Jump to content

L00b

Members
  • Content Count

    17,295
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About L00b

  • Rank
    Registered User

Recent Profile Visitors

1,684 profile views
  1. Well, the facts were (still are) plenty clear enough, however unpalatable some clearly find them to be. You don't need to "quote-mark" them. The ball in play was (still is) the mooted export controls by the EU and India (in recent news and discussed in posts prior to mine), since the narrative in your MSM was (still is) rather light on context. The intention was to inform that sub-debate with information providing that context (noting that the lack of exports was not UK-exclusive, the US is clearly worse in that respect given its production volume), and mitigating the shrill anti-EU narrative/divide-and-conquer crap, which the UK government is constantly pushing hard (like it did again today, with offering Dublin those non-existent 3.7m vaccine doses). But you know what, what few regular posters still lurk on SF's General Topics instead of Facebook just see 'L00b', and automatically get the red mist no matter what these days: I could post that the sky is blue, and still they'd find something objectionable in that 😂 I echo the balance of your sentiments, and best of luck to you with the current and coming times, RJRB. You've been a gent 🙂
  2. The demand is severely pent-up. For every over-65 getting gaslit over the vaccine potency in France and elsewhere (sure, it's not just Brit OAPs who can get gaslit and anxious over invented problems), there are tens of thousands of under-65s who would drop everything and go get vaccinated on the spot. Some French GPs recently went on record as cold-calling their registered patients outside of the 'correct' ranges, when nobody in the 'correct' range shows up through 'fear of the AZ' , precisely to avoid wastage. It's exactly why Castex went and got his AZ vaccine 'out of turn', to help dispel this myth. The bulk of grumbling in the EU is about delayed vaccine approval (justified IMHO) and stalled vaccination programmes, not centralised and coordinated procurement, which has worked reasonably well. The reason vaccination programmes are stalled, is because they were initially devised and estimated based on manufacturers' contractual delivery commitments (that have never been met yet) and because the EU respected its exporting commitments in the meantime. The situation will improve, as manufacturers are made to respect their contractual commitments through export controls. Unless they're not bothered about doing business with the EU in the long-term, of course.
  3. Vaccine production, in millions of doses, per major economy bloc, with indication of volume split between domestic use and export. Published by The Independent, sourced from Airfinity. It's all there, for those bothered enough to look, rather than pick an argument for argument's sake. <sigh>
  4. No, simply informing the debate a little more, in relation to the sub-topic of vaccine nationalism/triumphalism. You can choose to read that post, or ‘coded’ whatever into that post -because I happened to post it rather than another- however you want: them’s the facts just the same. Giz a shout when you feel like playing the ball sometime.
  5. Erm...have you taken a look at UK plc lately? Because I think that narrative has changed a fair bit. Try “hedge-funds stuffed with disaster capitalists” instead. These are to ‘big business and markets (deregulated and not)’, what wolf packs are to farming of any livestock whatsoever: the sort of deal wherein you can only profit once, by destroying the underlying asset, then move onto the next.
  6. Can’t see that happening anytime soon. Johnson’s government is a centralising force, mirroring other modern-day kakocracies with kleptocratic tendencies (variously: Brazil, Turkey, Hungary, US until recently...). The SNP likely won’t be getting Westminster permission for IndyRef 2.0, any more than powers repatriated to Westminster (faster since 2010 under Austerity 1.0) will get (re-)decentralised, before 2024. Heh, it’s a bit hard to “take back control” if you give it away 🙃
  7. Realistically, a political coalition with other parties is the only way that Labour can hope to return to *shared* power in 2024. Starmer does not strike me as having sufficient vision and political clout to handle that. For all his perceived positives of only a few months ago, going by his latest he’s been consumed by internal politics already and is a write-off. Labour needs a deal maker, unafraid of dumping the dinos and willing to govern by consensus. A tall order. The LibDems enjoy about as much notoriety and political relevance as you can say ‘Nick Clegg, student fees’ all these years later, after disastrous figurehead rebrands. Still, the voting tally is non-trivial, and probably least tribal (relative to Tory/Lab/Greens/SNP), so more ‘transferable’ than others. The Greens are doing a great job of building *and then keeping* their voting tally, but at such a glacial pace that, under the FPTP, they might get into sight of governance next century. Might. They’d likely jump at a power-sharing chance to prove their policy-making and executive mettle.
