Covid-19 Virus

Discussion in 'Taylor's Tittle-Tattle - General Banter' started by Hornet4ever, Jan 30, 2020.

  1. Similar line here in this excellent little 6 mins summary of the issue => https://twitter.com/BBCRosAtkins/status/1375086804097974275
     
    Last edited: Mar 25, 2021
    sydney_horn likes this.
  2. zztop

    zztop Eurovision Winner 2015

    It may be an interesting article, but it certainly paints a pro EU biased picture of the events, in my opinion.

    Suggesting that the EU wanted to play by the morals and rules and the UK didn't is ridiculous. It doesn't take even half a brain to know that contracts need to be tightly written otherwise it isn't worth the paper it is written on. This isn't a shake of a hand with a plumber, it's a multi million Euro investment and purchasing contract on which thousands of lives depend. The EU messed it up and this writer is suggesting that everyone should forgive them their incompetence and risk their own populations lives to allow them to save face. Astonishing.

    More interesting was that the UK and USA used emergency powers to speed through approval of the vaccines, yet the EU didn't think it was an emergency, as if thousands of people dying every day is not an emergency. Again, astonishing.

    But how ironic it is that Hancock refused to sign up for the joint Oxford/Merck deal because he was worried about cowboy Trump stealing the UK's vaccines, and it tuns out that it was the EU he should have feared all along, and we will now pay the price.

    Edit: To be fair to the author of the article is the Brussels correspondent for France 24, who reports on EU politics, so it is of little surprise he is suggesting that the EU made naive mistakes but from the moral high-ground.
     
    Last edited: Mar 25, 2021
  3. zztop

    zztop Eurovision Winner 2015

    Yes, disappointing the BBC are doing the same as Sydney's article's author, even quoting from it.

    This continual line that the EU is exporting the vaccines is so disingenuous as almost being an out and out lie. They are not sending them overseas due to benevolence, it is because they never owned them, they belonged to someone else, and do keep hold of them is paramount to stealing.

    Shame on the BBC.
     
  4. sydney_horn

    sydney_horn Squad Player

    It is not a "bias" position at all. It is a factual description of what happened, why and when.

    It certainly doesn't paint the EU in a very positive light as, you correctly point out, it naively allowed a partnership with a US company (when Trump made it clear what he intended) and the EU were too slow in it's approval process.

    But equally it is hypocritical to decry the EU's belated attempts to protect it's supplies when both the UK and US have been doing just that. The difference is that the EU failed to make an "EU first" clause in their contracts and that means they are on dodgy legal ground, to say the least.

    Whether you think the EUs failure to have such a clause was a morally superior, naive or plain stupid decision is probably dependent on your political view. It certainly was, in hindsight, a massive mistake.
     
  5. I think you're missing the point ?
    Yes they have had no choice but to export as they didn't think of the need to adopt the protectionist policies which we and the US very sensibly adopted. They missed a trick and are now trying to backtrack and adopt the same protectionist stance that we took, without having the legal basis from which to do that....that is what the BBC article is effectively saying.
    "Shame on the BBC". What ????
     
  6. zztop

    zztop Eurovision Winner 2015

    He uses some facts, but then he made gave opinions and summaries that, in my view were heavily biased, alongside the implication that the EU were playing"fair", when other nations weren't, when he has no such knowledge of their mindset.

    Plainly, the fact that the UK invested 13/14 months ago in investment research and production seems to mean nothing to Keating when compared with the EU coming to the table 6 months late.

    What is fair about the UK on its own contributing almost as much as the EU in the Covax program that is specifically deseigned to get vaccines to poor nations? Should we take the money back, to be fair?

    But, we will never agree, so more than happy to leave it there.
     
  7. sydney_horn

    sydney_horn Squad Player

    As TUT says, I think you are missing the point.

    If the EU had made the same protectionist provision in their contracts to have "first dibs" on vaccines produced in their member states and had not allowed BioNtech to have gone into partnership with a US company then they wouldn't be in the mess they are in. That is a simple fact.

