On 29/03/2021 10:54, Pomegranate ******* wrote:
On Sun, 28 Mar 2021 19:21:30 +0100, Richard
wrote:

On 28/03/2021 19:11, Pomegranate ******* wrote:
On Sun, 28 Mar 2021 18:41:02 +0100, Richard
wrote:

On 28/03/2021 16:13, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Fredxx wrote:
Quite. I'm sure it escapes the Brexit lovers and their lies,

I also remember the lies of Armageddon and an impending economic
meltdown.

I suppose you think it's going awfully well so far? All those lovely fish
now ours and bringing in lots of foreign currency? The Irish border
working perfectly? No more immigrants getting in the country?

Well Dave, it is going much better than you and your ilk would like.

We'll see. Not a good start eh?

Even if everything were perfectly satisfactory, you would probably still
be bleating.

Not at all. I'm quite willing to admit I'm wrong whenever I am.

It's you Brek****ters that are doing all the whingeing. You won your
battle and now we all have to live with the consequences. You'll never
admit you were wrong. You'll all say "it's early days yet. Give it
time". And you'll be saying the same for years to come. We'll be
losing Scotland soon and quite possibly Northern Ireland and you'll
say "Nothing to do with us".

Better off without them.

Now how do we get rid of the Welsh?


--
Adam

On 29/03/2021 10:54, Pomegranate ******* wrote:
On Sun, 28 Mar 2021 19:21:30 +0100, Richard
wrote:

On 28/03/2021 19:11, Pomegranate ******* wrote:
On Sun, 28 Mar 2021 18:41:02 +0100, Richard
wrote:

On 28/03/2021 16:13, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Fredxx wrote:
Quite. I'm sure it escapes the Brexit lovers and their lies,

I also remember the lies of Armageddon and an impending economic
meltdown.

I suppose you think it's going awfully well so far? All those lovely fish
now ours and bringing in lots of foreign currency? The Irish border
working perfectly? No more immigrants getting in the country?

Well Dave, it is going much better than you and your ilk would like.

We'll see. Not a good start eh?

Even if everything were perfectly satisfactory, you would probably still
be bleating.

Not at all. I'm quite willing to admit I'm wrong whenever I am.

It's you Brek****ters that are doing all the whingeing.

No it's not.

You won your
battle and now we all have to live with the consequences.

Quite.

You'll never
admit you were wrong.

We weren't.

You'll all say "it's early days yet. Give it
time". And you'll be saying the same for years to come. We'll be
losing Scotland soon and quite possibly Northern Ireland and you'll
say "Nothing to do with us".

Wales next.

"Remoaners" might remind you occasionally what a stupid bunch of
berks you've been.

We keep being reminded that anyone you disagree with gets called names.
It must be a bad loser remainer thing.

On 29/03/2021 18:17, Richard wrote:
On 29/03/2021 10:54, Pomegranate ******* wrote:
On Sun, 28 Mar 2021 19:21:30 +0100, Richard
wrote:

On 28/03/2021 19:11, Pomegranate ******* wrote:
On Sun, 28 Mar 2021 18:41:02 +0100, Richard
wrote:

On 28/03/2021 16:13, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* Fredxx wrote:
Quite. I'm sure it escapes the Brexit lovers and their lies,

I also remember the lies of Armageddon and an impending economic
meltdown.

I suppose you think it's going awfully well so far? All those
lovely fish
now ours and bringing in lots of foreign currency? The Irish border
working perfectly? No more immigrants getting in the country?

Well Dave, it is going much better than you and your ilk would like.

We'll see. Not a good start eh?

Even if everything were perfectly satisfactory, you would probably still
be bleating.

Not at all. I'm quite willing to admit I'm wrong whenever I am.

It's you Brek****ters that are doing all the whingeing. You won your
battle and now we all have to live with the consequences. You'll never
admit you were wrong. You'll all say "it's early days yet. Give it
time". And you'll be saying the same for years to come. We'll be
losing Scotland soon and quite possibly Northern Ireland and you'll
say "Nothing to do with us".

Please show me where I have whinged about leaving. The only whingeing
I've seen is by remainers and the "don't know how to vote properly" types.
You don't have to live with the consequences. Use your get up and go and
get up and go.
If Scotland and Northern Ireland leave, that's their choice. I'm sure
they'll enjoy all the benefits that being a third world country within
the EU offers. Move to either country, you know they'll be so much
better off out of the UK. Or perhaps they won't be that attractive.

Many EU countries will block the inclusion of Scotland. Not so certain
about NI though.

