AstraZeneca vaccine for over-65s

Watch
MatureStudent37
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#21
Report 3 weeks ago
#21
(Original post by LoveAmore)
Well 1/2 of the over 65s that had the vaccine caught Covid-19. https://www.theguardian.com/theobser...oxford-vaccine
I'm against this one in particular because the other vaccines have more evidence to prove their efficacy and aren't being ruled out by what seems to be half of the world. In addition, while this vaccine was said to be only slightly less effective against the SA strain just a few days ago, they've now changed their mind to say it's ineffective. This seems very strange to me considering that some of the AstraZeneca trials that deemed that it was safe/effective was carried out in SA. Finally, not only did they carelessly give patients the wrong dose during the trials, they didn't tell them they'd made a mistake with the dosage.
Read the article you posted you fool. I call
You a fool as you are peddling incorrect information on an important subject I suspect knowingly .

you’re 1/2 of over 65s who caught Covid is misleading as I suspect you know. The numbers are 2 out of a sample size 660 developed Covid. That’s a whopping 0.3%.
0
reply
LoveAmore
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#22
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#22
(Original post by MatureStudent37)
Read the article you posted you fool. I call
You a fool as you are peddling incorrect information on an important subject I suspect knowingly .

you’re 1/2 of over 65s who caught Covid is misleading as I suspect you know. The numbers are 2 out of a sample size 660 developed Covid. That’s a whopping 0.3%.
What I said in the post you are referring to is a typo, instead of saying "1/2 of the over 65s that had the vaccine caught Covid-19" I meant to say: 1/2 of the over 65s that caught Covid-19 had the vaccine. As you said, 2 people from the trial caught Covid-19 and one of them had the vaccine.
0
reply
Megacent
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#23
Report 3 weeks ago
#23
(Original post by LoveAmore)
What I said in the post you are referring to is a typo, instead of saying "1/2 of the over 65s that had the vaccine caught Covid-19" I meant to say: 1/2 of the over 65s that caught Covid-19 had the vaccine. As you said, 2 people from the trial caught Covid-19 and one of them had the vaccine.
Are they getting seriously ill from it though? Surely that's all that really matters in the context of lockdowns. Thousands of old people having a bit of a cough and a fever doesn't overwhelm the NHS...
0
reply
MatureStudent37
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#24
Report 3 weeks ago
#24
(Original post by LoveAmore)
What I said in the post you are referring to is a typo, instead of saying "1/2 of the over 65s that had the vaccine caught Covid-19" I meant to say: 1/2 of the over 65s that caught Covid-19 had the vaccine. As you said, 2 people from the trial caught Covid-19 and one of them had the vaccine.
Apologies. Bad day. Just found out my coworker has died from Covid.

vaccines work in many different ways. Covid is a new virus that has caught the whole world on the back foot. Some countries such as China, Japan, Taiwan etc have delay with it slightly better. Mainly because they’ve gone through it with bird flu a few years back, but also because they have a compliant population. Government says do something. They do it. No questions asked. No talk of conspiracy theories.

the Astrazenca vaccine, like most vaccines are still trying to control a virus that we’re still trying to understand.

a vaccine can stop you getting a disease.
a vaccine can stop you speeding the disease.
a vaccine can stop you becoming seriously ill from a disease.

To achieve all three (admittedly if you can’t catch it you can’t get ill) Is quite done feat.

in some cases, the AstraZeneca vaccine may not stop you getting it or spreading it, but it sure as hell stops you getting so ill from it.

this is where the debate over single doses or double doses comes in. Twin shots are better than one, but if you don’t have enough shots to give everybody two. If you can give double the amount of people one shot. Then that’s double the amount of people who require hospitalisation and double the amount of people likely to die.

astrazeneca single doses are very good at stopping people dying, and that’s what it’s all about at the moment. Nobody who had the vaccine who’s over 65 and caught Covid needed to be hospitalised or died. Those are the numbers you need to take on board.

modifications can be done at a later date to eradicate the virus, but at the moment we’re trying to limit its spread and impact.
Last edited by MatureStudent37; 3 weeks ago
1
reply
LoveAmore
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#25
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#25
(Original post by MatureStudent37)
Apologies. Bad day. Just found out my coworker has died from Covid.