    They have come to the protectionist table 6 months too late and, as such, are now on dodgy legal ground if they try to stop the exports to the UK, US, Canada etc even if their citizens need the vaccines more.
     
  8. zztop

    zztop Eurovision Winner 2015

    It is protectionist policies in the usual sense of the word. They invested mega millions of tax payers money in vaccine research and manufacture. It isn't protectionist to expect some return.

    The UK trying to preserve it's contract is not "protectionist" and is not the same as effectively stealing someone else's vaccines.

    And shame on the BBC for presenting the issue in a biased manner. But no surprise.
     
  9. zztop

    zztop Eurovision Winner 2015

    The UK started investing in the Oxford vaccination 14 months ago.

    If Sydney and TUT invested a £1m in research and production of a new potential medical treatment that could save your childs life, would it be deemed "protectionist" if when it was perfected they insisted on their child actually getting the treatment? If they had any sense, it would have been a clause in the contract of investment and totally understandable.

    What is protectionist is to come in at a late hour and expect equal treatment.
     
  10. sydney_horn

    sydney_horn Squad Player

    You are definitely missing the point.

    I am not condemning the UK for putting the "UK first" clause in it's contracts. I am pointing out the the EU's failure was not to do the same in theirs.

    That is why they are now exporting vaccines, including a million AZ vaccines to the US where it is not even approved yet.

    The amount of investment is irrelevant. The EU have been fair/naive/stupid (delete as applicable...it is irrelevant) and that is why they are now in a mess and are rightly being criticised for it.
     
  11. zztop

    zztop Eurovision Winner 2015

    I am absolutely not missing the point. I just disagree with you both.
     
  12. sydney_horn

    sydney_horn Squad Player

    Well, your post about "treatment" for children and investment in r&d suggests that you are. They are both irrelevant.

    The UK & US used legal methods to protect the supply of vaccines produced in their territory. The EU did not and that is why it has been "forced" to allow vaccines to be exported.

    They are now flapping around to undo that mistake despite having no legal basis to do so. As @Since63 said, I suspect much of the rhetoric by the EU and individual member state leaders is for domestic consumption. I doubt very much that any vaccine exports will be prevented in reality.
     
  13. You're getting upset about the word "protectionist". It might even be that they didn't use that word and maybe I did in a loose sense. The BBC are simply saying that we and the US were savvy enought to make sure our populations were catered for whereas the EU seemed to trust in a general "we're all in the together" approach which has backfired. The BBC article wasn't critical of Boris, if anything it suggested the EU ****ed up. I think you, me and the BBC are all of the same opinion here but you seem to refuse to accept this ?
     
    sydney_horn likes this.
  14. zztop

    zztop Eurovision Winner 2015

    Well I totally disagree that they are irrelevant. Our early support in the vaccination development was crucial.

    And the argument is about UK vaccines being brought here from factories over there. It is not about vaccines being made here going to the EU, mostly, which is small fry at the moment. But we did write tight contracts on what we, jointly with our European business partners, produced over there. That is mere commercial common sense, is absoluyely not protectionism, and certainly does not give the EU any sort of moral high-ground whatsoever.
     
  15. a19tgg

    a19tgg Squad Player

    Sorry to wade in but you yourself made the point about making sure contracts are watertight etc above. The fact that we invested in it first and invested more is surely irrelevant and completely contradictory to your point about contracts? Who did what when is irrelevant.
     
  16. sydney_horn

    sydney_horn Squad Player

    It's irrelevant to why the EU is in the mess it is in.

    The EU thought they had "tight contracts" with their "UK partners". The point is they were over ridden by the "UK first" clauses in the UK contracts with the businesses based in the UK.

    The same would have applied to the UK contracts with the businesses in the EU. If the EU had put in "EU countries first" in their contracts then the UK contracts would have been superceded by the EU ones. The point is that the EU failed to do so.

