Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hamletter Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------


> >

>

> Sadly, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus is totally

> discredited because he took China's shilling.

> They pushed for him big time to become head of WHO

> and he dithered whilst deflecting blame away

> China. The spouted support of China when they

> were patently trying to run a cover-up.


That's irrelevant. What is relevant is what he quoted on sharing the vaccine out.


Also relevant and very well spoken is the Irish PM - https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p095n9lr


Straight talking, humility, admitting mistakes, lack of nationalistic fervour. You wont get that out of our PM or his sidekick Gove (Gove lacks any humility whatsoever)



I'd stick to reading the Daily Mail Hammy.

Had a Guardian/Observer type week along with BBC and Bloomberg and thought this was a decent summary of the EU-UK-Ireland vaccine charade (ceasing to be a charade when people's lives are at risk). I'm not pro-EU but I think I'd be more inclined if Ursula and her team either step out or massively up their game:


(Today's Observer, sorry if old ground.)


https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jan/31/the-observer-view-on-the-vaccine-dispute-with-brussels

This E484K mutation is obviously worrying government scientists in relation to vaccination.


The Kent variant seems to have added this mutation to itself - first found in the SA variant.


https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-mutation-of-kent-variant-detected-in-samples-could-help-virus-evade-immune-system-12206375


The UK is the world leader at tracking these mutations so if we're finding them it implies they are happening in other countries and not being picked up. These vaccines need to be implemented worldwide ASAP - it's a race against the virus and forget nationalism or petty politics.

In all of this, it is worth remembering, and pointing out, that the UK is a major player in genetics and vaccine development. Pharmaceuticals are our second biggest export to the EU too. So the UK was always going to be in the race to develop a vaccine, with huge investment from government money. In other words, this is one of the things we excel in.


As for the EU, their behaviour is unacceptable on this. They failed to pre-order enough, took too long to approve, and have left themselves susceptible to supply issues. To deal with that by trying to block exports of a vaccine WE developed and are licensing at cost price has angered a lot of remainers too. Not the EU's finest hour for sure.

It's interesting to see that as well as Germany, France has decided not to give the Oxford vaccine to over 65s.


Could you imagine if we said the same, the public outcry would be deafening as over 65s are high on the vulnerable list and have a higher mortality rate if they end up in hospital.

Spartacus Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------


> Could you imagine if we said the same, the public

> outcry would be deafening as over 65s are high on

> the vulnerable list and have a higher mortality

> rate if they end up in hospital.


If all our Pfizers-Biontech were enough to do the over65s and people were assured of that I think we'd accept it - the younger people would have more AstraZeneca in the meantime.

It has been suggested that because Macron and Merkel know that vaccines are in short supply they are saying that no 65+ will get an O-AZ jab - easier to say you can't have one because it is not approved, or "quasi effective", because it is too dodgy instead of saying there's not enough to go around. The vaccine's efficacy on 65+ is less known about because there were smaller numbers of this age group to test on: many wanted to follow the rules and stay at home. Lack of knowledge does not translate to lack of efficacy or, worse, hazard. Macron as elections in 15 months' time and there is a fear/acknowledgement that the far right will make gains on the back of national and EU-level poor performance on vaccines.
I still think Brexit was a mistake largely because of the economic destruction, which was almost entirely the reason I voted remain, with possibly a smidgen of idealism for a grand project, but boy has this vaccine problem highlighted the massive issues of unaccountability (let alone competence) at the EU. It?s no good saying oh but the commission is appointed by elected representatives? because all EU governments will be washing their hands of the EUs incompetence on this and blaming the burecrats ( probably correctly) or obviously the UK ( an absolute disgraceful thing to do). This is a huge democratic defeceit at the heart of governance and accountability. I?m beginning to think I?m glad we?re no longer in it.