On 30/03/2021 19:08, nightjar wrote:
On 29/03/2021 21:09, Fredxx wrote:
...
So you're in denial that the UK got it's order in 5 months before
contracts were agreed with the EU where UK production was being ramped
up, and the untimeliness, or perhaps delays in EU Regulatory approval
is just a coincidence and not at all a consequence of their
contractual delays.

The UK purchasing process is less transparent than the EU one. Hence, I
have been unable to discover whether when the UK says it had orders in
place in July 2020 it means it had placed advance orders, as the EU did
around the same time, or it had placed firm orders, which the EU did
later. I would, however, be most surprised if the UK was able to place
firm orders for products that were not even known to work at the time. I
suspect that, like the EU it simply provided finance for the research on
the understanding that it was advance payment for orders that would be
placed if and when the vaccines proved to be successful.

As you say transparency is lacking but this publication:
https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3226 "he UK government said that
the deals were commercially sensitive and would not say what it had paid
up front or whether it would get any money back if the vaccines did not
work."

"Has the UK pre-ordered a vaccine or drug before its approval before?
No, this is a first."

Is consistent with BBC radio articles that have mentioned a financial
commitment that enabled investment in production lines.

Or just incompetence with EU regulatory bureaucracy who could have
approved the vaccines in the same time as the UK if it had been
expedient to do so.

Regulatory authorities don't do what is expedient. they do what is
needed to confirm that a product is safe and that may take some longer
than others. If anywhere was likely to go for expediency, it would
surely be the USA, yet they were nearly a fortnight behind the UK in
approving their first vaccine, also the Pfizer vaccine.

I take your point, but I know in the USA they expect all documentation
at one go with a process, whereas I suspect (and I could be wrong) the
MHRA might have been more proactive/helpful.

Regulatory approval is fraught in the USA, even being on the wrong paper
size (even sent electronically) will get the application rebuffed.

On 30/03/2021 20:30, ARW wrote:
On 29/03/2021 10:54, Pomegranate ******* wrote:
On Sun, 28 Mar 2021 19:21:30 +0100, Richard
wrote:

On 28/03/2021 19:11, Pomegranate ******* wrote:
On Sun, 28 Mar 2021 18:41:02 +0100, Richard
wrote:

On 28/03/2021 16:13, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* Fredxx wrote:
Quite. I'm sure it escapes the Brexit lovers and their lies,

I also remember the lies of Armageddon and an impending economic
meltdown.

I suppose you think it's going awfully well so far? All those
lovely fish
now ours and bringing in lots of foreign currency? The Irish border
working perfectly? No more immigrants getting in the country?

Well Dave, it is going much better than you and your ilk would like.

We'll see. Not a good start eh?

Even if everything were perfectly satisfactory, you would probably still
be bleating.

Not at all. I'm quite willing to admit I'm wrong whenever I am.

It's you Brek****ters that are doing all the whingeing. You won your
battle and now we all have to live with the consequences. You'll never
admit you were wrong. You'll all say "it's early days yet. Give it
time". And you'll be saying the same for years to come. We'll be
losing Scotland soon and quite possibly Northern Ireland and you'll
say "Nothing to do with us".

Better off without them.

Now how do we get rid of the Welsh?

NI was always going to leave eventually. Brexit may have made a small
difference to how soon. The Good Friday Agreement specifically includes
a requirement for referendums and the demographics meant that a majority
for a United Ireland was inevitable in the near future.

Regardless of Brexit, Scottish Nationalists would have continued to
campaign for leaving the UK and for referendum after referendum until
they get what they want.

"Steve Walker" wrote in message
...
On 30/03/2021 20:30, ARW wrote:
On 29/03/2021 10:54, Pomegranate ******* wrote:
On Sun, 28 Mar 2021 19:21:30 +0100, Richard
wrote:

On 28/03/2021 19:11, Pomegranate ******* wrote:
On Sun, 28 Mar 2021 18:41:02 +0100, Richard
wrote:

On 28/03/2021 16:13, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Fredxx wrote:
Quite. I'm sure it escapes the Brexit lovers and their lies,

I also remember the lies of Armageddon and an impending economic
meltdown.

I suppose you think it's going awfully well so far? All those lovely
fish
now ours and bringing in lots of foreign currency? The Irish border
working perfectly? No more immigrants getting in the country?

Well Dave, it is going much better than you and your ilk would like.

We'll see. Not a good start eh?

Even if everything were perfectly satisfactory, you would probably
still
be bleating.

Not at all. I'm quite willing to admit I'm wrong whenever I am.

