7by7

8 hours ago, Tofer said:

 

Standard response we can expect from you, when you've lost an argument.

 

Have you not heard of the EU's Covid recovery fund, a shared loan in contradiction of the EU rules by the way, which all EU states will be paying into for the next how many years, whether they like it or not!

Your actual assumption was 

On 2/21/2021 at 1:47 AM, Tofer said:

I doubt any EU state that decided to go it's own way would have received any support for the funding of the vaccines, hence they all fell in line with the UvdL's commissions directive, since they will be paying for the Covid fund for many years to come either way.

The assumption being "I doubt any EU state that decided to go it's own way would have received any support for the funding of the vaccines."

You have provided no evidence in support of that assumption. Repeating the line about the recovery fund is not such evidence.

Can you point me to the part of the EU rules which support your statement that the Covid recovery fund is "in contradiction of the EU rules" please. I can't find it.

Poland and Hungary both challenged a clause in the entire budget, not just the Covid recovery fund, which tied funding with adherence to the rule of law. A compromise was reached, which both countries agreed to. However, they, or any other member, could still challenge it in the European Court. 

The latest I can find on this comes from the 11th December.

EU breaks deadlock over €1.8tn budget and Covid-recovery fund

Quote

However, the legality of the compromise deal can now be challenged by a member state in the European Court of Justice.

"We of course will do this... we are convinced this needs to be checked," Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki told Poland's TVP television.

EU leaders unblock budget in deal with Hungary and Poland

Quote

The use of the new tool will likely be delayed as leaders also agreed that any sanctions process could only be triggered by the EU Commission once the European Court of Justice (ECJ) rules on the new mechanism.

And the ECJ ruling is likely to come into play, when the new model is challenged in court by Hungary and Poland.

I can find nothing to say that anyone has yet challenged this deal in court.

14 hours ago, CG1 Blue said:

It's nice to see you rattled again. 

I'm not the one posting reports without any hard evidence claiming Brexit has caused catastrophic damage to our GDP. I don't need to provide evidence. If I'd have claimed Brexit has taken our economy from strength to strength, then you could ask me to prove it. But most intelligent people know the real effect of Brexit will be seen over the coming years. 

The evidence provided by myself and others comes from Bloomberg, Rand, etc. who have produced their reports based upon the available historical evidence and made projections based upon that evidence and their professional, educated assumptions of what may happen.

I asked you for alternative figures to support your view. Your previous ignoring of that request and now your response quoted above only serve to prove that you have either not bothered to try and find any or, more likely in my opinion, desperately searched for some but failed to come up with anything.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, but simply saying that you don't like the figures therefore they are wrong proves nothing except your blind faith in Boris Johnson's Brexit.

11 hours ago, Andy from Kent said:

 

 

I can't leave Facebook because I opted to NEVER be a part of it.   I dislike its controlling nature.

 

Again, your choice.

No one is forced to join, no one who has joined is prevented from leaving.

I don't understand the outrage being shown by some members towards Facebook.

Facebook has rules about what it's members can and cannot post? So do most, if not all, social media platforms; including this one!

Posts which break those rules are removed? Yep, I know from personal experience that it happens here as well.

People who break the rules are suspended from posting? Personal experience also tells me that happens here, too.

I, obviously, haven't been permanently banned from posting here; but I know of those who have been.

Facebook is a commercial enterprise making money from advertising? Yep, you've guessed it, so is TVF!

As for Facebook having to pay for media and news links posted by it's members; I can fully understand their refusal to so do. What would happen to this forum if TVF had to do the same?

Of course the Australian, and any other government, have the right to say what Facebook has to pay for in their country. Just as Facebook has the right to decide what it will and will not allow on it's site there.

At the end of the day, if you don't like the rules or content; leave. No one is forcing anyone to join Facebook nor any other platform.

Note this is just the first dose.

To repeat what I posted elsewhere:

As of Friday 19th Feb whilst 17,247,442 people have received their first dose, only 604,885 have received their second (Source HMG).

Advice from the manufacturers is that the second dose be given after 21 days or 28 days, depending on which vaccine is given. But in order to hit it's first dose targets the government has decided to extend that to twelve weeks. Up to four times the manufacturers recommendation, and twice the maximum recommended by WHO (Source).

I am neither a doctor nor a virologist, so have no idea how this delay in providing the second dose will effect people's immunity. But many health professionals have expressed concern over the policy: 

Covid-19 vaccines: to delay or not to delay second doses

Revisiting the UK’s strategy for delaying the second dose of the Pfizer covid-19 vaccine

34 minutes ago, Cake Monster said:

Take note Thailand.