    Why do you think explaining why the EU have got themselves into this position is somehow condoning their choices? Or doing so implies any criticism of the UK?

    As TUT said, the article I posted, and the BBC report, did nothing to suggest anything other than the EU ****ed up. All they do is explain how and speculate as to why. Neither of which directly or indirectly criticises anything the UK did.
     
  17. zztop

    zztop Eurovision Winner 2015

    I'm not getting "very upset", I am correcting you for the misuse of the word in this context..

    And the BBC are taking their usual anti UK/ pro EU stance when they say that the EU were "trusting that we would take the all in it together" approach. The EU were struggling to even work together within the EU, with their nations hoarding PPE, and going it alone all over the place, with in fighting at every turn. They may have hoped that once the debacle unravelled that the other nations would take pity on them and "work together", but that certainly was not in their initial strategy which was to unite in a massive 27 nation bloc to drive down prices they paid, and secure vaccines for the EU, just like the UK did for own own. Sydney's article, the one the BBC quote from, implies that the EU and UK signed up within a day of each other, whilst the AZ CEO says that the UK signed 3 months earlier than the EU. Do you believe the journo? The CEO says that this three months gave the UK a massive head start in correcting manufacturing problems in the production plants, wherever they were situated.

    A far more informative article is this one from Politico, which appears to give many more facts, and much less guesswork and slanted thinking.

    https://www.politico.eu/article/europe-coronavirus-vaccine-struggle-pfizer-biontech-astrazeneca/
     
  18. zztop

    zztop Eurovision Winner 2015

    If the had taken the same route and invested in the vaccine instead of waiting, posturing, trying to squeeze down the price, then they would be on an equal footing as the UK.

    You make the extraordinary claim that your article does "nothing to suggest anything other than the EU ****ed up." Did you actually read the article? Surely not right to the end when he sums it all up.

    For your benefit, I've copied and pasted the summary and emboldened the relevant bits and I'd like you to be honest and let me know if you think that the author is trying to imply that the EU messed up, but that they had the moral high ground, whilst the implying the opposite of the UK.

    Please, be honest.

    He said;
    What mistakes did EU make? To me it seems obvious.

    The EU took decisions based on an assumption of a free market and good faith from its partners. They didn’t think forcing an EU partner on BioNTech was essential, or EU plants should be for Europeans 1st.

    That now appears naive.

    The EU assumed good behavior. US & UK manoeuvred to benefit themselves.

    Many EU countries flubbed vaccine rollouts. EU negotiations & approval maybe took too long.

    But what's striking is, for many in US & UK there seems to be 1 set of rules for them and another for everyone else.

    And really, the author knows like everybody else that the UK wanted to go alone rather than join in the EU effort. Everyone one here was criticising Boris for not joining the EU in their negotiations. How can he now claim that the EU thought we were all in it together? It's just total nonsense!
     
    Last edited: Mar 25, 2021
  19. They aren’t taking that stance. They’re suggesting that the EU got it wrong. They go on to say that the need to ensure your people are catered for first is understandable in any democracy. I read the article as praise for UK govt and a failing of the EU. Yet you see this as the BBC being anti UK and pro EU. I have honestly no idea why you’d watch that video and come to that conclusion.
     
  20. Call me racist, but when the sh1t has hit the fan down through history, its usually the anglo saxon based nations that pull their fingers out and get on with solving sh1t, whilst our continental neighbours get on with screwing sh1t up.
     
  21. sydney_horn

    sydney_horn Squad Player

    No, the EU would not be on "equal footing" with the UK, whatever investment they would have made without an "EU first" clause in their contracts for vaccines produced in the EU. AZ would still supply other countries with vaccines produced in the EU without receiving any from the UK and US production lines.

    I said the article "did nothing to suggest anything other than the EU ****ed up". You are quoting the authors speculation as to why he thinks they ****ed up. That is something very different as you well know.

    I've already said that why they did it could be interpreted as a fair/naive/stupid decision, or may be just plain negligence. It doesn't really matter.

