parts of the British press,” he said. “We can speculate why that is — steering anti-EU feeling?”

Sorry, couldn’t let that piece of irony (bolded above) pass without saluting it.

Disgruntled Brits voluntarily calling their group “Eurocitizens

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Black Sox said:

Disgruntled Brits voluntarily calling their group “Eurocitizens

Half the Brits registered in Spain are younger then 50, and working. Bet the pensionado's will object that name...

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, jgh66 said:

looks like AZ and UK are getting new problems:

AZ. Should be separated from Brexit, Canada did stop too. But some UK press ties it together.

Link to post
Share on other sites

UK funded Oxford ?  Nope, CEPI invested much more. Bill Gates and others funded the main part.
Internationally in the science community the UK is making itself a hard to believe. Very Trumpian.
Though it is used politically with a lot of success at the home front, feeding British exceptionalism.
Also at the moment there is a campaign out of the UK active with misinformation about Halix/ AZ and Dutch investment. Curious who is behind it... UK or Russia with UK connections ?
It contains a grain of truth coupled with buckets of false information.

Result of IMB and now this, that there is already a proposal underway to the EU parliament about blocking UK science projects not be able to access sensitive EU research, wide open in definition. Could include military and medical. Limiting the Horizon projects for the UK. EU can not trust the UK any more to work together. In a few years from partner to pariah.

Key Research Findings

The US and Germany are by far the largest investors in vaccine R&D, followed by a relatively small number of other (mostly) high-income countries.

afbeelding.png.eeec9dd43c594b2a92a7e576f7b85488.png

https://www.knowledgeportalia.org/covid19-r-d-funding

afbeelding.png.7b666b69c149dc3dc1033fc15f1fdd44.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, LeoV said:

UK funded Oxford ?  Nope, CEPI invested much more. Bill Gates and others funded the main part.

By February 2020, Bloomberg News reported that CEPI had raised a total of US$760 million with additional donations from the governments of Australia, Belgium, Canada, and the U.K.[4] Bloomberg said that "CEPI solves what economists call a 'coordination problem'. It can help pair boutique research and development companies with big vaccine manufacturers, work with regulators to streamline approval processes and resolve patent disputes on the spot. Its scientific advisory committee has executives from Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, and Japan's Takeda Pharmaceutical, among others".[4]

In March 2020, the British government pledged £210 million in funding to CEPI to specifically focus on a vaccine for the coronavirus; making Britain CEPI's largest individual donor.[25][26]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_for_Epidemic_Preparedness_Innovations

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, LeoV said:

So bad for relations between them.
And do not forget AZ. EU has started the dispute resolution mechanism.

ExvWa2JWQAA5MEQ?format=jpg&name=4096x409

I'm not talking about this specific area, I'm talking about overall fuckuppery. I seem to recall Macron calling the vaccine quasi ineffective, before backtracking and now complaining that he doesn't have enough of it. 

I can't be bothered searching for it, but I seem to recall people on here mocking the UK for backing the AZ vaccine early on & getting a terrible deal, if the UK had ended up behind on the vaccination program with the boot on the other foot so to speak then I'm sure it would be blamed on the UK for not getting in on the EUs deal, not the EU for taking priority. 
Some of the posts here seem excessively partisan and once sided to me & that's coming from someone who's not exactly complementary about the current government. 


One things for sure, I'm sure AZ will take away from all this that its not worth trying to help out and to just profit massively off the profit the way the other companies have, I seem to recall Moderna getting 18.4 billion worth of orders already.


But as I said its not worth falling out with people on what is essentially a sailing forum. 

Can't we just go back to calling Boris Johnson a floppy haired cunt? 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MiddayGun said:

 I seem to recall Macron calling the vaccine quasi ineffective, before backtracking and now complaining that he doesn't have enough of it. 

 

Also now not being mentioned how Macron insisted that a large portion of the EU's orders should be aimed on Sanofi.

https://www.france24.com/en/tv-shows/focus/20210212-covid-19-vaccine-is-french-medical-research-failing

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MiddayGun said:

I'm not talking about this specific area, I'm talking about overall fuckuppery. I seem to recall Macron calling the vaccine quasi ineffective, before backtracking and now complaining that he doesn't have enough of it. 

Oh, that. Another remark the UK press went wild with. It was not smart but it had a background. Rightfully he explained more after the explanation the UK press gave.