vaccines work in many different ways. Covid is a new virus that has caught the whole world on the back foot. Some countries such as China, Japan, Taiwan etc have delay with it slightly better. Mainly because they’ve gone through it with bird flu a few years back, but also because they have a compliant population. Government says do something. They do it. No questions asked. No talk of conspiracy theories.

the Astrazenca vaccine, like most vaccines are still trying to control a virus that we’re still trying to understand.

a vaccine can stop you getting a disease.
a vaccine can stop you speeding the disease.
a vaccine can stop you becoming seriously ill from a disease.

To achieve all three (admittedly if you can’t catch it you can’t get ill) Is quite done feat.

in some cases, the AstraZeneca vaccine may not stop you getting it or spreading it, but it sure as hell stops you getting so ill from it.

this is where the debate over single doses or double doses comes in. Twin shots are better than one, but if you don’t have enough shots to give everybody two. If you can give double the amount of people one shot. Then that’s double the amount of people who require hospitalisation and double the amount of people likely to die.

astrazeneca single doses are very good at stopping people dying, and that’s what it’s all about at the moment. Nobody who had the vaccine who’s over 65 and caught Covid needed to be hospitalised or died. Those are the numbers you need to take on board.

modifications can be done at a later date to eradicate the virus, but at the moment we’re trying to limit its spread and impact.
I'm sorry for your loss.
I understand what your saying and agree that vaccines needed to be rolled out but I just feel they should have tested it more vigorously first. I just see so many red flags including the fact that despite carrying out some of the trials in South Africa itself and deeming it as effective based on the data from the SA variant, they've now turned back on that. The inconsistencies just make me lose even more trust in the government/scientific bodies but their whole response to the pandemic had already turned me into a cynical person. Anyway, I'm happy to leave the conversation here if you are - no matter my opinion I know that time cannot be turned back to carry out more trials.
0
reply
nexttime
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#26
Report 3 weeks ago
#26
(Original post by LoveAmore)
The inconsistencies just make me lose even more trust in the government/scientific bodies but their whole response to the pandemic had already turned me into a cynical person.
I mean, that's really sad re: scientific bodies, as the vaccines produced have been far beyond our wildest expectations, absolutely unbelievably successful.

Back in May last year, if we were offered a vaccine that had 50% effectiveness at stopping death against one strain but it came with lots of side effects, we'd still have taken it. We've never produced a vaccine against a coronavirus before and we had no reason to think we'd ever get one. Yet we're being given multiple that are all >90% effective against most strains, and possibly >99% effective at preventing hospital admission and death. Which is probably still true of the SA variant, we'll have to wait and see.

Other aspects of pandemic response... yeah, there's been some real disasters. We'd never have controlled it though - our population is far too uncooperative. As shown by how literally every single government in the West has failed to deal with it, not just ours.
0
reply
MatureStudent37
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#27
Report 3 weeks ago
#27
(Original post by LoveAmore)
I'm sorry for your loss.
I understand what your saying and agree that vaccines needed to be rolled out but I just feel they should have tested it more vigorously first. I just see so many red flags including the fact that despite carrying out some of the trials in South Africa itself and deeming it as effective based on the data from the SA variant, they've now turned back on that. The inconsistencies just make me lose even more trust in the government/scientific bodies but their whole response to the pandemic had already turned me into a cynical person. Anyway, I'm happy to leave the conversation here if you are - no matter my opinion I know that time cannot be turned back to carry out more trials.
There’s a balance. Most of these vaccines are using existing technology and methods so it’s not a complete shot in the dark. Every year they produce new flu vaccines to deal with that years strain.

Things can happen very quickly when they need to when red tape is cut through. I’ll give you an example. In 1982 at the start of the Falklands war, the Royal Navy identified a lack of airborne early warning aircraft in order to help defend the fleet. In a matter of weeks, they bolted a radar onto a helicopter.

https://www.helis.com/database/model...-Sea-King-AEW/

peace time development time = 10 years.
war time (urgent operational requirement) = 8 weeks.

things can and do happen very quickly when they need to.

nobody claimed it was going to be effective on the South African variant. They always said they believed it would but they’d have to wait for additional testing from South Africa.

