LeSving wrote:
That’s basically it. But, you and Cobalt etc know so much better. How? What data have you been analyzing that has made you to come to your more correct conclusion? You are simply talking nonsense, wild guesses with no substance. It’s pure Antivaxer logic to use a term you understand (but not me)
I am certainly not being antagonistic to you, and really enjoy your well informed posts.
I am definitely not an Antivaxer.
I definitely dont know better either. Simply saying I dont find the data helpful for the reasons I have said.
I dont think I can add much more.
BTW I can understand that every country has performed differently and I think the reasons are incredibly complex as to why they have done so, partly deived from their political response, partly attributable to their unique demographics, partly attributable to their existing health services, partly attributable to their climate and a host of other factors that effect how the virus spreads and the mortality rate, and not even taking into account how reliable or comparable the data is from each country.
Malibuflyer wrote:
What is misleading is the title “Covid performance index” – it indicates that the numbers assigned to each country are a reflection of the performance of this country in its Covid response.
For the many reasons already discussed here it is not! So it’s just a number which indeed is clearly defined but has nothing to do with the title.How would you feel if we had a “Pilot performance index” here, where I outscore you by a large amount because body weight is used as one of the key criteria?
I cannot respond to this. You have to be specific. How you feel about titles and the concept of ranking is your own business.
Cobalt wrote:
f I think that a supplier did not deliver the bread I ordered under the terms of a contract, I would have to use whatever conflict resolution mechanism I agreed and perhaps take them to court to get them either to perform or to received damages (and getting specific performance on such a contract is rare, you tend to get damages).I certainly cannot blockade their bread factory and take the bread they are delivering to other customers for myself, or raid their offices to establish how much bread they are baking and who they are delivering it to.
Well – depending on the legislation you live in you could. Most legislations have some rules that if someone does not fulfill contractual arrangements (or pay debts) to seizure stock and (esp. in the US) have broad discovery rights to exactly identify causes of non delivery in cases where they refer e.g. to force major.
“Meanwhile, EU Justice Commissioner Didier Reynders has warned of a “vaccine war”.
Speaking on Belgian radio, he said: “The EU commission has pushed to co-ordinate the vaccines contracts on behalf of the 27 precisely to avoid a vaccines war between EU countries, but maybe the UK wants to start a vaccine war?”
If true it would seem the UK is definitely being drawn in.
The contract appears rather as some of us on here thought, well as far as can be seen after redaction.
Why would the `EU think the UK is in any position to involve themselves in a contractual dispute with a third party?
LeSving wrote:
I cannot respond to this. You have to be specific. How you feel about titles and the concept of ranking is your own business.
It’s not about feelings. And it’s not about titles. It is about what people like you interpret in the index.
You pretend, the number assigned to a country has something to do with the performance of a country in handling Covid.
We have clearly shown, it’s not. 1/3 of the index is measuring purely the size of the country (which is an explicit input into the formula how the index is calculated). As shown earlier, when you have two countries which are exactly identical on what they do and how the disease spreads but one substantially smaller, then the smaller one gets a substantially better score.
“Solidarity is an important principle of the EU. With Brexit, it’s clear that the UK doesn’t want to show solidarity with anyone.”
I missed this quote – which is presumably just designed to be inflamatory.
I was very pro Europe and more especially the EU but this debacle is making me wonder I must say! What appears to be picking out the UK in this way just seems bad form. If you picked out the UK and America for example perhaps, but why just the UK?
They think (probably correctly) that if the UK assigns some or all of its entitlement under the AZ contract to the EU, then AZ can ship the reassigned quantity to the EU instead.
Obviously the UK will not do that. It would result in riots, and the entire govt committing suicide. It would be a totally nuclear thing to do.
And obviously if things were the other way round, Brussels would not do that for the UK. “You left the EU; you take responsibility for that” would be the line.
The other possibility is that a legal action against AZ will scare it into reducing its UK shipments. However that would open AZ to an action by the UK.
We already have the Scottish minister threatening to publish the confidential vaccine supply arrangements. Scotland gets the vaccine from the UK but she has evidently calculated that pleasing Brussels (which she wants to join as a matter of economic urgency, “when” Scotland leaves the UK) is more important than vaccinating people in Scotland. It’s all getting pretty dirty now…
Brussels is either bluffing (but what could that achieve?) or their lawyers have told them there is something there worth digging. If this goes before a court, which court would it be? Nobody would bring a case like this before the ECJ unless they were sure of the outcome, but the ECJ could not possibly rule against Brussels in this incendiary climate.
LeSving wrote:
That’s basically it. But, you and Cobalt etc know so much better. How? What data have you been analyzing that has made you to come to your more correct conclusion? You are simply talking nonsense, wild guesses with no substance.
I have not come to any conclusion on that, nor do I know better what the answer is, but I – and others – can see that the methodology is unsuitable to produce the answer they are trying to give. As said before, 2 out of the variables are in effect ‘’size of the country’ which makes no sense whatsoever. A country with exactly the same death rate and exactly the same infection rate and the same diagnostic rate would score worse simply because it is bigger.
The only reason that analysis this bad gets public traction that very few actually read the methodology. Sadly, in these days where everybody with a website and a bit of luck can go viral with all sorts of rubbish, this has become a necessity.
It would be interesting to strip out the BS variables and look at the relevant ones only, perhaps the number of “Covid” deaths (excess mortality being too hard to obtain), or perhaps diagnosed infections (after the beginning, and testing for plausibility first) would be good. Would be a shame to let all that gathered data go to waste
Snoopy wrote:
Just food for thought.Sum up:
A large part of the population is too fat. Many die due to it. A large part is diabetic, many die due to it. Many people die of hunger everyday. A lot more people die every day due to other health issues compared to Covid deaths. However, it doesn’t make the news. There’s no lockdown, the govt isn’t really concerned.
But what kind of thought? It has been discussed so many times.
Surely most people die from other causes and there has been no lockdown. But wtf would a lockdown do against people starving? What would a lockdown do against people dying from diabetes? (To the contrary).
It is complete and absolute BS that the government doesn’t do anything against other causes of death:
- Starvation is largely eliminated in Western Europe due to social security systems (which cost tremendous money)
- Road traffic deaths in Europe have been cut more than half (despite increasing traffic volume) by mandatory seatbelts, airbags, etc.
- Lung cancer is on decline for 20 years in Europe because governments significantly acted against smoking
- …
The challenge with COVID is that (at least until we have sufficient vaccine) social distancing and wearing masks where distance is not possible is the only measures we have against it. So the government has little other options than either do nothing or to enforce social distancing (and that is what we call lockdown).
“There are two competing claims. AstraZeneca says the company only agreed to produce the vaccine based on best efforts. The EU Commission says no, the company committed to exact numbers and must deliver them all.”
This is interesting from the BBC analysis.
First point, OK but as I said earlier there in is a legal dispute between the EU and AZ, what has this to do with the UK.
Second point, it seems it was a best endeavours, where is there a committment to specific numbers. If there was such a ommitt, go ahead and bring a legal action, which in itsefl would seem rather selfish, given the whole contract is on a without profit basis.