It's you Brek****ters that are doing all the whingeing. You won your
battle and now we all have to live with the consequences. You'll never
admit you were wrong. You'll all say "it's early days yet. Give it
time". And you'll be saying the same for years to come. We'll be
losing Scotland soon and quite possibly Northern Ireland and you'll
say "Nothing to do with us".

Better off without them.

Now how do we get rid of the Welsh?

NI was always going to leave eventually.

Dont believe that.

Brexit may have made a small difference to how soon. The Good Friday
Agreement specifically includes a requirement for referendums

Yes.

and the demographics meant that a majority for a United Ireland was
inevitable in the near future.

Bull****.

Regardless of Brexit, Scottish Nationalists would have continued to
campaign for leaving the UK and for referendum after referendum until they
get what they want.

But they wont necessarily get referendum after referendum
no matter how much they stamp their foot and it isnt
inevitable they they will get a majority who want to leave.

On Wed, 31 Mar 2021 09:17:48 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

--
Website (from 2007) dedicated to the 86-year-old senile Australian
cretin's pathological trolling:
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/r...d-faq.2973853/

In article ,
Fredxx wrote:
On 30/03/2021 17:05, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Fredxx wrote:
If you were concerned about the majority, then it makes sense to
balance the labour market in favour of those providing labour. So
your argument doesn't hold water. It's as if you favour households
where no one works, like your own, as you say who are rich enough.

Odd the way the right wing Brexiteers are suddenly concerned with the
common man. When before that they were simply cannon fodder.

Its a common fallacy, often enjoyed by remainers, that all Brexiters are
right wing.

I was referring to you.

May I remind you of many Labour heartland areas defected to your arch
rival. Does that make ex-Labour voters right wing, or only those who
supported Old Tory Tony Bliar?

In the same way as so many were conned by Brexit lies, so were they conned
by believing this government will do anything meaningful about the north
south divide.

But if you think not being able to trade is going to increase wages,
carry on with your delusions.

You are misguided if you think we're not going to be able to trade. It's
a dream shared by remainers.

And it's all going awfully well so far.

--
*I got a sweater for Christmas. I really wanted a screamer or a moaner*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Fredxx wrote:
On 30/03/2021 17:05, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Fredxx wrote:
If you were concerned about the majority, then it makes sense to
balance the labour market in favour of those providing labour. So
your argument doesn't hold water. It's as if you favour households
where no one works, like your own, as you say who are rich enough.

Odd the way the right wing Brexiteers are suddenly concerned with the
common man. When before that they were simply cannon fodder.

Its a common fallacy, often enjoyed by remainers, that all Brexiters are
right wing.

I was referring to you.

May I remind you of many Labour heartland areas defected to your arch
rival. Does that make ex-Labour voters right wing, or only those who
supported Old Tory Tony Bliar?

In the same way as so many were conned by Brexit lies, so were they conned
by believing this government will do anything meaningful about the north
south divide.

But if you think not being able to trade is going to increase wages,
carry on with your delusions.

You are misguided if you think we're not going to be able to trade. It's
a dream shared by remainers.

And it's all going awfully well so far.

--
*I got a sweater for Christmas. I really wanted a screamer or a moaner*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 31/03/2021 00:47, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Fredxx wrote:
On 30/03/2021 17:05, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Fredxx wrote:
If you were concerned about the majority, then it makes sense to
balance the labour market in favour of those providing labour. So
your argument doesn't hold water. It's as if you favour households
where no one works, like your own, as you say who are rich enough.

Odd the way the right wing Brexiteers are suddenly concerned with the
common man. When before that they were simply cannon fodder.

Its a common fallacy, often enjoyed by remainers, that all Brexiters are
right wing.

I was referring to you.

Everyone is right wing to you.

May I remind you of many Labour heartland areas defected to your arch
rival. Does that make ex-Labour voters right wing, or only those who
supported Old Tory Tony Bliar?

In the same way as so many were conned by Brexit lies, so were they conned
by believing this government will do anything meaningful about the north
south divide.

In the same way as so many were conned by Remain Project Fear Plus lies,
so were they conned by believing Cameron's government and the likes of
Osbourne will do anything meaningful for everyone by staying.

You continue to be so truly myopic to only see lies from one side.

But if you think not being able to trade is going to increase wages,
carry on with your delusions.

You are misguided if you think we're not going to be able to trade. It's
a dream shared by remainers.

And it's all going awfully well so far.

Given the pandemic, as good as it can be. Your mates were predicting
much worse.

