When will this shit end?

[zahidf]

Madrid’s regional government has announced that it is halting all planned first doses of the Covid vaccine for two weeks, blaming a lack of supply of jabs from Spain’s national administration for its decision, James Badcock reports.

[stuie]

3 minutes ago, xxialac said:

Priti Patel up now.

When I see her trying to talk tough, I just think 'oo, you're 'ard',

Brilliantly her statement provided no explanation as to how quarantine would work but there would be some details 'next week'.

She also wants airlines to check that people's reason to travel is valid. Because Easyjet staff are obviously the most qualified to assess whether someone is making up a reason to fly.

 

Why is she wearing Boris’ jacket?

Can’t stand this woman.

[zahidf]

Patel says people wanting to leave the UK will have to make a written declaration as to why they need to travel. Going on holiday is not an acceptable reason, she says.

[xxialac]

13 minutes ago, zahidf said:

Rejoin ain't going to happen for a while methinks 

 

I wish people would stop seeing this as UK vs EU. It's divisive.

If Tom owes Paul ten quid, Tom needs to pay Paul ten quid. Irrelevant if Tom owes someone else ten quid, Paul just wants the money he's owed.

This is EU vs Astrazeneca.

[zahidf]

4 minutes ago, xxialac said:

I wish people would stop seeing this as UK vs EU. It's divisive.

If Tom owes Paul ten quid, Tom needs to pay Paul ten quid. Irrelevant if Tom owes someone else ten quid, Paul just wants the money he's owed.

This is EU vs Astrazeneca.

Well yes, but the EU specifically want vaccines from our supply. Itd be like Paul telling Tom to not pay Jeff, even though Jeff leant Tom the money earlier and without a delay

Edited January 27, 2021 by zahidf

[Paul ™]

13 minutes ago, xxialac said:

Brilliantly her statement provided no explanation as to how quarantine would work but there would be some details 'next week'.

She also wants airlines to check that people's reason to travel is valid. Because Easyjet staff are obviously the most qualified to assess whether someone is making up a reason to fly.

 

They don't know themselves how it's going to work.

And yes passing the buck onto airline staff isn't going to work. Surely the check should be done by UK Border Force?

[xxialac]

1 minute ago, zahidf said:

Well yes, but the EU specifically want vaccines from our supply. Itd be like Paul telling Tom to not pay Jeff, even though Jeff leant Tom the money earlier and without a delay

I don't think that's right. 

The EU just want the vaccines they contractually and legally paid for and don't care where they comes from. And whoever contracted first is irrelevant.

Ultimately fairest way if you owe two people money and don't have it is not to pay back one and screw the other. It's to pay back both people in the proportion they lent you the money with what you have available.

[xxialac]

14 minutes ago, zahidf said:

Patel says people wanting to leave the UK will have to make a written declaration as to why they need to travel. Going on holiday is not an acceptable reason, she says.

If Cummings can travel 50 miles to test his eyesight, I'm sure Joe Public will make up some story about visiting his ill partner in Tenerife...and there'll be zero way of knowing whether he's telling the truth.

Edited January 27, 2021 by xxialac

[st dan]

4 minutes ago, xxialac said:

I don't think that's right. 

The EU just want the vaccines they contractually and legally paid for and don't care where they comes from. And whoever contracted first is irrelevant.

Ultimately fairest way if you owe two people money and don't have it is not to pay back one and screw the other. It's to pay back both people in the proportion they lent you the money with what you have available.

I think that’s a personal take on things.

In a manufacturing business for example, if you don’t have supplies to fulfil two orders, it would be better to honour one order and let the other down, and that results in one satisfied customer and one unsatisfied customer rather than two unsatisfied ones. 
How you determine which is which is another matter e.g. size of order, customer loyalty etc. 

Edited January 27, 2021 by st dan

[zahidf]

 

[zahidf]

Just now, st dan said:

I think that’s a personal take on things.

In a manufacturing business for example, if you don’t have supplies to fulfil two orders, it would be better to honour one order and let the other down, and that results in one satisfied customer and one unsatisfied customer rather than two unsatisfied ones. 

Also the EU are specifically drawing in the UK supply...