Macron's said it on the day EMA approved it. When AZ had put in the research papers and they had not tested over a lot of over 60's in the trials (2 cases only got infected) . So it was not proven to work or not for over 60 was the conclusion from many countries, not alone EU.. AZ completed papers later with over 60 numbers.
Now we can discuss what quasi ineffective means in different cultures and languages.
https://www.politico.eu/article/coronavirus-vaccine-europe-astrazeneca-macron-quasi-ineffective-older-pe/

It was based on this as it was still in trail only.
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2021/03/astrazeneca-vaccine-blood-clot-issue-wont-go-away/618451/

In fact, we saw something like the same debate unfold late last year, when AstraZeneca and Oxford University first announced their vaccine’s success in clinical trials. The data contained numerous, serious shortfalls: Instead of judging efficacy from a single, large, placebo-controlled trial, the Oxford team merged results from different studies carried out in different ways. The research was so problematic, in fact, that regulators could not agree on whether the vaccine’s demonstrated efficacy against symptomatic COVID-19 was closer to 70 percent, as England’s drug regulator decided, or in the low 60s, per the EMA.

The lack of better data was a deal breaker for some health authorities. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration, for example, decided to await results from a large, rigorous trial; Switzerland’s agency, Swissmedic, did the same. But regulators in Europe, along with those in many countries beyond the Continent, went the other way. The EMA recommended authorization of the AstraZeneca vaccine, announcing that “the conduct of studies was sub-optimal” but also that, “given the emergency situation,” the benefits of using it outweighed any risks.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MiddayGun said:

I can't be bothered searching for it, but I seem to recall people on here mocking the UK for backing the AZ vaccine early on & getting a terrible deal, if the UK had ended up behind on the vaccination program with the boot on the other foot so to speak then I'm sure it would be blamed on the UK for not getting in on the EUs deal, not the EU for taking priority. 

Not me, my thinking then was having had EMA for decades in the UK brought in many life science companies that could give it an edge. Lot's of knowledge still in the UK.
Partially been proved right. AZ was the fastest to get approved.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Looked at W post, relying on press releases on promised funding at he start of a funding campaign. UK was first to commit, 210 M but goal was 2Bn. He is good on disinformation. Digging in the Wiki to find one press link to claim UK victory... sad.

I can say Cepi is funded 95% by the EU, and will be as correct.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, LeoV said:

I can say Cepi is funded 95% by the EU, and will be as correct.

As of August in your favourite Guardian where psssst don't tell Jack, Australia has put in ferk all contrary to his claims.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/aug/14/australia-lagging-on-contributions-to-global-body-funding-covid-vaccine-research

 

 

Screenshot_2021-03-31 Australia lagging on contributions to global body funding Covid vaccine research.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Waynemarlow said:

As of August in your favourite Guardian where psssst don't tell Jack, Australia has put in ferk all contrary to his claims.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/aug/14/australia-lagging-on-contributions-to-global-body-funding-covid-vaccine-research

Screenshot_2021-03-31 Australia lagging on contributions to global body funding Covid vaccine research.png

Who has cooked those numbers?

According to CEPI, in April 2020: "Norway’s total funding for CEPI now totals $414 million." https://cepi.net/news_cepi/norway-intensifies-covid-19-fight-with-nok2-2-billion-donation-to-cepi/

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Upp3 said:

Who has cooked those numbers?

But it is LeoV’s favourite go to source of data and info, surely you are not now saying they too cook the books. Tsssk can’t trust anyone these days.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Waynemarlow said:

Tsssk can’t trust anyone these days.

I've taken habit to check the easily checked facts from everyone. Journalists don't seem to work like they used to and there are a lot of "journalists" that spew lies instead of exposing them.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

There is always an article to find in the press or google to bolster any claim or idea you want to propagate.
As W is proving.

And the UK press is under the influence of group-think.
The level of ignorance and misinformation in the UK press about the EU is only getting worse. Provisional plans become permanent anti UK conspiracies, regulatory decisions even when not only EU countries act, are an attack against the UK. News facts like the Reuters above are not mentioned in the UK press. You would have thought that it would be of interest.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Upp3 said:

I've taken habit to check the easily checked facts from everyone. Journalists don't seem to work like they used to and there are a lot of "journalists" that spew lies instead of exposing them.

Totally concur, journalists seem only interested in the money shot that takes no foreplay these days. One only has to watch one of the COVID daily Q&A’s to see some really poor and almost childish questioning by senior journalists who want their moment of glory on TV.

But then don’t you think the whole elite political world from all sides are no better, in the real business world they would have been fired or probably never employed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, LeoV said:

There is always an article to find in the press or google to bolster any claim or idea you want to propagate.
As W is proving.

LeoV your whole daily splurges are based on your EU views and your whole missives are based on what you see as supporting your cause. You are guilty of exactly what you complain about and yet can’t see it.

As I have always said, there are two sides to every story.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Waynemarlow said:

Totally concur, journalists seem only interested in the money shot that takes no foreplay these days. One only has to watch one of the COVID daily Q&A’s to see some really poor and almost childish questioning by senior journalists who want their moment of glory on TV.