Testing has been thorough. Oxford group have already stayed when questioned, this is a new procedure they’ve been working in for rapid development of vaccines. With regards to testing on the SA variant, it’s difficult to test on a strain of a virus that didn’t exist at the time.

We’ve had normal Covid. The Kent strain, the Brazilian strain and now we have the South African strain. Guess what? There’s going to be other Strains and other variants.

like the flu, hopefully it’ll be seasonal and we’ll
so what we do with the flu. See what happens in Australia and tweak the vaccines accordingly.

Hopefully though we won’t have to go through this bulls**t every year. They’ll be enough anti bodies in people so it will only be the most vulnerable that need the vaccines.
0
reply
UnclePete
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#28
Report 3 weeks ago
#28
(Original post by MatureStudent37)
Because lots and lots and lots of people are dieing.

Large trials have been conducted and a sizeable amount of over 65s were tested.

The EU, and notice that it’s only the EU kicking this off has totally messed up it’s vaccination programme. It was heavily reliant an expensive American/German vaccine and French vaccines. The French vaccine programme has one that’s failed and one that will finish testing if they’re lucky Q4 this year meaning that it’s not really going to get rolled out until the start of 2022.

Astra Zeneca vaccine uses proven technology.

If you’re scared of having an injection, just say you’re scared of having an injection. Please don’t try to justify your fear with pseudo science.

The AstraZeneca vaccine has been fully tested and passed for approval by the MHRA, one of the most experienced and professional Approval bodies in the world.

It’s been approved for use by WHO and throughout the world.

Sadly, as with most things in life, there’s politics to play. Remember prior to the brexit referendum that they said if there was a global pandemic, the EU wouldn’t be able to go it alone?

We now have this happening. I like the attached BBC news report

https://order-order.com/2021/02/02/w...terated-on-tv/
I fully agree with the above comments having had, and still do, dealings with the MHRA.
Although a simple concept, their method of developing rolling inspections compared to other inspection agencies has been a game changer and leader, which as we know has come to the proven fore during this pandemic.
It cuts both ways : pharma facilities are kept on their toes, as the inspectorate should they have reason to, can turn up unannounced in the middle of the night when least expected by virtue of their regulation 325 or a warrant issued against reg. 326 if I remember right and also should they desire, be accompanied by any relevant personnel and equipment.

This method of inspection is also useful to the pharma industry in as much any ongoing development or production issues which invariably occur, can be dealt with contemporaneously instead of retrospectively with the inspectorate, speeding up the process.

We are constantly being reminded at work " are you inspection ready ?"
Unfortunately I cannot name the facility I work for, much as I would like to, as both MHRA and company regs -we even have a dedicated SOP (standard operating proceedure) on this -forbid any promotion on social media such as this which if I did, could well be construed as such.

As regarding comments as to how much employers should control your free time, can I point out we are obliged to report should we come across them any product ADR's ( adverse advent reactions) on our hotline. This does not faz me: I accepted it as part of the job when I signed on the dotted line.
Incidentally, some years ago I was talking to a high ranking business man who considered the EU operated like a cartel: at the time I was rather dismissive of his remark, but having seen what has happened since this pandemic took hold maybe he was'nt so far off the mark after all...
Last edited by UnclePete; 3 weeks ago
0
reply
MatureStudent37
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#29
Report 3 weeks ago
#29
(Original post by UnclePete)
I fully agree with the above comments having had, and still do, dealings with the MHRA.
Although a simple concept, their method of developing rolling inspections compared to other inspection agencies has been a game changer and leader, which as we know has come to the proven fore during this pandemic.
It cuts both ways : pharma facilities are kept on their toes, as the inspectorate should they have reason to, can turn up unannounced in the middle of the night when least expected by virtue of their regulation 325 or a warrant issued against reg. 326 if I remember right and also should they desire, be accompanied by any relevant personnel and equipment.

This method of inspection is also useful to the pharma industry in as much any ongoing development or production issues which invariably occur, can be dealt with contemporaneously instead of retrospectively with the inspectorate, speeding up the process.

