bennetn

Supporters
  • Content count

    259
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

171 Excellent

About bennetn

Profile Information

  • Location Wiesbaden
  • Nationality British
  • Gender Male
  • Year of birth 1969
  1.   A vendor risk assessment?  Supply guarantees?  Financial penalty clauses? Provided infrastructure support?  What she shouldn't have done is sign a contract without proper scrutiny of the supplier and it's supply chain.  
  2.   No, I totally agree.  Then they shouldn't be telling the world the EU have shipped goods all over the world.     It's all finger pointng of course so we don't look at the failures they have made but they also forget why they relied upon AZ so much - especially at the beginning.  It's nothing to do with the Germans going balls deep with Merck and the French doing the same with Sanofi and then both of these companies not actually being able to produce a vaccine?  That's what they should be looking at - why can't European manufacturers (and I don't mean EU) come up with a vaccine given the amount of investment offered up by their respective national governments to produce one.  
  3. It wouldn't as I did not fully own 100% of the production.  There's a reaon why the EU was vocal about the UK and not the US, companies relied upon the US for production.
  4. If they had tit for tat export ban, yes. Yorkeau is correct, the EU did not own any production and the private companies who did, I do not think had 100% EU production.
  5. And the fact remains that had the EU done so, other countries would have banned the export of the either the component parts or the final goods to be packaged so the production/finishing company based in the EU would not have the product to export
  6. You making stuiff up again; Illegal contracts?  Yorkeau made a point that the EU should have been doing what the UK was doing and building a supply chain network to enable that production, not having to resort to lawyers to force a company to break an existing commercial contract. International logistics and international supply chains seems to be a difficult concept.  
  7. You understand international logisics at all?  The EU "production" depends on material manufactured outside the EU, the UK for example so tit for tat banning results in no vaccines for anyone.  But yeah, they're "EU vaccines"
  8. That's not what it says, it says they have produced 200 million, not that they have exported that much. It's smoke and mirrors from her to cover up the glaring mistakes they've made anyway, it should also read produced or packaged in the EU as they rely upon non EU production of the component parts for the vaccines.  That wouldn't fit her covering her arse narrative though.
  9.   Think the theory was quite clear - there's more of pressing need to deliver vaccines throughout the world to prevent more deaths and mutations than there is a need to vaccinate kids.   Are you sure Yorkeau meant the right benefits?  
  10.   It might have been what you meant but what you actually said, well wrote, was "kids are superspreaders" which doesn't mean the same at all. Write what you mean and you'll not have the "antivax" crowd "barking" at you...not that ýou would ever call someone anti vaxxer without a good reason - or did you mean that differently also?
  11.   No, these all seem to be proposals by you, not me.  The UK have never had a day of 0 cases, you're confused or in a bit of tizz.  Take a breath.
  12.   It's beyond questionable, it's just nonsense. It ignores all the actual facts by actual scientists to try and justify a position.
  13.   Absolutely baseles nonsense, go to bed.
  14. Is that your solution?  Sure there are others, how about vaccinating the rest of the world so borders do not need to remain closed..as an example?