Populism impacts journalism- in a world where you can get your "news" free, few pay for journalism so the newspapers print what they can sell to their customers. If you write for the British tabloids, are you really a journalist?

 If you want an informed, balanced view you need to pay for it. I recommend a subscription to The Economist: you may not agree with their position but you can be pretty confident they have taken it for well-thought-out reasons. Even if you were totally opposed to everything they suggest, you would benefit from reading and understanding their analysis.

3 minutes ago, Waynemarlow said:

But then don’t you think the whole elite political world from all sides are no better, in the real business world they would have been fired or probably never employed.

No. There are plenty of politicians around who are doing the job because they care- it's not as if it's well paid; most could make more money, even have more actual power, outside politics. Even a few of them in your "elite".

The current crop of Westminster leaders is particularly awful but the fault lies largely in the electorate that supports them.

Cheers,

                W.  (the other one, Leo: I fear you are despoiling my Good Letter!)

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, WGWarburton said:

The current crop of Westminster leaders is particularly awful but the fault lies largely in the electorate that supports them.

Much like the Scottish leaders then.

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, WGWarburton said:

No. There are plenty of politicians around who are doing the job because they care-

But is that enough to run a country ?

If you have no business accumen, have no business experience, never have successfully run anything that you have actually created yourself and your only contribution to society is that you care, will that life experience be enough to pull 66 million people through a Covid pandemic or even a financial crisis that occurs on all too regular basis. Probably not in my view.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, LeoV said:

Result of IMB and now this, that there is already a proposal underway to the EU parliament about blocking UK science projects not be able to access sensitive EU research, wide open in definition. Could include military and medical. Limiting the Horizon projects for the UK. EU can not trust the UK any more to work together. In a few years from partner to pariah.

LeoV I notice you forgot to mention that both Switzerland and Israel are also untrustworthy enough to be part of the Horizon scheme.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Waynemarlow said:

But is that enough to run a country ?

If you have no business accumen, have no business experience, never have successfully run anything that you have actually created yourself and your only contribution to society is that you care, will that life experience be enough to pull 66 million people through a Covid pandemic or even a financial crisis that occurs on all too regular basis. Probably not in my view.

It is not enough. You'll need the unelected bureaucrats to do so.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Waynemarlow said:

Much like the Scottish leaders then.

Not really- the Scottish leadership is a bit self absorbed, the current Westminster government is monumentally corrupt and dishonest, lacking any sense of a moral or ethical compass (see the racism report published yesterday, for example)... it's a bit like comparing chipped gelcoat to massive structural damage below the waterline- yes they are both hull damage but one is easily fixable using existing processes whereas the other is an unmitigated disaster.

Cheers,

              W.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Upp3 said:

You'll need the unelected bureaucrats to do so.

But if they to have not run a business, nor ever have done anything outside of the civil service, not ever had to be budget constrained, nor ever had to actually make a bit of profit to pay for their wages and pensions, where does that lead us ?

At least with politicians every 4 years we can bin them, with unelected civil numpties, as much of the civil service in the UK seems to be made up of, we are stuck with them for life as any failure seems to be rewarded with sideways promotion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, MiddayGun said:

I'm not talking about this specific area, I'm talking about overall fuckuppery.

Can't we just go back to calling Boris Johnson a floppy haired cunt?  YES !!

Good post and yes getting a bit fed up with UK politicians & press trying to score cheap points and blowing everything out of proportion vs. the EU.

They are still trying to justify brexshit every way possible to the great unwashed, possibly themselves, which is lame.  

Meanwhile business suffers in silence.

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Waynemarlow said:

But if they to have not run a business, nor ever have done anything outside of the civil service, not ever had to be budget constrained, nor ever had to actually make a bit of profit to pay for their wages and pensions, where does that lead us ?

At least with politicians every 4 years we can bin them, with unelected civil numpties, as much of the civil service in the UK seems to be made up of, we are stuck with them for life as any failure seems to be rewarded with sideways promotion.

The politicians that have run a business are in politics to boost their own business and they don't care about the rest. 4 years later they may not get revoted, so in 4 years time, try to put as much govermentmoney in their own and/or business. And try again later on, or get some friends in some positions so they will scratch your back later on again.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Laser1 said:

Meanwhile business suffers in silence.

Doing what business's do best, unlike most of the posters here on this thread, simply moved on and adapted to the new situation.

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, gewoon ik said:

The politicians that have run a business are in politics to boost their own business and they don't care about the rest. 4 years later they may not get revoted, so in 4 years time, try to put as much govermentmoney in their own and/or business. And try again later on, or get some friends in some positions so they will scratch your back later on again.