We are constantly being reminded at work " are you inspection ready ?"
Unfortunately I cannot name the facility I work for, much as I would like to, as both MHRA and company regs -we even have a dedicated SOP (standard operating proceedure) on this -forbid any promotion on social media such as this which if I did, could well be construed as such.

As regarding comments as to how much employers should control your free time, can I point out we are obliged to report should we come across them any product ADR's ( adverse advent reactions) on our hotline. This does not faz me: I accepted it as part of the job when I signed on the dotted line.
Incidentally, some years ago I was talking to a high ranking business man who considered the EU operated like a cartel: at the time I was rather dismissive of his remark, but having seen what has happened since this pandemic took hold maybe he was'nt so far off the mark after all...
The EU most definitely works like a cartel. It’s protectionist in nature
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#30
Report 3 weeks ago
#30
(Original post by MatureStudent37)
The EU most definitely works like a cartel. It’s protectionist in nature
Is that really a bad thing in this world though? It allows the members to combine their resources to punch well above their individual weights. As Britain is finding out to its detriment, small 2nd rate powers are rule takers whether they like it or not. Just as, say, South Africa will do as it is told when it comes to trading with the behemoths like China and America so will Britain now. Say what you like about the EU but at least it could stand its ground and not be slapped about like Britain is now. Just look at the spanking it'll get in this supposedly "good" trade deal with the US, if no one else Britains agri sector will be sold down the river and make the petty squabbling over fishing sector, such as it was, look like good natured ribbing.
0
reply
MatureStudent37
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#31
Report 3 weeks ago
#31
(Original post by Napp)
Is that really a bad thing in this world though? It allows the members to combine their resources to punch well above their individual weights. As Britain is finding out to its detriment, small 2nd rate powers are rule takers whether they like it or not. Just as, say, South Africa will do as it is told when it comes to trading with the behemoths like China and America so will Britain now. Say what you like about the EU but at least it could stand its ground and not be slapped about like Britain is now. Just look at the spanking it'll get in this supposedly "good" trade deal with the US, if no one else Britains agri sector will be sold down the river and make the petty squabbling over fishing sector, such as it was, look like good natured ribbing.
How do you figure that? The EU has hardly been shown to be a dynamic vibrant economic powerhouse. It’s main success seems to be a great mechanism for artificially depressing German manufactured goods for export.

On the international stage, how effect has the EU been? It’s a rather intimidating protection racket I’ll give you that.

It is however incredibly fragile as it’s not a nation state. It’s reliant on Russian gas, so that’s a weakness for it.

And as we’ve seen it’s vaccination programme has created such internal turmoil that they’ve managed to show the world how petty they are.

Don’t think big is better. Especially when it’s headed by an unelected commission made up of failed politicians .

Who says we need trade deals and why do you think trade deals are so bad?

We have no trade deal with the US, but it is by far our single largest national trading partner.

The U.K. has been heavily reliant on food imports for centuries. I’ll carry on eating my New Zealand lamb, but my wife Kenyan flowers and sprinkle Ethiopian grown mint on my dinner.

There hasn’t really been squabbling over fishing. There’s been manufactured grievances.

It’s good to see that the Irish are now getting a bit upset that a Dutch registered super trawler capable of catching 250 tones of fish a day is hoovering up Irish fish stocks.

Big can sometimes be better. China, the US, India and China can have a coherent trade, foreign, domestic and military policy.

Disparate trade grouping wanting to be country with no common language, culture or religion won’t. History tells us that, just as history tells us that forcing different groupings of people together without a common bond can only be done by force, threats or intimidation. But it inevitably implodes in on itself .
0
reply
UnclePete
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#32
Report 3 weeks ago
#32
(Original post by MatureStudent37)
How do you figure that? The EU has hardly been shown to be a dynamic vibrant economic powerhouse. It’s main success seems to be a great mechanism for artificially depressing German manufactured goods for export.

On the international stage, how effect has the EU been? It’s a rather intimidating protection racket I’ll give you that.

It is however incredibly fragile as it’s not a nation state. It’s reliant on Russian gas, so that’s a weakness for it.