 

 

[incident]

3 minutes ago, zahidf said:

Well yes, but the EU specifically want vaccines from our supply. Itd be like Paul telling Tom to not pay Jeff, even though Jeff leant Tom the money earlier and without a delay

Yes.

It's worth mentioning as well that the situation is largely reversed with Moderna - I wonder what the reaction from the EHC would be if we started arguing that some of the EU's Moderna doses should be redirected to the UK on the basis that "We reject the idea of 'first come, first served'.

[xxialac]

1 minute ago, st dan said:

I think that’s a personal take on things.

In a manufacturing business for example, if you don’t have supplies to fulfil two orders, it would be better to honour one order and let the other down, and that results in one satisfied customer and one unsatisfied customer rather than two unsatisfied ones. 

Well I don't agree, because you then get sued by the unsatisfied customer for breaking the contract whereas you could part-fill both orders to an equitable level and offer incentives to avoid getting sued. 

[zahidf]

2 minutes ago, incident said:

Yes.

It's worth mentioning as well that the situation is largely reversed with Moderna - I wonder what the reaction from the EHC would be if we started arguing that some of the EU's Moderna doses should be redirected to the UK on the basis that "We reject the idea of 'first come, first served'.

This is a similar take

 

 

 

So if say the US start asking for more of the vaccine from European supplies in the same way, the EU would be ok with it?

 

i think the EU need to take a step back

 

[aj6658]

 

2 hours ago, 54cost said:

Guys, according to you, with variants, and vaccination rythm, are you confident there will be huge festival as glastonbury, tomorrowland or UMF in summer 2022, with or without social distancing and masks ?

I know that a lot of people don't know, but i just wanted to have your feeling now.

 

100% - I think if there is no festivals next year its kinda game over. I think people will start to turn.

[zahidf]

11 minutes ago, xxialac said:

Well I don't agree, because you then get sued by the unsatisfied customer for breaking the contract whereas you could part-fill both orders to an equitable level and offer incentives to avoid getting sued. 

SO your fine with them not supplying us with 40 millions plus vaccines and for us to be in lockdown longer?

[Ozanne]

 

[xxialac]

8 minutes ago, zahidf said:

SO your fine with them not supplying us with 40 millions plus vaccines and for us to be in lockdown longer?

Yes, if that's the fair thing to do.

[zahidf]

Just now, xxialac said:

Yes, if that's the fair thing to do.

Nah im fine with us keeping to our contract as paid for and getting out of lockdown asap. Why shoudl we pay for the EU's faffing around for 2 months last year?

[JoeyT]

9 minutes ago, zahidf said:

SO your fine with them not supplying us with 40 millions plus vaccines and for us to be in lockdown longer?

I'm so split on this.

Do I like the thought of helping others? Yes.

Do I like the thought of that increasing the amount of time our country is locked down? No.

Would the EU be happy if the boot was on the other foot? I'm not so sure.

The issue of course is with AZ over promising. I just don't personally think that should come at a cost to the UK.

[xxialac]

1 minute ago, zahidf said:

Nah im fine with us keeping to our contract as paid for and getting out of lockdown asap. Why shoudl we pay for the EU's faffing around for 2 months last year?

Because this has nothing to do with anyone faffing about and everything to do with a company's responsibility to honour a legally binding contract (if it is!).

[incident]

1 minute ago, JoeyT said:

The issue of course is with AZ over promising. I just don't personally think that should come at a cost to the UK.

Though the more that comes out, the more obvious it is that AZ didn't overpromise. More that the EU overexpected.

[xxialac]

1 minute ago, incident said:

Though the more that comes out, the more obvious it is that AZ didn't overpromise. More that the EU overexpected.

If that's right, then of course the EU should get nada.

[zahidf]

1 minute ago, xxialac said:

Because this has nothing to do with anyone faffing about and everything to do with a company's responsibility to honour a legally binding contract (if it is!).

AZ said they signed the contract with UK first with certain commitments. If the EU has signed in June instead of taking till August...

Anyway, i dont see why the EU are asking AZN to breach their contract with us

But hey, its not approved yet. I guess AZN could withdraw their proposal from the EMA and supply us the overspill. 

[JoeyT]

2 minutes ago, incident said:

Though the more that comes out, the more obvious it is that AZ didn't overpromise. More that the EU overexpected.

In that case... sod em.