The UK has a very similar population.

But far higher infection and death rates.

The UK 4.071,297 cases in total; Thailand 25,111 cases in total.

The UK 1782.91 deaths per million; Thailand 1.19 deaths per million.

See COVID-19 deaths worldwide per million population as of February 19, 2021, by country

7 hours ago, Tofer said:

The Army, health workers, and volunteers, i.e anyone over the age of 18.

All working for and to support the NHS!

For example: COVID: The Military's Role In UK's Mass Vaccination Programme

Quote

Armed Forces personnel are helping the NHS to roll out a COVID-19 mass vaccination programme.

7 hours ago, Tofer said:

What involvement exactly did the NHS have in the funding, procurement and distribution of vaccines??

 

The NHS stick needles in arms, manage the appointments to stick needles in arms, train and supervise volunteers to stick needles in arms. What else, please enlighten us?

Coronavirus vaccine rollout

Quote

Purchasing vaccines and R&D falls under the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) and the Vaccine Task Force. The rollout is the responsibility of the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC), working with NHS England, NHS Improvement and Public Health England to co-ordinate vaccinations across a large network of vaccination sites including in hospitals, GPs and pharmacies. The two areas need to be closely aligned.

In December, the prime minister appointed Nadhim Zahawi as minister for Covid-19 vaccinations, based in the health department. The prime minister and Matt Hancock, the health secretary, will also be held accountable for oversight of the programme.

So a minister in the Health Department is in charge, with the Health Secretary, along with the Prime Minister, having overall responsibility.

See also the government press release COVID-19 vaccine authorised by medicines regulator for more on the NHS's involvement.

Only you know why you want to  denigrate the NHS in the way you have. 

7 hours ago, Tofer said:

I think the current facts prove my statements.

The facts are not as you state, they are as I previously quoted from the government press release. 

Quote

 EU legislation which we have implemented – Regulation 174 – allows the MHRA to temporarily authorise the supply of a medicine or vaccine, based on public health need.

7 hours ago, Tofer said:

Or were the EU nations simply happy to prolong the agony to show solidarity within the EU, whilst suffering delays to their recovery, more deaths and more disruption to their businesses?

Pure speculation from you again.

The reasons for the EU members deciding on a unified approach rather than following the UK's lead are complex. But at the end of the day whilst the UK's programme started on the 8th December, that in most EU (and EEA) member's started on the 26th December.

How many extra deaths that resulted in is impossible to calculate, but you seem to have forgotten, if you ever knew, that the UK's death rate is the third highest in the world. (Source) I am, of course, aware that the two countries above us are EU members; but that means the other 25 members have fared better than us.

8 hours ago, Tofer said:

 

Not when they were under the control of the EU's finance department.

 

I repeat, since you chose to omit this statement from your quote;

 

I doubt any EU state that decided to go it's own way would have received any support for the funding of the vaccines, hence they all fell in line with the UvdL's commissions directive, since they will be paying for the Covid fund for many years to come either way.

 

Tell me I'm wrong??

Only when you provide evidence to back up your assumption.

If you can!

18 hours ago, CG1 Blue said:

You may be mixing me up with someone else. I didn't 'finally admit' anything. I've said the same from the start. 

If you say so; but that'll make you the only Brexiteer here who has said that the EU rules do allow any member to unilaterally temporarily licence a vaccine for emergency use!

18 hours ago, CG1 Blue said:

If you think that the UK would have followed exactly the same course with the vaccines if we'd never have left the EU, that's up to you. I think deep down you know we would have toed the EU line though, and we wouldn't have been in the enviable position with vaccines that we are now.

Deep down I know nothing as I have no way of viewing imaginary, alternative universes. But if you want to make assumptions based on zero evidence; that is up to you. 

18 hours ago, CG1 Blue said:

That is, almost all UK vulnerable people vaccinated,

A huge achievement; but it is just the first dose.

As of Friday 19th Feb whilst 17,247,442 people have received their first dose, only 604,885 have received their second (Source HMG).

Advice from the manufacturers is that the second dose be given after 21 days or 28 days, depending on which vaccine is given. But in order to hit it's first dose targets the government has decided to extend that to twelve weeks. Up to four times the manufacturers recommendation, and twice the maximum recommended by WHO (Source).