And as we’ve seen it’s vaccination programme has created such internal turmoil that they’ve managed to show the world how petty they are.

Don’t think big is better. Especially when it’s headed by an unelected commission made up of failed politicians .

Who says we need trade deals and why do you think trade deals are so bad?

We have no trade deal with the US, but it is by far our single largest national trading partner.

The U.K. has been heavily reliant on food imports for centuries. I’ll carry on eating my New Zealand lamb, but my wife Kenyan flowers and sprinkle Ethiopian grown mint on my dinner.

There hasn’t really been squabbling over fishing. There’s been manufactured grievances.

It’s good to see that the Irish are now getting a bit upset that a Dutch registered super trawler capable of catching 250 tones of fish a day is hoovering up Irish fish stocks.

Big can sometimes be better. China, the US, India and China can have a coherent trade, foreign, domestic and military policy.

Disparate trade grouping wanting to be country with no common language, culture or religion won’t. History tells us that, just as history tells us that forcing different groupings of people together without a common bond can only be done by force, threats or intimidation. But it inevitably implodes in on itself .
I'm not suggesting we should continue or develop an entitlement attitude, but it seems certain countries in Europe judging by their childlike bureaucratic pettiness have forgotten how and we, and our allies, who we treated so meanly in our rush to join the EU, literally saved them from starvation in the not too distant past. Different times, different ball game I know, but there was nothing wrong with our produce then or come to that when we were in the EU "family" ? ! -so why now?

Incidentally I remember being told that extra rationing was introduced in the UK just after the war on top of that already in place to help the Europeans get back on their feet.
It certainly seems the EU is imploding in on itself, I think the adage one size certainly does not fit all comes to mind.

And this comes from somebody who has travelled extensively in Europe, have many friends there, a strong interest in its history at least the positive aspects, and appreciation of its culture.
Last edited by UnclePete; 3 weeks ago
0
reply
MatureStudent37
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#33
Report 3 weeks ago
#33
(Original post by UnclePete)
I'm not suggesting we should continue or develop an entitlement attitude, but it seems certain countries in Europe judging by their childlike bureaucratic pettiness have forgotten how and we, and our allies, who we treated so meanly in our rush to join the EU, literally saved them from starvation in the not too distant past. Different times, different ball game I know, but there was nothing wrong with our produce then or come to that when we were in the EU "family" ? ! -so why now?

Incidentally I remember being told that extra rationing was introduced in the UK just after the war on top of that already in place to help the Europeans get back on their feet.
It certainly seems the EU is imploding in on itself, I think the adage one size certainly does not fit all comes to mind.

And this comes from somebody who has travelled extensively in Europe, have many friends there, a strong interest in its history at least the positive aspects, and appreciation of its culture.
There should never be an entitlement attitude towards the EU, mainly because the generation that would be most effective are nearly all gone.

France has been effectively rewriting its history since 1945. The defeat to the Germans, the betrayal of its ally, the plucky French resistance fighting the dreaded hun until late 1944 France liberated itself.

The truth. France lost at the start because it had no will to fight. Understandable when they’d had so many casualties in WW1. They then actively collaborated (not just Vicky France, the population as there was a high degree of anti Semitism coupled with huge amounts of war profiteering. The plucky resistance at the start of the war were mainly communists being driven by an ideology that was supported from Moscow. British SOE attempts were often betrayed by the French and ineffective and only started to come to fruition in late 1943 when the French population realised that the Germans were the loosing side. In fact, the favourite defence of Vichy French officials was ‘I did what I did in order to secure a new European order.’ (The Franco German committee was established in 1933 in order to generate a new European order)

Since then, the EU have tried to imply that the EU has key peace in Europe, completely ignoring the role of NATO and a divided Germany. (Remember that when the EU was founded, nobody, and I mean nobody foresaw the end of the Soviet Union)

I used to be in the army, and when I was, speaking to the old and bold who had gone through the cold war, they’d tell me stories of the older German generation. They new they’d lost, but they were still petrified of the Russians. They’d come over to troops digging in on exercise to tell them that’s exactly where they’d dug in their machine gun, farmers would come out with beers for tank crews and offer units the chance to sleep in barns to keep warm and dry.