On 31/03/2021 00:47, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Fredxx wrote:
On 30/03/2021 17:05, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Fredxx wrote:
If you were concerned about the majority, then it makes sense to
balance the labour market in favour of those providing labour. So
your argument doesn't hold water. It's as if you favour households
where no one works, like your own, as you say who are rich enough.

Odd the way the right wing Brexiteers are suddenly concerned with the
common man. When before that they were simply cannon fodder.

Its a common fallacy, often enjoyed by remainers, that all Brexiters are
right wing.

I was referring to you.

May I remind you of many Labour heartland areas defected to your arch
rival. Does that make ex-Labour voters right wing, or only those who
supported Old Tory Tony Bliar?

In the same way as so many were conned by Brexit lies, so were they conned
by believing this government will do anything meaningful about the north
south divide.

Without the divide, there wouldn't be north / south would there?
Anyway, you have reaped the benefits of being south of the divide.
Why don't you go north and complain from there? Flog your London house
and buy a mansion in Scotland.

On 30/03/2021 21:43, Tim Streater wrote:
On 30 Mar 2021 at 19:08:30 BST, nightjar wrote:

On 29/03/2021 21:09, Fredxx wrote:
...
So you're in denial that the UK got it's order in 5 months before
contracts were agreed with the EU where UK production was being ramped
up, and the untimeliness, or perhaps delays in EU Regulatory approval is
just a coincidence and not at all a consequence of their contractual
delays.

The UK purchasing process is less transparent than the EU one. Hence, I
have been unable to discover whether when the UK says it had orders in
place in July 2020 it means it had placed advance orders, as the EU did
around the same time, or it had placed firm orders, which the EU did
later. I would, however, be most surprised if the UK was able to place
firm orders for products that were not even known to work at the time.

Nice try at rewriting history.


Please feel free to provide links to the content of the UK contracts.
The EU ones are freely available online for anybody to read.

--
Colin Bignell

In article ,
Fredxx wrote:
Its a common fallacy, often enjoyed by remainers, that all Brexiters are
right wing.

I was referring to you.

Everyone is right wing to you.

It's a fact that the majority of vocal ones about such things on here are.
Including some real weirdos.

--
*Taxation WITH representation ain't much fun, either.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 31/03/2021 10:55, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Fredxx wrote:
Its a common fallacy, often enjoyed by remainers, that all Brexiters are
right wing.

I was referring to you.

Everyone is right wing to you.

It's a fact that the majority of vocal ones about such things on here are.
Including some real weirdos.

I don't see your majority.

There are some weirdo fanatics here who are remainers and abuse anyone
who disagrees with them too.

On 29/03/2021 10:54 am, Pomegranate ******* wrote:

[ ... ]

It's you Brek****ters that are doing all the whingeing. You won your
battle and now we all have to live with the consequences. You'll never
admit you were wrong. You'll all say "it's early days yet. Give it
time". And you'll be saying the same for years to come. We'll be
losing Scotland soon and quite possibly Northern Ireland and you'll
say "Nothing to do with us".

"Remoaners" might remind you occasionally what a stupid bunch of
berks you've been.

"We'll be losing Scotland soon..."?

Is there a downside to that?

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 29/03/2021 10:54 am, Pomegranate ******* wrote:

[ ... ]

It's you Brek****ters that are doing all the whingeing. You won your
battle and now we all have to live with the consequences. You'll never
admit you were wrong. You'll all say "it's early days yet. Give it
time". And you'll be saying the same for years to come. We'll be
losing Scotland soon and quite possibly Northern Ireland and you'll
say "Nothing to do with us".

"Remoaners" might remind you occasionally what a stupid bunch of
berks you've been.

"We'll be losing Scotland soon..."?

Is there a downside to that?

Yep, decent single malts wouldnt be as cheap.

On 01/04/2021 00:56, Rod Speed wrote:


"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 29/03/2021 10:54 am, Pomegranate ******* wrote:

[ ... ]

It's you Brek****ters that are doing all the whingeing. You won your
battle and now we all have to live with the consequences. You'll never
admit you were wrong. You'll all say "it's early days yet. Give it
time". And you'll be saying the same for years to come. We'll be
losing Scotland soon and quite possibly Northern Ireland and you'll
say "Nothing to do with us".

"Remoaners"Â* might remind you occasionally what a stupid bunch of
berks you've been.

"We'll be losing Scotland soon..."?

Is there a downside to that?

Yep, decent single malts wouldnt be as cheap.

Why would you think single malts would attract a tariff?

