On covid-19, the recklessness of UK's politicians poses a continued threat to Europe (EN)

Notwithstanding its successful vaccination campaign (which has been often put in contrast to EU's comparatively sluggish record), the United Kingdom is currently suffering another wave of the coronavirus pandemic, driven by the very contagious 'delta' (a.k.a. 'Indian') variant.

How this came to be is well known, and clearly linked to political decisions made by the UK Government. But the consequences could be very dire for continental Europe.

Indeed (see map below), the countries in the EU currently most affected by the new surge in cases are exactly those who recently welcomed UK tourists with few restrictions or none at all: Portugal and Spain. From there, as recent history demonstrates, it's only a matter of time before the fresh pandemic wave sweeps across the continent.

After last spring's third wave of covid-19 in Europe was driven by the 'alpha' variant of the virus that originated in England, it's now the second time in half a year that the UK is the gateway for a pandemic wave affecting the continent. The main explanation for this recurrent hazard is the continued recklessness in managing this health crisis by the British authorities.

And nor is it set to end.

The distance between what the UK thinks of itself and how others judge it (EN)

Here is UK's anticipation before last night's Eurovision song contest:

And here are the final results:

So the competitor from the UK was hoping to win... and he came out last with nil (zero!) points.

It's not easy at all to score a clean zero points in an Eurovision contest. Still, the UK has managed this feat twice, and it's the fifth time it has come last.

Sure, you can consider Eurovision - as I do - a largely pointless jamboree with little relation to the quality of the music. Still, as the ranking of each competitor is determined in good part based on voting by the public from the other countries, such extreme results are not irrelevant. And the point I'm making here is not about Eurovision, but about the UK.

Este Romania prea rigida in administrarea dozei a doua de vaccin anti-covid? Statistici, explicatii, interpretari... (RO)

Romania a inceput relativ bine campania de vaccinare anti-covid, fiind de-a lungul lunii feburarie printre primele tari din UE ca numar de doze de vaccin administrate la suta de locuitori. Dar la sfarsitul lunii februarie a franat brusc ritmul vaccinarii, fiind ajunsa din urma de media UE. A mers apoi in pas cu media UE pana in ultima saptamana a lunii martie, cand Romania a inceput sa ramana tot mai mult in urma mediei la dozele administrate - nu ca ar fi incetinit, ci pentru ca celelalte tari au accelerat semnificativ, in timp ce tara noastra a ramas intr-o viteza 'de croaziera' de cca. 55.000 de doze de vaccin administrate zilnic (spre comparatie, Franta, care a inceput mult mai incet in ianuarie, a ajuns recent la peste 500.000 de doze pe zi, cu o populatie doar de 3 ori si jumatate mai mare decat a Romaniei).

Graficul de mai jos al numarului de doze de vaccin administrate la suta de locuitori ilustreaza aceasta evolutie in trei acte: Romania deasupra mediei UE in februarie, in pas cu media UE in martie, si ramanand din ce in ce mai mult in urma de atunci.

Aceasta ramanere in urma nu este deocamdata dramatica. Chiar daca Romania este acum printre tarile din UE cele mai intarziate cu vaccinarea, inca nu a pierdut contactul cu plutonul si mai poate recupera daca accelereaza campania de vaccinare in perioada urmatoare, mai ales ca in tara au intrat pana acum doze destule (cu peste 2 milioane mai multe decat numarul dozelor deja administrate). Penuria de vaccinuri, care s-a manifestat acut in februarie, nu mai este acum o problema - exista doze suficiente pentru a accelera semnificativ vaccinarea.

Dar exista o diferenta in campania de vaccinare din Romania fata de alte tari UE care merita discutata, pentru ca ar putea avea implicatii importante in depasirea mai rapida, sau dimpotriva, agravarea si prelungirea actualului val al pandemiei. 

Diferenta dintre Romania si 'mainstream-ul' european este ilustrata de faptul ca, desi se afla sub media UE la numarul de doze administrate (raportat la populatie), Romania este totusi sensibil peste media UE la proportia celor complet vaccinati (care au primit ambele doze de vaccin):

Cu alte cuvinte, Romania a administrat mai putine doze de vaccin la suta de locuitori, dar are mai multi complet vaccinati (adica a administrat a doua doza in proportie mai mare decat media UE).

Care este explicatia acestui aparent paradox si ce inseamna acest lucru?

Cutting through the noise on vaccines, some counter-intuitive truths (EN)

Without false modesty, this blog has been ahead of the curve on the AstraZeneca (AZ) covid vaccines affair. It exposed almost two months ago the arrogant lies of Pascal Soriot, AZ's CEO, in his attempts to bamboozle the EU into accepting that it should be treated as a second-class client, hinted at the likely foul play by the UK Government and at the toxic mix with Brexit politics. By March, statements made here - e.g. on the de facto vaccine export ban instituted by the UK or on the need to limit exports to ensure that AZ is serving fairly its EU contract - were part of the line taken by senior EU officials, such as European Council President Charles Michel, or European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. 