All the more reason for proportional representation rather than party politics.

Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Waynemarlow said:

All the more reason for proportional representation rather than party politics.

Much like the Scottish system, then.

Cheers,

               W. (no, not that one, Leo)

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Even better would be no candidate is allowed to nominate a party on the ballot card, you vote for the man or women who best fits your views. Once in parliament then all votes are by secret ballot, which would mean all members vote best to represent their constituents and not a party.

But then that is pipe dream school boy stuff much like LeoV's student type nirvana veiw of the EU ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Waynemarlow said:

Doing what business's do best, unlike most of the posters here on this thread, simply moved on and adapted to the new situation.

Any chance you’d tell that to Snarleen and the rest of the KKK/DUP in the six?

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Waynemarlow said:

LeoV your whole daily splurges are based on your EU views and your whole missives are based on what you see as supporting your cause. You are guilty of exactly what you complain about and yet can’t see it.

As I have always said, there are two sides to every story.

If AZ shows the exclusivity contract with the UK regarding the EU factories mentioned in the EU contract I will eat humble pie.

And your last sentence is exactly the UK problem, BJ sacked non Eurosceptics and the UK press is one sided as hell.
And yet you can not see it.  I am waiting for your first nuanced post that shows an inkling of thinking from the other side ...lol

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey guys seeing double from the local oooh, it’s 1.30 in the morning, it’s been an.eventful first ride out as a cycling group,  first  5 Pinter in nearly 12 months, been so many of what was normal, there is life post COVID. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember a line from the past ..."Euro Bureau , Brussel Sprouts"....no other comment needed...

 

   a mike leigh film 1992

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/1/2021 at 10:32 AM, WGWarburton said:

If you want an informed, balanced view you need to pay for it. I recommend a subscription to The Economist: you may not agree with their position but you can be pretty confident they have taken it for well-thought-out reasons. Even if you were totally opposed to everything they suggest, you would benefit from reading and understanding their analysis

WGW, not W;
if you read the latest Economist vaccine story, you could supplement it with this to get both sides;


And Halix told the EU, no UK government funding, it is published Cepi did invest and AZ probably did.
Cepi funding as much EU money as UK.
AZ got UK payments for R&D and delivery of doses but I do not know the details, as did the EU who published the down payment.
336 Million in August, around the time Halix started to invest in manufacturing line.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-eu-vaccine-price-idUSKBN25N25X

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, LeoV said:

AZ got UK payments for R&D and delivery of doses but I do not know the details, as did the EU who published the down payment.

21 Million is being mentioned in the UK Press as the initial upfront cost from the UK to help develop the large barrels needed to expand the production and to send engineers over to help with the install. The EU were offered a buy in at 8M but declined, but used CEPI later once the wrangling over how much Sanofi was to get with Macron pushing hard.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My parents were stationed overseas and I grew up with Time and National Geographic - big american influences.  I find the Economist to be just another little England opinion paper dressed up as a news magazine.  At least acknowledged did Time, of its status as a celebrity mag :). 

Read der Spiegels international page, it is a much better source of solid reporting.  tbh, you need to read a pile of newsweeks to get a real picture.  For me, the Economist is at the bottom of that list, right above Newsweek.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, crashdog said:

My parents were stationed overseas and I grew up with Time and National Geographic - big american influences.  I find the Economist to be just another little England opinion paper dressed up as a news magazine.  At least acknowledged did Time, of its status as a celebrity mag :). 

Too liberal for you?

Cheers,

              W.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Happy Easter to all..

And a big shout out to the unionists who’s massive own goal is making the path to Irish reunification ever shorter.

 

 

A9842785-41FE-41EE-9D63-C4797F9B029C.jpeg

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/3/2021 at 3:56 PM, Waynemarlow said:

 The EU were offered a buy in at 8M but declined, but used CEPI later.

If the press was Telegraph or DM or Sun etc, you will know it was hocus. Even this sentence is wrong 2 times before the comma.
Who offered, how was it offered and when was it offered and what was in the offering ?

More interesting that UK vaccine supremo Kate Bingham remarks in a FT interview with her. But omits Janssen vaccine and thinks a vaccine not proven yet with a company with the same PR and research problems as AZ will be the answer....

"While AstraZeneca’s low cost and ease of storage make it a frontrunner to be the leading “vaccine for the world”, a jab made by Novavax, a US biotech company, “is going to be hot on its heels”, Bingham says. Indeed, she has a rather special answer to a favourite question among middle-aged Britons: “AstraZeneca or Pfizer?” She can reply: “Neither. I’m Novavax.”
https://www.ft.com/content/8d9edc58-7922-496a-942f-5360bfe84876

Link to post
Share on other sites