"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 01/04/2021 00:56, Rod Speed wrote:


"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 29/03/2021 10:54 am, Pomegranate ******* wrote:

[ ... ]

It's you Brek****ters that are doing all the whingeing. You won your
battle and now we all have to live with the consequences. You'll never
admit you were wrong. You'll all say "it's early days yet. Give it
time". And you'll be saying the same for years to come. We'll be
losing Scotland soon and quite possibly Northern Ireland and you'll
say "Nothing to do with us".

"Remoaners" might remind you occasionally what a stupid bunch of
berks you've been.

"We'll be losing Scotland soon..."?

Is there a downside to that?

Yep, decent single malts wouldnt be as cheap.

Why would you think single malts would attract a tariff?

I wasnt talking about a tariff.

On 01/04/2021 01:57, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 01/04/2021 00:56, Rod Speed wrote:


"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 29/03/2021 10:54 am, Pomegranate ******* wrote:

[ ... ]

It's you Brek****ters that are doing all the whingeing. You won your
battle and now we all have to live with the consequences. You'll never
admit you were wrong. You'll all say "it's early days yet. Give it
time". And you'll be saying the same for years to come. We'll be
losing Scotland soon and quite possibly Northern Ireland and you'll
say "Nothing to do with us".

"Remoaners"Â* might remind you occasionally what a stupid bunch of
berks you've been.

"We'll be losing Scotland soon..."?

Is there a downside to that?

Yep, decent single malts wouldnt be as cheap.

Why would you think single malts would attract a tariff?

I wasnt talking about a tariff.

Are you talking of some Scottish export tax?

On Thu, 1 Apr 2021 02:13:24 +0100, Fredxx, the notorious, troll-feeding,
senile smartass, blathered again:



Are you talking of some Scottish export tax?

He's trolling, senile moron!

"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 01/04/2021 01:57, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 01/04/2021 00:56, Rod Speed wrote:


"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 29/03/2021 10:54 am, Pomegranate ******* wrote:

[ ... ]

It's you Brek****ters that are doing all the whingeing. You won your
battle and now we all have to live with the consequences. You'll
never
admit you were wrong. You'll all say "it's early days yet. Give it
time". And you'll be saying the same for years to come. We'll be
losing Scotland soon and quite possibly Northern Ireland and you'll
say "Nothing to do with us".

"Remoaners" might remind you occasionally what a stupid bunch of
berks you've been.

"We'll be losing Scotland soon..."?

Is there a downside to that?

Yep, decent single malts wouldnt be as cheap.

Why would you think single malts would attract a tariff?

I wasnt talking about a tariff.

Are you talking of some Scottish export tax?

Nope. Even that stupid little cow isnt actually THAT stupid.

On 30/03/2021 21:20, Fredxx wrote:
....
As you say transparency is lacking but this publication:
Â*https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3226 "he UK government said that
the deals were commercially sensitive and would not say what it had paid
up front or whether it would get any money back if the vaccines did not
work."

"Has the UK pre-ordered a vaccine or drug before its approval before?
No, this is a first."..

I am surprised at that. Seasonal flu vaccine is different every year and
has to be approved anew every year. The vaccine has to be grown after
the WHO has decided which strains are likely to be a problem next
season. That takes a few months, after which they have to go through the
approval process. Even allowing for the fact that there is a well-proven
fast track approval process for seasonal flu vaccine, that can't leave a
lot of time to place orders for the next flu season.


--
Colin Bignell

On 31/03/2021 18:13, Tim Streater wrote:
On 31 Mar 2021 at 10:07:50 BST, nightjar wrote:

On 30/03/2021 21:43, Tim Streater wrote:
On 30 Mar 2021 at 19:08:30 BST, nightjar wrote:

On 29/03/2021 21:09, Fredxx wrote:
...
So you're in denial that the UK got it's order in 5 months before
contracts were agreed with the EU where UK production was being ramped
up, and the untimeliness, or perhaps delays in EU Regulatory approval is
just a coincidence and not at all a consequence of their contractual
delays.

The UK purchasing process is less transparent than the EU one. Hence, I
have been unable to discover whether when the UK says it had orders in
place in July 2020 it means it had placed advance orders, as the EU did
around the same time, or it had placed firm orders, which the EU did
later. I would, however, be most surprised if the UK was able to place
firm orders for products that were not even known to work at the time.

Nice try at rewriting history.

Please feel free to provide links to the content of the UK contracts.
The EU ones are freely available online for anybody to read.

If you're interested in them, you go find them.

I've looked. Having been a supplier to the NHS for decades, I have a
fair idea of where to look for NHS contracts.

I've read various press
articles that comment on their content, in particular that the UK contracts
specified firm delivery, not "best efforts" like the EU ones, and they were in
place months before the EU ones, too.

