andyrebell

Well the oxford trial is finished now. It is not based on the RNA technology the way this one is. Question is how long does the immunity from the vaccine last if that answer is positive then they probably have it. It is a shame I wanted the UK to have vaccine in it's own right.

Pulaski

I'd like Jaguar Land Rover to be under British ownership, but that's not now the world works, and most consumers don't care - they either like a product, or they don't, so does it really matter where the vaccine comes from? I for one, would like the most effective and safest vaccine, rather than worrying about who owns the patent.

andyrebell

Yeah but you don't live in UK you won't have to pay through the nose for it beyond the workings of your insurance if the USA get it first. If Trump could make billions and trillions for America he would do and he would use it for power and political gain. You say that won't be how it works he won't have that control over it

Pulaski

If a US corporation finds an effective vaccine, or buys a company that has a vaccine, there isn't much that Donald Trump can do to control or profit from it, unless he somehow manages to get it declare to be a military technology.

andyrebell

Don't give him ideas! .

As you say he wont be able to do that but even if he can't and knows he can't. I can still imagine Trump saying Prince Andrew should be sent to America and bring Gary McKinnon with him and if Russia wants quick access to the vaccine they will send back Edward Snowden and Iran will go back to the nuclear deal even though he tore it up in the first place. Just for the bluster of all it and that is all he is. There is no way any english prime minister would demand anne sacoolas and Amanda Knox in return for second access to the oxford vaccine had it worked. No english PM would ever have the balls to attempt that it wouldn't be prime ministerial.

robin1234

Exactly.

And this leads to a general point about international news. I’ve noticed that foreign media seem to err on the side of making everything personal to the head of government, thereby suggesting he is all-powerful. For instance, most stories in the US media about UK politics & government keep banging on about Boris Johnson. Meanwhile, in England, listening to Radio 4 news, the PM is literally not mentioned for days on end. Similarly, I feel in the UK, news media will say Trump said or did something, when it’s often more accurate to just say that the US government or the administration did something.

I know it’s a generalization, but I believe at least partly true.

Pulaski

I have no doubt that there are unlimited scenarios that you can imagine.

Pulaski

Never mind US media and the UK - the US media perpetuate the wildly mistaken belief within the US, with stories pretty much on a daily basis, perpetuate the baseless myth that the US President can "do" all manner of things, when in fact much of his role and influence could be more correctly described as "head of the civil service". The President has some interpretive authority, but that can be challenged in the Supreme court, and he can veto legislation, but that can be over-ruled by the Senate, and all his most signifcant appointments, including to the Supreme Court, are subject to approval by the Senate anyway.

The Presidents who get the most done are those who foster a close relationship with both the House and Senate, and who are willing to engage in some horse trading, that trade priorities and interests - "if you do this, I'll do that", and vice versa. So some presidents get to propose legislation, but that hasn't happened much since the 1990's, apart from 2009-2010 when President Obama had a relationship with a cooperative House and Senate. President Trump blew his chance to get much done between 2017-2018.

civilservant

The amount of times I have had to correct someone who has said 'Well Trump sent me that $1,200' in the last 2 months beggars belief.

People don't understand how their own Government works, and that Trump is not a King and cannot govern by fiat. He controls not one single dime of the US budget and hasn't sent you anything - let alone $1,200.

Former Lancastrian

But but but don't the cheques have his signature (well his name in typeface) on them? Plus wearing a crown would have an adverse effect on his hair.

lizzyq

And he sends a letter too, that does give credit to the Houses of Congress and their bipartisan cooperation, but has his signature in bold black print, which will give the impression, to those that choose to believe it, that he "sent" the money.

civilservant

The check says:

ECONOMIC IMPACT PAYMENT
PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP


In the bottom corner where the Memo line is on a regular check.

However it is not signed by him, it is continuing to be signed by the same person who signs all paper Social Security checks. Not even sure what their name or title is.

Indeed. I can't argue with the validity of that statement. Which is the very reason why the letters were sent out.

robin1234

Yup if someone said that to me in New York, I’d know that they were saying it sarcastically. And I live in an overwhelmingly Republican part of New York! (Fiscal conservatives.)

HDWill

I heard the news story about his name on the cheques, but was surprised when I got the letter. Even though the letter was sent by the IRS, the letterhead said "The White House." Ugh. But it was certainly an astute political move on his part.

zzrmark

It'd be nice to get our stimulus checks, although a large portion of them will be headed straight back to the IRS coffers to 'stimulate' last years shortfall...

Presumably, being government issued, checks will bear the Treasury Secretary's signature, Trump may put his signature to any accompanying/attached literature but not on the check itself.