Post Cold War though, that generation has died out and we have now seen a rise of politicians with no link to that era, with dare I say, a biased role I history and a sense of shame for their country’s actions previously. (I’m not just looking at Germany here. The first pan European army was the SS. French and Dutch troops defended Hitlers Bunker till the end. Not German)

Germany has always been the dominant force in Europe since its unification . France doesn’t like that, and it doesn’t like being reminded it continually gets humped by Germany. Germany on the other hand has been surprisingly pro British. It’s never really wanted conflict with Britain other than peaceful trade.

Some of the concerns I’ve heard, especially in Germany relate to the loss of Britain as a voice of sensibilities and a safety valve. So I don’t think this EU desire to punish us is the German approach. In fact, the rhetoric we’re seeing now fro the EU is a lot of the same rhetoric from politicians who ha come from countries that have a less than stellar history in more recent European politics and weren’t particularly useful in the decline of the Soviet Union.
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#34
Report 3 weeks ago
#34
(Original post by MatureStudent37)
How do you figure that? The EU has hardly been shown to be a dynamic vibrant economic powerhouse. It’s main success seems to be a great mechanism for artificially depressing German manufactured goods for export.
Er because it is a global rule setter... As i said. You seem to be mistaking the use of the euro and its benefits for germany for what i said.
On the international stage, how effect has the EU been? It’s a rather intimidating protection racket I’ll give you that.
And? Most civilised countries will protect their domestic producers against foreign competition. Only the whackiest of free market adherents think or believe otherwise.
It is however incredibly fragile as it’s not a nation state. It’s reliant on Russian gas, so that’s a weakness for it.
Not really? Its hardly about to implode.
As to Russian gas, that is more than beside the point. It has absolutely nothing to do with the point i made nor anything to do with the EU for that matter. Russia is the nearest and cheapest source of gas, this is basic economics 101 as there is no other viable source. Unless you seriously contend relying on American LPG? Not only economically unsound but a greater threat imo than Russia. Russia isnt waging economic warfare against Europe, America is through sanctions. Merely look at NS2 and their policies relating to Iran
And as we’ve seen it’s vaccination programme has created such internal turmoil that they’ve managed to show the world how petty they are.
We get it, you think Europeans are petty fascists and you hate them. Again, what does this have to do with any point made?
Don’t think big is better. Especially when it’s headed by an unelected commission made up of failed politicians .
Er basic economics says otherwise.. economies of scale are by definition better and can extract better concessions from rivals.
Would you mind making actual points instead of simple slurs though, it detracts rather a lot from any point you try to make if its qualified with an insult or a fib.
Who says we need trade deals and why do you think trade deals are so bad?
Have you not seen any government broadcast on Brexit ever? They feitshise trade deals. As to why we need them? It enables business to act more smoothly, lowers prices etc.
I dont think theyre bad. I think any one with America will be bad. This is a simple fact as the Americans have expressly said with one of their former officials saying something to the tune of 'Brexit is an opportunity to **** them' (especially in terms of finance)
We have no trade deal with the US, but it is by far our single largest national trading partner.
Whats your point sorry?
The U.K. has been heavily reliant on food imports for centuries. I’ll carry on eating my New Zealand lamb, but my wife Kenyan flowers and sprinkle Ethiopian grown mint on my dinner.
I'm aware, is there some kind of point in this though?
There hasn’t really been squabbling over fishing. There’s been manufactured grievances.
Do you not watch the news at all ? The whole reason the agreement came down to the wire was because Britain got upset over fishing rights - a completely irrelevant topic manufactured, as you said, by Westminster. Putting our non-industry ahead of real money earners like finance - absolutely shameful and a dereliction of duty of the rankest order.
It’s good to see that the Irish are now getting a bit upset that a Dutch registered super trawler capable of catching 250 tones of fish a day is hoovering up Irish fish stocks.
You say that fishing is a manufactured grievance then show a real grievance? What?
Big can sometimes be better. China, the US, India and China can have a coherent trade, foreign, domestic and military policy.

Disparate trade grouping wanting to be country with no common language, culture or religion won’t. History tells us that, just as history tells us that forcing different groupings of people together without a common bond can only be done by force, threats or intimidation. But it inevitably implodes in on itself .
This is the second contradiction you've made? At any rate, none of them (im not sure why China is listed twice?) can be said to have a unified grand strategy. Bar possibly China. The US famously has lacked strategic direction for years now.

Again, i get it, you hate Europeans but none of this is even remotely related to the point i made... although given this last paragraph seems to be littered with historical inaccuracies and outright untruths.. I mean, the idea that Europe doesnt share culture or religion is palpably risible. The language issue being a relative non issue anyway given most Europeans can speak multiple languages, unlike the English.
0
reply
MatureStudent37
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#35
Report 3 weeks ago
#35
(Original post by Napp)
Er because it is a global rule setter... As i said. You seem to be mistaking the use of the euro and its benefits for germany for what i said.

And? Most civilised countries will protect their domestic producers against foreign competition. Only the whackiest of free market adherents think or believe otherwise.

Not really? Its hardly about to implode.
As to Russian gas, that is more than beside the point. It has absolutely nothing to do with the point i made nor anything to do with the EU for that matter. Russia is the nearest and cheapest source of gas, this is basic economics 101 as there is no other viable source. Unless you seriously contend relying on American LPG? Not only economically unsound but a greater threat imo than Russia. Russia isnt waging economic warfare against Europe, America is through sanctions. Merely look at NS2 and their policies relating to Iran

We get it, you think Europeans are petty fascists and you hate them. Again, what does this have to do with any point made?

Er basic economics says otherwise.. economies of scale are by definition better and can extract better concessions from rivals.
Would you mind making actual points instead of simple slurs though, it detracts rather a lot from any point you try to make if its qualified with an insult or a fib.

Have you not seen any government broadcast on Brexit ever? They feitshise trade deals. As to why we need them? It enables business to act more smoothly, lowers prices etc.
I dont think theyre bad. I think any one with America will be bad. This is a simple fact as the Americans have expressly said with one of their former officials saying something to the tune of 'Brexit is an opportunity to **** them' (especially in terms of finance)

Whats your point sorry?

I'm aware, is there some kind of point in this though?

Do you not watch the news at all ? The whole reason the agreement came down to the wire was because Britain got upset over fishing rights - a completely irrelevant topic manufactured, as you said, by Westminster. Putting our non-industry ahead of real money earners like finance - absolutely shameful and a dereliction of duty of the rankest order.

You say that fishing is a manufactured grievance then show a real grievance? What?

This is the second contradiction you've made? At any rate, none of them (im not sure why China is listed twice?) can be said to have a unified grand strategy. Bar possibly China. The US famously has lacked strategic direction for years now.

Again, i get it, you hate Europeans but none of this is even remotely related to the point i made... although given this last paragraph seems to be littered with historical inaccuracies and outright untruths.. I mean, the idea that Europe doesnt share culture or religion is palpably risible. The language issue being a relative non issue anyway given most Europeans can speak multiple languages, unlike the English.
I don’t hate Europeans. I love them.

Living in Germany was some of the best time of my life. I’ve worked in multinational environments quite extensively.

Which historical inaccuracies and untruths are you allowing to?
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#36
Report 3 weeks ago
#36
(Original post by MatureStudent37)
I don’t hate Europeans. I love them.

Living in Germany was some of the best time of my life. I’ve worked in multinational environments quite extensively.