I can find press reports and press releases too, but not the actual
contracts. They are unclear as to whether or not these were advance
orders, just like the EU placed at around the same time, or a definite
committent to buy. If the latter, the UK has committed itself to buying
far more doses than it actually needs.

The EU and its vaccine approvals agency just bumbled along at their usual
bureaucratic pace with no sense of urgency, no sense of crisis, and did things
in their usual way.

That is not the impression I get from reading the EU source documents.
In some cases, they seem to have shown a greater degree of urgency than
Boris.

The UK bypassed even its own civil service purchasing
systems, and our approvals agency worked out how, without sacrificing safety,
they could speed up the approvals process.

AIUI, it was a based upon the accelerated approval process for seasonal
flu vaccine, but apparently it did involve a lot of overtime.



--
Colin Bignell

On Thu, 1 Apr 2021 20:07:31 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:



Nope.

LOL

Senile PEST!

--
Kerr-Mudd,John addressing the auto-contradicting senile cretin:
"Auto-contradictor Rod is back! (in the KF)"
MID:

On 01/04/2021 11:05, Tim Streater wrote:
On 01 Apr 2021 at 10:13:36 BST, nightjar wrote:

On 30/03/2021 21:20, Fredxx wrote:
...
As you say transparency is lacking but this publication:
Â*https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3226 "he UK government said that
the deals were commercially sensitive and would not say what it had paid
up front or whether it would get any money back if the vaccines did not
work."

"Has the UK pre-ordered a vaccine or drug before its approval before?
No, this is a first."..

I am surprised at that. Seasonal flu vaccine is different every year and
has to be approved anew every year. The vaccine has to be grown after
the WHO has decided which strains are likely to be a problem next
season. That takes a few months, after which they have to go through the
approval process. Even allowing for the fact that there is a well-proven
fast track approval process for seasonal flu vaccine, that can't leave a
lot of time to place orders for the next flu season.

I saw a clip of Sir John Bell being interviewed on NBC yesterday. He was
pointing out that it will be easier to deal with Covid variants since most of
the production structure would remain unchanged, and it wouldn't be necessary
to go through the full aprovals process - just like flu.


The full approval process can take a year or even more, which isn't
usually a problem, given that the vaccine has often taken years to
develop. Seasonal flu has to be developed and approved between flu seasons.

--
Colin Bignell

On 01/04/2021 10:13, nightjar wrote:
On 30/03/2021 21:20, Fredxx wrote:
...
As you say transparency is lacking but this publication:
Â*Â*https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3226 "he UK government said
that the deals were commercially sensitive and would not say what it
had paid up front or whether it would get any money back if the
vaccines did not work."

"Has the UK pre-ordered a vaccine or drug before its approval before?
No, this is a first."..

I am surprised at that. Seasonal flu vaccine is different every year and
has to be approved anew every year. The vaccine has to be grown after
the WHO has decided which strains are likely to be a problem next
season. That takes a few months, after which they have to go through the
approval process. Even allowing for the fact that there is a well-proven
fast track approval process for seasonal flu vaccine, that can't leave a
lot of time to place orders for the next flu season.

To be honest I was too. I only learnt this from a couple of Radio
articles some time ago and was surprised that the UK government had
taken the risk. It's as if they wanted to keep things quiet, just in
case they went wrong.

As exampled by the grief the government has got over face masks that
allegedly can't be used, it's all the more surprising the government
chose to spend money on something that could have been an utter waste of
resources.

On 01/04/2021 12:24, nightjar wrote:
On 01/04/2021 11:05, Tim Streater wrote:
On 01 Apr 2021 at 10:13:36 BST, nightjar wrote:

On 30/03/2021 21:20, Fredxx wrote:
...
Â* As you say transparency is lacking but this publication:
Â*Â* Â*https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3226 "he UK government said
that
Â* the deals were commercially sensitive and would not say what it
had paid
Â* up front or whether it would get any money back if the vaccines
did not
Â* work."
Â* "Has the UK pre-ordered a vaccine or drug before its approval before?
Â* No, this is a first."..

I am surprised at that. Seasonal flu vaccine is different every year and
has to be approved anew every year. The vaccine has to be grown after
the WHO has decided which strains are likely to be a problem next
season. That takes a few months, after which they have to go through the
approval process. Even allowing for the fact that there is a well-proven
fast track approval process for seasonal flu vaccine, that can't leave a
lot of time to place orders for the next flu season.

