True but the real anger has to be directed at the likes of Farage, Gove and Hannan rather than the ordinary working joe who bought into their lies.
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
True but the real anger has to be directed at the likes of Farage, Gove and Hannan rather than the ordinary working joe who bought into their lies.
In a weird way the pandemic has hidden many Brexit problems. If trade and tourism were operating at pre-Covid levels it would be utter chaos - only because travel and trading are so reduced the effects of Brexit have not been really seen (yet).
I never passed comment on French motivations. I used Germany as an example and that‘s been a sentiment some German politicians have expressed ‘why are other countries rolling out a German vaccine before us’. It’s a fair question and I highly doubt if they’ve had procured independently they’d be in that situation. The German health minister has even said that they had to act ‘European’ in policy which certainly suggests some ideological consideration behind the decision.
https://www.thelocal.de/20210113/ge...mistakes-in-covid-19-vaccine-strategy-january
You can look at what Israel have done as a small country by paying a premium to queue jump and they’re blasting it. I’m sure a number of smaller rich EU countries could have done that if they‘d have procured independently.
Again, my point is that as an independent nation in some situations you can be more agile and responsive than as part of a block. I don’t think this is a controversial point personally.
Last edited:
Brexiter losing his sh!t
If you can separate french and german motivations and strategies, then you are clearly talking about individual decisions which is my point. The issue isn't the supposed controversy but the lack of relevance because the question was about the approval of the vaccine which is a decision that is took at a national level.
Is simple. Germany took the DECISION to act European as france and many others. Had Germany and Could Germany take a different DECISION? Absolutely yes. A similar decision than UK? absolutely yes
As an independent country, Germany took a decision as many as they had been taking during COVID (like shutting borders, different landing requirements,etc...).
Lots of european countries had decided to ask for a negative result 72 hours prior landing to the country. some others no. UK will not do it till next week I think? Is a late decision. Does this mean that is an advantage to be in the EU? no, because it was an individual decisions
At the end, EU have more decisions to make because they have more options than the UK but whatever decision you will have to accept the positive outcome. In this case, UK took the decision (because the UK was still inside the EU) to go by themselves. As they took the decision to opt out on the EU to purchase the vaccine together. Whichever will be the outcome it has nothing to do on if it is better being in the EU or not, because that decision was as well in the other countries
Decisions decisions decisions. Nothing to do in being in the EU
You are talking of Israel paying premiums. The EU had a better puchase power than by themselves. Israel could by at a premium as they are 8 million. imagine 85 millions in Germany, or +60 in France or Italy...you can't give premium to everyone because it will not be a premium anymore. Or in other words, why UK didn't by it at a premium? surely you can't say because it was in the EU. And the other less rich countries n the EU got the advantages to be in the EU
UK had soverignity as the other countries had. In the COVID situation, as immigration and a big etc that gullible people swallowed all down the road with Brexit
Not really sure what exactly you’re getting at here.
When whichever UK politician said that we could only do what we did in getting the vaccine procured and approved was because of Brexit, that was a lie. I’ve never suggested otherwise. My point is that as an independent nation you can be more responsive and agile in certain situations and this was an example of that.
I’ve never disputed that same autonomy wasn’t available to the EU member states under EU law either. My point was that being in the block comes with a degree of diplomatic and ideological pressure to act as a block in situations such as this. I speculated that this pressure was increased because of Brexit and the criticisms against the EU early in the pandemic. The German health ministers comments certainly back me up on this point I feel. These dynamics have proven to be suboptimal for EU member states in this particular case, as the German health minister also appears to indicate.
Last edited:
They got sovereignty. What more could they want.
Good point.
Whilst @Hughes35 was understandably misled regarding the Brexit point it's hard to argue that the vein of Euroscepticism running through this government hasn't been beneficial in this regard.
The fact that the flaws in the EU vaccine strategy were being highlighted back in July but the only country (to my knowledge?) within the block not following this strategy was the one leaving I'd say tells you everything you need to know.