On the other hand, this blog didn't hesitate to call out the ineptitude of some national leaders' comments on the AZ vaccine and of some national regulators' decisions on its roll-out - a stupidity compounded by last week's temporary suspension of the vaccine in almost half of the Member States, based on mainly political considerations, in spite of the advice of EU's own regulator. And it also criticised the Commission's short-lived intention to invoke Art.16 of the Northern Ireland protocol as a very consequential political gaffe, which gave a pretext for the UK to try to wriggle out of its legal obligations.

As the vaccine-related escalation between the EU and the UK is now in full swing, the ongoing war of narratives creates a lot of noise that can easily distract from the fundamentals. It's therefore timely to take a step back, look at the bigger picture and scratch a bit the surface to bring up some rather counter-intuitive insights. 

I will try to argue that:

• the AZ (and broader covid vaccines) scandal is more of a political stake than an actual public health issue; 
• in the medium term the EU's problem is not the shortage of vaccines, but a very different one;
• UK's apparent triumph on the vaccines is far from vindicating Brexit, rather the contrary; and 
• the EU is very well positioned for success in the longer term, but only if it manages to overcome its existential challenges in the short term.

How we understand history (EN)

The dramatic events in the Arab world over the past couple of months have captured the attention and imagination of mankind. But how do we understand the tectonic changes that are unfolding?

Reality is not easy to put into logical categories; it is often chaotic and incomprehensible, even more so in situations of conflict and social upheaval.
However, trying to understand what is going on by forming a narrative of the events is a very powerful human instinct: we simply are designed to function by making sense of reality, by projecting some sort of pre-formed mental coherence - usually in the form of a comforting narrative - on our environment and circumstances.
And sometimes the urge to take action may be just a symptom of mental insecurity due to lack of understanding, to a failure to make credible sense of reality. Thus, action becomes an effort to regulate reality by making it fit into an acceptable narrative.

From this viewpoint, the international military intervention in Lybia pushed for by France and Britain (with the US following with some reluctance) could also be read as a symptom of mental insecurity.

The writing on the wall, since the beginning of the Arab turmoil, has been the declining influence of the West, even in a strategically crucial region in its very backyard. Remember how the regional tsunami of social protests took the West by surprise, found it unprepared and eventually forced it to go along a change that it didn't expect, didn't want, and didn't quite understand (the ideas of freedom and people power that eventually gained prevalence on the positive side are just nuggets of understanding to offer some familiar, though precarious anchor to Western opinion in an ocean of unpredictability and incomprehensibility; same with fear of islamism on the negative side).
The decline of the West's global influence and the emergence of Asia is a long-term established trend, and the understanding of this trend has more recently started to sink in even in America and Europe (particularly after the financial crisis originated in the very center of the Western economic order); but the West's influence in the resource-rich North Africa and Middle East seemed well assured through a thick web of economic, political, historic and military links. By throwing this old certainty into question, the improbable awakening of the Arab street has in fact created much insecurity in the West.
And such insecurity calls for action. Decisive action.

BBC journalism standards (EN)

You know that British etiquette is no longer what it used to be when the BBC gets someone to comment live on the G-20 Summit (pick one):

Want Change? (EN)

(Includes UPDATE after the jump)

During the 2008 presidential elections in the US, change was the central campaign slogan. Obama was the first to use it consistently and seize the change momentum; and also the more obvious change candidate. But by the later stages of the long primary campaign, Hillary Clinton - who had initially branded herself as the experienced candidate - was contesting the change mantle herself. And in the proper elections, even John McCain, the candidate of the incumbent party, tried to sell himself as a maverick and champion for change.

It's interesting to see how the change slogan has now caught on in the UK elections.
The LibDems of course are the natural "change party", and the slogan that opens their website is: Change that works for you.
On the other hand, it must be impossible for Labour to use the C-word after 13 years in power, and with Gordon Brown a veteran Chancellor of the Exchequer and subsequently Prime Minister.

But the Conservatives? Why not?
Their (very mediocre, if you ask me) campaign videos - like the one below, or the one here - end up with this rather counter-intuitive punchline: Vote for change, vote Conservative!




But... wait a minute! Isn't Conservatism supposed to be more about stability and (return to) traditions than about change? Sure enough, a Conservative government would be a change after 13 years of Labour, but to make change the central campaign slogan is in a way like saying: "Vote for social justice and equality, vote Libertarian!", or "Free sex and drugs for all - vote the Catholic party!"

What does this change frenzy reveal about the political psychology on the two sides of the Atlantic? And where can this dynamics eventually lead?