I saw a clip of Sir John Bell being interviewed on NBC yesterday. He was
pointing out that it will be easier to deal with Covid variants since
most of
the production structure would remain unchanged, and it wouldn't be
necessary
to go through the full aprovals process - just like flu.

The full approval process can take a year or even more, which isn't
usually a problem, given that the vaccine has often taken years to
develop. Seasonal flu has to be developed and approved between flu seasons.

I could be wrong but I thought the typical seasonal flu vaccines have
already been approved, and the ultimate choice was which one to
manufacture according to it's prevalence in the population.

In article ,
Fredxx wrote:
On 01/04/2021 10:13, nightjar wrote:
On 30/03/2021 21:20, Fredxx wrote:
...
As you say transparency is lacking but this publication:
https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3226 "he UK government said
that the deals were commercially sensitive and would not say what it
had paid up front or whether it would get any money back if the
vaccines did not work."

"Has the UK pre-ordered a vaccine or drug before its approval before?
No, this is a first."..

I am surprised at that. Seasonal flu vaccine is different every year and
has to be approved anew every year. The vaccine has to be grown after
the WHO has decided which strains are likely to be a problem next
season. That takes a few months, after which they have to go through the
approval process. Even allowing for the fact that there is a well-proven
fast track approval process for seasonal flu vaccine, that can't leave a
lot of time to place orders for the next flu season.

To be honest I was too. I only learnt this from a couple of Radio
articles some time ago and was surprised that the UK government had
taken the risk. It's as if they wanted to keep things quiet, just in
case they went wrong.

As exampled by the grief the government has got over face masks that
allegedly can't be used, it's all the more surprising the government
chose to spend money on something that could have been an utter waste of
resources.

Think most would applaud the government for getting it right in this case.
I do. Of course with PPE, just about any clothing maker could turn to
that. Not so with vaccines so they were forced to go to the experts rather
than a pal in the pub. ;-)

--
*I'm not as think as you drunk I am.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 01/04/2021 12:56 am, Rod Speed wrote:


"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 29/03/2021 10:54 am, Pomegranate ******* wrote:

[ ... ]

It's you Brek****ters that are doing all the whingeing. You won your
battle and now we all have to live with the consequences. You'll never
admit you were wrong. You'll all say "it's early days yet. Give it
time". And you'll be saying the same for years to come. We'll be
losing Scotland soon and quite possibly Northern Ireland and you'll
say "Nothing to do with us".

"Remoaners"Â* might remind you occasionally what a stupid bunch of
berks you've been.

"We'll be losing Scotland soon..."?

Is there a downside to that?

Yep, decent single malts wouldnt be as cheap.

Many would consider that a price well worth paying.

Others might not consider it to be a price at all.

"nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 30/03/2021 21:20, Fredxx wrote:
...
As you say transparency is lacking but this publication:
https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3226 "he UK government said that
the deals were commercially sensitive and would not say what it had paid
up front or whether it would get any money back if the vaccines did not
work."

"Has the UK pre-ordered a vaccine or drug before its approval before?
No, this is a first."..

I am surprised at that.

I'm not. That made sense with covid given that its such a killer
and ****s over hospital facilitys so comprehensively and at the
time they did that, there was no evidence that it was mutating
severely enough to be a major problem.

Seasonal flu vaccine is different every year and has to be approved anew
every year.

But covid doesnt mutate so much anything like as fast.

The vaccine has to be grown after the WHO has decided which strains are
likely to be a problem next season.

And that isnt a problem with covid.

That takes a few months, after which they have to go through the approval
process. Even allowing for the fact that there is a well-proven fast track
approval process for seasonal flu vaccine, that can't leave a lot of time
to place orders for the next flu season.

Covid is very different.

"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 01/04/2021 10:13, nightjar wrote:
On 30/03/2021 21:20, Fredxx wrote:
...
As you say transparency is lacking but this publication:
https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3226 "he UK government said that
the deals were commercially sensitive and would not say what it had paid
up front or whether it would get any money back if the vaccines did not
work."

"Has the UK pre-ordered a vaccine or drug before its approval before?
No, this is a first."..

I am surprised at that. Seasonal flu vaccine is different every year and
has to be approved anew every year. The vaccine has to be grown after the
WHO has decided which strains are likely to be a problem next season.
That takes a few months, after which they have to go through the approval
process. Even allowing for the fact that there is a well-proven fast
track approval process for seasonal flu vaccine, that can't leave a lot
of time to place orders for the next flu season.

To be honest I was too. I only learnt this from a couple of Radio articles
some time ago

Pretty sure I saw it on the BBC RSS feed when it happened.

and was surprised that the UK government had taken the risk.