I am neither a doctor nor a virologist, so have no idea how this delay in providing the second dose will effect people's immunity. But many health professionals have expressed concern over the policy: 

Covid-19 vaccines: to delay or not to delay second doses

Revisiting the UK’s strategy for delaying the second dose of the Pfizer covid-19 vaccine

As for the EU, no instructions from the commission; it's up to the individual members to decide their own policy: Overview of the implementation of COVID-19 vaccination strategies and vaccine deployment plans in the EU/EEA

Quote

Considering the option of delaying the administration of the second dose to ensure the highest possible coverage of the first dose with the initial limited vaccine supply, and considering the vaccination course included in current EMA product information for Corminaty (two doses 21 days apart) and COVID-19 vaccine Moderna (two doses 28 days apart), and WHO’s recommendation based on currently available clinical trial data that the interval between vaccine doses may be extended up to 42 days (six weeks), most countries replied that for the time being they will not extend the timing between the first and second dose (14 countries), or that the decision is still pending (six countries). Two countries have extended the 21-day dose interval for Comirnaty (one of them to 28 days and the other to up to 42 days); one other country is also planning to extend the timing between the first and second dose.

3 hours ago, CG1 Blue said:

It is true. If the UK had still been a full EU member state we would have been obliged to wait while the EMA approved the vaccines at a snail's pace. Yes the EU rules would technically allow member states to temporarily license a vaccine prior to EMA approval, but there is no way we'd have become a rogue state if we hadn't left the club. 

As you finally admit, the EU rules do allow any member to unilaterally temporarily licence a vaccine for emergency use. Therefore we would not have been "obliged to wait while the EMA approved the vaccines at a snail's pace!"

The UK used this rule to so do, and any one of the 27 could have done exactly the same.

In fact, the information sheet given to UK residents following their first dose states that the authorisation is temporary; even though we have left the EU.

As for "there is no way we'd have become a rogue state if we hadn't left the club." That is pure, unfounded conjecture on your part. We would certainly have had every right to so do.

For @CG1 Blue's benefit an article which is not behind a paywall and which contains links to how they reached their conclusions:

 The Cost of Brexit Uncertainty and the Negative Implications for the UK Economy

Quote

Our analysis—and that of others (PDF)—shows that leaving the EU has had an overall negative economic impact on the UK economy and that there are additional economic costs associated with the uncertainty surrounding the new relationship. Deal or no-deal, the UK economy is suffering from uncertainty in the short-term and may suffer from higher barriers to trade in the long-term.

2 hours ago, CG1 Blue said:

The article you posted says: 

 

There is no definitive figure for the cost of Brexit so far.

A report from Bloomberg Economics estimates that Brexit has set Britain back to the tune of £130 billion so far.

 

So again, this is just parroting the Bloomberg 'report'. And that report is behind a Bloomberg paywall - in other words it's clickbait. 

The Full fact reference was about how much we paid to the EU - nothing to do with the Bloomberg clickbait report. 

 

If you can provide the breakdown of those Brexit costs I'll happily debate it. 

 

Odd that, according to you, the proudly anti EU, pro Brexit Express is happy to provide click bait for a news organisation you describe as "Pro-EU Bloomberg Economics!"

Care to explain your reasoning behind that?

Had you bothered to read it, you would know that the Full Fact article is not just "about how much we paid to the EU - nothing to do with the Bloomberg clickbait report!" It is investigating the claim that "One estimate of the “economic cost” of Brexit, £130 billion, now exceeds what we’ve paid in to the EU over 47 years" and uses, among other evidence, the Bloomberg figures. 

I have come up with figures; the estimates from Bloomberg quoted by both the Express and Full Fact. They are estimates because, as Full Fact say, "Bloomberg Economics told us that the £200 billion figure it came up with was an estimate, as it’s impossible to be sure what the economy would have looked like if the UK had voted to remain in the EU in 2016."

Full Fact appear to have accepted that estimate, the Express more so as it's the basis of their headline "How much has Brexit cost? The staggering amount for UK taxpayers."

Unlike Full Fact and the Express, you are disputing that estimate; so where are your alternative figures? 

On 2/17/2021 at 11:47 AM, Rimmer said:

Troll bickering posts and replies removed

11 hours ago, Scott said:

A nasty troll post and replies reported and removed.  

 

It seems some of these low lives inhabit this forum, too.

On 2/13/2021 at 4:42 AM, cdemundo said:

I don't think I would blame the Muslim population for there being no Christian churches.  I think that is because the number of practicing Christians in most Western countries has really decreased over past decades.  

In some parts of the UK, particularly London, Christian churches are rapidly increasing. However, I don't think everyone will be pleased with one of the reasons!

African churches boom in London's backstreets – a picture essay