    But yes, the author does seem to believe the EU made a deliberate choice that could be interpreted as "taking the moral high ground". I personally believe they were naive/negligent but who knows? Do you?

    The authors interpretation may be based on what VDL said about working "together to inoculate not just citizens in every EU country, but the entire world."

    But the reason for the **** up doesn't change the fact it was a **** up which is what the article says.

    And the EU weren't all in it together to start with. The alliance of top EU nations negotiated separately with AZ and others initially but the call for a united approach, with equality for all EU countries won over. I think that was a morally positive stance but the implementation has been a total disaster.
     
  22. Moose

    Moose First Team Captain

    So where did the Saxons come from? Let alone the Angles? Seems to me there is a flaw in your theory that one could drive a bus through.
     
    sydney_horn likes this.
  23. Not really. Until you mix the ingredients a cake isn't a cake its just ingredients.
     
  24. zztop

    zztop Eurovision Winner 2015

    Don't be daft had they done the same as the UK at the same time as the UK could not have demanded that they get priority, that is plainly obvious.

    You said the "did nothing to suggest anything other than the EU ****ed up". Clearly it did. It implied that the EU had the moral high ground and the UK didn't.

    The EU didn't join together in a moral stance, they joined together to negotiate as a bigger force so they could drive down the costs. That was the stated intention, and one of the main reasons why the smaller nations agreed to it.

    And yes, of course I care. The article is wrong, and the fact that the BBC quotes from it is an illustration why I am right to be concerned.

    More to the point why do you care that I care, I'm just a poster on a tin-pot forum, not a journalist for a massive media organisation.
     
  25. zztop

    zztop Eurovision Winner 2015

    The section from 4.00 to 5.15 is being critical of the UK's behaviour.
    The section fro 6.10 to 6.20 (where he summarises) is anti UK, anti brexit.
     
  26. sydney_horn

    sydney_horn Squad Player

    The UK contracts had "UK 1st" clauses for production in the UK. The EU contracts had clauses that agreed supply from all AZ production lines, including the two in the UK. The only reason the EU has not received supplies from those UK sites is that AZ are contractually obliged to meet the UK contracts first.

    The EU contracts do not have "EU 1st" clauses for EU production. They could have even if the contracts were after the UK ones. They didn't. So they have lost control of supply. Everything else is irrelevant.

    The article did say the EU ****ed up. The speculation as to their motivation doesn't change that.

    Yes, part of the reason for the EU seeking a single contract approach for the block was the perceived power of negotiating as a "bigger force". But, as the article you linked to from politico suggests, a primary reason was that the Commission saw the probability of a two track approach within the block with the "alliance" of larger nations getting the lion's share of vaccines. As your article says, the smaller nations lobbied the Commission with these concerns.

    I don't care that you care. The article I posted, and the video from TUT, just explained how the EU ****ed up. The BBC report, if anything, gave implied praise to Johnson and the UK government while criticising the EU. Other than implying the EUs motivation may.....may....have been for the right reasons it doesn't excuse their failings.....so I really don't understand why you have such a problem with it.
     
  27. I don’t think it’s critical but I guess we both see it differently and neither of us will change views so let’s leave it there.
     
    zztop likes this.
  28. zztop

    zztop Eurovision Winner 2015

    OK, let's leave it there.
     
    sydney_horn likes this.
  29. wfc4ever

    wfc4ever First Team Captain

  30. Lloyd

    Lloyd Reservist

    4000 a day now dying in Brazil. Expected to hit 5000 a day next week. Super-advanced, non-drug responsive mutation of the virus knocking 'em down apparently. Pull up the ladder, Boris!
     
  31. reg_varney

    reg_varney Academy Graduate

    Being vaccinated with the Oxford AZ vaccine is like playing a game of Russian Roulette with no bullets in the cylinder and a chance you will spontaneously combust.
     
  32. sydney_horn

    sydney_horn Squad Player

Share This Page