I wasnt, it did make sense to do it that way
given the problem this virus is and with
vaccination the only real long term fix for it.

It's as if they wanted to keep things quiet, just in case they went wrong.

No evidence of that given that it was announced when they did it.

As exampled by the grief the government has got over face masks that
allegedly can't be used, it's all the more surprising the government chose
to spend money on something that could have been an utter waste of
resources.

Yes, but it did make sense given the virus is such a problem.

On Fri, 2 Apr 2021 05:05:17 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

--
"Anonymous" to trolling senile Rodent Speed:
"You can **** off as you know less than pig **** you sad
little ignorant ****."
MID:

On Fri, 2 Apr 2021 04:41:54 +1100, trolling geezer Rodent Speed, the
auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 01/04/2021 12:56 am, Rod Speed wrote:


"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 29/03/2021 10:54 am, Pomegranate ******* wrote:

[ ... ]

It's you Brek****ters that are doing all the whingeing. You won your
battle and now we all have to live with the consequences. You'll never
admit you were wrong. You'll all say "it's early days yet. Give it
time". And you'll be saying the same for years to come. We'll be
losing Scotland soon and quite possibly Northern Ireland and you'll
say "Nothing to do with us".

"Remoaners" might remind you occasionally what a stupid bunch of
berks you've been.

"We'll be losing Scotland soon..."?

Is there a downside to that?

Yep, decent single malts wouldnt be as cheap.

Many would consider that a price well worth paying.

Only the wowsers.

Others might not consider it to be a price at all.

On 01/04/2021 12:28, Fredxx wrote:
On 01/04/2021 12:24, nightjar wrote:
....
The full approval process can take a year or even more, which isn't
usually a problem, given that the vaccine has often taken years to
develop. Seasonal flu has to be developed and approved between flu
seasons.

I could be wrong but I thought the typical seasonal flu vaccines have
already been approved, and the ultimate choice was which one to
manufacture according to it's prevalence in the population.

Flu mutates at a very high rate, so a vaccine that may have been
effective against one strain one year may not be as effective, if at
all, another year. Unless a vaccine can be demonstrated to be at least
50% effective, it won't be approved.


--
Colin Bignell

In article ,
nightjar wrote:
On 01/04/2021 12:28, Fredxx wrote:
On 01/04/2021 12:24, nightjar wrote:
...
The full approval process can take a year or even more, which isn't
usually a problem, given that the vaccine has often taken years to
develop. Seasonal flu has to be developed and approved between flu
seasons.

I could be wrong but I thought the typical seasonal flu vaccines have
already been approved, and the ultimate choice was which one to
manufacture according to it's prevalence in the population.

Flu mutates at a very high rate, so a vaccine that may have been
effective against one strain one year may not be as effective, if at
all, another year. Unless a vaccine can be demonstrated to be at least
50% effective, it won't be approved.

Don't 'they' guess some time ahead of the flu season and make vaccines
based of that best guess? Which isn't always correct?

--
*Confession is good for the soul, but bad for your career.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 03/04/2021 12:12, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
nightjar wrote:
....
Flu mutates at a very high rate, so a vaccine that may have been
effective against one strain one year may not be as effective, if at
all, another year. Unless a vaccine can be demonstrated to be at least
50% effective, it won't be approved.

Don't 'they' guess some time ahead of the flu season and make vaccines
based of that best guess? Which isn't always correct?

The WHO tries to predict which three strains are most likely to be a
threat next season and the manufacturers work to that. As you say, they
don't always get it right, so some years the vaccines provide less
protection than in others.

--
Colin Bignell

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
nightjar wrote:
On 01/04/2021 12:28, Fredxx wrote:
On 01/04/2021 12:24, nightjar wrote:
...
The full approval process can take a year or even more, which isn't
usually a problem, given that the vaccine has often taken years to
develop. Seasonal flu has to be developed and approved between flu
seasons.

I could be wrong but I thought the typical seasonal flu vaccines have
already been approved, and the ultimate choice was which one to
manufacture according to it's prevalence in the population.

Flu mutates at a very high rate, so a vaccine that may have been
effective against one strain one year may not be as effective, if at
all, another year. Unless a vaccine can be demonstrated to be at least
50% effective, it won't be approved.

Don't 'they' guess some time ahead of the flu season and make
vaccines based of that best guess? Which isn't always correct?

Yep, and sometimes get it wrong.

On Sun, 4 Apr 2021 04:22:47 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

--
addressing nym-shifting senile Rodent:
"You on the other hand are a heavyweight bull****ter who demonstrates
his particular prowess at it every day."
MID: