[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

I'm afraid you're looking at the situation and saying "How can I make this fit what the Telegraph leader writers would say" as oppose to looking at the evidence and thinking drawing a logical facts-based conclusion.

No facilities anywhere had been approved when the contract was signed for the manufacture of the AstraZeneca vaccine. It appears you would have preferred that the UK and EU wait several months until the factories were licensed and then sign the contracts? Sorry to disagree but that's ridiculous given the nature of the challenge we face.

I'm afraid you're looking at the situation and saying "How can I make this fit what the Telegraph leader writers would say" as oppose to looking at the evidence and thinking drawing a logical facts-based conclusion.

What utter rubbish, Andrew. That's not on my mind at all.
Indeed, the quotes that got me going were from the Times and FT.
Unless you don't believe what those papers are reporting, there is no flaw in the conclusion I have reached.

No facilities anywhere had been approved when the contract was signed for the manufacture of the AstraZeneca vaccine. It appears you would have preferred that the UK and EU wait several months until the factories were licensed and then sign the contracts? Sorry to disagree but that's ridiculous given the nature of the challenge we face.

Well, exactly. By any project management risk assessment standards, that would have been very high on probability and very high on negative effect. By all means sign the contract but mitigate the risks, which they didn't do. Political considerations would have ruled out the Russian/Chines vaccines and surely/maybe the Germans could have done something about Pfizer.

How can you be so far off the mark?

And stop coming across as the EC's spokesman on the forum. Credibility is surely everything.