The EU are 27 countries. Maybe it would work for 2 or 3 countries, not for the 27, as for other situtations sometimes it would be better for 2 or 3 countries, but noy for the rest (stronger German mark for exports vs weaker euro) and etc... The block is stronger together than separate and all in all, you might have pressure, but Poland and Hungary didn't succumbed to the pressure on the COVID relief targeting them. Wallonia didn't succumb on that pressure not even for the Belgium government when the Canada-EU treaty. Being in the EU meant feck all at the beginning of the COVID on the PPE war and testin supplying war on the first months.
Since went the UK succumbed to that pressure? you still had the Pound and many more. you had the soverignity and the other countries to. And sometimes they decide to go individually and sometimes not. Of course, that if you REALLY want to implement your soverignity
Which EU vaccine strategy are we talking about? And didn't the UK found themselves in a situation where they had to lengthen the period between the first and second dose due to supply issues, issues that also apply currently for EU members?
Do we win a prize if we can guess the next poster who spouts the same nonsense?
1. CBLP 2. DKB
1. CBLP 2. DKB
Last edited:
I recall reading this at the time:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.th...-eu-coronavirus-vaccine-programme-sources-say
Supply issues are a huge factor worldwide given approval has only occurred over the last month or so. The strategy is in regards to how wide the net was cast in terms of the variety of vaccines purchased and how many of them were purchased at the outset. The narrower the net and more circumspect the volumes; the more risky the strategy.
Whether political interests were involved, for example in the EU scheme purchasing large volumes of Sanofi (which won't be available for several months), I'm not sure.
The EU initial 1.3Bn vaccines were from pretty much all the producers, the Sanofi order is similar to the the initial Pfizer order, 300m each but added 300m of Pfizer.
Last edited:
EU 2.3bn vs 357mn UK about the same quantity per person.
UK have only ordered 11% of their vaccines from Pfizer against 26% by the EU
UK have ordered 17% of their vaccines from Sanofi against 13% by the EU
UK have only ordered 11% of their vaccines from Pfizer against 26% by the EU
UK have ordered 17% of their vaccines from Sanofi against 13% by the EU
It’s just an obvious fact. It’s a shame people argue it for or against Brexit.
it highlights that things will be different, sometimes better sometimes not.
i still find it somewhat strange and self harming that so many people revel and jump on any point that supports their vote from 4.5 years ago. But we aren’t allowed to say, we should move on, for some reason, which I’m sure will be pointed out very soon...
Whether or not the UK has been able to more quicker than the EU (which it has) I don’t actually care, and I’m not celebrating. But surely we can acknowledge it.
I win
well played!The “bloc” has done whatever the hell it likes during this pandemic, with each country creating their own rules on the fly. Every country has been acting independently and every country also had the opportunity to do so with the vaccines.
Being able to act quick was a simple choice that had absolutely nothing to do with being in or out of the bloc, a choice any of the bloc could have made. Kinda like when 90% of the bloc locked down and closed borders whilst the UK dithered around waiting for Neil Ferguson to scare the shit out of them.
Sources please?
What about the approval of the vaccines? Was that country by country?
Ackowledge what? that they gambled? that they are still gambling with the second just in 3 months instead of 3 weeks as per manufacturer? Yes, it worked out but you are gambling with the health of the people. If it works Horray if it doesn't it can be huge disaster. Is like saying UK has a better strategy because they win in the roulette at black or red while the EU won money in their current salary job
Colour me surprised.
I don't think they're really gambling. As for the approval process: to my understanding, the emergency process serves to push approval faster so it can be administered quicker to a narrower population group. For example, to my knowledge, not enough is known yet about the effects on children and pregnant woman for the Pfizer/BioNTech one. Once that comes out, the UK will have to go through a relatively large approval process again, where apparently the more fulsome EU process performed by EMA means they can add further population groups to the approval more easily. Or something along those lines; I might be getting facts wrong, but the overall idea is correct. Pros and cons - but so administering the vaccine to the rest of the population isn't a gamble.
As for extending the wait until the second dose: that's done in other places as well. (Did QC start doing it or were they just strongly considering it?) The idea is to quickly get some immunity in more people, to help flatten the curve in a situation that's getting seriously out of hand. A full and proper campaign can follow later.
I suppose a proper discussion of this stuff is rather for the COVID-19 thread; but my point is that these are all legitimate, practical considerations, which every country can make. None of it is in any way related to Brexit. (Apart from that, as suggested above, there may be more peer pressure in the EU to wait for the EMA's process rather than using a local emergency process. On the other hand, waiting for EMA means not having to use resources at home for vaccine approvals, meaning that those people can focus on other things. Again: pros and cons; and nothing to do with Brexit.)
this is the reply I would have loved to have been able to write! @4bars
It’s not about winning, it’s not about Brexit. My point was simply that the UK is in a position to do things quicker in this situation. It wasn’t point scoring.
I agree it’s not a gamble, and promulgation of such an argument is reminiscent of Facebook arguments.
Norway disagree....
They are shitting it that this UK vaccine strategy will creat a monster mutation.
https://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/...vaccinstrategi-kan-leda-till-resistent-mutati
But thankfully I’m reassured that a couple of blokes from the caf agree it’s not a gamble
Last edited:
Norway disagree....
They are shitting it that this UK vaccine strategy will creat a monster mutation.
https://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/...vaccinstrategi-kan-leda-till-resistent-mutati
But thankfully I’m reassured that a couple of blokes from the caf agree it’s not a gamble
It increases the chance of mutation because the efficacy of the vaccine is reduced. The UK scientists believe the increase is only slight because the data actually shows the vaccines are almost as effective after one dose, as far as I understand. All European nations that are vaccinating with significant outbreaks are 'gambling' by this measure because vaccinating whilst the virus is rampant is what really puts selection pressure on the virus. The UK approach is that the slight increase in selection pressure is less important than getting more vulnerable people vaccinated quicker.
Other European nations were looking at doing the same but I'm not sure if any have implemented it yet.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/04/germany-denmark-second-dose-covid-vaccine
So yeah, it is a gamble. Which was the point.
Anyone else doing so will also be “gambling”. That’s what the experts and science tells us.
I understand the UK approach and it’s a fair one, but making out it’s not gambling it just not correct.
Norway disagree....
They are shitting it that this UK vaccine strategy will creat a monster mutation.
https://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/...vaccinstrategi-kan-leda-till-resistent-mutati
But thankfully I’m reassured that a couple of blokes from the caf agree it’s not a gamble
we can all find articles on the internet that support a perspective. Well done.
Erm... it’s Matti Sällberg, professor and vaccine researcher at Karolinska, one of the World’s top medical research universities.
As he states:
It has not been evaluated what the protection looks like after one dose, you have no idea what it looks like after three months without dose two, says Matti Sällberg, professor and vaccine researcher at Karolinska.
It’s not fecking Breitbart.
So the science, not a bloody internet search tells us we have no idea how big or small a risk the UK vaccine protocol is, the UK is gambling. It’s calculated, but of course it’s gambling man. No vaccine study has been done with 3 months in between doses, so how the feck can it not be a calculated gamble?
Worth posting this on the EU vaccine approach from the head of BioNTech on the EU approach
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...d-jabs-after-claims-of-bowing-to-anti-vaxxers
Uğur Şahin, thehead of the German biotech firm, told Der Spiegel that the order process in Europe “certainly did not go as fast and smooth as it did with other countries”.
Şahin, who founded BioNtech with his wife, Özlem Türeci, – the firm’s chief medical officer – said the situation was “not rosy” as the EU had wrongly assumed several different vaccines would be ready at once, so spread its orders.
“The assumption was that many other companies would come up with their vaccines,” Şahin said. “It would seem that the impression was: ‘We’ll get enough, it won’t be so bad, and we have this under control.’ It surprised me.”
The FT reported that defenders of the EU approach use this line of argument
Defenders of the EU approach point to the challenges of setting up an entirely new vaccine procurement programme and co-ordinating with member states that have varying demands.
https://www.ft.com/content/c1575e05-70e5-4e5f-b58c-cde5c99aba5f
The defence is actually supports my point perfectly. The collaborative nature of the approach hinders agility and responsiveness which is a negative in this particular, albeit extremely important, case
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...d-jabs-after-claims-of-bowing-to-anti-vaxxers
Uğur Şahin, thehead of the German biotech firm, told Der Spiegel that the order process in Europe “certainly did not go as fast and smooth as it did with other countries”.