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I still think Brexit was a mistake largely because

> of the economic destruction, which was almost

> entirely the reason I voted remain, with possibly

> a smidgen of idealism for a grand project, but boy

> has this vaccine problem highlighted the massive

> issues of unaccountability (let alone competence)

> at the EU. It?s no good saying oh but the

> commission is appointed by elected

> representatives? because all EU governments will

> be washing their hands of the EUs incompetence on

> this and blaming the burecrats ( probably

> correctly) or obviously the UK ( an absolute

> disgraceful thing to do). This is a huge

> democratic defeceit at the heart of governance and

> accountability. I?m beginning to think I?m glad

> we?re no longer in it.


I would not be so harsh on the EU over this quids.


The EU comprises 27 nations of different economic strengths and political clout and after the unseemly scramble by nations worldwide to secure masks, ventilators and other ppe the intention was to secure vaccines collectively so that ?poorer? individual members would not lose out The approach is cautious, brainstormed and war-gamed by committees and sub-committees before being handed over to lawyers who cross every t and dot every i. That?s what big lumbering organisations do.


Unfortunately, when crises like this pandemic arise what is required is proactive dynamism which the structure of the EU doesn?t seem to allow. The EU will learn from this.


Just as an aside, one thing crossed my mind today about this fixation of the EU with getting everything signed and sealed. In the dispute with AstraZenica Ursula Von der Leyen says there are binding orders and the contract is crystal clear. But I read today AstraZenica are working on a new vaccine to address the South Africa variant.


Does the current contract, where five or six EU members have decided not to give the vaccine to over 55s/65s cover a newer vaccine that might be available in September?


Such questions keep well-paid lawyers in jobs for years.

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Basically the electorate of the EU can do nothing

> about these useless @#$%&, whereas we can do

> something about our useless @#$%&.



Our useless English @-*+% are exceptional, way better than any EU lightweights.

@ Trolley Snatcha,


Hang on in there & don't the usual forum (Liberal) bully boys.


The first priority/obligation of any government is to look protect its citizens and getting everyone in the UK vaccinated before we look beyond our borders is absolutely correct. We are fortunate that our Govt had the good foresight to make an early and massive commitment to vaccine procurement and even negotiate a no-profit deal with AZ.


When we have done all we can possibly do for our own citizens then we should help out the others including even the EU.


But more importantly, we can help out the less developed countries. The UK has an aid budget of around ?8 billion and much of this goes into useless projects many of which just create corruption and waste. DFID can never find enough sensible projects to sponsor and have even resorted to handing out bundles of cash to individuals in countries like Zambia.


Much better to switch our entire international aid budget into Covid support - vaccines, resources, training etc etc.


Covid is going to be around for a long, long time and as long as it is out there ( as it was with polio & smallpox) then we are all at risk.

keano77 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------


Unfortunately, when crises like this pandemic arise what is required is proactive dynamism Matt Hancock watching Contagion and then shitting his pants which the structure of the EU doesn?t seem to allow. The EU will learn from this.

Hamletter Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------


> Hang on in there & don't the usual forum (Liberal)

> bully boys.


Hiya Trinny!...oops, I mean Hammy!!

How's it going, have you posted any more fake recommendations for your other accounts lately?

Send our love to tomdhu and Dulwich Dyson, and our sympathies go out to all those previous accounts you had to close.

Keep smiling!

Lots of love,

The EDF Liberals (Hardline Centrist Division)...

diable rouge Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Hamletter Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

>

> > Hang on in there & don't the usual forum

> (Liberal)

> > bully boys.

>

> Hiya Trinny!...oops, I mean Hammy!!

> How's it going, have you posted any more fake

> recommendations for your other accounts lately?

> Send our love to tomdhu and Dulwich Dyson, and our

> sympathies go out to all those previous accounts

> you had to close.

> Keep smiling!

> Lots of love,

> The EDF Liberals (Hardline Centrist Division)...


Seems someone may have a persecution complex. I never had to close an account.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...