For help, advice and discussion about stuff not related to aviation. Play nice: no religion, no politics and no axe grinding please.
  • 1
  • 245
  • 246
  • 247
  • 248
  • 249
  • 294
#1853944
Bill McCarthy wrote:Meanwhile - 60 years ago today this young lad, two weeks into his seventeenth year, broke free from the slavery that was Victorian farming, never been on a train before, set out on a fabulous 23 year journey that took him to every corner of the globe in the RN.

And just look where you ended up. :wink:

PW
#1853948
Colonel Panic wrote:as any fule knows, the Commission isn’t the EU, but a group of civil servants. :wink:


You try telling them that. :wink:

Anyway, if the choice is between trusting the lawyers of a bunch of civil servants / politicians or trusting the lawyers of a big pharmaceutical company, my choice is to trust none of them. :twisted:
Colonel Panic, Flyingfemme, Spooky and 4 others liked this
#1853949
Flyin'Dutch' wrote:
I know that all the entrepreneurs posting on this thread would happily take a supplier failing to deliver on a contract by >60% would happily take that failure lying down.

:lol:


It's not that simple. This kind of thing is common - a supplier hopes to deliver but there is too much uncertainty to promise unconditionally and the buyer accepts that. So then they negotiate about how hard the supplier must try to deliver the target.

The choice is between reasonable efforts (as much effort as makes commercial sense for that contract) and best efforts (everything possible, no matter how expensive).

To keep everyone happy they agreed "reasonable best efforts" which has no clear meaning. So the court was deciding what that meant as things turned out - the answer is 80 m doses by end November, and if AZ meets that it's done exactly what it promised to do.
kanga, Colonel Panic, JAFO and 3 others liked this
#1853955
Sydney clusters growing, but authorities can sometimes work out exactly where and when infectious contact between strangers happened:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-06-19/ ... /100228310
#1853960
I can't help using the analogy of the old January sales of my youth. Some people queued up outside all night on Christmas Day to be first through the door on Boxing Day to get the best bargains. Those who slept in and arrived at the store at noon couldn't reasonably expect to get the same deals. With the best will in the world, when everybody wants the same thing which is in limited supply, some will always have to wait longer than others to get it. I really can't see how any court can alter that reality whatever judgement it makes. It just makes lawyers richer.

PW
JAFO liked this
#1854039
johnm wrote:Digging through the data is flipping difficult....but....

Hospitalisations
8th June 188
9th June 186
10th June 202
11th June 177
12th June 177
13th June 222
14th June 221


Cases
8th June 7667
9th June 7983
10th June 7838*
12th June 6100
13th June 6935

* 11th is missing it seems.

No cause for complacency but no need for panic either I feel, if the cases stabilise and go down over the coming week and the hospitalisation doesn't get significantly worse we might see some cause for optimism.


Well done for finding the numbers, however your primary decision point over this whole issue has been ensuring that the NHS can cope, and is not overwhelmed.

Don't those numbers show that at present that is being fully achieved? If not what numbers are you looking for?
#1854045
That's where I got my numbers from but the time windows are inconsistent, occasional days are missing and the rolling averages aren't rolling!!

The NHS is coping fine thus far so the issue is now all about trying to keep cases under control to minimise the risk of yet another nasty mutation......
#1854056
Flyingfemme wrote:
johnm wrote:The NHS is coping fine thus far so the issue is now all about trying to keep cases under control to minimise the risk of yet another nasty mutation......

And the goalposts move inexorably sideways............


With numbers as they are at the moment it would be good to evaluate what measures are still useful and required and which can be binned, at least for now.

It would also be good to have a world beating track and trace system; with Harding gone would it be reasonable that she left after making sure it is running pukka?

The biggest risk of mutations is now not the UK but places where the virus is running amok; a new variant has been identified yet again in Brazil; they are also set to overtake total death numbers from the US.

But what appears to emerge clearly is that vaccinating and allowing those vaccinated to go about their business as pre march 2020 is pretty safe.
johnm, Colonel Panic, MikeB liked this
#1854067
Charles Hunt wrote:
Flyin'Dutch' wrote:with Harding gone


I believe she now wishes to build on her success by being head of the NHS.


To suggest that this might bring an interesting conflict of interest into her personal relationship as her other half is known for wanting to replace the NHS with an insurance scheme might be an understatement.

Before I would have confidently written that such a CoI would have hindered such an appointment; but given her stellar success in previous appointments I am pretty sure that this will happen; after all there are some concerns about mass data management by the NHS and it being given to private companies.

Did she not oversee the biggest data leak in the UK some time back?
johnm, Charles Hunt liked this
  • 1
  • 245
  • 246
  • 247
  • 248
  • 249
  • 294