When will this shit end?

[stuie]

3 minutes ago, Hannibal Schmitt said:

EU sues Astra Zeneca because of breach of contract

The only vaccine manufacturer to operate on a not for profit basis. Nice one, EU.

[eFestivals]

12 minutes ago, Ryan1984 said:

You don’t think it will be Cummings at that 26th May inquiry?

Then again, Cummings is hardly Mr. Popular so whatever he says will be twisted by the BorisBoys as an attack on Spaffer.

I think Dom is too discredited to be able to fatally damage Spaffer.

[eFestivals]

8 minutes ago, Hannibal Schmitt said:

EU sues Astra Zeneca because of breach of contract

It's only taken them three months to follow thru on that threat it's almost like they knew they didn't have a good case.

[steviewevie]

Just now, eFestivals said:

I think Dom is too discredited to be able to fatally damage Spaffer.

I don't think Dom gives a fuck. Burn it down. He's Boris' worst nightmare.

[Crazyfool01]

Just now, eFestivals said:

I think Dom is too discredited to be able to fatally damage Spaffer.

He’s gonna have a lot of shit on him and is gonna be a niggle that will keep dropping bits of info ... they might just decide it needs to stop ... because an ongoing drop might start damaging the party as well as spaffer 

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, crazyfool1 said:

He’s gonna have a lot of shit on him and is gonna be a niggle that will keep dropping bits of info ... they might just decide it needs to stop ... because an ongoing drop might start damaging the party as well as spaffer 

That’s it, it might get too much for the Tories and hasten the move against Johnson. 

[DeanoL]

2 hours ago, fraybentos1 said:

So you think it is sensible that if going a walk to the park 5 mins from my house I should have to wear a face mask? If so, that is laughable.

It's possible to think that both:

a) it's unreasonable and unnecessary to wear a mask when going for a walk 5 minutes from your house; and also

b) it's true, based on scientific evidence, that compulsory mask wearing outdoors makes compliance with mask wearing indoors higher, which in turn will have a small impact on spread.

These are not mutually exclusive positions. I agree with both. There are some benefits to be had from having rules about wearing masks outdoors but equally I don't think they're worth the downsides.

I actually think that's the sensible and correct position but apparently it's not allowed and you have to either believe there is zero benefit to wearing masks outdoors, or believe that there's zero downsides to mask wearing.

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, DeanoL said:

It's possible to think that both:

a) it's unreasonable and unnecessary to wear a mask when going for a walk 5 minutes from your house; and also

b) it's true, based on scientific evidence, that compulsory mask wearing outdoors makes compliance with mask wearing indoors higher, which in turn will have a small impact on spread.

These are not mutually exclusive positions. I agree with both. There are some benefits to be had from having rules about wearing masks outdoors but equally I don't think they're worth the downsides.

I actually think that's the sensible and correct position but apparently it's not allowed and you have to either believe there is zero benefit to wearing masks outdoors, or believe that there's zero downsides to mask wearing.

Your house is a covid resisting force field.

[DeanoL]

Thanks all for the replies on the pub thing. I think it's clear that demand is fairly low - given that only places with outdoor areas can open, and at a very low capacity, certainly there seem to be far fewer people going out that would do in normal times.

The question is if this is COVID-based hesitancy, or just a "can't be arsed with all the hoops and will wait until they're open indoors in a few weeks" hesitancy. 

[steviewevie]

2 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

It's possible to think that both:

a) it's unreasonable and unnecessary to wear a mask when going for a walk 5 minutes from your house; and also

b) it's true, based on scientific evidence, that compulsory mask wearing outdoors makes compliance with mask wearing indoors higher, which in turn will have a small impact on spread.

These are not mutually exclusive positions. I agree with both. There are some benefits to be had from having rules about wearing masks outdoors but equally I don't think they're worth the downsides.

I actually think that's the sensible and correct position but apparently it's not allowed and you have to either believe there is zero benefit to wearing masks outdoors, or believe that there's zero downsides to mask wearing.

centrist.

[DeanoL]

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

Your house is a covid resisting force field.

It is and it's brilliant. I love throwing COVID at it from the outside and it goes all blue and shimmery as it bounces off.

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, steviewevie said:

centrist.

Trot

[JoeyT]

 

[steviewevie]

20 minutes ago, Hannibal Schmitt said:

EU sues Astra Zeneca because of breach of contract

have to see what comes out of the court case...and if AZ were making best reasonable efforts...whatever the hell that means..

[DeanoL]

2 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

centrist.

I like to think me calling kids "little fuckers" earlier is what made you comfortable taking the "dad" off the end!

[eFestivals]

Just now, steviewevie said:

have to see what comes out of the court case...and if AZ were making best reasonable efforts...whatever the hell that means..

Best reasonable efforts is an idea recognised in law.for a court to decide on the EU will have to demonstrate it didn't make it's best efforts.or AZ will have to show that the EU undermined its efforts.for a case which is about the EU wanting to save face it looks a risky bet.

[Fuzzy Afro]

I see that for about the sixth time in the past year, Johnson “must resign”. This time over his comments about letting the bodies pile up.

 

He won’t resign and this will be forgotten about next week. 

[gigpusher]

51 minutes ago, dpdp said:

I'm 43 and the booking system has just let me in.  My friend who's 42 has also managed to book.

Worth trying now if you 40+.

I am 43 will be 44 on the 12th of July and it's told me I'm not eligible to book yet. 

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, gigpusher said:

I am 43 will be 44 on the 12th of July and it's told me I'm not eligible to book yet. 

This is from The Guardian:

[gigpusher]

2 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

This is from The Guardian:

Yes it was just in response to people saying that they were 43 and had a friend who was 42 who had booked in already. 

[dpdp]

7 minutes ago, gigpusher said:

I am 43 will be 44 on the 12th of July and it's told me I'm not eligible to book yet. 

I guess it must only be for certain areas then.  I tried this morning and was unable to book, tried again later and it was open.  I'm booked in for my first jab in the morning.

[zahidf]

 

[gigpusher]

6 minutes ago, dpdp said:

I guess it must only be for certain areas then.  I tried this morning and was unable to book, tried again later and it was open.  I'm booked in for my first jab in the morning.

Yes should hopefully only be a matter of days but a bit frustrating as most of my friends are older than me. My husband is 45 and this is the first time they have decided to start doing it year by year. 

[zahidf]

37 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

I think Dom is too discredited to be able to fatally damage Spaffer.

Depends if he has tapes

[Mr.Tease]

33 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

It's only taken them three months to follow thru on that threat it's almost like they knew they didn't have a good case.

I presume they were waiting until they'd sorted out the big deal with pfizer, so they can now burn their bridges with AZ, likely they're just using it to pressure them and will drop it before it goes anywhere - the ethics and optics of suing a cost price manufacture who will likely be the main western supplier to lower income countries, just to deflect blame from their own mess ups, are horrific.