  8. It’s nothing like it, of course. Not all those who voted for Brexit were thick uneducated racists, by far. But all thick uneducated racists very probably voted for Brexit. That nuance was suppressed in debate in the name of tribal politics, exactly like the nuance between “a light statutory update” by a government riding populism for all it’s worth and the gradual setting up of a police state, is now getting suppressed in debate, still in the name of tribal politics. Must say, that Kool Aid must taste pretty sweet. I don’t think Vlad P was getting away with half as much, a year into his first Presidential term.
  9. Some stark statistics published by the British Food and Drink Federation today.
  10. You will eventually find out, rest assured. Johnson’s government of authoritarian kleptocrats is clearly emulating a working and proven precedent and you have 4 more years of it coming. (the averred ties between both regimes must be purely coincidental, of course)
  11. Just an observation from looking at recent media, wherein the argument seems to be that: - The UK's acquisition, by means unclear, of additional vaccine flow compared to the EU was perfectly legitimate, and the EU should suck it up. - The EU, using its own legal powers to control the flow of vaccines, is illegitimate and constitutes a metaphorical act of war against the UK. Various theories have been advanced about why supply was tilted towards the UK, including a reference to an earlier (May) contract, but nothing incontrovertible. The whole argument stoking vaccine nationalism is pathetically ill-informed and polarising, whoever pushes it, and whether in Western Europe or further east. Always ask yourself: who profits from this? There’s no need of ‘being clever’ at all, to answer that. Just take a step back and think for yourself 🙂
  12. It shores up the "EU is the enemy" narrative that is politically expedient for the government, and will likely remain so for the foreseeable future. Simple (and wrong) answers to complex problems, as usual, and gullibles lap it up, as usual. The vaccine rollout (real/expected) shortages are attributable to AZ and Pfizer over-promising back in the day (and on which basis the rollout programmes were devised), and under-delivering since (hence rollout stalling), with the under-performance compounding over time through chronic problems in some production units (Belgium earlier, India currently). The vaccine rollout is worse/slower still across the EU, because AZ and Pfizer (not "the UK" nor "the US") have not respected their respective cross-delivering obligations to the EU, whilst the EU has been respecting its own vaccine-sending undertakings to 2nd and 3rd world countries. Note I'm not abstracting or dismissing poor healthcare management either. But the shortfall in doses is well into the millions, so it cannot be statistically trivial. Hence the EU is now threatening to withhold EU-made doses, unless the UK (AZ) and US (Pfizer) start respecting their contractual obligations. This also explains partly why the UK vaccine rollout has been so successful relative to EU members and others: on a comparative-contractual basis, not only has it received more than its fair share (since AZ never sent any UK-made vaccine to the EU, when it should have), it has also gone for volume (single jab for all) rather than safety (dual jab at recommended interval). It's a gamble, no worse nor better than another in the circumstances (Covid infection rates since last year). I certainly hope it pays off for you all. Again, I'm not abstracting the herculean efforts of the NHS in that success. But it needed the volume of doses, to deliver like it has. It's not "the EU vs the UK". It's "the EU vs AZ and Pfizer". And, within that, it's individual EU states (because the enforcement would be local, e.g. it would Belgian customs , not "the EU", stopping AZ doses from leaving for the UK or the US).
  13. For keeping up with the actual consequences of Brexit, I tend to prefer the Digby Jones index. It's more exhaustive than ad hoc articles, the continuity of entries over time makes for better evidence, and it isn't the Guardian, so should be less objectionable to politically-biased readers. Heck, it's got Yorkshire int'name 😁
  14. It certainly was, and one could e.g. compare the numbers of fully-vaccinated (i.e. double-jabbed) people in the UK and France... ...but I'm trying to avoid falling into this "vaccine nationalism" crap 😉
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

X