Şahin, who founded BioNtech with his wife, Özlem Türeci, – the firm’s chief medical officer – said the situation was “not rosy” as the EU had wrongly assumed several different vaccines would be ready at once, so spread its orders.
“The assumption was that many other companies would come up with their vaccines,” Şahin said. “It would seem that the impression was: ‘We’ll get enough, it won’t be so bad, and we have this under control.’ It surprised me.”
The FT reported that defenders of the EU approach use this line of argument
Defenders of the EU approach point to the challenges of setting up an entirely new vaccine procurement programme and co-ordinating with member states that have varying demands.
https://www.ft.com/content/c1575e05-70e5-4e5f-b58c-cde5c99aba5f
The defence is actually supports my point perfectly. The collaborative nature of the approach hinders agility and responsiveness which is a negative in this particular, albeit extremely important, case
That about sums up the situation.
Celebrating the UKs vaccine approach "versus" the EU is about as premature as celebrating a goal while it is under VAR review. The vaccine process is nowhere near finished and as yet has had minimal impact on preventing us having the highest number of deaths in Europe.
Smacks of desperation from people grasping for any possible distraction from the calamitous Brexit and also the calamitous leadership mistakes during covid we have had so far.
Last edited:
But if every country had gone for itself it would have just resulted in a bidding war for a limited product. Poorer countries would have been left without. Now I'm not saying the EU has done it perfectly, but those who would have profited from said bidding war might not be the perfect judge to ask.
But is anyone actually arguing that the EU have done a great job?
It appears the only argument is that the UK plan, with as much as three months between doses is a first live trial and therefore a gamble; and that every European country had the option to do the same, but they chose a different path.
The EU clubbing together its vast resources to hoover up billions of vaccines has left poorer nations without any vaccine the world over, or do you mean the poorer nations in the bloc only?
Regardless, my point was only that in this particular case, the UK not being in the EU was an advantage and it is demonstrative of how an independent nation can be more agile and responsive in some cases.
To clarify, I know that any EU nation could have gone independent on their vaccine procurement and approval but being in the bloc puts pressure on nations to be collaborative in cases like these, as evidenced by no EU nation breaking rank - meaning that if remain had won its highly likely the UK would've been in the EU programme as well.
The vaccination policy after procurement and approval was only an aside. It was never part of my original point.
Last edited:
Have to say, this debate is exhausting and so bloody pointless. Cheap point scoring for no fecking reason.
I personally don't agree with the UK's approach in this particular case but it is inaccurate to say that it is a unique approach. Denmark have already confirmed they will be postponing their 2nd doses from the recommended 3 weeks and other countries, including Germany, the Netherlands and Ireland are also considering it, even looking at extending beyond 6 weeks.
Is it optimal? Of course its fecking not, we're in an incredibly abysmal situation in Europe at the moment. Nothing about this situation is optimal.
Regardless, the other point is that literally none of this really has anything to do with Brexit though.
Poorer countries have already been left behind by North America and Europe hoarding vaccine doses and likely will be for years to come. Assuming the vaccines do provide some degree of herd immunity, much of Europe or North America will likely be back to some degree of normalcy by the end of the year, while most countries in the global south struggle to get up to 20% of their populations vaccinated through the COVAX programme. There's nothing altruistic about the approach here, from the UK, EU, Japan, USA or Canada or any other country you may care to mention.
I personally don't agree with the UK's approach in this particular case but it is inaccurate to say that it is a unique approach. Denmark have already confirmed they will be postponing their 2nd doses from the recommended 3 weeks and other countries, including Germany, the Netherlands and Ireland are also considering it, even looking at extending beyond 6 weeks.
Is it optimal? Of course its fecking not, we're in an incredibly abysmal situation in Europe at the moment. Nothing about this situation is optimal.
Regardless, the other point is that literally none of this really has anything to do with Brexit though.
Poorer countries have already been left behind by North America and Europe hoarding vaccine doses and likely will be for years to come. Assuming the vaccines do provide some degree of herd immunity, much of Europe or North America will likely be back to some degree of normalcy by the end of the year, while most countries in the global south struggle to get up to 20% of their populations vaccinated through the COVAX programme. There's nothing altruistic about the approach here, from the UK, EU, Japan, USA or Canada or any other country you may care to mention.