Maybe your understanding of what is and isn't a fact, especially in a given larger context, differs from mine.I must have read a different article.
Mine was full of facts on vaccines and the timeline of the procurement of them.
Perhaps you missed the fact that it was dated January 9th ...
Maybe your understanding of what is and isn't a fact, especially in a given larger context, differs from mine.
Read this thread.Perhaps if you disagree with those facts you could provide some of your own.
You could even start with ones proving the EU vaccine procurement and roll-out programme has been anything other than a disaster.
?Ah, so you don't disagree with any facts.
Thanks for clearing that up.
So you can't.Read this thread.
What, you want me to go through 5 pages which outline the details because you can't be bothered?So you can't.
Thanks for clearing that up.
What, you want me to go through 5 pages which outline the details because you can't be bothered?
So far I've been working on the assumption that you are an adult. After your "I know what you are but what am I" type response I now have my doubts.
AstraZeneca look perfectly tickety-boo to those countries which negotiated professionally with them and secured binding contracts.
What country negotiated a binding contract with them before they even had a vaccine ready for final production?
After it was pointed out that the Spectator Article you posed was nothing more than hyperbole with a touch of jingoism, coated in assumptions and half truths you asked for facts to counter the facts in the article.You're obviously more concerned with performing the Director's Cut of Monty Python's Argument Sketch than having an intelligent debate.
Ad hominen attacks are usually the clearest example of this and you are no exception.
I've wasted enough time responding to your playground antics.No wonder you have nearly 11,000 posts.
The UK for one.
Here's the announcement last April.
That was a development contract. The EU and the US governments signed similar contracts with AZ and other producers.The UK for one.
Here's the announcement last April.
The UK had originally been in discussions with an American pharmaceutical to develop Oxford's vaccine but Health Secretary Matt Hancock, fearful of a Trump grab, specifically chose AZ precisely because they agreed to binding terms on price and delivery.
Guy Verhofstadt, surprisingly, has been the one prominent EU politician prepared to point the finger of blame.Unsurprisingly there are few here in Ireland willing to do the same.
That was a development contract. The EU and the US governments signed similar contracts with AZ and other producers.
No. Have you?Have you read the contracts ?
OK, so what was binding about that agreement?
Precisely.
That doesn't make any sense. Please stop with the Bart Simpson answers. It's tiresome.Precisely.
Keep digging.
There are no contracts in that link.Have you read the contracts ?
Exactly. The USA, Chine and the EU, along with other smaller countries such as the UK, signed development contracts with Pharma companies to fund the development and production capacity ramp-up of their vaccines.There are no contracts in that link.
And their aren't any contracts in the public domain that are complete.
How can one read something that isn't there?
Quite obviously more than the contract the EU signed which is why today the UK has already administered 11 million AZ doses and the EU has ended up looking like chumps on the international stage.
Don't take my word for it. EU fanboy Guy Verhofstadt is your go-to man.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?