Which historical inaccuracies and untruths are you allowing to?
Your repeated bashing of them comes as somewhat surprising then?
The last paragraph, as i noted. The history of the world is somewhat more complex than that sentence would have you believe.
0
reply
MatureStudent37
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#37
Report 3 weeks ago
#37
(Original post by Napp)
Your repeated bashing of them comes as somewhat surprising then?
The last paragraph, as i noted. The history of the world is somewhat more complex than that sentence would have you believe.
Where In history have empires of different groupings, languages and cultures into one entity not ended in a mess?
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#38
Report 3 weeks ago
#38
(Original post by MatureStudent37)
Where In history have empires of different groupings, languages and cultures into one entity not ended in a mess?
Well the dissolution of the British Empire was a largely peaceful and orderly affair, the EU at present, countless multiracial empires that only fell due to outside destruction. the list goes ever on given you set the parameters at the aforementioned traits being the cause of the collapse.
The point being, however, that just because a country/empire/suprastate/confederation etc. is multi-ethnic/racial/religious or whatever does not eo ipso mean it will implode in on itself by dint of those virtues.
0
reply
MatureStudent37
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#39
Report 3 weeks ago
#39
(Original post by Napp)
Well the dissolution of the British Empire was a largely peaceful and orderly affair, the EU at present, countless multiracial empires that only fell due to outside destruction. the list goes ever on given you set the parameters at the aforementioned traits being the cause of the collapse.
The point being, however, that just because a country/empire/suprastate/confederation etc. is multi-ethnic/racial/religious or whatever does not eo ipso mean it will implode in on itself by dint of those virtues.
The empire was fought over. And in many areas caught over, with force . We paid their leaders in gold (see the Kinnock family ) suppressed their culture, imposed our religion on them and our laws. We then got them indebted to us.

Yugoslavia was pushed together. It only held together because of Tito. Once he went, it collapsed .

nobody asked me or even my parents generation if they wanted to be part of a federal European super state. My parents were asked to join a trading block.

The EU is the only trading block I now of that has its own judiciary, flag, national anthem, currency, central bank and parliament.

I don’t want to be part of it. When the continent goes on its new European order crusades it inevitably ends with lots of dead people. They can’t help themselves.

the similarities of what’s happening now with what’s happened in history are there.

I understand that Germany is the dominant power in Europe. I also like Germans and they respect U.K.
1
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#40
Report 3 weeks ago
#40
(Original post by MatureStudent37)
The empire was fought over. And in many areas caught over, with force . We paid their leaders in gold (see the Kinnock family ) suppressed their culture, imposed our religion on them and our laws. We then got them indebted to us.
Vaguely so but by and large and fighting required was tny for the return it generated. Merely look to our Asian possessions as a case in point.
The empire was hardly maintained through bribery alone.. As to the 'surpressing the culture' and removing their religion that is patently false on the whole. Merely look at India as a case in point where it was official policy to allow most local customs to remain (lest it cause a revolt like the Sepoy rebellion). Prosletizing was less an imperial policy for the most part but a tolerated by product. After all, the empire was principally about commerce, the 'civilising factor' coming a distant second.
Yugoslavia was pushed together. It only held together because of Tito. Once he went, it collapsed .
Your point sorry?
nobody asked me or even my parents generation if they wanted to be part of a federal European super state. My parents were asked to join a trading block.
Same question as before
The EU is the only trading block I now of that has its own judiciary, flag, national anthem, currency, central bank and parliament.
Heaven forfend they have a flag? Again, please stop using this thread as an excuse to go on a wild tangent of euro bashing for the sake of it.
I don’t want to be part of it. When the continent goes on its new European order crusades it inevitably ends with lots of dead people. They can’t help themselves.
The fact you're comparing the EU to the Nazis and Napolean is rather telling in your obscene bias on the matter. By all means take exception to the European project, its a free country, but when you start spouting baseless propaganda you'll forgive me for tuning out.
the similarities of what’s happening now with what’s happened in history are there.

I understand that Germany is the dominant power in Europe. I also like Germans and they respect U.K.
Dominant economic power perhaps. Militarily it barely ranks. In absolute terms as well as in respect to what they can actually use. Most of their airforce, armoured vehicles etc. being unusable.

They certainly used to, they've lost quite a lot watching the UK humiliate itself time after time on the world stage though. Whether Brexstremists like it or not the rest of the world is watching on with, at best, a bemused confusion and at worst laughing hysterically at how far the mighty have fallen. Voluntarily becoming a 3rd rate power, it boggles the mind.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Which of these would you use to help with making uni decisions?

Webinars (58)
13.39%
Virtual campus tours/open days (99)
22.86%
Live streaming events (39)
9.01%
Online AMAs/guest lectures (41)
9.47%
A uni comparison tool (99)
22.86%
An in-person event when available (97)
22.4%

Watched Threads

View All